Einstein's God, or The Hopes for Secular Spirituality

It came as a shock when the letters of Mother Teresa, long concealed by the Church, recently came to light. Suddenly it was revealed that this saintly icon -- who is on the way to becoming an official saint -- had anguishing doubts about the existence of God. These doubts tormented her at the beginning, middle, and end of her career. Those who want to see Mother Teresa canonized claim that her doubts make her even more a heroic exemplar of faith. But if you take the letters literally, at face value, she had a common predicament. She tried to live according to a Christian ideal but God didn't listen or answer. He never showed his face or his presence to Mother Teresa, and therefore she had to confront deep disappointment and (dare we say it?) skepticism about the truth of religion.

Even though she was an outsized personality and a model of immense compassion, Mother Teresa wasn't all that different from ordinary believers who come to the conclusion that God is a myth, perhaps even a fantasy created out of whole cloth. A rash of prominent books by atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins have pounded away on the theme of delusion and fraud. Using science as their chief bulwark, they insist that religion serves the purpose of blocking reality. A rational secular society is their ideal, and their fervent hope is that religious yearning will be seen for what it is, a childish, irrational, and ultimately hopeless drive. Everyone can see the result. Neither side, the atheists or the religionists, have won the argument; they've simply become more entrenched in their original position.

All of which brings me to a revelatory chapter in another bestseller, Walter Isaacson's Einstein: His Life and Universe, which dwells on Einstein's view of God more completely than anything I've read before. At first the story of Einstein's spirituality conforms to any other twentieth-century skeptic. As a young man he rejected on logical grounds the literal truth of events recounted in the Old Testament. He moved beyond orthodox faith while struggling personally with his Jewishness. Being a scientist, he could have completed the easy trajectory then and there, ending up where Dawkins is, as a debunker of outworn superstition who saw the light of reason and used science as a weapon to combat the vestiges of belief in God.

Fortunately, Einstein was also a great mind, and his greatness took the form of a wider vision than either the religionists or the atheists who surrounded him. He continued his spiritual journey in a fascinating way. By stages he reconciled faith and science, not by offering a compromise that straddled the fence between these opposites, nor by saying that each side was right in its own sphere. Einstein took the bolder step of trying to understand if a single reality encompasses both drives in human beings, the drive to believe in a higher reality and the drive to explain Nature in terms of laws and processes that operate seemingly independent of God. Time, space, and gravity don't seem to need God at all, yet without God the universe seems random and meaningless. Einstein expressed this dichotomy in a famous saying: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

I'd like to retrace Einstein's lifelong spiritual path because what he was searching for -- and never quite found -- was secular spirituality, and in many ways that is our best hope today. Instead of falling back on traditional religion, which has been shattered by science and the horrors of the twentieth century, or erasing spirituality in favor of stark materialism, secular spirituality looks at the whole of life in a different way. God and reason are allowed not simply to co-exist but to fulfill a single vision. This vision is rooted in consciousness. Either we think like God or he thinks like us. If neither is true, there cannot be a connection between us. Einstein's ultimate goal, he said, was to understand God's mind, and to do that, the human mind must be explained first. After all, our minds are the filter through which we perceive reality, and if that filter is distorted and misunderstood, there's no possibility of grasping God's mind.

Einstein's spiritual ambition was enormous but largely private. However, thanks to his world fame as the most intelligent person alive (true or not), people flocked to hear what he had to say on every great issue, scientific, religious, even political (hence his involvement in Zionism and the development of the atomic bomb). In the next few installments of this post we'll see how he came to terms with a God that was unknown to the Judeo-Christian tradition but was still alive and real. By following a great man's thought processes, we might find a way to escape the deadlock between faith and science ourselves.

(to be continued)

Click: www.intentblog.com

www.deepakchopra.com

Comments

[mommamia526]

Einstein was a jew. So, how does a jew define G-d? Jews do not define G-d. They say G-d is, or exists. Jews do not say that G-d looks like this that or this one that one. G-d, if any kind of approximation is even indicated is an universal binding force. G-d is within and without, close and transient. And that can not be a man, or anything material that we can see. When G-d is asked "Who do I say you are", or "
what is your name" the response is I am what I am, or I will be what I will be. Or, just I am. God is a creative force, said to be male and female. And man is a creative force, together with the woman. We create life as well, and we create other things, material things, ideas, and more. G-d proscribes the Law, of the universe, how human beings are to live, how things work and do not work. G-d also says: you must be holy, because I am holy. What does that imply? It implies to set out on a spiritual path and ascend towards a goal, to benefit the world, to be a light, and ultimately to be light. It means that all of us share a common force. In the end there will be peace, G-d will be one and his name will be one. At that time we will know who/what this one, universal entity is. It is energy, not matter. But energy can transform into matter, and vice versa.

[PaxChristi]

Jesus was Jewish, what's your point?

Exactly who told you what God said? How did they know they heard him correctly and did they write is down exactly?

One cannot carry the Cross and the sword!

[LiberalEastTexan]

>Time, space, and gravity don't seem to need God at all, yet without God the universe seems random and meaningless.

And, so what?

Just what exactly is so bad about a universe that is random and meaningless?

Could someone explain that to me using simple words?

[GreedyOldPsychopaths]

A word: Finiteness.

[l99999us]

Good post.....

I hope it will get some serious thought for all involved.

I especially liked this line

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

As for a secular spirituality may I suggest Buddhism which provides a spiritual, personal development, ethical outlook without having to reject western science or even believe in a God or Gods.

peace

[wm1066]

Ahh, but in Pure Land Buddism,(Japan) Amida Budda is considered a Saviour. Amida is considered a God! And Tibetian Buddism is full of superstitions. Sufism is the way to go, Sufism goes beyond god.

[mommamia526]

So, sufism goes beyond god. I spoke with a Sikh, several months ago, about religion, and other things; he is my doctor. He too believes that there is a force, an entity, but if we give it a name, such as god, or deity, we are already describing a determinate entity, determined by our own boundaries. Judaism does not believe that there is a god that we can describe, name and put in a box either. Now let us look what there is in common. Yes? Beyond god there is what? Energy? A force that binds everything? What about thoughts and spirit? Can spirit become visible? Can a person's spirit become visible? Could it take on a life of its own? Religion is what we know, what we are brought up with, and it is familiar. Religions are systems, but systems are not essence. Just as a system of learning to play the piano does not make the instrument sing. It just teaches us how toplay the piano. Music is what comes out of the soul and spirit. It is the creative force, made audible.

[xenofile]

Einstein was a determinist who did not believe in free will.

Try to reconcile that with either atheist or theist dogmas.

Everyone wants to claim him for their own, but E followed his own scientific insights where they "logically" led him. I tend to agree with a previous commenter: his brilliance as a physicist notwithstanding, his philosophical ideas and beliefs are interesting, but not necessarily persuasive.

[GreedyOldPsychopaths]

"Einstein was a determinist who did not believe in free will.

Try to reconcile that with either atheist or theist dogmas."

OK: Einstein was a Presbyterian!
Quod erat demonstrandum, Q.E.D.

[JustAnotherJoe]

I’m reminded of a story told by Anthony De Mello a Jesuit priest from India who modified a story told by Aristotle substituting the word God for truth:

A man stated, “I’m ready in the quest for God to give up anything: wealth, family, friends, country, life itself. What else can a person give up?”
The Master answered, “One’s beliefs about God.”
The disciple went away sad, for he clung to his convictions. He feared ignorance more than death.

Is a lesson here and perhaps one that Mother Teresa had trouble “getting” was that we should not expect to find the face of God in visions or grand theories, but in the faces of the least among us (AIDS patients, orphans, the homeless, the elderly) like Jesus taught?

[SadSong]

Aristotle... The Sophist Master! All hail!

[wondering]

Deepak,

You say, "...without God the universe seems random and meaningless." I think you forgot to add these words to the end of your sentence: "to religious believers."

True Believers see god as a cosmic bookkeeper and groundskeeper - someone to keep track of their daily doings and to maintain orderly lawns in the neighborhood we call reality. For True Believers, the opposite of god is the void. And the void is bad.

I doubt that any atheists see the universe as random and meaningless - largely because they don't think in those terms. I think you make the common mistake of equating atheism with nihilism.

What in the world do people mean when they say that they want the universe (or their own lives) to have "meaning"? How can existence have "meaning"? If god is not keeping track of your every thought and action in some huge record book, will you feel somehow cheated? Is that the "meaning" you hold dear? Existence has no "meaning" - unless you choose to anthropomorphize it (Oh, I forgot about the uber-mind).

And not only are you trying to project onto Einstein your own beliefs (as others have pointed out: wldnswmmr and jhNY), you are making another erroneous logical leap - that Einstein was a brilliant physicist does not imply he was a great philosopher.

[blueraven]

And once again, the argument is forcibly boiled down to monotheism with a three-omni deity versus atheism, when there are other approaches that account for the randomness while also declining to reify coincidence. You people with your binary logic bore me.

[wondering]

When you capitalize the g, it's hard not to equate the argument as monotheism vs. atheism. But, OK, I'll bite...

The main point of my post was to question the need for finding "meaning" in existence. I challenge you to explain what is meant by that phrase (assuming you think it is important to search for "meaning"). Who should your life "mean" anything to?

Perhaps it's the word "random" that you are stuck on. I don't think Deepak had the idea of mathematical randomness in mind here (I could be wrong - it would be nice if he clarified). By "random" I take Deepak to mean "mindless" or "senseless". If I am right, then the use of this term falls under the same criticism as that leveled at the use of the word "meaning": Whose mind is directing the events taking place in the universe (i.e., ensuring order instead of randomness)? Is the universe nothing more than a giant SIMS game?

Besides, since Einstein's beliefs are the ideas in question, we need ask what Einstein meant by a god who could roll dice - suggests a big pair of hands, no?

[SadSong]

"Einstein was a brilliant physicist does not imply he was a great philosopher."

Facts be know, Hendrik A. Lorentz was a brilliant Physicist, Jules Henri Poincare' was a brilliant Physicist and understood Philosophy well ( although I disagree with is philosophy to some extent ) and Hermann Minkowski was a brilliant Mathematic­ian/Physic­ist, ( Minkowski's Space-Time)

Without these three men's work Einstein would still be scratching his head, wondering if E=mc2, in a manner of speaking. Make no mistake about that part of the whole equation. :)

[JBJR]

As a scientist, it is very difficult to view the universe without deep down inside believing (hoping) that it has a purpose, even if that purpose is just to explore by Monte Carlo methods all conceivable outcomes of combinations of phosphoric acid, simple sugars and primary amino acids.
I met Einstein only briefly -- I was running a steeple chase and came over his hedge in Princeton as he and Mrs Einstein were having a tea party in their back yard. He smiled (actually, I would put it just shy of a suppressed giggle), I said "I'm sorry," and jumped over the hedge on the other side of the yard, and that was it. He would object to my first paragraph , since he was convinced that "Der Alte" didn't play dice.

[Tryingtobereasonable]

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


Deepak Chopra in his now famous look into the future:
--Meditation will become mainstream.
--Aspects of the paranormal and miraculous will be widely credited.
--Healing, both physical and psychological, will become commonplace.
--Prayer will be seen as real and efficacious.
--Manifestation of desires will be talked about as a real phenomenon.
--People will regain a connection to their souls.
--Individuals will find answers inwardly to their deepest spiritual questions. They will believe in their private answers and live accordingly.
--Communities of belief will arise.
--Gurus and other spiritual authorities will wane in influence.
--A wisdom tradition will grow to embrace the great spiritual teachings at the heart of organized religion.
--Faith will no longer be seen as an irrational departure from reason and science.
--Wars will decline as peace becomes a social reality.
--Nature will regain its sacred value.

[eplebneesta]

I, personally, am a member (well, the member) and Head Eunuch (as St Colbert says, an agnostic is an atheist without balls) of the one (possibly) true religion: Agnostic Quantum Deism. We (ok, I) know IF there is a "God" then it created the big bang (Let There Be Light) and the laws of physics (The Gospels) and then sat back to watch the show. The concept of the trinity is a misinterpred sensing of the three flavors of the Fermions. In the same way, angels are a misunderstanding of the Bosons. Mediators, communicators and carriers of force (flaming swords and all). Free will is the result of quantum uncertainty. Every other religion is a *creation* of man (let there be words), designed to concentrate power and wealth into the hands of the priests and other "interpreters, communicators and defenders of `truth'."

Or not. We're not sure. We worship a "?". With no one nailed to it.

E Pleb Neesta
GODISNOWHERE
Blessed are the cheese makers.
If HPV vaccination leads to promiscuity, then confession leads to sin.

[jhNY]

Einstein has long been the poster boy of spiritualists and faith-based charlatans concerned with keeping their con relevant to present times. After all, if a genius scientist looked up into the heavens and saw God, who are you, bright boy, that looks up and sees nothing but the night sky? Not a genius, surely.

Trouble is, God or no God, the earth-bound spritual leaders work their con because it's a good living, and beats working by a mile. They prey on the weak and gullible and grow rich, fattening on the proceeds of fear and despair. In every age, the spiritual leader is surrounded by the opulence of his times, but makes a public show of his unconcern over material possessions, be they chariots or automobiles, cloaks or sports coats, churches or spiritual awakening centers.

The adept charlatan keeps the con fresh for each generation, wherein there's a sucker born every minute. But it's still a con.

[wldnswmmr]

It's a shame Einstein's "spirituality" cannot be allowed to rest in peace. I think, when you consider everything that Einstein himself wrote and said (and I have read a lot of it) on matters of religion, that the fairest conclusion to reach was that he did not believe in god, an intelligent designer or a consciousness to the Universe separate and apart from human consciousness. The simplest way to describe his belief system was atheistic. Yet, because he was so brilliant, his random references to "God" and the "mind of God," etc, or the famous "God does not play dice with the Universe," get taken out of context and expanded into a broader belief system. With Einstein as your authority, the materialists like Dawkins and Harris can be diminished as "lesser minds." This is unfortunate. Einstein isn't around anymore to explain or expatiate, and it seems like a contradiction in terms for all of us "lesser minds" to now perform some sort of exegesis on the random observations he made during his life.

[GreedyOldPsychopaths]

RTB

Per Isaacson's biography, Einstein did not believe in a PERSONAL God who interceded on the behalf of humanity through prayer and supplication. He did, however, believe in the God of Spinoza - minus the pantheist view.

One of Einstein's famous quotes on his belief: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

I'm certain Deepak will enlighten us as to Spinoza's philosophy (God independent of time) in future posts. But atheist would NOT be an accurate term in describing Spinoza.

[Herrington]

Seems simple enough to me. The is no evidence that God exists. There is no evidence the God does not exist. There is not evidence that God intercedes for mankind. There is no evidence that God does not intercede for mankind.

Religion is for people who cannot live in recognition of these facts and can't take life at face value. Atheism is for people who are offended or frightened by people who profess knowledge of something not provable.

For me, God is simply an ideal mind by which I measure my own thinking and actions. What others believe is their affair except to the extent they will not leave me alone.

[Aunt Shecky]

A well-written, reasonable response,H­errington.

[SadSong]

"There is no evidence the God does not exist."

This statement is on its face a fallacy, a sophist's statement. Truth be told there is ample evidence that there is *No* such entity as a God, especially in the traditional sense, as within the God of Abraham theological belief (faith) structure.

Furthermore, there is absolutely *No* reason to believe any other Mythology before the times of the God of Abraham, hence, when mankind was quite less capable and more prone to be irrational.

Therefore, moving forward with extremely subjective philosophical arguments born out of superstition, mythology, and irrational emotional human thought processes is to say the least ridiculous.

One may as well build a hypothesis on a base absent any tangibility what-so-ever.

The truth-in-fact is: that it really does make a difference that Unicorns never existed and that the tooth of whales once thought to be unicorn horns was a *Gag* perpetrated by seamen on others. There is *IN FACT* a down-side to believing in untruths! No matter ones fancy.

[Herrington]

"There is no evidence the God does not exist."

You are arguing biblical extrapolations. Who said any or all gods were the God of Abraham?

Would you prefer "no evidence that a preternatural force that influenced some change in a an unknowable cosmos that resulted in it being what it is now exists"?

You seem to be happy with "no evidence that God exists". I would condition that statement as I did the other, preternatural force.

And I totally agree with a downside in believing in untruths. Being in possession of a questioning mentality also has the downside of having to be responsible with it.

[LeftRight]

I look forward to the journey, as I've tried to explain to myself similar problems, but with nowhere near the thinking abilities!