He really hated the elegance of quantum mechanics ... the lack there of. Do you think this blocked his view of that subject matter and perhaps was over religion ?
I think he was a deist. He wasn't much for organized religion and dogma but he did believe that there was a god.
No. As Wolverine said, he was a pantheist. This has to be one of the most frequently brought up topics on this forum when discussing either religion or science (and in both cases, it's usually irrelevant to the discussion). Almost every time, most people get it wrong, which means that just as frequently, someone corrects all the misinformation. Why do so many people still get this wrong?
A pantheist is a deist. The only separations are made by anal egocentric atheist who like to think they are special. Sadly atheism appeals to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s.
You're not doing your side any favours with that rubbish. It just makes you look like an intolerant bigot, of the (atheist) sort you are complaining about. Fact is Einstein is frequently loaded up as ammo by both sides of the God debate. It's just an appeal to authority and pretty useless.
I'm very tollerant. I dont have any problem with atheism. I have a problem with many egocentric (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s who gravitate towards atheism. I'm a people person. Its not their lack of faith that I have a problem with. I just dont like (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s. What I see with Einstein and atheists is remarkably similar to what the Catholic Church called divinely inspired heretics.
Do you think people gravitate towards atheism or is it the product of their thought processes? No-one is born with a specific religious belief, we learn to adopt religious beliefs. Learning to reject religious beliefs is a personal journey rather than some sort of submission to an irresistible force. What do you see with Einstein and atheists? As I said, I see both sides of the debate pulling him in like heavy artillery when there's a forum debate. It's like, okay someone invoked Einstein, it must all be over then. Not so. I would think a man as intelligent as Einstein would understand the benefit of doubt and the heavy, dragging weight of dogma. Those who seek to use him in debate are lazy.
Except no, they're not even close to the same thing. And sadly, you seem prone to unnecessary emotional outbursts and a propensity for misinformation. You should get that fixed.
And people adopt atheism just as the adopt any other religion. The problem with atheism is the -ism. An -ism brings with it human element. And like many -isms the human ellement that is attracted to atheism isn't a very good one. Someone like Dawkins wouldn't have gotten very far in the traditional Christian community, he is pretty much a Fred Phelps, but look how much support he was given from atheists. That says a lot about the kind of people who gravitate towards atheism. It attracts people who are extremely egocentric. As I said its the people. Most atheists I run into a jerks. I dont disagree as I said I see the fight over Einstein as being very much like the church's divinely inspired heretics.
I'm always a bit nonplussed when a religious person states that atheism is a form of religion. It patently isn't. A religion surely must have an object of veneration, of worship, as well as a lot of other features, the prominent one being faith in its adherents. Atheism fails the test on those grounds. Atheism and agnosticism are simply states of non-belief or of overwhelming doubt. Secular humanism may get a sort of recognition for being a way of life which involves personal acknowledgement that there are no supernatural beings to either guide or judge human beings and where humans themselves have to work out their relationships with each other without an intervening God figure. Dawkins is usually presented when someone wants to give atheism a bad rap. Why? Because he's fairly forthright. But he isn't all that dogmatic. I've seen a video of him discussing the work of a religious-based social work grouping in London and neither Dawkins nor the man running the group got into each other's faces about religion. You've probably just had the back luck to run into the more bigoted types of non-believers, but then we find bigots everywhere.
Einstein was a theist, but didn't believe in a God who concerns Himself with human affairs - an idea which fits the idea of a clockwork universe just fine, but is problematic as juxtaposed against the possibility that no "probabilistically" behaving particle can change its position or momentum without God knowing about it.
A theistic God does concern itself with human affairs. A deistic God does not. At most he was a deist, however pantheism seems to be the most widely accepted belief of Einstein.
I believe Einstein said he wasn't a pantheist (or wouldn't describe himself as such). However, if you look at his actual beliefs, pantheism *does* seem to be the closest match. EDIT: For ease of discussion, I'd say Pantheist. If you want an answer with all the complexity and nuance his beliefs surely had, you would probably need a time machine to ask him yourself.
Actually, what about this: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
And there you have it. I was just about to post this quote. Spinozism and Pantheism are the same thing. Look them both up and compare them yourself. The following quotes are taken from the pantheism wiki page (which is well sourced): /thread
einstein did not have a backbone to stand in just one platform of belief. einstein was a believer of science and yet he had to take a religious stand due to the fact that religion is a power to reckon with. had einstein sideline religion/ religious beliefs all up, he would have not progressed to all of these social credentials credited to his name. einstein was a double blade individual. eibstein had to be a believer of god in exchange and recognition to his scientific beliefs and works. I need not substantiate the posting above. Believe if you do. Move your shoulder/s if you don't.