Guest Author - AJ Hill

Albert Einstein was without doubt one of the two most brilliant physicists in the history of science, the other being Sir Isaac Newton. Einstein exploded into the world of science during 1905, his annus mirabilis – or “miracle year” – with the publication of four scientific papers, any one of them sufficient to establish him as a first rate thinker. The most dramatic, which was entitled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” spelled out Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. He spent the next ten years developing an even more revolutionary bombshell, which he called his General Theory of Relativity. Basically a theory of gravity, it supercedes Newton’s Law, which had enabled physicists and astronomers to understand the behavior of everything from baseballs to planets for two and a half centuries.

Einstein’s temerity in challenging Newton resulted in wide-spread doubt that the General Theory was correct. (Its formidable mathematics may also have had something to do with this.) Four years later during an expedition to observe a solar eclipse off the coast of West Africa, Sir Arthur Eddington confirmed one of the theory’s most radical predictions, that light rays are deflected by the gravitational field of the sun. The resulting worldwide headlines catapulted Einstein into the popular imagination as the quintessential scientific genius. By the time he emigrated to the west two decades later to escape the Nazis he was one of the most recognizable celebrities on the planet.

Due to his fame and his reputation for brilliance, Einstein was asked for his opinion on nearly every possible subject, notably religion. Together with his writings, his answers to these questions provide a wealth of information, much of it epigrammatic and some of it downright misleading. It’s no surprise that Einstein, to his chagrin and annoyance, was often claimed by both sides in the same argument. Since his name still comes up in discussions about the relationship between science and religion, it behooves us to examine what he actually meant.

Einstein was not an atheist. As a child he underwent a phase of intense religious feeling. He observed all the requirements of orthodox Jewish faith, including keeping kosher, in spite of the fact that his family was fervently irreligious. This period came to an abrupt end, when he was twelve years old, as a result of his readings in popular science books. These convinced him that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true and therefore that he and other young people had been systematically misled by the State. Resentment over this betrayal manifested itself throughout his life as a deep mistrust of official dogma of all kinds and a particular distaste for the claims of organized religion.

Einstein believed in God. In fact, he became angry, when anyone implied that he did not. However he rejected explicitly and vehemently any belief in the supernatural, including the existence of a cosmic being who interacts with humans or influences natural events. “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously,” he wrote in a New York Times Magazine article in 1930. (1)

What was Einstein’s concept of God? His many attempts to clarify the issue were unsuccessful, partly because he wasn’t careful or consistent in his use of language. For example, he often spoke of God using personal terms like der liebe Gott – “the dear God” - or der Alte – “the Old One,” leading many people to conclude that he wasn’t serious about rejecting conventional images of the Deity.

On the other hand many non-believers are under the impression that Einstein’s belief in God represented no more than faith that the Universe is orderly and understandable. Einstein contributed to this misconception by making statements such as, “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists …” (2) The problem is that Spinoza was a pantheist, who regarded God and the Universe as identical, all encompassing abstractions with neither volition nor purpose. This conception doesn’t square with Einstein’s frequent references to God as a form of intelligence.

For example Einstein spoke of striving to comprehend the “rationality” that manifests itself in nature, calling his religiosity “the deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe … .” (3) He asserted only half jokingly that, “God does not play at dice with the Universe.” (4 ) And he wrote that “the Laws of Nature manifest a spirit that is vastly superior to Man … .” (5)

“Rationality” … “reasoning power” … “spirit”… “play at dice” … - even regarded figuratively these are not the expressions one uses to describe the static, sterile “infinite substance” that constituted Spinoza’s God. In my humble opinion Einstein was much closer in his religious views to the Deists (like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin) than to Spinoza. However, I’m also of the opinion that the significance of Einstein’s religious views has been overrated. As I’ve demonstrated, although he never wavered in his rejection of conventional ideas of the supernatural, he was inconsistent in his public statements about God. On one occasion he even voiced his admiration for Buddhism as the best religion to “cope with modern scientific needs.” It’s as if he didn’t devote a great deal of thought to these matters. He certainly didn’t apply the same intellectual rigor to them that he did to his scientific work. This is understandable. His real passion was exploring the laws of Nature. Religion, as a human concern, was peripheral to the cosmic questions that occupied his mind.

For those of you who would like to learn more about Einstein I recommend two biographies. My favorite is “Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein.” It was written in 1982 by the late Abraham Pais, who knew Einstein as a friend, when they worked at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. In researching his book Pais had complete access to the Einstein Archives at the Institute. He also derived invaluable insights from Helen Dukas, Einstein’s long time personal secretary. If you’re interested in science, then this is the book for you. A theoretical physicist himself, Pais approaches Einstein from an intellectual perspective – the ordering in the subtitle isn’t accidental. It might be tough sledding for someone who doesn’t have a background in science, but well worth the effort.

As if perceiving that his initial biography had slighted Einstein’s personal life, Pais returned to his subject with a shorter volume entitled “Einstein Lived Here.” It fills in a lot of the blanks in “Subtle Is the Lord” but, if you’re interested in a more comprehensive and conventional bio, then I’d recommend the recently published “Einstein, His Life and Universe” by Walter Isaacson. Although Isaacson can’t rival Pais’ pellucid presentation of technical subjects, the book is thoroughly researched, well written, and provides a much warmer portrait of Einstein.

(1) Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.

( 2) Albert Einstein, upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the Institutional Synagogue, New York, April 24, 1921, published in the New York Times, April 25, 1929

(3) Barnett, L., The Universe and Dr. Einstein, Victor Gallancz Ltd, London, UK, p. 95, 1953.

(4) Albert Einstein on quantum mechanics, published in the London Observer, April 5, 1964.

(5) Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981.