Pharyngula

I've always found it ironic that the creationists are so quick to bring in folks like Einstein and even Darwin to bolster their arguments.

Posted by: Nik | May 12, 2008 10:10 PM

I agree that any one person (Einstein or not) isn't the final authority here, but I think arguments from authority of the right form are ultimately more likely to lead to correct opinions than personal consideration of the evidence.

The vast majority of people don't know enough about evolutionary biology to know exactly why Michael Behe is wrong, but they're still justified in thinking his views have no merit because he hasn't managed to convince evolutionary biologists (the authority in this case).

Likewise, a good reason to be an atheist or agnostic is because 93% of the NAS are atheist or agnostic, and these are the people who best understand how the universe works.

Everyone (theists and atheists alike) thinks they've fairly and dispassionately considered the evidence. One side is wrong - and the best way to see why they're wrong is to consider what the appropriately chosen authorities believe.

Posted by: Jason | May 12, 2008 10:23 PM

Note, please, that Einstein's views are not a final authority here, and you're nuts if you decide you should be godless because Einstein was

What?! He isn't?

Well, it's back to church for me, then!

/sarcasm

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 12, 2008 10:37 PM

Is it any surprise that the god-botherers are hooked on authority figures? They are relentless recruiters of famous figures from the past for support of their beliefs, even when the historical record is thin (or even when it contradicts their claims). Einstein is a perfect example of a famous individual that the religious desperately want to count on their side. He's our archetype of genius, so who better to use for an argument from authority?

I just ran across a collection of arguments from authority: It's my old copy of The Baltimore Catechism. (Aren't you jealous?) I was paging through it when I discovered proofs that (a) God exists, (b) man has an immortal soul (and maybe even woman, too; she's not mentioned much), and (c) man must have religion (or else!). Quite an inspiration.

Posted by: Zeno | May 12, 2008 10:38 PM

How is stating that Jewish people are just like anyone else the least bit antisemitic? I would not call Einstein an antisemite; an antisemitic Jew is a rare thing. I'm Jewish, and I can affirm that. Yet, I can't say we're completely the same as everyone else...I went to HCSSIM (www.hcssim.org), a 6-week summer math program, and if you weren't Jewish or Asian, you were a minority. Also, I do admit that we tend to be more hasty and impatient when it comes to food.

I think that Jews and Greeks have whole lot in common. There just seem to be so many parallels.

Posted by: Chironex | May 12, 2008 10:42 PM

Einstein was an acknowledged secular Jew, like a significant portion of Jews in the world today. He had a belief in God, however - like many if not most secular Jews - but he clearly and openly felt that much of what constitutes Judaism as a religion is a bunch of human-made rules. The reference to "chosen," by the way, is specifically meant by Einstein; he makes clear in his writings that he understood the actual Torah meaning. To explain, the Torah says the Hebrews were to be a holy people - chosen to undertake a set of duties and obligations the Orthodox have codified into 613 commandments (the mitzvot) and the rules of Halakah. Einstein did not agree with Orthodoxy - meaning Jewish Orthodoxy but the other meanings fit - and thus did not see how or why adhering to the mitzvot made Jews "chosen" or reflected some sense of "chosen."

The belief in God that Einstein did manifest was that of a secular Jew who believes in the God of the Torah without the accoutrements of organized religion. This is the God which in the most literal Torah sense is beyond knowing and beyond understanding, not a God which can be reduced to a set of rules (or folk wisdom).

One must understand that Einstein believed much as many secular Jews do today; they reject the trappings of Orthodoxy while retaining what they believe is the core. Some pursue certain traditional forms and others don't, but all of that is in the understanding that the forms are ways of approaching the core understanding (or inability to understand) and are not themselves "holy" acts which carry some God-manifested significance.

Posted by: jonathan | May 12, 2008 11:04 PM

Then too, if anyone might stoop to question whether or not Stein was right to invoke Einstein to claim that science is the source of tolerance,

Uh, yeah, getting sloppy here. It was supposed to be:

Then too, if anyone might stoop to question whether or not Stein was right to invoke Einstein to claim that science is the source of intolerance,

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 12, 2008 11:15 PM

The belief in God that Einstein did manifest was that of a secular Jew who believes in the God of the Torah without the accoutrements of organized religion.

then why does everything that he has ever said imply he really thought of god as at best Spinozan in nature?

indeed, much more like nature-as-god.

so you're either trying to imply that all secular jews are essentially espousing Spinoza's god, or you're simply wrong about Einstein.

which?

wrong about secular jews, or wrong about Einstein?

choose.

Frankly, most of the secular jews I am acquainted with are all atheists.

http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/EinsteinGodReligionScience.htm

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 12, 2008 11:18 PM

Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. The article says nothing about his opinions when his views were appropriated by atheists for atheism.

Posted by: Patrick Conley | May 12, 2008 11:32 PM

An unrelated comment: jsn, did you know your signature url doesn't lead anywhere?

Posted by: Patrick Conley | May 12, 2008 11:35 PM

Even so, it doesn't matter if Einstein was religious or not. The truth is not up for vote. Ken Miller is an amazing voice of reason, and he's a Christian.

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus." - Christopher Hitchens

Posted by: ekted | May 12, 2008 11:41 PM

@#21 ekted --

The truth is not up for vote.

But is that really true?

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 13, 2008 12:01 AM

It seems to me that it's actually quite a good idea to pay more attention to the writings of super-smart people who have proven track records in coming up with super-smart ideas.

Yes, but just because someone is smart in one field doesn't mean they have any special insight into another field. I'll trust Einstein's insights into physics, but if he had made a statement about biology, I wouldn't consider it any more authoritative than any other layman.

Posted by: Nik | May 13, 2008 12:04 AM

But is that really true?

whee! the next poll to crash!

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 13, 2008 12:07 AM

I glanced at the list of posts and though it said Einstein on goats and Judaism - which sounded hilarious; I just had to get in on this one.

Sili #6: I agree. It makes me think of the Simpsons episode where Homer, after getting a crayon extracted from his brain, becomes super-intelligent and writes a mathematical proof for the non-existence of god and gives it to Flanders - who sets fire to it after realising its validity so it 'doesn't get out'.

Posted by: Wowbagger | May 13, 2008 12:16 AM

Yes, but just because someone is smart in one field doesn't mean they have any special insight into another field.

I know a lot of people believe that, but I don't.

My experience is that great physicists more often than not do have interesting things to say about the human condition. It's almost as if Einstein were actually *smarter* than most people.

That's not very egalitarian of me, but can't we accept that some people are just very good at thinking?

Posted by: Christianjb | May 13, 2008 12:36 AM

The article says nothing about his opinions when his views were appropriated by atheists for atheism.

Posted by: Patrick Conley

Do you have to work hard at that, or does being that stupid just come naturally to you?

Posted by: jsn | May 13, 2008 12:48 AM

Gee, who woulda thunk that fckff.com wouldn't lead anywhere.

D'oh! That's what I get for not reading it aloud.

Posted by: Patrick Conley | May 13, 2008 12:51 AM

I didn't see this addressed anywhere, so I'll throw in my $.02...

The "argument from authority" in not necessarily a fallacy. When an authority is properly cited, and actually is an authority, the argument can be valid. In modern science, the argument from authority is crucial, because nobody can hold the whole of scientific knowledge at one time.

When the argument is fallacious is when undue deference is shown to authority, or, and we *never* see this happen, when an electrical engineer (strictly for example) believes herself competent to speak on evolution. Also, if the argument is along the lines of "My big brother says X, and he's a by-gosh real scientist, so you better shut up!"

Posted by: LanceR | May 13, 2008 1:04 AM

Stupid autofill.

#38 was me.

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 13, 2008 1:10 AM

Wowbagger #29 said, "...It makes me think of the Simpsons episode where Homer, after getting a crayon extracted from his brain, becomes super-intelligent and writes a mathematical proof for the non-existence of god and gives it to Flanders - who sets fire to it after realising its validity so it 'doesn't get out'."

We have a new equation: Albert Einstein=Homer Simpson
Aude sapere

Posted by: Latina Amor | May 13, 2008 1:18 AM

@Latina Amor,
If Homer and Albert could be combined, I would have a new image of ideal living.
Donuts, beer, beer (Einstein liked beer too), thinking about the universe, comical indifference to the attitudes of others toward me, and the appreciation of mistresses who only could be into me for my mind.
Add to that list the fact that Einstein didn't have to deal with an internet that recorded his thoughts, including the ones that, like mine, would make his wife extremely angry.
Darn.
I've hoisted myself by my own petard.

Posted by: Autumn | May 13, 2008 1:41 AM

What?! He isn't? Well, it's back to church for me, then! /sarcasm Posted by: Etha Williams

Posted by: qrl | May 13, 2008 2:10 AM

By the way, Homer didn't become "super intelligent" in that episode... he had a 105 IQ (after it was raised 50 points!!!).

105 is not what I'd call "super intelligent".

The disproof of God part is sort of incongruous from that standpoint... but I do love that episode (it's in my top 3 alltime faves, and I am a Simpsons fanatic).

Posted by: Spinoza | May 13, 2008 2:52 AM

... I just noticed the ending of that article, and it clarifies my point quite well.

"Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility".

Indeed.

Posted by: Spinoza | May 13, 2008 3:18 AM

I'm sure it's a tough balancing act by having to consider oneself a Jew, whilst also maintaining an atheist world-view.

actually, they seem to be fine with it.

what they tell me is that since Judaism is mostly centered on deeds instead of beliefs, it isn't as much of a stretch for them.

they just secularize all the holidays, and still enjoy many of the rituals, if just for fun.

In fact, a Jewish-atheist buddy of mine in Jersey was just telling me yesterday about a rabbi friend of his who gave it all up and went atheist.

no kidding.

He said several other acquaintances also have done so, and he was starting a list just for fun that he would send me.

*shrug*

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 13, 2008 4:23 AM

I know a lot of people believe that, but I don't.

My experience is that great physicists more often than not do have interesting things to say about the human condition. It's almost as if Einstein were actually *smarter* than most people.

That's not very egalitarian of me, but can't we accept that some people are just very good at thinking?

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | May 13, 2008 4:37 AM

astrology alchemy (probably more applicable)

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 13, 2008 4:49 AM

this is simply more useful information to oppose arguments from authority.

Einstein was more of a "religious" person (not Christian) in his early years, but he drifted away, as this quote points out in 1954, "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."

The little known letter written by him discovered by the media is pretty much in line what has been known already...

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

I find Einstein's background on religious issues not that important (he's dead now), for some it is. But it doesn't prove nor disprove the debate about Creationism and Evolution.

Posted by: Michael | May 13, 2008 5:00 AM

The argument from authority question is interesting. I suspect it's not so much that authority is not a good thing to seek out the opinion of, it's that it isn't a slam-dunk case. The opinion of valid authorities is certainly evidence, but it's not necessarily a case closer - the reasons why a given authority holds that opinion must be the final arbiter.

Posted by: Sam | May 13, 2008 5:33 AM

The article says nothing about his opinions when his views were appropriated by atheists for atheism.

That seems literally true. It makes a claim on atheism, but it backs it up with a complete apologist quotemine by the purported "leading expert[s] on the scientist" John Brook in Oxford's faculty of theology at Harris Manchester College (with no publications on Einstein, but on Evangelicals and Science):

PHYSICS AND REALITY.
BY
ALBERT EINSTEIN.
(Translation by Jean Piccard.)
§ I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION CONCERNING THE METHOD OF SCIENCE.
It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but, it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities. The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of every day thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of the concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.

On the stage of our subconscious mind appear in colorful succession sense experiences, memory pictures of them, representations and feelings. In contrast to psychology, physics treats directly only of sense experiences and of the " understanding " of their connection. But even the concept of the " real external world " of everyday thinking rests exclusively on sense impressions.

Now we must first remark that the differentiation between sense impressions and representations is not possible; or, at least it is not possible with absolute certainty. With the discussion of this problem, which affects also the notion of reality, we will not concern ourselves but we shall take the existence of sense experiences as given, that is to say as psychic experiences of special kind.

I believe that the first step in the setting of a " real external world " is the formation of the concept of bodily objects and of bodily objects of various kinds. Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occurring complexes of sense impression (partly in conjunction with sense impressions which are interpreted as signs for sense experiences of others), and we attribute to them a meaning--the meaning of the bodily object. Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind. On the other hand, the concept owes its meaning and its justification exclusively to the totality of the sense impressions which we associate with it.

The second step is to be found in the fact that, in our thinking (which determines our expectation), we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance, which is to a high degree independent of the sense impression which originally gives rise to it. This is what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object " a real existence." The justification of such a setting rests exclusively on that fact that, by means of such concepts and mental relations between them, we are able to orient ourselves in the labyrinth of sense impressions. These notions and relations, although free statements of our thoughts, appear to us as stronger and more unalterable than the individual sense experience itself, the character of which as anything other than the result of an illusion or hallucination is never completely guaranteed. On the other hand, these concepts and relations, and indeed the setting of real objects and, generally speaking, the existence of " the real world," have justification only in so far as they are connected with sense impressions between which they form a mental connection. The very fact that the totality of our sense experiences is such that by means of thinking (operations with concepts, and the creation and use of definite functional relations between them, and the coördination [sic] of sense experiences to these concepts) it can be put in order, this fact is one which leaves us in awe, but which we shall never understand. One may say " the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." It is one of the great realisations of Immanuel Kant that the setting up of a real external world would be senseless without this comprehensibility.

In speaking here concerning " comprehensibility," the expression is used in its most modest sense. It implies: the production of some sort of order among sense impressions, this order being produced by the creation of general concepts, relations between these concepts, and by relations between the concepts and sense experience, these relations being determined in any possible manner. It is in this sense that the world of our sense experiences is comprehensible. The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle.

In my opinion, nothing can be said concerning the manner in which the concepts are to be made and connected, and how we are to co6rdinate them to the experiences. In guiding us in the creation of such an order of sense experiences, success in the result is alone the determining factor. All that is necessary is the statement of a set of rules, since without such rules the acquisition of knowledge in the desired sense would be impossible. One may compare these rules with the rules of a game in which, while the rules themselves are arbitrary, it is their rigidity alone which makes the game possible. However, the fixation will never be final. It will have validity only for a special field of application (i.e. there are no final categories in the sense of Kant).

The connection of the elementary concepts of every day thinking with complexes of sense experiences can only be comprehended intuitively and it is unadaptable to scientifically logical fixation. The totality of these connections,--none of which is expressible in notional terms,--is the only thing which differentiates the great building which is science from alogical but empty scheme of concepts. By means of these connections, the purely notional theorems of science become statements about complexes of sense experiences. We shall call " primary concepts " such concepts as are directly and intuitively connected with typical complexes of sense experiences. All other notions are--from the physical point of view--possessed of meaning, only in so far as they are connected, by theorems, with the primary notions. These theorems are partially definitions of the concepts (and of the statements derived logically from them) and partially theorems not derivable from the definitions, which express at leastindirect relations between the " primary concepts," and in this way between sense experiences. Theorems of the latter kind are " statements about reality " or laws of nature, i.e. theorems which have to show their usefulness when applied to sense experiences comprehended by primary concepts. The question as to which of the theorems shall be considered as definitions and which as natural laws will depend largely upon the chosen representation. It really becomes absolutely necessary to make this differentiation only when one examines the degree to which the whole system of concepts considered is not empty from the physical point of view. [My bold.]

Einstein goes on to describe a hierarchy of scientific concepts in the second subchapter. The rest of the article desribes how mechanics, general relativity and quantum mechanics relate according to this. The point of the paper seems to be:

I try to demonstrate, furthermore, why in my opinion the quantum theory does not seem likely to be able to produce a usable foundation for physics: one becomes involved in contradictions if one tries to consider the theoretical quantum description as a complete description of the individual physical system or happening.

On the other hand, up to the present time, the field theory is unable to give an explanation of the molecular structure of matter and of quantum phenomena. It is shown, however, that the conviction to the effect that the field theory is unable to give, by its methods, a solution of these problems rests upon prejudice.

I.e. Einstein is busy with his later day project of replacing quantum mechanics with a field theory. I can't find a discussion or even mentioning of religion anywhere in the text.

Einstein isn't alone in his observation of the efficiency of science. There is a famous article by a mathematician who exclusively treats this. (And of course I can't find it. :-P)

Who is John Brookes and why is he allowed to conflate science with religion by a journalist writing on a scientist 's view on religion?

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | May 13, 2008 5:59 AM

"Yes, but just because someone is smart in one field doesn't mean they have any special insight into another field"

You are smart or you are not. You may have more experience in one field than another, but if you are smart you probably have smart things to say about anything you're interested in.

See Richard Feynman for instance.

Posted by: marco sch. | May 13, 2008 6:28 AM

Comments on the (overlong) quote: the bolding was supposed to continue the next paragraph, where Einstein digs deeper into comprehensibility. Still no religion though.

In fact, as Einstein argues that " primary concepts " are "such concepts as are directly and intuitively connected with typical complexes of sense experiences" one can make this an atheist quote mine just as easily. I'm sure that Brookes as a theologist would have to accept such authority. :-P

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | May 13, 2008 6:33 AM

Thanks, Torbjörn :-)

... and I was just about thanking you for the "Templeton" bit I managed to overlook!

^_^J.

Posted by: gyokusai | May 13, 2008 6:40 AM

Thanks TL and others.

You should solve murders, you could be the next Columbo (well, except the original Columbo was a fictional character).

BTW, I spent the last 15 minutes actually reading that Einstein essay that T linked to. Of course, I skipped all those GR/SR equations.

He really really didn't like QM. Though, to give him credit, I've read several times that QM is in fundamental opposition to GR. One (or both) of them has to give, and it's by no means clear that when the dust settles that GR won't ultimately be regarded as the more fundamentally true theory. (I don't understand GR, so that's just me waffling.)

Posted by: Christianjb | May 13, 2008 7:06 AM

Quel grand maitre!

Posted by: Judaisme | May 13, 2008 7:33 AM