Customer Reviews

Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I bought this book because the title intrigued me. Like so many people, I had assumed Einstein had been an atheist. I have to admit to little previous knowledge of the man beyond his theory of relativity and a few charming stories about his eccentricities, many probably apocryphal. This book certainly provided a nice introduction to the man as human being, intellectual, and philosopher.

One of the most impressive facets of Einstein's life made obvious in Professor Jammer's work was the impact the physicist's pronouncements, even on subjects outside of his professional expertise, had upon the public in general. It was apparent from some of his personal correspondence and from news articles in response to his papers on science and religion that the general public held the man in considerable esteem. There seemed an almost awed reverence for his intellect to the extent that his personal position on a topic as emotional and as arbitrarily individual as religion could assume an almost scientific finality, eliciting the commendations of those who agreed and an almost knee jerk response from those who disagreed. Few remained without an opinion. So potent were Einstein's mere personal, albeit well schooled, philosophical opinions that they could elicit outright attack from those who felt their cherished beliefs were under siege. A theologian as eminent as Dr. Fulton Sheen (later Bishop Sheen) attacked his position on the existence of a personal god as the "sheerest kind of stupidity and nonsense." While a private individual wrote to him suggesting he "take your crazy, fallacious theory of evolution [sic] and go back to Germany where you came from, or stop trying to break down the faith of a people who gave you a welcome...."

It becomes evident when one reads some of Jammer's biographical material on Einstein that the man's impact on the people of his day lay in his character. His honesty, simplicity, and wit, for example, lent him an approachability and charm. His intellectual independence and courage in the face of the opinions of others made him both worthy of admiration and a formidable adversary, almost impervious to criticism. (When one of the propositions arising from his theory was proven correct by experimental results, he was asked what he would have said it hadn't been. His reply was that he would feel sorry for God, because the theory was correct.)

Professor Jammer seems never to tire of repeating Einstein's dictum, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind," as though it could somehow make Einstein's position on the subject clearer for the reader. However, much of his supporting documentation, while interesting, leaves one with a nagging feeling that one is no closer to Einstein's sense of religion than one started. In fact one is left with the sense that for Einstein the mere sense of awe over the majesty of the universe and its workings was all the "religion" he needed. He required no formal institutions, no religious acts other than being true to his intellectual curiosity, had no missionary zeal to convert others to his position, and was without a personal need for immortality. If he was asked about the subject of religion he responded with customary honesty; if his response made the asker uncomfortable, that was their problem.

Probably the most interesting part of the book is the final chapter. Here, the subject of Einstein on religion is transposed to religion on Einstein (or at least on his theory of relativity.) Jammer's final chapter deals with some of the more amazing attempts by physicists and theologians to elucidate the existence and character of God by means of physics, in particular by means of the theory of relativity. It certainly casts in high relief the impact of the man on modern day religious thought.

The last chapter also contains philosophical and theological outgrowths of the theory of quantum physics and some of its more esoteric premises. It also looks at the theological implications of the Big Bang theory of cosmology, and mentions the books comparing Eastern religion and quantum theory that were so popular in the late 70s and early 80s (The Tao of Physics and The Dancing Wu-Li Masters among them). As a mental exercise, Jammer tries to analyze what Einstein might have thought about each of these concepts, and generally believes he would have cast a resounding "NO" vote.

To be honest, Max Jammer has written FAR more impressive books than this - his masterpieces that treat the varied interpretations of key physical concepts - but "Einstein and Religion", despite its regrettable repetitions and occasional obsessions (tokens of the contemptuous lack of editorial bother even at great publishers nowadays), is nevertheless a valuable piece of scholarship.

Einstein's positive ideas of `religion' or a `God' are intimately Spinozan; this makes them equivalent to the inexhaustible mystery of why the cosmos is evidently rational in its construction, and to the great physicist's belief that we ourselves only know the tiniest part of this rational necessity, harmony, simplicity, and profundity of Nature - a rationality that may even be infinite.

An annoyance of the book, and of Einstein's ideas (in this instance), is that so many of the words and concepts used are ultimately ambiguous. Because of this, one leaves much of the material in the form in which one found it, and many conclusions are foreclosed.

Despite these criticisms, delightful flashes of insight grace the book, of the sort that were always peculiar to Albert Einstein, and the question of the essence of religion is clarified in ways that will not be found elsewhere. Much of Einstein's genius lay in his character: his extraordinary honesty and simplicity, for example, and his intellectual self-sufficiency or independence of the opinions of others.

These qualities, as it happens, are especially helpful in any inquiry into the nature of religion, for emotion and arbitrariness have forever plagued the subject.

- Patrick Gunkel

Woods Hole, MA

In the first chapter that deals with Einstein's personal attitude toward religion, we learn the followings: Einstein regarded science and religion as mutually depending on each other, which is evidenced by his words, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." However, the predominant motivations that led him to his development of the theory of relativity were purely physical considerations. Like Spinoza, Einstein denied the existence of a personal God, and used the term "cosmic religious feeling" to describe the sublimity and marvelous order in nature.

Near the end of the first chapter, the author asks a question, "Did Einstein's conception of religion affect his scientific work?" and derives a positive answer. The story that Einstein's introduction of the cosmological constant was religiously motivated concludes the chapter.

The second chapter discusses what Einstein has written about the nature of religion and its role in human society. Einstein's "Credo" about the cosmic religious feeling is cited repeatedly. In his essay read at a conference held in 1940, Einstein called the doctrine of a personal God not only unworthy but also fatal. The author writes about many responses Einstein got in reaction to this essay. At the end of this chapter the author analyzes Spinoza's role in the development of Einstein's religious philosophy.

As can be seen from the above, topics given in the first two chapters are quite attractive, and explanations are instructive to the reader who has interest in the mental background of Einstein's academic work. The scholarly style of the author's writing is enjoyable.

However, the third and final chapter that studies the influence of Einstein's scientific work on theology was not interesting to me at all. After finishing the book, I read Introduction section of the book again. To my great relief, I found the following words of the author near its end: "It is possible that [Einstein] would have rejected all of the arguments in chapter 3 if he were alive." The reason why I was not interested in the final chapter was that my thought about religion was the same as Einstein's!

Thus I recommend the first two chapters to all those who have interest in Einstein or religion, but do not recommend the third chapter for those who think like Einstein.

I think Jammer does us a fine service by writing a book about a subject that is too often neglected. Not that Einstein's religious views were ever unknown, but it is surprising that this seems to be the first book devoted to this subject.

The exchanges between Einstein and Rabbi Geller are for me an important new piece of information (see pp. 85-86), as is Einstein's denial of free will in his letter to Besso (p. 87). But interestingly, Jammer neglects to mention Einstein's letter to Otto Juliusburger, who in 1946 tried to assess Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust. Einstein's reply would not now be considered politically correct (at least in Jammer's Israel): "You take a definite stance on Hitler's responsibility... Objectively, there is after all no free will. What need is there for a criterion for responsibility?" Einstein was of course a sworn enemy of Hitler (and so should he be). But this statement is so amazing that I think Jammer was wrong to omit it. He should have quoted this statement, while emphasizing that Einstein blamed Hitler and the Germans for their evil deeds and he never forgave them. (Most of these quotes, especially if from private letters, are kept in the multi-volume "Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" published by Princeton UP and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.)

In one of the more interesting quotes in this book, Einstein believed quantum mechanics has no practically relevant impact on his deterministic view of life-events. But in this connection Jammer fails to mention how Bohr's complementarity could be applied to Einstein's determinism with satisfactory results - even though Jammer has a third of the book devoted to speculation about how science now affects philosophical and religious matters. (Despite this, there are some important Einstein quotes in this chapter as well.)

It is obvious that Einstein rejected the notion that quantum uncertainty undermines his denial of free will because he rejected quantum mechanics itself. Jammer points out that Einstein was wrong about locality, which was one of his main objections to quantum mechanics. Jammer cites Bell's theorem (p. 226) and the Aspect experiments as proving nonlocality, and claims that Einstein's belief in locality and his determinism are two basic tenets of his philosophy, as they indeed appear to be. But Jammer's implication seems to be that if Einstein got locality wrong, perhaps he was completely wrong about quantum mechanics, hence about quantum uncertainty, thus about determinism, thus about...his denial of free will? In other words, if Einstein was wrong about locality, he might have been wrong about determinism too. If Einstein was mistaken about one basic tenet of his philosophy, what makes us think he was right about the other? What Jammer fails to realize is that it was John Bell himself who said that strict determinism could well be the only way to make nonlocality compatible with all those horrible paradoxes like faster-than-light signals which contradict Special Relativity. In Bell's opinion, Einstein might have been wrong about nature being local, but strict determinism of which Einstein was always convinced might not be wrong after all. This is such an important point that I think Jammer should have discussed it, especially in Chapter 3, where he discusses his (Jammer's) own views on Einstein's philosophy.

On a more trivial note, Jammer is wrong that Einstein picked up his denial of the freedom of the will from Spinoza. The fact is, Einstein got this idea first from Schopenhauer, then from Hume, and only later from Spinoza. I was disappointed how Jammer has throughout this book neglected the importance of Schopenhauer and Hume in Einstein's philosophical and religious development. I would agree though that Einstein's "cosmic religion" came from Spinoza.

Jammer is at pains to emphasize that he doesn't proselytize or paddle any religious or sectarian viewpoints. He succeeds in this regard, in my opinion. What he does clearly try to convey, though, is the impression that religion in general and science are not in conflict, and he quotes Einstein's facetiously ambiguous statement "Science without religion is blind; religion with science is lame" (or something to this effect) to prove this point, almost ad nauseum. I'm not sure Jammer has convinced me. But Einstein's statements about religion are often ambiguous and confusing enough to provide plenty of material for someone with a secret ax to grind to quote from. On the other hand, Einstein was quite adamant and clear in (1) his determinism, (2) his denial of the immortality of the soul (which Einstein did not believe exist apart from the brain), and (3) his denial of a personal God. Jammer does a good job of faithfully reporting these views. This is not as easy a task as it seems, because (1) clearly conflicts with the deeply held beliefs of most people and the basic dogmas of Christian, Catholic, and Jewish religions; because (3) conflicts with all major religions excepting Buddhism; and because (2) conflicts with ALL religions, past and present. So I think Jammer has shown his competence here.

A "B-" effort. I hope someday someone will come up with an even better one. Right now this is the best we have.

Three chapters: two for the everyman and one for the brave physicist/mathematician. The first two chapters are an excellent discourse on a Universal and Logical but impersonal God, the creator of the Universe. Well worth reading for those confused by the inconsistencies in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Places forgiveness, ethics and morality squarely on the shoulders of the individual. And chapter three really nails it down even though it required six reads for this mathematician.

I greatly enjoyed this book.

Certainly, as most people, I am interested in what Einstein thought about God and the Big Question. Just as curious, I have always been intrigued at how Einstein has influenced the way we think about religion or more specifically, spirituality. Countless times I have read about Einstein's quote regarding "spooky action at a distance" when reading books that attempt to explain spirituality. In addition to this quote, several other Einsteinisms pop up in these tomes.

The book guides us on a journey of how deeply affected Einstein was about the spiritual realm but also how his theory of relativity has influenced theological thought ever since.

Written in clear, concise language, Einstein and Religion is not a path of conversion to Einstein's concept of religion. The reader will not find a single sentence or word with a missionary intent. The book presents a philosophical and historical perspective without bias. Exactly what I wanted and exactly what I got.

I would also recommend Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World and God and the New Physics.

I hope you find this review helpful

Michael L. Gooch

By some accounts Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was the greatest theoretical physicist of the twentieth century, if not of all time. Max Jammer, Professor of Physics Emeritus and former Rector at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, has written an eminently readable account of Einstein's thoughts on religion, a subject that he insists has been ignored by the over 400 books on Einstein published in the last several decades. Einstein renounced accusations that he was an atheist, and railed against the intolerance of those whom he called "the fanatical atheists." In his three long chapters Jammer portrays Einstein as "undogmatic and yet profoundly religious."

In his first chapter Jammer treats the role of religion in Einstein's private life. Born to what he described as "entirely irreligious Jewish parents," Einstein attended a Catholic primary school where like all students he received religious instruction. From the influences of nature and music he developed pronounced religious feelings quite early, although by age twelve he became estranged from institutional religion (although not from religion as he would define it) through reading some popular scientific books. His first wife, Mileva Maric, was Greek Orthodox, and his last wishes were to be cremated rather than to be buried in any religious tradition. Einstein was decidedly irreligious in the sense that he rejected any and all institutional affiliations, never attended worship services or prayed, rejected all dogmatic theology (eg, miracles, the afterlife or prayer), did not believe that God was in any sense personal, and was a strict determinist. But he found it impossible not to think of himself as religious in the sense of humility and awe at the mystery, rationality and complexity of nature: "the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." Behind the mystery of nature there seemed to be some superior intelligence: "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."

Chapter two explores what Einstein wrote about religion (he studiously avoided using the word "theology"). As a convinced determinist Einstein did not believe in human free will. He viewed science and religion as complementary rather than as antagonistic, seen in his famous aphorism that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Science cannot determine ethics or inform us of ultimate purpose or meaning, thought Einstein, for "knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be." Science could never, then, displace or supercede religion. In his final and longest chapter, Jammer examines the possible ramifications of Einstein's theory of relativity and rejection of quantum mechanics ("God," wrote Einstein in 1926, "does not play dice.") for theological ideas like time, eternity, creation ex nihilo, and the Big Bang. Einstein himself rather disingenuously denied that there was any relationship between his physics and theology.

Well-known for his aversion to social convention and defiance of authority, Einstein used a paradox to summarize his personal beliefs and professional thoughts about religion. About a year before he died Einstein wrote in a letter that he understood himself to be a "deeply religious unbeliever." He rejected any and all notions of traditional, institutional religion, but he just as vociferously repudiated atheists who tried to claim him for their cause. Rather, he embraced something like grateful and humble Cosmic Awe at the beauty and complexity of the world he strove so mightily to understand.

On page seventy-five Jammer writes "As he once explained to a Japanese scholar, a deep feeling and his belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of expeirence represent his concept of God." That's where I started to really fall for this book. When Jammer quotes Protestant Paul Tillich (passages written in 1940) and Catholic Hans Kung--both prominent Professors of Christian theology--on Einstein's denial of a personal God, I was in love with the book, now better understanding the theological term "a personal God" from the "Jewish-Christain" Tradition. One wonders if Einstein could have read what his friend Max Jammer has written whether Einstein would have softened or even overturned his statements about his denial of a personal God. Also, once Tillich's (with Hans Kung) and Einstein's ideas are laid out together, Einstein's views don't seem to have deserved the public outrage that they received in the 1930's onward by prominent members of the Catholic Church, Protestant Christians, and Orthodox Rabbis. As Max Jammer points out, it's not as if any of Einstein's critics believe that God is a mere person with all our faults and imperfections. In that sense no orthodox Rabbi, Preist, or Preacher would claim to believe in a personal God either.

This book explains clearly what Einstein thought about God and religion.
I quote the author: "A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the single reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsable, any more than an inanimate object is rsponsible for the motion it undergoes".
For Einstein the demon of Laplace was all too real. He believed in total determinism. For him there was no free will. I quote Einstein: "I do not at all believe in human freedom in the philosophical sense. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying, 'A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants,' has been a real inspiration to me since my youth."
This stance by one of the most brilliant scientists ever is, for me, unbelievable. It had a profound influence on his later scientific work, where he tried in vain to refute quantum mechanics. He knew too well, as Bohr stated, that quantum mechanics gives free will a new background against the mechanical concept of nature.
On the other hand, could Einstein's stance be an excuse for his not so high standard moral behaviour when he was a young man?

The last part of the book "Physics and theology" is only for theologians. It reminds me of the stubborn fight of Paul Davies in his book 'The mind of God' to find a place for God in modern physics and the quantum universe. Davies only found ... mysticism as a solace for the faithful.
A revealing book.

This was a just a gift and the they loved it. My husband had the book but a friend borrowed it and I was just getting him another copy.