Albert Einstein's View on Religion

When the majority of people think of someone that is absolutely brilliant I would dare say that they think of Alert Einstein. I recently stumbled on a few quotes that give us some degree of what he thought about God and Religion. It is interesting to note that today depending on the field of science, the majority considers themselves either agnostic or atheist. What does good old Albert have to say?

The following excerpts are taken from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Selected and Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1979.

From p. 39
On 17 July I953 a woman who was a licensed Baptist pastor sent Einstein in Princeton a warmly appreciative evangelical letter. Quoting several passages from the scriptures, she asked him whether he had considered the relationship of his immortal soul to its Creator, and asked whether he felt assurance of ever lasting life with God after death. It is not known whether a reply was sent, but the letter is in the Einstein Archives, and on it, in Einstein's hand writing, is the following sentence, written in English:

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

From p. 40
In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said:

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.
Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

Part of a letter to Eric Gutkin in 1954 (1 year before Einstein's death). 

... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

 In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the priviliege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolisation. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, ie in our evalutations of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and `rationalisation' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.  

With friendly thanks and best wishes  

Yours, A. Einstein.

I guess he falls into the same category as most scientists when it comes to concepts of god and religion.

Science vs Religion

I have heard many people say that they compartmentalize science and religion separately. I think that this is done because both are different ways that man uses to explain our surrounds and often times they conflict. Why should these two fields of thought be compartmentalized? Assuming that there is a God who controls this whole world like the majority of the world population thinks, the two should go hand in hand. Science should confirm the things of religion. When science and religion don't see eye to eye on certain things then it can only logically lead to one conclusion; at least one of them is wrong. Both of them could be wrong, but both cannot be right. So where do we put our trust? Many view God, the leader of their religion, as an all knowing, all powerful being that far surpasses our intellectual capability. This view, assuming their religion actually is led by god, has caused many to reject science concluding that man's finite mind cannot understand the things of God and therefore we should trust only our religion and be very skeptical of science when a conflict arises. Who is to say that God doesn't have his hand in science? Assuming that god is the source of all truth, he has his hand in anything that presents truth. So which can and should be more trusted? I believe science, and here are some reasons why.

First lets get some definitions as to what science and religion actually are:

Religion: An organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to the supernatural, and to spirituality. -Wikipedia

Science:  A systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. -Wikipedia

Reasons why science should be trusted over religion:

1. Science will admit that they are wrong Sitting a pharmacology class a few years ago the teacher emphasized that only about 50% of the things that he would be teaching us was true. He went on to point out that the problem was that he didn't know which 50% it was. Compare this to religion where people will stand up and say, "I know my message is true". Science is a process of hypothesis and tests. Hypothesis are basically logical guesses as to why something is the way it is. Hypothesis are always followed by tests that either confirm or reject them. Science isn't ever presented in a black and white view but rather as a probability to be further evaluated. Being unable to accept the fact that the way you see things is wrong creates a system that is extremely vulnerable to falsehoods. 
2. Science welcomes critical examination. Before a researcher's work can even be published in a credible journal it must be reviewed by multiple experts in the field. They ensure that the information that is presented is built upon principles that are supported by previous research and that if a concept isn't supported it is clearly stated to be an unsupported assumption. They present the exact method of how they performed their test, a discussion on how they interpreted their results and their conclusion. Once published this information is invited to be tested by other researchers and built upon. If the test included bias' or errors they are discussed publicly. Religion on the other hand completely discourages and avoids doubtful questioning. They focus only on information that supports their case and promotes faith. Not allowing critical examination and refusing to admit that they are wrong opens up religion to conformation biases which produce false information. 
3. Science is a worldwide effort not lead by one person or group. There isn't one person or organization that dictates what science should look into or accepts and rejects things. Science is a worldwide effort. Ideas are presented, evaluated, confirmed, repeated and build upon by completely separate organizations. Religion on the other hand is most often lead by one group or person. This person claiming to be closer to god that all others because they were chosen to be some sort of mouthpiece for god or enlightened. Allowing someone to be a leader and not critically questioning what is being said makes one extremely vulnerable to false information and abuse.
4. Science is testable. Science is a process that quantifies information. The process of science is used to investigate everything, including aspects of religion. My belief is that this world is controlled today by the same laws and powers that have existed since the beginning. Claims from long ago can, and should be, tested today. Religion is based on things that are not testable, not verifiable and stated as truth. Testing things of god is discouraged in many instances. Religion is based on happenings that were recorded long ago in limited detail from unknown sources at unknown times. Not being able to, or allowed to, test aspects of religion makes one vulnerable to accepting false information.

One can reject religion while not rejecting the concept of God. However, when it comes to learning about our universe (which in doing so should help us better learn about God) I believe that placing our trust in only religion puts people at great risk for rejecting or avoiding information provided by science that helps us better understand our surroundings. For those who continue to include religion in their life the balance can be difficult and I wish you the best. 

Good Science or Bad Science?

Deciphering between good science and bad science seems like an impossible task. The general public is extremely vulnerable to accepting bad science when it is presented in a creative way or by big name people. I recently ran across a set of guidelines presented by TEDx.com for the purpose of filtering out the bad science which can be used by each of us in our attempt to incorporate good science into our lives. 

From TED's website:

TED is a nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design. Since then its scope has become ever broader. 

TED has a massive database the presents short lectures by world experts on all sorts of different topics ranging from mechanical birds to faith to cochlear implants (go Karl White!!). The lectures are all around 18 minutes long and are an invaluable public source of information.

While the letter including the guidelines is quite long, you can read the complete thing here. But I am going to pull the guts out of the letter and present it below. I have highlighted the ones that commonly lure people in with neon green.

Marks of Good Science:

• It makes claims that can be tested and verified
• It has been published in a peer reviewed journal (but beware… there are some dodgy journals out there that seem credible, but aren’t.)
• It is based on theories that are discussed and argued for by many experts in the field
• It is backed up by experiments that have generated enough data to convince other experts of its legitimacy
• Its proponents are secure enough to accept areas of doubt and need for further investigation
• It does not fly in the face of the broad existing body of scientific knowledge
• The proposed speaker works for a university and/or has a phD or other bona fide high level scientific qualification

Topics banned from TEDx stages(meaning that they are rampant with bad science):

• GMO food and anti-GMO foodists
• Food as medicine, especially to treat a specific condition: Autism and ADHD, especially causes of and cures for autism
• "Healing," including reiki, energy fields, alternative health and placebos, crystals, pyramid power
• "Free energy" and perpetual motion machines, alchemy, time travel
• The neuroscience of [fill in the blank] — not saying this will all be non-legitimate, but that it’s a field where a lot of goofballs are right now
• The fusion of science and spirituality. Be especially careful of anyone trying to prove the validity of their religious beliefs and practices by using science

Red Flags 

• Barrages you with piles of unrelated, over-general backup material, attempting to bury you in data they think you won’t have time to read
• Holds a nonstandard degree. For instance, if the physics-related speaker has a degree in engineering, not physics; if the medical researcher does not have an M.D. or Ph.D.; if the affiliated university does not have a solid reputation. This is not snobbery; if a scientist truly wishes to make an advance in their chosen field, they’ll make an effort to engage with other scholars
• Claims to have knowledge no one else has
• Sends information only from websites they created themselves; there is little or no comment on them in mainstream science publications or even on Wikipedia
• Provides data that takes the form of anecdotes, testimonials and/or studies of only one person
• Sells a product, supplement, plan or service related to their proposed talk — this is a BIG RED FLAG

Tips for Looking into a Topic.

Start with some basic web research. Wikipedia is your first stop to gain a basic background. Following primary-source links from Wikipedia, work out from there to university websites, science and health blogs, and databases of papers published in respected journals

The world is full of ideas, both good and bad. Science is the PROCESS by which we "build and organize knowlege". It is the process by which we can work together to improve our universe. Be smart out there when confronted with various ideas. There are a lot of wing-nuts in disguise.

Skeptics Guide to the Universe Podcast Series

Podcasts are a great way to learn stuff as you do stuff. I listen to them as I drive and run mainly. A new one that I started listening to which I am very impressed with is called "The Skeptics Guide to the Universe: Your Escape to Reality". The podcast is put on by a bunch of critical thinkers and the organization is dedicated to promoting critical thinking, reason, and the public understanding of science. To give you an idea of the broad array of material that they cover, the few episodes that I have listened to have included discussions on such things as; skin fungi, osteoarthritis, patent trolls, kangaroos, genetically modified foods, debunked Sasquatch sightings, debunked UFO and extraterrestrial sightings, neuroscience, history's most deadly volcano, morality without religion and so much more. It has further opened my eyes to the awesomeness of science and learning.

Bias, Cognative Dissonance and Science

Ash does a great job of explaining how cognitive dissonance and bias often drive our thought process. He also explains how science isn't a thing, an organization or object, but a process that helps us as a human race overcome problems and learn more.