Kate said- I will read all of Max Jammer's book. I will try and read it without any bias. But I am bias as we all are. So it is likely Mr Jammer will confirm my bias. You read it too Adam and we can compare notes. What do you think?
Well, the goal is to try to reduce (or eliminate) as much bias as possible, but it's safer just to assume it's always present, and seek the opinions of others to make sure we're not carried away by our biases.
I've read MANY books on Einstein, including his views on religion and God, back in the 1970's (including the book Einstein penned in 1949, "The World As I See it", which contained a reprinting of the article published in the NY Times in the 1930 in the link). So I'm actually pretty comfortable with my grasp of Einstein's expressed views on the subject.
TT2C said: Additionaly, why does it matter what Einstein believed or not? Speculating on his personal belief's in god to support your own belief system is a logical fallicy - an appeal to authority. In a way, It's this same fallacy, that got us all stuck in a cult.
True, since the believer's often resort to an implicit argument of fear of Hell: do it cuz' God says so. It's the most flagrant and onerous fallacy there is: an appeal to Divine Authority.
Regardless, an 'appeal to authority' triggers an automatic 'yellow flag' to check out the credentials of the cited authority to see if they're credible or not (and that's a bit tricky to do with God, and what makes it an invalid argument, since the believer is unable to prove God's existence, much less verify his credibility as an 'expert').
TT2C said: If you want to believe in god, your free to do that, if you want to defend god, it should be based on logic, facts, or personal experience and observervations, not based on whether or not someone else of stature believed or not.
However, Einstein is famous as a genius and physicist: his beliefs are given some weight as an authority as a result of studying the Universe. If you think of it, the opinions of Einstein and other men of science actually carries more authority on the subject of God's existence than religious leaders (eg the Pope, the GB, etc), since the leaders might have somewhat more of a conflict of interest? Maybe?
Frankly, I think those in the physical sciences (like physicists) are generally offered less exposure to studying creation in the same light possible as for those in the life sciences (like biologists), since physicists study matter, and not living matter. You really have to get into the biochemistry and taxonomy of lifeforms in order to see why evolution makes sense on so many levels, and is the unifying theory of biology that the physicists are still searching for in their field.
But yeah, it's good to remember that knowledge constantly changes and expands, and there's more reasons for professing belief than meets the eye (eg Einstein may have been trying to flatter that violinist after seeing they were wearing a cross, etc).