5 comments about Einstein and Religion.

1. On page seventy-five Jammer writes "As he once explained to a Japanese scholar, a deep feeling and his belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of expeirence represent his concept of God." That's where I started to really fall for this book. When Jammer quotes Protestant Paul Tillich (passages written in 1940) and Catholic Hans Kung--both prominent Professors of Christian theology--on Einstein's denial of a personal God, I was in love with the book, now better understanding the theological term "a personal God" from the "Jewish-Christain" Tradition. One wonders if Einstein could have read what his friend Max Jammer has written whether Einstein would have softened or even overturned his statements about his denial of a personal God. Also, once Tillich's (with Hans Kung) and Einstein's ideas are laid out together, Einstein's views don't seem to have deserved the public outrage that they received in the 1930's onward by prominent members of the Catholic Church, Protestant Christians, and Orthodox Rabbis. As Max Jammer points out, it's not as if any of Einstein's critics believe that God is a mere person with all our faults and imperfections. In that sense no orthodox Rabbi, Preist, or Preacher would claim to believe in a personal God either.



2. By some accounts Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was the greatest theoretical physicist of the twentieth century, if not of all time. Max Jammer, Professor of Physics Emeritus and former Rector at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, has written an eminently readable account of Einstein's thoughts on religion, a subject that he insists has been ignored by the over 400 books on Einstein published in the last several decades. Einstein renounced accusations that he was an atheist, and railed against the intolerance of those whom he called "the fanatical atheists." In his three long chapters Jammer portrays Einstein as "undogmatic and yet profoundly religious."
   
   In his first chapter Jammer treats the role of religion in Einstein's private life. Born to what he described as "entirely irreligious Jewish parents," Einstein attended a Catholic primary school where like all students he received religious instruction. From the influences of nature and music he developed pronounced religious feelings quite early, although by age twelve he became estranged from institutional religion (although not from religion as he would define it) through reading some popular scientific books. His first wife, Mileva Maric, was Greek Orthodox, and his last wishes were to be cremated rather than to be buried in any religious tradition. Einstein was decidedly irreligious in the sense that he rejected any and all institutional affiliations, never attended worship services or prayed, rejected all dogmatic theology (eg, miracles, the afterlife or prayer), did not believe that God was in any sense personal, and was a strict determinist. But he found it impossible not to think of himself as religious in the sense of humility and awe at the mystery, rationality and complexity of nature: "the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." Behind the mystery of nature there seemed to be some superior intelligence: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
   
   Chapter two explores what Einstein wrote about religion (he studiously avoided using the word "theology"). As a convinced determinist Einstein did not believe in human free will. He viewed science and religion as complementary rather than as antagonistic, seen in his famous aphorism that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Science cannot determine ethics or inform us of ultimate purpose or meaning, thought Einstein, for "knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be." Science could never, then, displace or supercede religion. In his final and longest chapter, Jammer examines the possible ramifications of Einstein's theory of relativity and rejection of quantum mechanics ("God," wrote Einstein in 1926, "does not play dice.") for theological ideas like time, eternity, creation ex nihilo, and the Big Bang. Einstein himself rather disingenuously denied that there was any relationship between his physics and theology.
   
   Well-known for his aversion to social convention and defiance of authority, Einstein used a paradox to summarize his personal beliefs and professional thoughts about religion. About a year before he died Einstein wrote in a letter that he understood himself to be a "deeply religious unbeliever." He rejected any and all notions of traditional, institutional religion, but he just as vociferously repudiated atheists who tried to claim him for their cause. Rather, he embraced something like grateful and humble Cosmic Awe at the beauty and complexity of the world he strove so mightily to understand.



3. Do not be deceived by the welcoming jacket on this book. This is primarily an academic text.
   
   The subtitle is "physics and theology" and not the other way around. This may be deliberate, because although the book actually starts with an emphasis on theology it evolves (or devolves, depending on your perspective) into a treatise on advanced physics.
   
   Despite Jammer's sometimes ackward English and despite the fact that portions read like a master's thesis in philosophy - the book is most accessible on the theological side. The reader gets insight into the spiritual side of Einstein. Jammer shows conclusively that Einstein did believe in God and does a reasonably good job presenting the philisophical underpinnings of Einstein's beliefs.
   
   Unless you have studied advanced quantum physics the second part of this book is very tough going.



4. I think Jammer has not done a thorough enough job on Einstein's denial of free will. I have many books on and about Einstein and I know of many instances in which he made his strict determinism clear. Here is room for improvement.
   
   Jammer is wrong to imply that Einstein's initial belief in a static universe was the result of reading Spinoza. The fact is, many scientists at the time believed in a static universe, and probably most of them had never read Spinoza. Indeed, when Hubble showed that our universe was (and still is) expanding, the scientifc community was taken by surprise. I don't think Spinoza had anything to do with this.
   
   Jammer has said little about the importance of Hume and Schopenhauer to Einstein's philosophical and scientific views. This is a mistake. Hume and Schopenhauer were at least as important to Einstein as Spinoza. The neglect of Schopenhauer may have something to do with the philosopher's antisemitism. But Schopenhauer remained Einstein's favorite philosopher. In his study Einstein had pictures of Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, and Schopenhauer - the sole philosopher of the lot. Einstein quoted from him often on a wide range of subjects. If Schopenhauer was an antisemite, that's because he was such a misanthrope. In fact, he disliked Germans even more (and he was one of them).
   
   I agree that locality and determinism were two of Einstein's fundamental beliefs. Jammer reports with glee that locality has been proven wrong. So therefore determinism may also be wrong, he seems to imply. But according to John Bell, nonlocality may actually prove strict determinism to be right! (I don't believe Einstein was wrong about determinism as an objective fact, even though his interpretation of quantum mechanics may be wrong. The fact is, Heisenberg uncertainty shows up only during measurements; isolated systems are strictly deterministic. Of course, no one knows where this uncertainty comes from - hence the mystery.)
   
   I think that on the whole this book is good. But Jammer places far too much emphasis on Einstein's "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame" as though this remark, probably made tongue in cheek, summarized Einstein's religious views. I doubt it. Even if it does, this by no means imply this is an unassailable truth. Steven Weinberg believes that science and religion are antagonistic, one representing knowledge, the other representing ignorance. I agree with Weinberg.



5. I think Jammer does us a fine service by writing a book about a subject that is too often neglected. Not that Einstein's religious views were ever unknown, but it is surprising that this seems to be the first book devoted to this subject.
   
   The exchanges between Einstein and Rabbi Geller are for me an important new piece of information (see pp. 85-86), as is Einstein's denial of free will in his letter to Besso (p. 87). But interestingly, Jammer neglects to mention Einstein's letter to Otto Juliusburger, who in 1946 tried to assess Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust. Einstein's reply would not now be considered politically correct (at least in Jammer's Israel): "You take a definite stance on Hitler's responsibility... Objectively, there is after all no free will. What need is there for a criterion for responsibility?" Einstein was of course a sworn enemy of Hitler (and so should he be). But this statement is so amazing that I think Jammer was wrong to omit it. He should have quoted this statement, while emphasizing that Einstein blamed Hitler and the Germans for their evil deeds and he never forgave them. (Most of these quotes, especially if from private letters, are kept in the multi-volume "Collected Papers of Albert Einstein" published by Princeton UP and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.)
   
   In one of the more interesting quotes in this book, Einstein believed quantum mechanics has no practically relevant impact on his deterministic view of life-events. But in this connection Jammer fails to mention how Bohr's complementarity could be applied to Einstein's determinism with satisfactory results - even though Jammer has a third of the book devoted to speculation about how science now affects philosophical and religious matters. (Despite this, there are some important Einstein quotes in this chapter as well.)
   
   It is obvious that Einstein rejected the notion that quantum uncertainty undermines his denial of free will because he rejected quantum mechanics itself. Jammer points out that Einstein was wrong about locality, which was one of his main objections to quantum mechanics. Jammer cites Bell's theorem (p. 226) and the Aspect experiments as proving nonlocality, and claims that Einstein's belief in locality and his determinism are two basic tenets of his philosophy, as they indeed appear to be. But Jammer's implication seems to be that if Einstein got locality wrong, perhaps he was completely wrong about quantum mechanics, hence about quantum uncertainty, thus about determinism, thus about...his denial of free will? In other words, if Einstein was wrong about locality, he might have been wrong about determinism too. If Einstein was mistaken about one basic tenet of his philosophy, what makes us think he was right about the other? What Jammer fails to realize is that it was John Bell himself who said that strict determinism could well be the only way to make nonlocality compatible with all those horrible paradoxes like faster-than-light signals which contradict Special Relativity. In Bell's opinion, Einstein might have been wrong about nature being local, but strict determinism of which Einstein was always convinced might not be wrong after all. This is such an important point that I think Jammer should have discussed it, especially in Chapter 3, where he discusses his (Jammer's) own views on Einstein's philosophy.
   
   On a more trivial note, Jammer is wrong that Einstein picked up his denial of the freedom of the will from Spinoza. The fact is, Einstein got this idea first from Schopenhauer, then from Hume, and only later from Spinoza. I was disappointed how Jammer has throughout this book neglected the importance of Schopenhauer and Hume in Einstein's philosophical and religious development. I would agree though that Einstein's "cosmic religion" came from Spinoza.
   
   Jammer is at pains to emphasize that he doesn't proselytize or paddle any religious or sectarian viewpoints. He succeeds in this regard, in my opinion. What he does clearly try to convey, though, is the impression that religion in general and science are not in conflict, and he quotes Einstein's facetiously ambiguous statement "Science without religion is blind; religion with science is lame" (or something to this effect) to prove this point, almost ad nauseum. I'm not sure Jammer has convinced me. But Einstein's statements about religion are often ambiguous and confusing enough to provide plenty of material for someone with a secret ax to grind to quote from. On the other hand, Einstein was quite adamant and clear in (1) his determinism, (2) his denial of the immortality of the soul (which Einstein did not believe exist apart from the brain), and (3) his denial of a personal God. Jammer does a good job of faithfully reporting these views. This is not as easy a task as it seems, because (1) clearly conflicts with the deeply held beliefs of most people and the basic dogmas of Christian, Catholic, and Jewish religions; because (3) conflicts with all major religions excepting Buddhism; and because (2) conflicts with ALL religions, past and present. So I think Jammer has shown his competence here.
   
   A "B-" effort. I hope someday someone will come up with an even better one. Right now this is the best we have.

4 comments about There Must Be Something More!.

1. I've read some of the previous reviews that say that Sid Roth is a "traitor Jew", but I do not agree with that assessment. Sid Roth is a man who was deeply involved in the New Age movement and occult practices. This book details his search for "something more." He found that in Jesus, the Messiah.
   
   If you enjoy biographies of saints or other spiritual people you will enjoy this book. If you are involved in the occult or new age, and don't understand what we Christians have "found", you just might come to understand, reading this book.



2. The fact that Sid Roth has become a celebrity in the fundamentalist Christian circuit only attests to the basic talentlessness of fundamentalist Christians.

   This book is the standard whiny "I was bad, bad BAD and then I found Jesus" storyline. Sid Roth paints everything before his conversion in dark evil colors to contrast with the happy smily face stuff afterwards. Some creepy scenes like Sid swooping down on his brother-in-law at his neice's funeral in order to get the guy to also accept Jesus. While there's the happy "we're all going to Heaven now" speech by the nephew, the neice didn't accept Jesus so she's probably in Hell according to his logic. THere's also the family having a little party in the hospice because they've finally convinced their non-religious father to at least say that Jesus is the Messiah. The last chapter is a lot of scholarly babble that is convincing to people not accustomed to scholarly papers, but lacks credibility in that it doesn't prove its prime theses (ie. Jesus is a valid extension of Judaism) and instead attacks another thesis (ie. Talmudic Judaism is the only true form of Judaism).

   Not much else to recommend in this book. If you like these kind of born again confessionals check out Mike Warnke's The Satan Seller (yes, I know it's a fabrication but it's also a great read). If you want convincing that Jews are eventually come around and become Christians, forget it. If you want to know about so-called "messianic judaism" go to a Baptist Church since they fund it and it's pretty much their religion with yarmulkes, tzitzits and a few Hebrew phrases thrown in for good measure.




3. Poor Mr. Roth has really done good job of "exciting" people. He really has a heart for God (the true G-O-D, not the idol type). As for these people afraid of this message in his book... losen-up! God loves EVERYONE. And Jesus Died for you just like for everyone else! Christianity is not a cult, It's a loving companionship with The True God. I'll be praying for you.



4. May St. Augustine's bones rot in hell for giving us the dubious confessional genre of literature. Now every Christian can babble on and on about how bad they were until they gave their lives (not to mention all of their brain cells to Jesus). Sid does have some interesting stories at the beginning, and anyone who knows anything about Judaism will be amused by his utter ignorance of the religion he is pretending to "improve". The "occult" sections are the most hilarious since anyone who studies anything mystical will tell you that casting spells is something that three year olds do and not mature adults, but by Sid's own admission he was never a mature adult. When Sid finally decides to get his life in order and seek something beyond his own ego he makes a pit stop at scary fundamentalism and never lets up. No matter how old this book is, no matter how hackneyed and cliched are the man's beliefs, no matter how little thinking is required for his bumper sticker ideaology, he is the same moron today as he was then. The only problem is is that he has written this book in an effort to get other Jews into these kinds of mind control cults, and to keep the Jews in the mind control cult of "messianic Judaism" pompous in their ignorance of Judaism and the Bible. The last few chapters are given to a "scholar" whose PhD hasn't helped him in critical thinking. In responding to the criticisms of real Jews he takes the offensive saying that the Oral Torah or Talmud were also creations and departures form the original Sinai experience, all the while neglecting to defend Christianity as any less of a departure. This would be a pathetic piece of crap if it didn't have a sinister purpose and that is to enable the Christians to get ahold of the Jews unexcited by their heritage, much like the Amalekites attacked the Jews at the back of the line during the Exodus, and to make them into Christians, thereby eliminating Judaism and completing Hitler's job.

2 comments about Lights of the Spirit: Historical Portraits of Black Baha'is in North America, 1898-2000.

1. I happened to read "Lights of the Spirit" at the same time as "Beautiful Jim Key." Both were books about Black Americans who lived during the late 19th and early 20th century. Both presented a theme of altruism. But there was a startling contrast. The author of "Beautiful Jim Key" was presenting Dr. Bill Key, his horse Jim Key, and his promoter Albert Rogers as altruistic promoters of kindness to animals, but what constantly came to the fore, obviously because it was so prominantly there in her source materials, was the commercialism and the great wealth they personally amassed while giving a portion of their "take" to organizations like ASPCA. This was in stark contrast to the altruism of the people portrayed in "Lights of the Spirit." Many of the people portrayed became Baha'is because of the Baha'i emphasis on racial equality and unlearning prejudice, and they went out to promote both the Baha'i Faith and the uplifting of the status of Black people at great sacrifice, earning no money for themselves in the process but rather frequently financing what they were doing from what they earned in jobs that were not related to what they were promoting. That to me is the definition of altruism: that one gives without realizing gain for oneself; and that is what is portrayed in "Lights of the Spirit." My main criticism of the book was that there was some repetition because some sections of the book had been written for publication elsewhere and later included into a book. This caused a bit of repetitiveness that I would have liked to see edited out.



2. Lights Of The Spirit: Historical Portraits Of Black Baha'is In North America, 1898-2000 is a seminal, 338 page historical work containing studies and biographical material on extraordinary African Americans actively developing the Baha'i faith. Originating in Iran in 1844, the Baha'i faith is an independent world religion that holds racial equality as a central lynch pin of their faith. In the words of prophet founder Baha'u'llah's son, Abdu'l-Baha, colored people are comparable to the black pupil of the eye surrounded by the white. In this black pupil you see the reflection of that which is before it, and through it the light of the spirit shineth forth (preface). Information about Sadie Oglesby, Alain Locke, Dorothy Champ, Coralie Franklin Cook and George William Cooke, Dizzy Gillespie, Elsie Austin, Louis Turner, and Robert Turner is presented along with many other pioneers of the Black Baha'i movement in North America. The editors, both Baha'i scholars, bring many diverse pieces of the puzzle together for the first time. Included are twenty separate chapters of informed and informative information, including some essays on racial history and the rise of the Baha'i religion in North America, some of which are more world-directed in tone, plus some categorized as family histories, including portraits of Sadie Rebecca Johnson Ellis, Mary Brown Martin, and other heroines of the faith. One particularly fascination chapter is titled" Black Roses in Canada's Mosaic: Four Decades of Black History", BY W. C. van den Hoonaard and Lynn Echevarria. Lights Of The Spirit provides meticulous data about Black women in Canada who promulgated the Baha'i faith. Lights Of The Spirit is an important first key to the ongoing development of ethical religious consciousness and the fundamental need for racial equality and an excellent read earning high praise and recommendation to students of religion, sociology, and all who live and teach racial equality.

No comments about Through Painted Deserts CD: Light, God, and Beauty on the Open Road.

2 comments about The Gift Nobody Wants: The Inspiring Story of a Surgeon Who Discovers Why We Hurt and What We Can Do About It.

1. This one of the few books I have read that I have truly enjoyed to the very end. It was on a list of recommended reading by a well-known professsor of anatomy and physiology. (I am a not-so-well known new instructor of the same subject.) There are many clear, accessible explanations of how the body's nervous system works, along with inspiring stories of leprosy patients and the people who came alongside them. If I had read this book in my 20's, I think I might have truly wanted to go into medicine.



2. The single most important text on pain to be published in this century. The layman or medical professional will find long-awaited answers for pain management in their own lives or in the lives of their patients. A "must read" for every health professional and person in pain. I recommend it to every patient that I treat who is suffering from signficant pain. Michael Reith, Occupational Therapist

1 comments about Meet Me in Managua: The Powerful Story of Nicaragua Reborn.

1. While this is an interesting book about the history of the Rainbow Connection, a non-profit run by a US millionaire, it does not provide much insight about the effect of the Rainbow Connection on the communities that it has worked with. It focuses on a brief history of the country and then provides vignettes from people in the communities where the Rainbow Connection is active. If you are interested in the Rainbow Connection and its humanitarian efforts, then this book is a good choice; if you are more interested in learning about the history of Nicaragua and the effect of NGO's then this is not a book for you.

5 comments about Under the Shadow.

1. This book would be an excellent addition to anyone's library of eschatological books. However, it was written in the 1800s, so the writing may be a little unfamiliar to the younger generation. Struggling seminary students who are watching their pennies can find this entire text for free online as an e-book.



2. Uriah Smith, who lived and wrote over a century ago, has offered present day readers additional food-for-thought from the past about our institutional religions. Have they truly freed men, or enslaved them? Smith suggests a little of both and has provided us with an excellent read in this era of Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code.



3. I definitely disagree with one of the reviews i read on this site about Daniel and Revelation. Obviously people are going to doubt no matter what, but what was said made me wonder if they actually read the book. This book along with sited scripture, explains the history that has proven prophecy true. The Word of God stands the test of time, and this is a description and explanation comparing the historical events to the symbolism of scripture. It is a great book for anyone who has ever questioned faith, God, prophecy or the Bible's validity. A great book and i recommend it to all who may read it.



4. The layperson may get more out of this than students and scholars as this commentary attempts to rewrite the text in "understandable" language. By reading the title it is apparent that he takes a firm stance on the fourth kingdom as Rome. He doesnt comment on any other kind of reading and makes statements about uncertainties within the text as if they were inalienable truths.



5. DANIEL AND THE REVELATION IS ONE OF THE MOST EXPLORATIVE AND IN DEPTH BOOKS I HAVE READ. THE BOOK GIVES THE READER A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF PROPHECY. I HAVE TESTED THIS BOOK AGAINST THE BIBLE, AND IT STANDS THE TEST OF TIME. I NO LONGER HAVE DANIEL AND THE REVELATION, AND CAN NOT FIND IT IN BOOKSTORES. IF YOU CAN SUGGEST A BOOKSTORE I WOULD APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.

No comments about Basil of Caesarea (Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 20).

3 comments about Moses: A Memoir.

1. 
   
   Joel Cohen has written a special book that personalizes Moses and brings him to life. Cohen's account forces the reader to reflect on our everyday challenges and to realize that they are part of life. Cohen weaves historical and biblical context in a very modern treatment of Moses. If you think your pack is heavy, Moses and Cohen make it seem much lighter. Terrific piece of work. This is one author that should consider quitting his day job.



2. Although I am not an expert in the field of bible study and while my writing is mostly confined to trade journals, this work provided tremendous insight for me into the inner thoughts of this complex individual who led the Jewish People during a monumental period in their history. No doubt an expert in Bible Studies would also benefit from this structured, well written book. It certainly encouraged me to get my bible off the bookshelf.



3. Although not a biblical scholar, I was intrigued by Ralph Blumenthal of the New York Times' glorious review of Joel Cohen's interpretation of the inner thoughts of Moses. Unable to discern from the review whether "Moses: A Memoir" was a scholarly work, a novel, or a psychological treatise I was fascinated enough by the concept to put the book on the top of my reading list. Needless to say, as anyone who is fortunate enough to have read the book, it is all three. Mr. Cohen brilliantly weaves biblical passages in and out of stunningly written prose, leaving the bilblical neophyte, such as myself, wanting to go back and re-read the bible, and the biblical scholar with much to ponder and debate. This book is a gem.

No comments about The Sullivan Family: 50 Years in Bluegrass Gospel Music.