On a recent trip to Search Magazine I stumbled across a news item I completely missed earlier this year. "God's Dice on the Auction Block," by associate editor Sam Kean, presents a translation and an analysis of a letter Albert Eistein wrote to a friend in January 1954. The 472-word letter, to a philosopher named Eric Gutkind, then at Yeshiva University in New York, was auctioned in London last May. The successful buyer paid $404,000 for it.
That works out to roughly $856 per word, which is impressive enough, but even more so when I learned that in 1996, Christie's in New York sold a collection of 53 love letters Einstein wrote to his first wife, Mileva Maric, for $442,500 -- about $8,300 per letter. Obviously the Gutkin item contained something pretty special.
I wasn't disappointed.
As it turns out, Einstein wrote Gutkind about God, the Bible, religion in general and Judaism in particular. Given the importance of Einstein to 20th Century theoretical physics and cosmology, not to mention 20th Century global culture, his views, well, matter. No pun intended.
If you're inclined, you can read the letter via the link above but, meanwhile, what struck me is how direct and critical Einstein is about the topics he mentions. Previously, my general impression of where Einstein stood on religion was based on a famous statment of his that appeared in an article titled "Science and Religion," which appeared in Nature in 1940: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I also knew he rejected the concept of a personal God and considered himself an agnostic. The Gutkind letter is straightforward and revealing. In it you'll find this statement:
"The word of God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of the human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this . . . For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition."
Did I mention I wasn't disappointed?
I'm not, because as Kean correctly points out, in the letter Einstein chides religion but never condemns belief itself. He also does his readers a helpful service by quoting this passage from a speech Einstein gave just after the article in Nature was published: "I must nevertheless qualify this assertion . . . with reference to the actual content of historical religions."
Unfortunately, Kean doesn't provide the source of the speech. Doing a little digging of my own (as a former archaeologist I'm pretty good at this) I discovered the speech was made on September 10, 1941, at the Symposium on Science, Philosophy and Religion, which was held at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. The day after he gave his talk the Associated Press printed a story about it titled "Sees No Personal God." I pinned this all down in Walter Isaacson's NYT bestselling biography, Einstein: His Life and Universe, published by Simon & Schuster in 2007. I'm reading it now.
Fortunately, the full address is available online, but postings I've seen inaccurately refer to a "conference" and give the year as 1941.
There are two successive paragraphs from the speech I want to quote here. They offer the full context of Einstein's reference to "historical religions," and amplify his take on the relationship of science and religion. The latter inlcudes that well-known statement mentioned above:
"Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfilment of their wishes."
The entire speech is well worth reading, too.
Einstein's personal opinions on God, science, and religion, whether published in Nature, shared at a symposium, or included in a personal letter to a friend, will always remain opinions. But they are carefully considered ones, to be sure, and as such they deserve thoughtful consideration whether we accept them or not.
Personally, I'm encouraged by the fact that in his letter to Gutkind, Einstein did not reject the positive role religion can provide in the lives of human beings, alter his agnosticism, or contradict his earlier assertion about the synergy between science and religion that ensures progress for both.
To me, this is priceless.
Next stop: The Bus Stops Here
Banner bus photo created by Dorothy Delina Porter