ctd
>>I know nothing that would support Einstein’s statement. Do you?<<
I do not see what support you want except the discussions in the link given above. As to an alternative appraisal of Pius XII, see e.g.

“Israel Zolli (1881-1956) was from 1939 to 1945 Chief Rabbi of Rome. After the war, he converted to Roman Catholicism, taking the name Eugenio in honor of Pope Pius XII.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Zolli).

Or http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/zpius12.htm.

I am quite aware that these two quotes represent just a minority view among Jews, the majority would agree with your appraisal. Among Christians this would probably be the other way around. However, in both camps those who personally experienced WWII as adults are a diminishing tiny minority.

Tony Lavis,

According to Wikipedia, Spinoza in a letter to Henry Oldenburg states that: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken”.

Hence Spinoza is usually seen as a panentheist, rather than pantheist, meaning that he sees the (material) world as a proper subset of God, rather than being identified with Him.

So I think it is reasonable to see also Einstein as a panentheist rather than a pantheist, because of his confessed affinity with Spinoza, if for no other reasons. Others see him as a deist.

“There are people who say there is no God," he (Einstein) told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html)

And in a 1930 letter:

“I’m not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.” (quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein).

One thing seems to be clear: Einstein would not have liked it to be called either an atheist or a theist

Dear George,

Thank you for the reference to Einstein’s faith.

We can refer to Einstein, Spinoza, Augustine, Russell and other figures who have written of their encounters with faith and how they see or don’t see deity and faith.

It is up to each of us to make our decision. Nobody is an authority on faith. We can look to Einstein regarding his view of the physical universe, but I (I hesitate to write we) can regard none of the aforementioned as an authority on faith because there is no way of testing their conclusions. We can only try to be honest in looking at the facts we have available whether or not those facts support our views. I tend to emphasise those facts which buttress my views.

I am awed by the workings of nature and of mathematics. I don’t see how anybody who reflects on it can do other.

I keep trying to learn. At 86 I am tired of hunt and peck typing and am trying to learn touch typing. Although I love mathematics I am unaware of a lot of the workings of much of it. I am going through the two volumes of Polya on mathematics. There are problems in each area ranging from the trivial to those as yet unsolved. csteele mentioned how learning is not confined to books. There just is so much to learn in and out of books. One can have a full life without books, and one can reject life by burying oneself in books.

Right now my first wife is dying. She had a massive stroke and is on a hospital bed in her living room surrounded by some of our descendents. They are keeping me in touch with the death watch in Philadelphia. We will all be memories, and finally even the memory of us will disappear.

And when like her, oh Saki, you shall pass
Among the Guests star-scatter'd on the Grass,
And in your joyous errand reach the spot
Where I made one -- turn down an empty Glass!

TAMAM SHUD

George,

There are a lot of quotes from Einstein, among many other scientists that are promoted in support of the religious viewpoint.

Einstein himself regarded these as mischievious, which I think we must interpret with due regard to the gentle thoughtfulness of the man. Any late 20th century individual would use much stronger language.

Insofar as Einstein may have considered a deity possible it is in the remote and unknowable sense.

I would suggest that any churchgoer who actually tried to model his spirituality on Einstein's views would find themselves resembling an athiest from the point of view of their church.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter,

You might be right, but that does not change what Einstein actually said/wrote that Tony Lavis and I quoted here. However, I agree that Einstein was philosophically (as far as science is concerned) more sophisticated - call it “gentle thoughtfulness” if you like - than Dawkins and many other contemporaries (theists or atheists) who are not as “gently thoughtful” when trying to use (abuse?) science to confirm their a priori held world-view “orientation”, again both theist and atheist.

G'day George,
I thank ye kindly for leading me back to Einstein; a man I have always admired, more for his beliefs than his science, which frankly was and is beyond me.
Your quotes impelled me to read “The world as I see it” -again-, though I fear I can't recall the first time I read it. I feel sure I must have though, as so many of my thoughts and feelings on the 'meaning of life' so closely mirror Einstein's that I'm sure I must have borrowed them, and over time have come (rather immodestly) to claim them as my own.
For instance, the opening paragraph:

“The meaning of Life”
“What is the meaning of human life, or of organic life altogether? To answer
this question at all implies a religion. Is there any sense then, you ask, in
putting it? I answer, the man who regards his own life and that of his
fellow-creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost
disqualified for life.
”

I don't believe there is anything wrong, naïve or immature in searching for meaning or purpose. Indeed, I believe science to be the study of 'creation' (to use the word in a generic sense). To exclude even the possibility of a creator would be -to my mind- 'unscientific'.
What has persistently annoyed me since I was I think about 12, is that this God is infinitely greater than we are, yet some amongst us are gifted enough to understand Its Will and/or Its Nature, Plan, and/or Its desires for us perfectly, and therefore have the right and the obligation to impose those beliefs on the rest of us.
This kind of arrogance is -to me- beyond egregious.