Einstein's atheism - help me parse some of his letter

[John_Mace]

@Diogenes the Cynic

He laso explicitly says “I am, and have always been, an atheist.”

Quote out of context much? What he actually said was:

“From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”

Beyond, that, his exprssed disavowal of a belief in a personal god makes him antheist, by definition, whetrher he liked it or not.

You keep saying that, but can you show me where that’s the definition of an atheist? It’s an honest question-- I have never heard that definition before.

[John_Mace]

@CubaDiver

I think this is the point x-ray vision was making earlier. If you don’t know, you are without belief. If you are without belief, you are an atheist by most definitions of the word. It doesn’t matter if you are Einstein don’t like the label.

What belief does an agnostic have?

[Tabula_Rasa]

@CubaDiver

A consistent universe is an unerring universe? This is worse than a “dictionary-grade, popularized, sloppy definition” you accused Diogenes of using earlier.

Do you think anyone will be convinced by this argument? I think it’s pretty evident that you’re stretching word definitions to define the universe as “a perfect being worthy of worship”.

And where is a “First Cause”/“prime mover” that doesn’t have a consciousness ever described as a “being”? You are stretching the words “perfect”, “being” and “worship” in order to fit your needs. It’s pretty apparent.

Okay, offer a reasoned critique to my use of “consistent” and any other word you find objectionable. I might very well agree with you. I’m just looking for a decent conversation here.

Aristotle’s attributes actions to his prime mover, so maybe it’s a thing that does things. What is required of the internal state of a thing that does things to make it a being? I’m guessing that many of us would be more satisfied to call something a being if we knew it had some reasoning-like or thinking-like capacity, at least. We might be most comfy with a firm knowledge that it possesses a consciousness.
Some of us want proof before we embrace a claim with certainty, and proving consciousness in another entity is notoriously challenging. So, how much benefit of the doubt do we grant to the potential or probable or possible consciousness that inhabits( or something like that) a being? That question is going to matter more to some people than to others.

[Tabula_Rasa]

@John Mace

What belief does an agnostic have?

Here’s the definition from the same (admittedly Google-able and thus, some might say , very shabby) source:

agnosticism

Belief that human beings do not have sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or the denial of a proposition. The term is used especially in reference to our lack of knowledge of the existence of god. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists.

Recommended Reading: Clarence Darrow, Why I Am an Agnostic and Other Essays (Prometheus, 1994) {at Amazon.com} and Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Simon & Schuster, 1977) {at Amazon.com}.

Also see SEP, EB, ColE, and ISM.

[Tabula_Rasa]

@CubaDiver

I think this is the point x-ray vision was making earlier. If you don’t know, you are without belief. If you are without belief, you are an atheist by most definitions of the word. It doesn’t matter if you are Einstein don’t like the label.

But what about if you are without certainty?

[John_Mace]

@Tabula Rasa

Here’s the definition from the same (admittedly Google-able and thus, some might say , very shabby):

agnosticism

Belief that human beings do not have sufficient evidence to warrant either the affirmation or the denial of a proposition. The term is used especially in reference to our lack of knowledge of the existence of god. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists.

But that sounds almost exactly like what Einstein’s position is, per the quote I gave above.

[Tabula_Rasa]

@John Mace

But that sounds almost exactly like what Einstein’s position is, per the quote I gave above.

I agree.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@John Mace

Quote out of context much? What he actually said was:

“From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”

You keep saying that, but can you show me where that’s the definition of an atheist? It’s an honest question-- I have never heard that definition before.

I’m not sure I understand your confusion. Atheism is an absence of theistic belief – absence of a belief in “god” or “gods.” What definition of theistic belief exists which does not conceptulize gods as sentient personalities?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Tabula Rasa

But what about if you are without certainty?

You are still an atheist. Atheism does not necessarily imply a positive belief that gods do not exist, only a lack of postive belief that they do.

Atheism is not a contradiction to agnosticism, by the way. Agnosticism is a position on what it is possible to know as a certainty, not an expression of personal belief. One can technically be a theist, yet still be agnostic

Having said that, Einstein made it clear that he did not belueve “gods,” as such, exist in any form. His religious sentiment, whatever it was, was decidedly nontheistic.

[Tabula_Rasa]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I’m not sure I understand your confusion. Atheism is an absence of theistic belief – absence of a belief in “god” or “gods.” What definition of theistic belief exists which does not conceptulize gods as sentient personalities?

And you don’t suppose that Einstein might have perceived some bias in a Jesuit on the question of atheism?

[CubaDiver]

@Tabula Rasa

But what about if you are without certainty?

I don’t know. But what’s that got to do with it? I don’t know any atheists that are certain there is no god and very few theists that claim they are certain there is.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Tabula Rasa

And you don’t suppose that Einstein might have perceived some bias in a Jesuit on the question of atheism?

No bias with regard to a perception of “atheism” which would not apply equally to a Rabbi or an Imam.

[begbert2]

@CubaDiver

I think this is the point x-ray vision was making earlier. If you don’t know, you are without belief. If you are without belief, you are an atheist by most definitions of the word. It doesn’t matter if you are Einstein don’t like the label.

Seconded - atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about why you’re not certain about your beliefs. I’m an agnostic atheist about deistic gods, myself. Many atheists, and most agnostics, are the same (from what I can tell). (I am not agnostic about the personal gods of all the western religions I know of - them what supposedly interfere, don’t.)
From all the quotes in this thread (and only them - I’m no Einstein scholar) I’d say that, by my understanding of the terms, he was definitely an atheist. He certainly didn’t believe in a personal god. Efforts so far to stretch words and definitions to try and make him a pantheist (which doesn’t seem much like theism to me) seem a stretch - awe is not worship. I think the number 12345679 is awesome, but I don’t worship it and it’s not a god - I don’t see how being amazed by quantum physics or whatever is any different.

Einsein clearly didn’t like to be labeled with the term atheist - and I get the definite impression that the reason he didn’t like the label was because all the atheists he knew of were belligerent assholes. Not because their basic belief on the subject in question differed from his.

@CubaDiver

and very few theists that claim they are certain there is.

Wow, really? I don’t know a single theist who does not profess certainty.

[CubaDiver]

@John Mace

What belief does an agnostic have?

That the claims about the existence of gods are unknowable.

Agnosticism

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@begbert2

Wow, really? I don’t know a single theist who does not profess certainty.

There are theists who will concede that they could be wrong and there are many who easily conced they can’t prove it. I would admit that agnostic theists are far more rare than agnostic atheists, but it is a set of positions which can and does coexist.

[tds1273]

@begbert2

Wow, really? I don’t know a single theist who does not profess certainty.

Perhaps St. Augustine of all people? I hope I am not taking it out of context(probably am), but his quote(my favorite) “si fallor, sum”/‘if I’m wrong, I am’ seems to be pretty agnostic. I think that even if you are a theist, as long as you are willing to leave open the very chance that your beliefs could be mistaken, that would make you an agnostic-theist. I’m pretty sure that applies to many, if not most, theist of the non-evangelical set.
ETA: What Dio said.

[Tabula_Rasa]

@Diogenes the Cynic

You are still an atheist. Atheism does not necessarily imply a positive belief that gods do not exist, only a lack of postive belief that they do.

Atheism is not a contradiction to agnosticism, by the way. Agnosticism is a position on what it is possible to know as a certainty, not an expression of personal belief. One can technically be a theist, yet still be agnostic

Having said that, Einstein made it clear that he did not belueve “gods,” as such, exist in any form. His religious sentiment, whatever it was, was decidedly nontheistic.

Can you provide me an example or a deeper explanation of how one can, technically, be an agnostic theist? I ask because I’m trying to get at the crux of the biscuit and here’s where my mind is going as I try to understand you:

A theist believes in a God with (according to your definition) a personality.
An agnostic philosophical view questions the truth or falsity of (in this case) a deity 's existence is either unknown or fundamentally unknowable.

A deist believes in a God with (according to your definition) no personality.

An atheist either denies or does not embrace as true the existence of a God with (according to your definitions) a personality.

So, an agnostic theist would question the truth or falsity of the deity or deities with personality he believes in; an agnostic deist (and I’m still not sure where you’re willing to file “deist” - -as a subset of “theist”, a subset of “atheist”, or something else) would question the truth or falsity of the existence of the deity or deities without a personality he believes in; and an agnostic atheist would question the truth or falsity of the deity or deities (with personality?) whose existence he either denies or does not embrace?

[Tabula_Rasa]

@tds1273

Perhaps St. Augustine of all people?

Ooh, good one! But, what 's the standard for doubting or admitting of the possibility of doubt? How much may one wonder before falling off the back of the theist truck (which really ought to be a pear truck, I now see)?

[tds1273]

I got to run, but let me try this quickly…

theist- belief
agnostic theist- faith
agnostic/deist- wonder
agnostic atheist- doubt
atheist- belief

[begbert2]

@tds1273

Perhaps St. Augustine of all people? I hope I am not taking it out of context(probably am), but his quote(my favorite) “si fallor, sum”/‘if I’m wrong, I am’ seems to be pretty agnostic. I think that even if you are a theist, as long as you are willing to leave open the very chance that your beliefs could be mistaken, that would make you an agnostic-theist. I’m pretty sure that applies to many, if not most, theist of the non-evangelical set.

No - agnosticism (or at least, ‘hard’ agnosticism, meaning it’s actual definition) is the position that it’s impossible to know for certain. It’s not admitting that you can possibly be wrong, and it certainly has nothing to do with whether you could prove it to another person.

It is perfectly consistent to be perfectly certain that God exists, and yet admit that your certainty is merely human certainty and that you could possibly be wrong (even though you don’t think you are); however, professing certainty and agnosticism at the same time would require a certain level of cognitive dissonance - it’s not just admitting you might be wrong - it’s stating that you can’t possibly be certain and you know it.

Also - St. Augustine is not among the set of people I know. Among that set, I happen to be surrounded by True Believers.

Also, my take on it:

theist- belief/faith, and may claim to know
agnostic theist- belief/faith
agnostic/deist- belief/faith
agnostic atheist- no belief
‘soft’ atheist*- no belief
‘hard’ atheist*- no belief, and also has the anti-agnostic belief that it’s possible to be certain.

It’s not about doubt - it’s about a lack of belief. Not quite the same thing, since you can believe insomething to a large degree while still entertaining doubts - which on this subject would make you a theist. Possibly an agnostic one.

*in this case, the ‘soft’ definition is the more technically correct definition of the term: a simple lack of belief.