Thanks Tony Lavis. I'm aware of that.

That being the case, however, theists would be more accurate in saying that, "Einstein believed in a God (of sorts)" - not just "God". But they never say this because it would water-down the undue prestige they're trying to afford their beliefs.

Dear Tony,

"I describe my views as pantheistic. In The God Delusion Dawkins describes pantheism as sexed-up atheism. I disagree but I can see where he's coming from: for most practical intents and purposes there's not much difference between the two"

Indeed, no big deal... for Dawkins all that matters is science: classifying what exists and what doesn't - why should he care in the least about petty matters such as what we live or die for?

Josephus,

If you don't agree with my response, thats fine. Can you articulate why?

Josephus,

In reference to god & Hitler, you can do a merry dance but the facts remain the same.
1. Hitler self-identified as a Catholic.
2. Germany was 90% Christian, 45% Protestant, 45% Catholic.
3. Pope Pious was a known anti-semite.
4. Killing jews was quite a christian thing to do and has only fallen out of favour since the Holocaust.

So quite frankly, whether or not Hitler was following god's will is quite irrelevant. The entire german nation identified as christian as were most of the European participants in WW2.
Basically, worst war in humanity was prosecuted and defended by christians. The love of JC, the wrath of god and the commandment 'thall shalt not kill' did nothing to prevent it.

Dear George,

It apparently is common for people who want to express sentiments which they desire attention for to put them in the mouths of notable people.

Voltaire’s ringing declaration, “I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” according to a book of quotations I have was first attributed to Voltaire in 1906. The saying would probably have been forgotten if it had not been attributed to Voltaire.

When I was in California a few years ago my grandson’s baby sitter told me that Darwin on his death bed accepted Jesus Christ as his personal saviour. That is US evangelist talk and I doubt very much that Darwin ever said anything like that. However, it is something that fitted in with what she wanted to believe, and I think she firmly believed it. Her pastor told the story, and he may have believed it also.

When I first read the statement you attributed to Einstein I did not question the statement but wondered what he could have referred to. I have the impression that you are a scrupulous person who would not make up a statement. Since you accepted the statement as actually made and I think highly of your honesty I did the same.

Now, thinking of how I believed Voltaire made the statement attributed to him until I read otherwise I think we may have both been gullible as to the validity of Einstein’s statement. Of course there is the possibility that Voltaire actually made the statement, and the editor of the book of quotations might have added that it was attributed to him in 1906 to cast doubt in people’s minds.

It is difficult to be sure what a person said until we heard that person say it.

In regards to the statement you attributed to Einstein I have now clad myself in the armour of scepticism and resumed my worship of the sanctity of doubt.

Dear david f,

I did not realise quoting Einstein in this connection would open such a can of worms. I was not aware that there were doubts about its authenticity. However, the authenticity seems to be (sort of) confirmed if you care to chew your way through http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=10308#p135848. (The link comes from the link http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-05/ provided by AJ Philips.)

The quote reflects what Einstein (allegedly) thought about this topic on the basis of what he knew in 1940. Nothing more, irrespective of what those who enthusiastically quote it, or deny its authenticity, want or don't want to read into it . In particular, it does not say how well informed - compared to others at that time - he was.

As for Pius XII and his action or inaction during WWII, this is the can of worms I referred to. It started more or less with the appearance of Rolf Hochhut’s ‘Der Stellvertreter’ (The Deputy) in 1963, and has again become a hotly debated topic since the recent attempts/preparations for Pius’ canonization.

There are many facts pointing in one direction, others in the opposite, and I suspect, like in most such cases, the way we interpret the collection of these facts depends on our a priori perspectives; as you know, on these matters mine is somewhat different from yours.

>>a possible reason for his (Pius XII’s) silence … is that he feared and despised the atheistic Soviet more than he did the Nazis.<<
Well, probably so. It is a fact that Bolshevik, and especially Stalin’s, atrocities (including the Ukrainian famine) preceded by a decade or so Nazi atrocities. At the times of e.g. the holodomor Hitler was still just a big mouth as much as he persecuted the Jews; no Holocaust yet. Apparently - and tragically erroneously as it turned out - Pius and many others saw Hitler as a “lesser evil”.
ctd