Though the voices for the
harmony of science and religion have been swelling since 1927 (year of The
Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle), the most clamorous voices and the general
perception is still very much that the two are at loggerheads with each other
and that only one of the two can ultimately win. Max Jammer’s 1999 book Einstein and Religion has only recently come to my attention,
though I along with many Bahá’ís have long been familiar with Einstein’s famous
statement that “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind.” It is easy to exult that the
most famous mind of the twentieth century should utter such a quotable
statement that so closely parallels Bahá’í teachings, but before we put him in
front of the seventy-six trombones at the head of the parade, let’s take a
closer look at his overall vision.
Of
course Einstein is not famous for his religious pronouncements, and we know of
his views on the subject chiefly from three major papers he prepared upon
request and written and spoken communications in which he responded to
questions of religion. In his book Max
Jammer analyzes these in great detail, along with the reactions of the
scientific and religious communities, as well as the implications to Physics of
Einstein’s views.
He was
born into a non-religious German Jewish family and was educated in Catholic
schools (with a Jewish tutor to balance things out). He seems to have accepted his early religious
training without rebellion. He once said
in an interview, “I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the
Nazarene.” When he began to involve
himself seriously with philosophy and scientific books he began to express
disdain for superstitions, rituals, and the kind of God of the popular
imagination. He found a deep affinity in
his philosophical views with the seventeenth-century Dutch Jewish philosopher
Baruch Spinoza. The third major element
in his spiritual views was music, a subject barely touched upon in this book.
A
personality trait that marked Einstein was his non-acceptance of authority,
which served him well in science, and in the arena of religion, similarly, he
followed his own best insights and his keen sense of conscience, accepting no
doctrine at face value. He had a strong
identity as a Jew, but at his death, contrary to Jewish tradition, had his body
cremated and his ashes scattered.
Einstein did not only use his
powerful capacity for rational thought to form his personal theology, but also
analyzed his perceptions and experience.
He told a critic at a 1927 Valentine’s Day dinner in Berlin: “Try and
penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that,
behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle,
intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration
for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.” (pg.
39-40) He strongly suggested that the
true scientist was also deeply religious:
“[Cosmic religious experience] “is the strongest and noblest driving
force behind scientific research.” (pg. 80)
And, “I am of the opinion that all the finer speculations in the realm
of science spring from a deep religious feeling, and without such feeling they
would not be fruitful.” (pg. 68-69)
We get the idea that science
replaces religion in the minds of not only scientists, but a host of others for
whom rational thought has been placed far above faith. Einstein’s was far from this: “The most beautiful experience we can have is
the mysterious. It is the fundamental
emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder,
no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery – even if
mixed with fear – that engendered religion.
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our
perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only
in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds – it is this
knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and
in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or
has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves.” (pg. 73)
But did he see any connection
between the two, or did he just happen to be both scientific and religious,
just as someone could be both a jazz saxophonist and a basketball player to
boot?
“Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly
imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from
the sphere of religion . . . I cannot
conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion
without science is blind.” (pg. 94)
It is easier to see how science
helps religion, by dispelling superstitions or confirming Scripture. How does religions help science?: “Even science at an advanced stage, cannot
define, let alone commend, ethical values.
For science is confined to what is
and ethics to what should be, and no
path leads from the knowledge of what is to the knowledge of what should be.” (pg. 52)
Einstein declared that our moral judgements, our sense of beauty, and
religious instincts are “tributary forms in helping the reasoning faculty towards
its highest achievements. You are right
in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn it around
and speak of the scientific foundations of morality . . . every attempt to
reduce ethics to scientific formulae must fail.” (pg. 69)
He cautioned that the knowledge of science and religion
is not mutually exclusive, and religious knowledge should not concern itself
with only that which science cannot explain, something that has been called “God
of the gaps”: “A doctrine which is able
to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity
lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress.” (pg. 232)
In summary, Einstein shows the
connection between science and religion in most persuasive terms, hard to argue
with, though not conclusive if one stubbornly wishes to differ. His view of God is very personal and
intimate, and we immediately see how real God is to him as a benign presence,
and we are cheered that he sees God at the beginning and end of all
investigative enterprise, and scientific endeavour only strengthens his sense
of mystery and wonder at what must lie behind this amazing Creation. His is a faith many a Bahá’í strive for in
vain. He also asserted that we learn
about God from special individuals, though he mentions only Moses and
Christ. He differed from Bahá’í teaching
in at least two fundamental ways: first,
his his rejection of a personal God that rewards and punishes, to whom one may
petition and hope for a direct result, and who suspends the very laws He
Himself has created in order to answer these prayers; and secondly, he rejected
the idea of free will in favour of determinism.
This philosophy suited his scientific and Spinozan views, and may seem
rigid in its vehemence, yet is remarkably close in expression to the following passages
from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh:
The
decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are
of two kinds . . . The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men,
impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed
and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must
result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained
unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed
and confidently abide by the same. The
decree that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed
in averting it. (Gleanings, pg. 132)
Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already
accomplished . . . All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy
and hidden Tablets. This fore-knowledge of God, however, should not be regarded
as having caused the actions of men, just as your own previous knowledge that a
certain event is to occur, or your desire that it should happen, is not and can
never be the reason for its occurrence. (Gleanings, pg. 148)
