English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

12 answers

Yep. Here is his opinion on religion in his own words.

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man… I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence — as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

2007-11-03 12:12:41 · answer #1 · answered by thundercatt9 7 · 1 0

We have his own words:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

This brings up an important question. Why do Christians lie about such things so often and if Christians lie so much today, why would you think the early Christians would be any different?

2007-11-03 12:11:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

He did say "God does not play dice." But he was talking about his distrust of the probablistic nature of quantum mechanics, and was using the word "God" as a metaphor. It doesn't follow that he believed in God, in the same way that I use the phrase "I swear to God" while being an atheist.

He did say this, though. The language is very clear: he doesn't believe that any God intervenes in the history of the universe.

"...the man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events -- provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equality for social or moral religion."

(as quoted in Jammer M. 1999. Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.)

2007-11-03 12:23:22 · answer #3 · answered by relaxification 6 · 1 0

on an identical time as the story is an outstanding occasion of random events producing outcomes this is not why the watchmaker analogy is basically improper. The watchmaker analogy is basically improper as a results of fact watches do no longer mirror themselves. Evolution in basic terms applies to issues that do mirror themselves, like residing organisms. Watches, to some volume, 'developed' as a results of fact the watchmakers tried new designs and strategies to make watches. as a results of fact they have been clever and arranged to create fashions of the watches of their minds they eradicated most of the unsuccessful changes without actual installation springs and gears collectively. yet they'd have completed random variations to observe designs wherein case watches could have developed as human beings threw away the undesirable designs and saved people who worked. in spite of the undeniable fact that it could have mandatory the watchmakers to act as a reproductive device for the watches. residing gadgets can do this for themselves.

2016-11-10 04:29:17 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

No.

He made it abundantly and unambiguosly clear that he did not. Yet Christians repeatedly try to claim otherwise, on the basis that endorsement by one of the true geniuses of the 20th century would suppor ttheir cause. Their utter lies in this respect show Christianity up for its worthless true self.

Einstein did not believe in a personal god, said so unambiguously and said so repeatedly.

2007-11-03 12:34:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

To hear some thumpers tell it...yes.

But, you have to ask yourself, do Ya want to believe a thumper?

Reality...he was a professed atheist. All you have to do is actually read him; he was pretty straight forward.

He was smart so it is understandable that christians wish he agreed with their conceptions. The thing they miss is...

Einstein had conceptions of his own but these were all based upon mathematics and proofs.

2007-11-03 12:25:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

My take in reading his stuff is that he believed the Universe was god. He was a pantheist. It is possible that he was a deist, so maybe, but in context that isn't how I read him. I am pretty certain he did not think the Universe was created.

2007-11-03 12:09:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

No, He believed in the philosophy of Spinoza..he didn't believe in quantum physics much either.

2007-11-03 12:08:22 · answer #8 · answered by PROBLEM 7 · 0 0

Who knows.
He said out of all religions Buddhism appealed most to him.

2007-11-03 12:07:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

No he didn't

He was a deist

2007-11-03 12:09:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers