This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives
| |
|
After all it does include both his religious and philosophical views. Apollo The Logician Apollo The Logician ( talk) 10:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Einstein had said explicitly "I am not an atheist". He has also claimed to believe in a god. He clearly denies atheism Apollo The Logician ( talk) 21:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 21:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Obviously it is ambiguous if you thought that "dissociating himself from the label athest" didn't mean he denied it. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 11:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 11:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
What are people's objections to GBRV's proposal? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 17:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Really? Nobody? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 13:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 13:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
How about people actually comment instead of just reverting edits? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 19:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Einstein claimed Jesus as God when agreeing with Spinoza. I've included this fact with primary source on the page. Sfbmod ( talk) 01:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"We may be able quite to comprehend that God can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation."
- Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 1677, p. 12
Einstein told a diplomat that it made him "angry" when others labeled him as an atheist, describing how hostile he was to their religious position. This should end all debate on his view. He also labeled atheism as a "fanatical religion."
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
- Albert Einstein, statement to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Prince Hubertus zu Lowenstein in 1941, as quoted in his book Towards the Further Shore : An Autobiography (1968) (verified on Wikiquote)
If someone quoted from material I wrote more than 15 years ago, it would likely no longer reflect my views- And if you quoted only part of one of my works, they may not represent the work's conclusions (how many have quoted Darwin out of context in attempt to pretend that he himself doubted his discoveries?). If you quote someone else about my views, they may never have been my views (depending on their understanding and familiarity with them). If you quote someone else about their own views and by inference attempted to say that they also were my views, this would also be misleading (like quoting Spinoza above and inferring that they were Einstein's). — Paleo Neonate – 16:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
References
I recently read a page Did Einstein Believe In God? and then based upon it made a very small edit. DVdm was kind enough to tell me the edit I made wasn't a proper reference. Now, the link itself wasn't a proper reference but it does contain proper references, and think those quotes (with refernces) SHOULD be a part of this page! If anyone else agrees, then can someone add them with proper sourcing? Here are the quotes with their proper reference (at the end):
The source is Max Jammer, in the book “ Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology”, (Google Books Link: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=TnCc1f1C25IC) Why aren't these quotes added on the main page?? They seem to be very relevant to the topic Hdaackda ( talk) 22:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
“ | Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [1] | ” |
Someone copied back in a misquote of Einstein stating, "I don't think I can call myself a pantheist" in February. Alice Calaprice's book "The Ultimate Quotable Einstein" stated it differently, as did the actual source, Viereck's "Glimpses of the Great". The actual quote is "I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist." This changes the meaning and I will correct parts of this article. It seems to be a quote translated into another language and translated back to English incorrectly and spread around. But the source material was in English so there is no doubt of the actual quote. NaturaNaturans ( talk)
See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/ : Spinoza's God is written with a capital letter. Also per https://books.google.nl/books?id=G_iziBAPXtEC&pg=PA325&redir_esc=y we write God, not god. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Tgeorgescu Your edit summary is unintelligible, what are you saying?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.114.118.154 ( talk • contribs)
Besides, all this is in vain: Einstein was surely secular, he was one of the most prominent secularist thinkers of the 20th century, his cosmic religion was purely secular. Secular does not mean "atheist", it is in fact the opposite of "theocratic" or "clerical". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Einstein was never a secular thinker. He in fact said religious thinkers are humanity's only hope. Please stop lying for Atheist dogma. Sfbmod ( talk) 01:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind. What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living."
- Albert Einstein, Written statement (September 1937), Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1979), p. 70
Einstein was on good terms with Molotov, the Politburo member in charge of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCF6:4801:A5BE:30E2:60C:4B87 ( talk) 07:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It is very interesting that there is no mention of any of Einstein's interactions with Indian thought! Wonder what biases and complexes of wikipedia's contributors have caused that....Not even a mention of the dialogue of Einstein and Tagore? https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/04/27/when-einstein-met-tagore/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.25.158.112 ( talk) 07:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
described his professional scientific conclusion that Atheists could not be scientists
is an extremely bizarre view, see
WP:Editorializing. Conflating science with religion is just lame epistemology. "Science, thus religion" is how to flunk an epistemology class.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 14:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
That Einstein's professional scientific conclusion was that atheists could not be scientists is patent nonsenseabsolutely. — Paleo Neonate – 06:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
To clarify for those interested in the truth, Einstein and Spinoza both claimed Jesus was God by saying only Jesus had the "Mind of God" who directly told humanity the "way to salvation" and how Einstein specifically said Christ's "actual presence" can be experienced in the modern era by simply "reading the Gospels." Einstein was very hostile towards atheism calling it "from the same source as" fanatical religion. He said it made him "very angry" when people tried to label him as an atheist. Einstein only associated with other Christians such as Godel, Planck, and Heisenberg and was very hostile in his debates with atheists like Bohr. Einstein said is is "absurd when scientists say that there is no God". Scientists cannot be atheist in Albert Einstein's beliefs. Which is the only logical conclusion since to believe anything can be true or false based on a lack of evidence as the Atheist "religious position" Merriam-Webster calls it, is defined as making an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Which is the exact opposite of the Scientific Method which was originally derived from Sir Francis Bacon's inductive reasoning set first published to test the scientific study of God called Theology. Anyone's religious opinions to the contrary are further proof to Einstein's claim that "fanatical atheists" are the same as religious fanatics, as demonstrated here. Sfbmod ( talk) 12:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Einstein specifically said he did not believe in "personal gods" which is when someone creates their own version of a god or gods to suit their own personal benefit or gain such as how atheists will create their own versions of their "personal gods" in order to erect Straw Man arguments to support their anti-God religion. Einstein described God as a "Librarian" and "invisible Player" who keeps the universe in tune. He takes a phrase from G.K. Chesterton when expressing that to the media.
"Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas, more daring than the vision of a palpable day of judgment. For it is the assertion of a universal negative; for a man to say there is no God in the universe is like saying there are no insects in any of the stars." - G. K. Chesterton, Charles II, the Twelve Types, 1906, p. 95
"I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player." - "What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" The Saturday Evening Post (26 October 1929), p. 17
Pantheism is defined as saying all things are God, as specifically said in John 1:1 of the Bible. As well as in Planck's testimony that quantum physics proves all of creation is held together by a "matrix" he claimed was the "Mind of God." So when someone claims to be a Pantheist that is their expression of agreeing with the Bible and Planck's conclusions of quantum physics, specifically.
Einstein was strongly anti-atheist and claimed Jesus's presence can be "actually" felt today agreeing with Spinoza that only Jesus had the "mind" and "voice" of God as verified by primary source referencing those hostile towards science needed to deny as demonstrated here. Sfbmod ( talk) 13:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Notice how whom Einstein said it was "absurd for scientists to say there is no God" are being tedentious by never discussing the facts of what Einstein and his own biographers published about his own views and only want to talk about and force their own religious views onto articles such as these to directly contradict scientists such as Einstein. Sfbmod ( talk) 17:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Please show where in Wikipedia self-contradictory secondary sources that purposefully leave out primary source information as demonstrated above is more important than validated primary source references. Why is this group putting secondary opinions ahead of primary source facts. Sfbmod ( talk) 23:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
In 1942 (several years after the Time article with that statement), my father was in Washington DC as a Brookings Institute fellow, and had the same question regarding attribution of the statement to Einstein. He was going to write to Einstein, and his advisor George F Zook (head of the American Council on Education) offered to write the letter instead, thinking that Einstein would be more likely to reply to a question from someone well-known (Zook had been Commissioner of Education under Franklin D Roosevelt, and was head of the American Council on Education at the time). Einstein wrote back, confirming that he had made that statement. Zook gave the original of the letter to my father. I've tried to preserve the oddities in the typing in the original, but not the exact spacing:
[embossed stamp reading:] A. EINSTEIN 112 MERCER STREET PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY U.S.A. Mr.George F.Zook,President American Council on Education 744 Jackson Pl. Washington, D.C. My dear Mr.Zook: I remember very well to have made the statement concerning the courageous stand of a part of the protestant church in Germany against Nazism and that this steadfastness is sharply contrasting with the lack of character and intellectual courage shown by nearly all the German scientists in our time. But I made this statement orally to a newspaperman who wrote it down; I myself have no copy of it. Sincerely yours, [Einstein's signature] Professor Albert Einstein.
All the quote as it is now has to stay completely or be removed completely. Suggesting through omission that he toed the line of the Abrahamic God is not done. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
What is the theory of relativity? 2600:1012:B16D:1D0B:859E:24A7:D866:6CF7 ( talk) 01:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
quoting the article -- "Einstein declared that he was no positivist, and maintained that [:]
we use
( with a certain right )
concepts
to which
there is no access from
the materials of sensory experience."
My line breaks and brackets. This sentence is in the article totally unpunctuated. *I* can just about parse it, but it must be difficult to read for the vast majority of people. If it's a quote, then I think it needs to be refactored or simplified from the original text. If the grammar has come from a quote, it should not be included transposed into a new sentence. I realise the readers of this article will be intellectual and have very good English, but it should not be as tough as this. I am happy for the article to use conservative or even archaic grammar, especially as Einstein himself did, but it must not become alienating to readers. I could have edited in my own commas, but I wanted to ask first. Elmeter ( talk) 18:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives
| |
|
After all it does include both his religious and philosophical views. Apollo The Logician Apollo The Logician ( talk) 10:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Einstein had said explicitly "I am not an atheist". He has also claimed to believe in a god. He clearly denies atheism Apollo The Logician ( talk) 21:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 21:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Obviously it is ambiguous if you thought that "dissociating himself from the label athest" didn't mean he denied it. Apollo The Logician ( talk) 11:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 11:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
What are people's objections to GBRV's proposal? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 17:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Really? Nobody? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 13:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician ( talk) 13:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
How about people actually comment instead of just reverting edits? Apollo The Logician ( talk) 19:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Einstein claimed Jesus as God when agreeing with Spinoza. I've included this fact with primary source on the page. Sfbmod ( talk) 01:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"We may be able quite to comprehend that God can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation."
- Baruch Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, 1677, p. 12
Einstein told a diplomat that it made him "angry" when others labeled him as an atheist, describing how hostile he was to their religious position. This should end all debate on his view. He also labeled atheism as a "fanatical religion."
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views."
- Albert Einstein, statement to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Prince Hubertus zu Lowenstein in 1941, as quoted in his book Towards the Further Shore : An Autobiography (1968) (verified on Wikiquote)
If someone quoted from material I wrote more than 15 years ago, it would likely no longer reflect my views- And if you quoted only part of one of my works, they may not represent the work's conclusions (how many have quoted Darwin out of context in attempt to pretend that he himself doubted his discoveries?). If you quote someone else about my views, they may never have been my views (depending on their understanding and familiarity with them). If you quote someone else about their own views and by inference attempted to say that they also were my views, this would also be misleading (like quoting Spinoza above and inferring that they were Einstein's). — Paleo Neonate – 16:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
References
I recently read a page Did Einstein Believe In God? and then based upon it made a very small edit. DVdm was kind enough to tell me the edit I made wasn't a proper reference. Now, the link itself wasn't a proper reference but it does contain proper references, and think those quotes (with refernces) SHOULD be a part of this page! If anyone else agrees, then can someone add them with proper sourcing? Here are the quotes with their proper reference (at the end):
The source is Max Jammer, in the book “ Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology”, (Google Books Link: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=TnCc1f1C25IC) Why aren't these quotes added on the main page?? They seem to be very relevant to the topic Hdaackda ( talk) 22:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
“ | Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. [1] | ” |
Someone copied back in a misquote of Einstein stating, "I don't think I can call myself a pantheist" in February. Alice Calaprice's book "The Ultimate Quotable Einstein" stated it differently, as did the actual source, Viereck's "Glimpses of the Great". The actual quote is "I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist." This changes the meaning and I will correct parts of this article. It seems to be a quote translated into another language and translated back to English incorrectly and spread around. But the source material was in English so there is no doubt of the actual quote. NaturaNaturans ( talk)
See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/ : Spinoza's God is written with a capital letter. Also per https://books.google.nl/books?id=G_iziBAPXtEC&pg=PA325&redir_esc=y we write God, not god. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Tgeorgescu Your edit summary is unintelligible, what are you saying?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.114.118.154 ( talk • contribs)
Besides, all this is in vain: Einstein was surely secular, he was one of the most prominent secularist thinkers of the 20th century, his cosmic religion was purely secular. Secular does not mean "atheist", it is in fact the opposite of "theocratic" or "clerical". Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Einstein was never a secular thinker. He in fact said religious thinkers are humanity's only hope. Please stop lying for Atheist dogma. Sfbmod ( talk) 01:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind. What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living."
- Albert Einstein, Written statement (September 1937), Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1979), p. 70
Einstein was on good terms with Molotov, the Politburo member in charge of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCF6:4801:A5BE:30E2:60C:4B87 ( talk) 07:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It is very interesting that there is no mention of any of Einstein's interactions with Indian thought! Wonder what biases and complexes of wikipedia's contributors have caused that....Not even a mention of the dialogue of Einstein and Tagore? https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/04/27/when-einstein-met-tagore/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.25.158.112 ( talk) 07:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
described his professional scientific conclusion that Atheists could not be scientists
is an extremely bizarre view, see
WP:Editorializing. Conflating science with religion is just lame epistemology. "Science, thus religion" is how to flunk an epistemology class.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 14:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
That Einstein's professional scientific conclusion was that atheists could not be scientists is patent nonsenseabsolutely. — Paleo Neonate – 06:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
To clarify for those interested in the truth, Einstein and Spinoza both claimed Jesus was God by saying only Jesus had the "Mind of God" who directly told humanity the "way to salvation" and how Einstein specifically said Christ's "actual presence" can be experienced in the modern era by simply "reading the Gospels." Einstein was very hostile towards atheism calling it "from the same source as" fanatical religion. He said it made him "very angry" when people tried to label him as an atheist. Einstein only associated with other Christians such as Godel, Planck, and Heisenberg and was very hostile in his debates with atheists like Bohr. Einstein said is is "absurd when scientists say that there is no God". Scientists cannot be atheist in Albert Einstein's beliefs. Which is the only logical conclusion since to believe anything can be true or false based on a lack of evidence as the Atheist "religious position" Merriam-Webster calls it, is defined as making an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. Which is the exact opposite of the Scientific Method which was originally derived from Sir Francis Bacon's inductive reasoning set first published to test the scientific study of God called Theology. Anyone's religious opinions to the contrary are further proof to Einstein's claim that "fanatical atheists" are the same as religious fanatics, as demonstrated here. Sfbmod ( talk) 12:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Einstein specifically said he did not believe in "personal gods" which is when someone creates their own version of a god or gods to suit their own personal benefit or gain such as how atheists will create their own versions of their "personal gods" in order to erect Straw Man arguments to support their anti-God religion. Einstein described God as a "Librarian" and "invisible Player" who keeps the universe in tune. He takes a phrase from G.K. Chesterton when expressing that to the media.
"Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas, more daring than the vision of a palpable day of judgment. For it is the assertion of a universal negative; for a man to say there is no God in the universe is like saying there are no insects in any of the stars." - G. K. Chesterton, Charles II, the Twelve Types, 1906, p. 95
"I claim credit for nothing. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player." - "What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck" The Saturday Evening Post (26 October 1929), p. 17
Pantheism is defined as saying all things are God, as specifically said in John 1:1 of the Bible. As well as in Planck's testimony that quantum physics proves all of creation is held together by a "matrix" he claimed was the "Mind of God." So when someone claims to be a Pantheist that is their expression of agreeing with the Bible and Planck's conclusions of quantum physics, specifically.
Einstein was strongly anti-atheist and claimed Jesus's presence can be "actually" felt today agreeing with Spinoza that only Jesus had the "mind" and "voice" of God as verified by primary source referencing those hostile towards science needed to deny as demonstrated here. Sfbmod ( talk) 13:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Notice how whom Einstein said it was "absurd for scientists to say there is no God" are being tedentious by never discussing the facts of what Einstein and his own biographers published about his own views and only want to talk about and force their own religious views onto articles such as these to directly contradict scientists such as Einstein. Sfbmod ( talk) 17:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Please show where in Wikipedia self-contradictory secondary sources that purposefully leave out primary source information as demonstrated above is more important than validated primary source references. Why is this group putting secondary opinions ahead of primary source facts. Sfbmod ( talk) 23:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
In 1942 (several years after the Time article with that statement), my father was in Washington DC as a Brookings Institute fellow, and had the same question regarding attribution of the statement to Einstein. He was going to write to Einstein, and his advisor George F Zook (head of the American Council on Education) offered to write the letter instead, thinking that Einstein would be more likely to reply to a question from someone well-known (Zook had been Commissioner of Education under Franklin D Roosevelt, and was head of the American Council on Education at the time). Einstein wrote back, confirming that he had made that statement. Zook gave the original of the letter to my father. I've tried to preserve the oddities in the typing in the original, but not the exact spacing:
[embossed stamp reading:] A. EINSTEIN 112 MERCER STREET PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY U.S.A. Mr.George F.Zook,President American Council on Education 744 Jackson Pl. Washington, D.C. My dear Mr.Zook: I remember very well to have made the statement concerning the courageous stand of a part of the protestant church in Germany against Nazism and that this steadfastness is sharply contrasting with the lack of character and intellectual courage shown by nearly all the German scientists in our time. But I made this statement orally to a newspaperman who wrote it down; I myself have no copy of it. Sincerely yours, [Einstein's signature] Professor Albert Einstein.
All the quote as it is now has to stay completely or be removed completely. Suggesting through omission that he toed the line of the Abrahamic God is not done. tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
What is the theory of relativity? 2600:1012:B16D:1D0B:859E:24A7:D866:6CF7 ( talk) 01:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
quoting the article -- "Einstein declared that he was no positivist, and maintained that [:]
we use
( with a certain right )
concepts
to which
there is no access from
the materials of sensory experience."
My line breaks and brackets. This sentence is in the article totally unpunctuated. *I* can just about parse it, but it must be difficult to read for the vast majority of people. If it's a quote, then I think it needs to be refactored or simplified from the original text. If the grammar has come from a quote, it should not be included transposed into a new sentence. I realise the readers of this article will be intellectual and have very good English, but it should not be as tough as this. I am happy for the article to use conservative or even archaic grammar, especially as Einstein himself did, but it must not become alienating to readers. I could have edited in my own commas, but I wanted to ask first. Elmeter ( talk) 18:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)