Belief in God 'childish,' Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter

May 13 08:24 AM US/Eastern

Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.

The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

"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," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.

In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"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."

And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are 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."

Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.

Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP.

Between this and everything else he ever said, he pretty much just comes off as a Dick.

A great contributor to human understanding of the Universe, yes. But a Dick.

Between this and everything else he ever said, he pretty much just comes off as a Dick.

A great contributor to human understanding of the Universe, yes. But a Dick.

Between this and everything else he ever said, he pretty much just comes off as a Dick.

A great contributor to human understanding of the Universe, yes. But a Dick.

So athiest = dick?

FYI it's hard to believe in imaginary stuff when you're an uber smart scientist guy

I don't see how that comment has any relevance.

Unless there is some law - "Anyone who doesn't believe in the fairy tales my mommy told me is a dick."

*goes off to read cinderalla*

So athiest = dick?

FYI it's hard to believe in imaginary stuff when you're an uber smart scientist guy

No, not atheism.
The whole "Am I religious? Yes... NO! Except yes. But not. But farg you Judaism" thing.

No, not atheism.
The whole "Am I religious? Yes... NO! Except yes. But not.

I also think its natural for people to continue to wrestle with their faith through out their entire lives

AND in the case of public figures:
say the polite things so as to not piss your "Fans" or "patrons" off - regardless of what you privately believe.

Socrates would like to have a word with you.

*tries to remember which thread I was debating this with Agent Zero in*

"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."

And one more thing; it's insulting to compare religion to a Disney fairy tale.

And one more thing; it's insulting to compare religion to a Disney fairy tale. Hobbes has been one of the more vocal advocates of Atheism here, but he's never ridiculed someone else's religious beliefs, regardless of how strongly he believes in the lack of G-d. He's always been respectful of the beliefs of others regarding religion. More people here, both the faithful and Atheists, could take a page from his book.

So you're taking offense at someone else's beliefs?


Why should it matter to you what someone else thinks?

Well I suppose ideally we would all ignore the stuff others say we don't like.

When it comes to an open discussion, however, it's just common courtesy, I suppose.
Why say "Religion is a fairy tale, you might as well watch Disney" when saying "I'm an Atheist, personally I've never seen anything to convince me that G-d exists" gets the point across in a much more civil manner?

In short, you don't have to insult the beliefs of others to make your beliefs known.

That my good sir is why I prefer Agnosticism to Atheism. I have no right to discredit you beliefs than you do to discredit my lack thereof.

So, I could walk up to a black dude and calling him a 'VERY SENSITIVE EPITHET", right? I mean, he may choose to dislike that term, but that doesn't mean that I have to avoid saying something he might not like to hear.

Civility, dude. It's what it's all about.

I would really hate this discussion to spiral into a Circle of Misunderstanding. I don't think we're disagreeing. Being intentionally offensive is uncool.

But as I said, is it "offensive" if you're giving someone your opinion on their religion? Personally, I'm biased towards "getting over yourself" and not being so sensitive, but that's just me.

Me too.

I'm just saying that some Christians don't like to have their beliefs categorized as "a fairy tale." In fact, some might even get downright offended. Now, personally I am comfortable enough in my own way of thinking that it doesn't really matter what another might say unless they were interested in having a thoughtful discussion on the subject. However,

"What you believe is a fairy tale" doesn't quite have the same tone as "I disagree with what you believe," and I could see how one might take offense. Intentional or unintentional is irrelevant when something is perceived to be offensive by an individual. I'd be inclined to tell the offensee to "get over it," but...well, there it is.

Understood, but I think "fairy tale" is a pretty accurate descriptor for a lot of Bible stories. Is that the fault of the person pointing it out? You may choose to believe those stories, but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to avoid saying anything that you might not like to hear.

In the strictest of definitions, yes many stories of the Bible are fairy tales. No question about it. But the term, when used in a debate or discussion regarding religion, is usually used in a derogatory sense.
And when an actual comparison to a Disney movie is made, then there's no question about it. The intent is to degrade, rather then to simply describe.

And no, I'm not asking for censorship. I'm asking for courtesy. This is a heated issue. Shouldn't we try to be as respectful as possible to each other? Again, there are plenty of ways for those who consider themselves Atheists to get their point across without degrading the beliefs of others.

*shrug* you're the only one being heated about it...

I don't think anyone said anything offensive or insulting.

*shrug* you're the only one being heated about it...

I don't think anyone said anything offensive or insulting.

I guess i should step in here - with some truthiness before Agent Zero or stormtrooper blow a theological gasket -
Cinderalla existed before Disney.

Not that I actually expect you to get your facts straight...

I'll remember how offensive all this "fairy tale" talk is the next time we're all ragging on Scientology's volcano aliens.

Like I said, Pete's habit of pulling single sentences from my posts and blowing them up to epic proportions is getting more on my nerves then anything you, or anyone else said regarding theism vs atheism.

I can't speak for others, but personally my issues with Scientology have nothing to do with its religious beliefs. It's the secular practises of their Church that irk me.

Between this and everything else he ever said, he pretty much just comes off as a Dick.

A great contributor to human understanding of the Universe, yes. But a Dick.

Wow, I went to work in the yard and this became an argument. Hunter, I meant no offense *smirks* but if people held back from pissing people off then really would we ever have heard of Socrates? that was my point.

this is all in my imagination anyway. I don't believe in the Interwebs.

All I'm saying is that I don't think "fairy tale" was meant to be offensive.

Nor do I think it actually is offensive.

If that's epic proportions, then okay.

Their church doesn't do anything that their religious leader didn't advise...how can you separate the two? If Moses told your people to charge a little something for the ten commandments, you would.

Also, in fairness, lots of religious people believe that supernatural things occurred that are simply not possible, or even logically consistent with the "world" they take place in. Hunter's not wrong to use the term. He didn't address it specifically towards you, so if the term doesn't accurately describe what you believe, don't worry about it.

Careful readers would have noticed that I was in fact responding to Asthaloth's reactionary comments re-quoted here.

Who I notice isn't frothing at the mouth or anything.

Just saying is all...

I'm not an Atheist - FYI and stuff - so don't make too many assumptions when talking to your kitty

Well G-d also told my people to BBQ a goat in Jerusalem every Saturday and to stone anyone who worked on the Holy Day to death. I'm pretty sure one could be a "good Jew" without doing those things.

I happen to disagree...kind of. Since I don't believe that morals come from God, it's no business of mine what you eat or when you eat it. Cherry picking the bible (or any holy text) is evidence that humans have an innate sense of morality as an evolutionary byproduct - we know pretty intrinsically when something feels wrong or right to us, and we behave according to that. You simply don't need God to know murder is wrong - it's as built in to us as swimming up river is to salmon.

Now, you can rationalize this cherry picking all you want, but what you're doing is actively defying your God (unless your God said, "feel free to cherry pick." And if he did, please provide citation of that) based on what you know to be right and wrong by mere instinct and common sense.

It is my opinion that if you're not adhering to all of His laws, you're not being a good follower. Which, again, is no skin off my back provided you're not hurting anyone. But I think we've reached a point in society where most people can see how wrong being a "good follower" really is...and if that's the case- if we're overriding His moral decrees based on what we know to be right and wrong - what is it that God is providing for us, again?

3) Nice "make me look like a crazy person who has conversations with his cat" trick. I have to give it a thumbs up. Personally, not in my taste, but very nice non-the-less.

Gra[n]ted, I don't know what you look like, but other then my kitty, I don't see anyone else here. So with that in mind I have to assume that despite your smugness, you actually have no idea regarding my personal state of mind.
I'm far from "blowing a gasket," trust me.
Like I said, Pete's habit of pulling single sentences from my posts and blowing them up to epic proportions is getting more on my nerves then anything you, or anyone else said regarding theism vs atheism.

I have to agree with Hobbes. I don't see anything in the Torah that says "oh BTW these rules are optional." Quite the opposite, in fact. In fact, if you want to go back to the text, it says that God will curse his people and drive them from the land if they turn away from obeying his laws.