Einstein, God, and the Religious Experience
By Miguel Guanipa (06/28/08)
Gather up all of the collected works penned by the late Pope John Paul II and the sheer volume of information contained in his manuscripts should yield a definitive answer to the question: Was the Pope Catholic? But today both secular and religious scholars are more inclined to overanalyze the few scattered ruminations from iconic figures in history, which they then go on to authoritatively register as definitive confirmation of their true character and innermost spiritual convictions. They are often able to hazard such farfetched analyses with impunity as most of them are seldom asked to explain how it is that such idiosyncrasies seem to have mysteriously escaped the notice of the deceased’s own contemporaries.
This is what appeared to be the prevailing exegetical mood at a recent auction in London, where a letter written by Albert Einstein in 1954 was sold for a whopping £170,000. In the letter Einstein calls the Bible “a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” - a remark which seemed to offer such a chorus of vindication to the cause of unbelief that even the famed atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins ventured a generous bid to purchase this rare item.
The story underlines the enduring schism between science and religion, which in broad terms can be defined as the age old battle between those who would embrace a fully secularized society versus those who prefer the culture to be more attuned to the spiritual realities. This divide is premised on a strong objection against each respective worldview’s encroachment upon the other’s sacred domain. The conflict is often crystallized in the posited disparities between the world of science – which views itself as holding on to what we know as the real - and the world of religion – which has presumably wagered its cultural relevance on things not of this world - where each is pitted against the other for the grand prize of being categorically defined as holding preeminence over all other competing worldviews. Incidentally, a striking undercurrent can also be found in the diverse ideological stances held by this country’s two dominant political factions, and it is a similar suspicion of being usurped by the other that has often polarized them.
Thus Einstein’s missive not only raises interesting questions about his personal religious affectations – though it could very well be he was simply in a foul mood that day - but it also prompts a self-serving reminder to atheists that they are not in such bad company after all. They may fancy it a clarion call from the grave to hold fast to the intellectual ground in the public square, after having secured official confirmation from one of their long expired dignitaries that religion is little more than the emotional crutch of a barren intellect.
But, as I alluded to earlier, both the pious and the libertines have in times past been guilty of parsing the unrehearsed observations of many a dearly departed, to buttress their argument that such declarations are unmistakable tokens of empathy towards one or the other’s creed. This is why any opportunity to enlist a person – dead or alive - of great intellect to one’s faith is of so much consequence, as it indirectly confers some legitimacy to one’s deepest convictions, while at the same time it affords the opportunity to revel in the vicarious humiliation of our ideological adversaries. But this is in part a grand illusion.
Both the Christian and Judaic faith boast of very rich intellectual traditions, but that is not what makes them uniquely worthy of consideration Though both faiths encourage the seeker to fully employ the faculties of the mind - along with their physical strength and emotional stamina - as carnal vehicles to understand and maintain a consistent devotion to their truth claims, it is an elitist human propensity which drives the notion that a person’s intellectual quotient is a reliable criterion for appraising the substance of their spiritual fidelity, or lack thereof.
History is witness to some of the keenest intellects that have earnestly followed the path of spiritual growth, as well as arguably less than nimble minds that have stood firmly for the cause of unbelief – and vice versa. But although a robust intellect is not always a negotiable component of faith or one that should be willingly dispensed with, neither the validity of the tenets of these two major historic creeds nor the authenticity of the host of religious experiences can be proven or discredited by mere intellect alone.
It is in his direct revelation which God has graciously provided - and continues to provide - through the scriptures, nature, and the universal conscience of man, that we can begin the journey towards a clearer – but never final – understanding of his ways. One is not forbidden to try, but should never presume we will be able to intellectually prove or disprove his existence. It is the pride of man that leads him to presume that his prowess as a created being will eventually unveil the infinite ways of the one who fashioned him.
Another reality that will likely remain shrouded in mystery is that from the simplest mind to the most penetrating intellect, the acceptance of faith is ultimately an exercise of the will. A person who carefully examines the claims of what bills itself as divinely inspired scriptures will inevitable be faced with an incontrovertible choice. Neutrality is the one thing God does not encourage when it comes to what he has already declared matters of eternal significance. One hopes that unlike today’s scholars, the almighty relied not on a few of Einstein’s extemporaneous remarks to ascertain where his heart was truly anchored when it came to such matters.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
