34 13

It’s interesting to me that saying anything remotely positive about religion brings accusations of “apologist!” or “idiot!”. So was Einstein an idiot?

From Wikipedia:
According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate atheists than religious people.

Einstein said in correspondence, "The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."

“A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities.”

“Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ...In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be...”

skado 9 July 20

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Some atheists are as fanatical as their religious counter part, I find them unpleasant.

I resemble that remark!

Seriously though, I honestly think more atheists need to speak out against the level of influence religion has on public policy.
The whole "live and let live" attitude has allowed for the "christians" to run roughshod over everyone. Now, any attempts to curtail religious influence and privilege are seen as "discrimination".

@KKGator I speak out, but the real issue is our government. Billy Graham was more than aware government might co-opt his brand of Hallelujah jeebus religion and of course it did. Yeah, more do need to speak out but there is no need to be a fanatic while doing it. Ease into like the old time christians let the pagan rituals morph with theirs to make the masses more accepting 😉. We need a gimmick - lol.

I agree.

@silverotter11 I understand what you're saying, I really do.
I'm just so over it all that there's no more "easing into" anything anymore.

Then again, I'm the quintessential bull in a china shop.
I have zero finesse.

@KKGator I think the live and let live notion is still a valid one, as long as it means that anyone can believe what they wish as long as they are not causing harm to others. Atheists can be much more effective if they stopped going around calling others idiots, and instead stuck to the vital issues, such as separation of church and state. The militant attitude along with childish name-calling that I have seen only serves to detract from the important issues. I love that we have organizations such as FFRF who are willing and able to take on the challenge.

@itsmedammit Andrew Seidel of the FFRF is one of my heroes. He's an amazing human being.

@itsmedammit I think part of the problem is that too many religious folks are not willing to live and let live, trying to cram their bullshit down everyone else's throats, whether that's directly by aggressive proselytizing, or more indirectly and insidiously by injecting it into government. And perhaps worse, too many not even attempting to call-out those behaviors.

@bingst It is true that there are many asshole religious people. I just think it pays to stick to the higher road.

@KKGator For me it depends on if I want to pretend I have some sort of social filter. The shock effect is fun or if the stupid is SO glaring mouth just takes on a life of it's own.

@itsmedammit You take the high road. I prefer to fight fire with fire.
I make no apologies for taking the low road. That's where most of them
are anyway.

@KKGator Okay, I'll be sure and wear my fireproof gear cause I will stand right by your side.

@Seeker3CO Yeah, I can't do that.
Fence-sitting has never been something I've been capable of.

@Seeker3CO ,@KKGator, @silver0tter11 Who is fence sitting? It's not about not speaking up. It's about being effective.

@itsmedammit No one called you a fence-sitter. It was being discussed in general terms.

@Seeker3CO Once again, I never said don't fight. I said do it from the high road. Please read what was written.

@KKGator Sorry, my bad, re fence sitting.

@Seeker3CO Sorry.


While I absolutely respect Albert Einstein, all he went through, his tremendous intellect, his remarkable sense of humor and all he accomplished, I do not entirely agree with him regarding his positions on religion and atheists.
We're humans like that.
Atheists can be selfless, have good values, have good intentions toward others,
and all the other things he attributed to believers.

He just did't run into the enlightened atheists! 😉


In my life experience, I have found a range of behaviors in people. I have found that both religious and non-religious people to have a range of open minded to closed minded behaviors. I do not believe in anything supernatural.. But I would likely be able to have a better friendship with an open minded believer than a closed minded non-believer. Why? The open minded believer (and there are some) would accept where my beliefs were and the close minded non believer would require me to disbelieve according to what they thought was the correct way. More people than one might imagine on this site think as @hankster has stated in terms of black and white or only one definition of "right and wrong".

I vote for the open mind as well.

That is the most sensible thing I’ve read in this thread!


Although I am not completely arrogant enough to call the faithful "idiots," (and they aren't. Atheists can be just as stupid and dogmatic as the faithful) but I cannot agree with einstein's view on religion. He had a brilliant mind, but that doesn't make his "religious" views correct or even preferable.


I don't think truly spiritual people are a problem. It's the ones mouthing about holiness and behaving like assholes get on my nerves.


Based on that quote it sounds like Einstein was speaking of the NT Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount Jesus, the love and help your fellow man Jesus -- that Jesus doesn't exist anymore. The character of Jesus has been revised into a modern, Libertarian leaning free-market capitalist who preaches a prosperity bible of wealth is best and we have no responsibility for our fellow man.

Help those less fortunate may have been a fashionable lesson in Einstein's day but today it's just viewed as socialism, a concept loathed by the conservative evangelicals who claim to live their lives according to what Jesus said. The fact is, they don't actually agree with what Jesus said so they've revised it to be more palatable to conservative sensibilities.

Einstein's notion of religion as stated here is outdated. That's not his fault, of course. The man just didn't live long enough to see it perverted into what it has become.

Very well said.

i don't see it. in addition, it is not impossible but quite unlikely, since einstein was born and raised jewish (and was hated by the nazis for that reason). to my knowledge he never embraced any kind of christianity. that doesn't mean he was ignorant of it -- but nothing in what he said suggests he was referring to it.


@genessaThat's not what I read.


I've been involved in discourse for many years. This is the only site I've been involved in where agnostics and atheists go at it with each other. I've seen agnostic members taunting atheists, not because they were name-calling or fanatical, but simply because they're atheists. In the earlier days, I almost left because there were many posts insinuating that atheists were unwelcomed here because this was supposedly agnostic turf. Yes, there are fanatical agnostics, too.

Whether you're an agnostic or atheist, name-calling is unproductive.

"Einstein was more inclined to denigrate atheists than religious people."

Oxford dictionary --- "denigrate somebody/something (formal) to criticize somebody/something unfairly ; to say somebody/something does not have any value or is not important --- synonym belittle"


No, he wasn't an idiot. He was human and had opinions, biases, and blind spots just like the rest of us.

Einstein certainly was human, but just to pick a nit with one of my favorite agnosticators... the word "denigrate" in that sentence was chosen by Isaacson; not Einstein. I don't see where Einstein was doing any name-calling or being unfair. He was just expressing his views relative to "fanatical atheism." How, for example, could he have expressed his views more "fairly"?

@skado also how I took it. Einstein wasn't denigrating anyone, he was refusing to side with the critics of religion by default.

@skado Yes, I was aware that denigrate was Isaacson's term of choice. I just found it interesting. How could he have expressed Einstein's views more fairly?

'Einstein was more inclined to oppose atheists than religious people.'

No, how could Einstein have expressed his views more fairly, if we are to believe Isaacson's assessment? My post is really about Einstein, not his biographer's opinion of him.

@skado Your post is really about your frustration with some people on this site. You were using selective quotes to back up your beliefs and opinions. Not all atheists who fervently challenge religion should be labeled as being slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains, nor should it be assumed that they are unable to hear the music of the spheres.

Einstein appears to have been projecting a bit when he shared his opinion. In some of his writings, he used similar analogies to describe himself early on in his life as a devout believer (though short-lived). I'm sure multitudes in his day (and now) saw/see him as a fanatic, too. Like most of us tend to do, he evolved in his beliefs and opinions throughout his life.

"For me the unaltered Jewish religion is, like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition." ~Albert Einstein.

Of course, he was referring to conventional religions (the vast majority), but so are those so-called "fanatical" atheists. I agree with you that there is some good that comes from religion, but just like yourself and Einstein, we all are hardwired with a negativity bias.

"The negativity bias, also known as the negativity effect, is the notion that even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things. In other words, something very positive will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative." []

I think you are kind of bending his words in an uncharitable way, when such an interpretation isn’t the only one available.
He didn’t label all of anything as being slaves.
He starts by isolating his comment to only the fanatical atheists. Have you not encountered any? They would happily denounce you as an “apologist” for saying “I agree with you that there is some good that comes from religion...” I see it here often. It’s an extreme form of willful ignorance.

Einstein met the definition most people use for atheist. He did not believe in a literal god. He was not denouncing himself or others who believed as he did - just the fanatics.

And there is no need to read anything unkind into a figure of speech using freedom from slavery. Have we not all felt a liberation from the burden of false beliefs? There is no shame in having been so captured at one time. The shame is in then turning right around and judging others for not being as enlightened as we are, and calling them idiots for believing what we once believed ourselves. And in being so cocksure that if a person doesn’t hate all aspects of religion that they must then be stealth apologists. That’s fanaticism.
And regardless of what Einstein did or didn’t think, I think that grudge can become a limiting, rather than a liberating, factor in the lives of those who hold it so tightly.

@skado "Have you not encountered any?

Yes, and they aren't just atheists.

Of course. It's a human thing.


I think he is talking about fanatics in both courts.

That is how it sounds to me, too.


I am wary of self-described atheists and vegans. We have a lot of shared beliefs, but every now and then an individual will display an off-putting arrogance and narrow-mindedness that I am rarely in the mood to challenge.

An atheist, a vegan, and a crossfitter walk into a bar...
I only know because they told everyone within two minutes.


some folks believe in black and white. they're wrong, but persistent.


Intelligence has many facets. It is not at all uncommon for a person to be brilliant in one or more facets, and far less than stellar in others.


I am baffled and bored of reading anti-religious posts and athiest persecution posts as well. Everyone has their own world view. Disparaging others is about I'm right and your wrong and I am better or smarter. Both create conflict and hardly advance anyone to a place of peace and enlightenment. Just an excuse to complain.
I do.however believe in separation of church and state, and abhor the politicians who use this flawed quality of being human to divide people.

As far as beliefs, they are like cookies, we don't demand to bam oatmeal cookies if we only like chocolate chip.

@Seeker3CO maybe

Belief isn't only about the accuracy of one's worldview. It's also about principle. If, for example, I say I believe in fair play, I'm not speaking about whether or not fair play exists. I'm talking about principles that I value. To say that fair play is either correct or incorrect you would have to refer to some universal source more authoritative than yourself... like a god. You won't find it in science. We choose values to believe in, and everybody chooses slightly differently.

Our dictionaries differ.
American Heritage Dictionary
-intr. 3. To have confidence in the truth, value or existence of something. Used with in: "Edison did not believe in the cinema." (Ivor Montagu).

So, according to American Heritage, "believing in punctuality" is not a misuse. That usage restriction is one of your personal preferences, like cookies, but other people clearly have different preferences.

Wrong word. The word is "believe."


As you wish. Consider it given up. I'm not interested in swapping personal assessments of each other; just interested in exchanging ideas. Best wishes.

@Seeker3CO I just don't see things as you do. just labeling beliefs as right or wrong, seems odd to me.We make meaning of everything and religions try to do the same thing,make meaning of life. Though I don't subscribe to a religion for my meaning, I have seen many versions even here. So your statement that beliefs are right or wrong, is as weird to me . I said maybe, because beliefs I don't agree with, well so what..I wouldnt say yours are wrong, just not mine.

@skado I've just noticed that @Seeker3CO has blocked me, and from what I see of your debate with him/her I am not very sad about it. Funny to follow your and gigihein's discussion with a ghost 🙂 Does not seem to be very rewarding


Einstein was also subject like all children at that time to his society’s absolute brainwashing by religion, he could develop but not erase his early life expectancies.


this is the point I have come to as well. I had my anger years as an agnostic then atheist then anti-theist. but as I distanced myself temporally from my horrid southern baptist upbringing that anger has given way to more compassion.


I think his non belief in a personal god is key. Seems that's where people go ape shit. In this area anyway.


When people are biased or partisan they tend to attack you whenever you disagree with anything having to do with the subject or person that they are biased or partisan about. whether it's true or not. The same thing happens in politics. Don't dare say something that is true that goes against their bias when it comes to Republicans or Democrats or Trump or Hillary etc etc etc.

I have been called names by Democrats for pointing out things about Trump that they want to believe are true, but aren't. They automatically deem me a Trumpster, GOP, defending Trump. This is despite me being a registered Democrat and that I'm further left than they are. I'm damn near pretty much a socialist. Republicans have done it to me too. They usually just call me a commie lol


Very good. I'm just off-put by anyone who talks in extremes -- I'm right, you're wrong, case closed. Anyone can be a fundamentalist, including atheists and agnostics.


I know some Really awesome people involeved in one way or the other with religion. I make to effort to convert them or bring them down in any way. I simply encourage people to think and hope that they come to different answers.


Einstein wasn't all that - he was a patent clerk. Even his E=mc2 was just a variation on earlier physicists work. He didn't understand time, space or gravity, he theorized a lot because he didn't understand physics.

gater Level 7 July 20, 2019

Yeah and you do? Right!

@creative51 im one of the few that do

@gater Well aren't you fucking special.

"he theorized a lot because he didn't understand physics."
This then also applies to you as you theorize a lot as well. 😉

If that is a joke it’s mildly amusing! If it’s not a joke, I suggest you have a look at Creationism and the Steady State Theory Of James Jeans and Fred Hoyle!

@Geoffrey51 I'll attempt to explain this to you. Some of the early philosophers had a better understanding of the Universe than any of todays astrophysicists. Hubble and theory is no match for Logic. The Universe is simple, time and space are infinite, meaning the Universe has always been here. Matter interacts at a constant rate, which we call Time. Matter creates Gravity, and gravity only effects matter - Gravity has no effect on time or space.

@gater There are a lot of scientists who would disagree with your proposition. For you to maintain you know what they do not, is quite a boast. This is just a web page posting , but I seen no links from you to any outside research that would support you in a credible manner. In short, you are full of BS.

@creative51 I gave you the facts of the Universe - obviously this topic is way over your head.

@gater excerpt from wikipedia

In order for a static infinite universe model to be viable, it must explain three things:

First, it must explain the intergalactic redshift. Second, it must explain the cosmic microwave background radiation. Third, it must have a mechanism to re-create matter (particularly hydrogen atoms) from radiation or other sources in order to avoid a gradual 'running down' of the universe due to the conversion of matter into energy in stellar processes.[7][8] With the absence of such a mechanism, the universe would consist of dead objects such as black holes and black dwarfs.

You have no explanations which answer these question in a credible manner.

And you are the posterior of a Equus africanus asinus.

@creative51 Who wrote that? What made him such an expert on truth? You don't know truth when its right in your face.

@gater I pretty much know the truth about you. 😳

@gater can you post some references if the work that supports this claim. It sounds intriguing.

@Geoffrey51 There are papers written proposing a static universe. But there are problems with the model so few scientists support that idea. The expanding universe model also has issues, but many scientists feel it has a lot fewer issues then the static universe model. What it really is may never be known, or might even be something which has yet to be defined.

@creative51 I just told you - time and space are infinite - its fact.

@gater please provide references to the assertion.

@gater, @creative51 Much as my understanding. I’m only aware of Fred Hoyle with regard to static universe and I thought that had been discarded quite some while ago.

@Geoffrey51 some people cling to all theories. No existing model solves all questions. I expect new models to be proposed in the near and distant future. One might question if it is possible to develop a model which explains all.

@Geoffrey51 There is no reference, Logically time and space have to be infinite.

@creative51 The model I made is perfect - all the science works. The reason most models don't work is many don't understand the true nature of time, space and matter. Time is a constant. Gravity only effects matter. Space is the complete absence of matter, that does not/ can not end.

@gater If believing the shit you are spouting out makes you happy, fine. Believe it all you want. But do not be so fucking pompous as to tell me its the truth. I KNOW you are full of bull shit.

@creative51 give me your model of the Universe - it will be clear who is full of shit.

@gater I do not buy in to any model completely, although the various multi universe models are quite intriguing. I just know that almost no physics people buy in to the static universe model anymore. Actually, given that we will likely never know anyway, I spend my time on more practical matters such as getting tRump out of office. Where you get my dander is your total conviction that the static model is "truth". Hell, there is no truth on universe models, just probabilities. Static model is very very low probability.

@gater in that case there would be work undertaking to corroborate that. Maybe Newton, Hawking. Undergraduate papers from Harvard or Oxford. Easy to look up on the internet now. Maybe worth checking before making unsubstantiated claims

@creative51 I know the truth - you are not smart enough to understand/comprehend what is true..

@Geoffrey51 I told you - my understanding of the Universe is based on Logic, and a understanding of the true nature of space, time and matter. The most popular theory is the Big Bang - however truth doesn't care popularity. Gravity has no effect on time or space - its retarded to think it does - where is any evidence that it does? no evidence - none - and yet these idiots base the BB theory on a belief that it does.
I feel like Copernicus trying to explain to the "experts" that the earth moves around the Sun - and they say - well everyone knows that the Sun moves around the earth.
I come in here and hand you people the truth about the Universe on a silver platter and all I get is grief.

@gater Great, then I end this pointless discussion.

@creative51 Likewise.

@creative51, @gater I know of a few Religious zealots who also know the ‘Truth’. You are in good company.

@creative51, @Geoffrey51 You two wouldn't recognize the truth even when its explained to you.

@gater @Geoffery51 Dude, you win. I forgot my rule, never argue with stupid people, they will beat you with experience.

@creative51 No real argument - I gave you the facts, and you're not bright enough to understand them.


I haven't the time to read all the below comments, so I don't know if anyone has pointed out the logical fallacy inherent in your post- the Appeal To Authority.

It doesn't actually matter what Einstein believed or how intelligent he was. His views on religion have no bearing. Whether he was a giant of physics (and he was) is irrelevant to his qualifications as a religious commentator. His views have exactly the same weight as yours, mine, or anyone else's who has given rational consideration to those beliefs. And my conclusion, after much consideration and debate, is that the only rational conclusion is that there is no God as described in any of the "holy books" or mythologies of humankind.

That Einstein believed there was a God, which personified the laws of the Universe, was his privilege. Whether or not he felt sympathy toward religious believers as opposed to "hard" atheists, is nothing to do with me or anyone else. And once again, his qualifications as a physicist did not give him any qualifications as a theologian.

Of course I didn’t claim that because a very smart man believed “X” that it must therefore be true. I just ever so casually brought up Einstein as a way of introducing an idea that I think stands on its own feet, regardless of who said it. Saying that he was not qualified to speak as an authority on this subject is an appeal to authority itself. It assumes that if Einstein were a theologian, then he could speak with authority.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m guessing there isn’t a theologian alive or dead whose authority you would respect on the subject of whether a literal god exists, so your appeal to an even higher authority rings hollow.

The point I was speaking to was the dichotomous thinking that I see so often surrounding this subject, and Einstein’s view is just an illustration of the opposite of that kind of thinking. Rather than an appeal to authority it’s an appeal to comprehensive thinking that addresses the complexities of the subject instead of just choosing sides in a black and white world.

Einstein didn’t believe in the god you don’t believe in one scintilla more than you do. Yet instead of engaging the ideas he presents you attack his authority.

You make my case for me.

@skado "It’s interesting to me that saying anything remotely positive about religion brings accusations of “apologist!” or “idiot!”. So was Einstein an idiot?"

This is the classic Appeal To Authority. Rather than make your own argument, you quote an Authority (in another field). Nor did you make an argument of your own, you quoted a Wiki article.

And if you can quote where I appealed to any Authority other than individual reason, I will stand corrected on that point, but I don't recall it.

“... his qualifications as a physicist did not give him any qualifications as a theologian” is a defacto appeal to the authority of theologians.

You’re right, I did not make an argument, so claims of faulty argumentation do not apply here. I shared an observation, and gave an illustration of an alternative way of thinking (in order to stimulate discussion).

What’s super interesting to me is that when I point out that people reject ideas based more on identity tribes than on the relative merits of the ideas (that’s a casual observation, not a formal argument) they line up in numbers to demonstrate the accuracy of that observation by finding every way to dismiss or discredit the source, rather than engaging the idea on its merits.

I agree with you that Einstein’s field of expertise gives him no more “authority” than you or I in the field of religion, but how would you dismiss his ideas based on their merit instead of based on his lack of authority? Appeal to lack-of-authority is the same fallacy as appeal to authority. Would you care to address the ideas he expressed in those quotes based on their own merit?

@skado I do not bow to the expertise of theologians either; I merely point out that being highly qualified as a physicist doesn't grant a license to comment on matters of religion with any more authority than anyone else.

I see no need for any "transcendental outlook", as there is nothing to transcend. We are here, this is the universe we have. I can't agree that anything defies a rational explanation. The more we learn of genetics, for example, the more we understand that our behavior is rooted in the unconscious programming of our genes; and the more we understand that we can move beyond this programming by our rational thought.

An atheist can equally well be "liberated from the fetters of their selfish desires". I would argue that, without the belief in some afterlife reward, the atheist is in a superior standing morally. A religious person who performs charitable acts because of a commandment compares unfavorably to an agnostic or atheist who does the same out of simple compassion- regardless of the fact that the same act is taking place.

Furthermore, as many have noted, Einstein was functionally an atheist. "Spinoza's God" was the personification of the laws of nature. Einstein merely stood in awe of nature itself. He believed there was a Hidden Variable in the universe, but didn't believe this was any kind of personal God.

“we can move beyond this programming by our rational thought”


“An atheist can equally well be “liberated from the fetters of their selfish desires"”


“there is nothing to transcend”


@skado No, there is no transcending the physical universe; there is no afterlife. Please don't pluck a fragment of one sentence out of context and then hold it next to others which are clearly about entirely different things.

If they are about entirely different things then they are things you introduced to the conversation. Neither I nor Einstein mentioned transcending the universe or an afterlife.


Trick question, obviously Einstein wasn't an idiot. But he could obviously be wrong. IMHO, he was wrong about 80~90% of religious people.


I recognize and still practice what could be considered lots of benefits of religion, mostly eastern nontheistic ones. When I’m condemning religion the strongest I’m generally talking about abrahamic religion, and even they have some nice parts if you aren’t interpreting it in such a literal, fundamentalist sense. I don’t see a belief in spinozas “god” as being much different from my agnostic atheism though and I believe Einstein was for all practical purposes an atheist by my definition, especially given that the two religions he namechecks here are more philosophies than a form of theistic religion. He’s attempting to distance himself from hardline “party pooper” style of atheism, but I don’t think transcendental philosophy and the broader definition of atheism or anti theism are at all at odds with each other. I consider myself a vessel and practitioner of both.


Perfect, except take "religion" out (although I understand what he means in context) and replace it with "striving for a perception greater than what the five senses allow to be perceived." Something like that.

Religion itself was unfortunately hijacked by narrow-minded men who allowed their ego, self-interest, parochial concerns, and provincial nearsightedness to trump a greater understanding of the universe and man's place in it.

I do agree atheists are so disillusioned and angry about the lies told by charlatans they've turned against ANY personal quest for meaning in their lives.
These religion-creating liars cynically used a certain charisma and facility with words to gain power.

Maybe they lied because they thought they could better mankind's lot by manipulating and tricking them into doing what THEY thought was the right thing, but had to be the wrong thing.
They used those people's genuine search for the truth as leverage against them.

It had to be something like that because, short of believing their own hallucinations, they must have known they were lying.

But Einstein was right, men instinctly strive for greater and greater understanding. It's a shame that instinct has been used against them.


Spinoza's and by extension Einstein's definition of God is wholly incompatible with the big daddy in the sky of Islam and Christianity. He was equally critical of people who simplistically thought this premise was limit of spiritual belief whether they accepted or rejected his existence.

Equally is not the right word, the atheist he is talking about is one who says Christians (et al) are wrong so I'm right as opposed to someone who says Christianity is a failed experiment so I should take what I've learned and keep learning.

@Buttercup A "failed experiment?" Strange way of putting it.


I had gotten to talk to one of the professors that had worked along with Einstein at Berkley when they taught there. I was 16 years old at the time the professors asked my religion. I had told him that I thought agnostic was the best way to go. Without hesitation the professor had said you would have gotten along well with Albert Einstein because he too was agnostic and did not like the religious banter in the teachers lunch room. The way that I was so inclined to talk to this professor was. My mom was running a daycare out of her home. The professor had come to pick up his granddaughter. Just so happens that day I had flipped over a Mongoose racing bicycle and had put my knee out of place. I had limped into the house as the professor had arrived. The professor had know some chiropractic maneuvers and put my knee back in place. Was a very interesting conversation I had longed for the day to talk to that proffsor. I never did run across him again was a unique circumstances that he had come to get his granddaughter on that day.

azzow2 Level 9 July 20, 2019

i doubt that Einstein ever taught at berkley. he taught at Princteton until retirement.

@callmedubious Took this right out of Wikipedia" Einstein's father, Albert, left Germany in 1933 to escape the virulently antisemitic Nazi threat. Heeding his father's advice, Einstein emigrated from Switzerland to Greenville, South Carolina, in 1938. He worked for the US Department of Agriculture, studying sediment transport from 1938 to 1943. He continued working for the USDA at the California Institute of Technology starting in 1943. In 1947 he took a position as associate professor of hydraulic engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He advanced to full professor, and later professor emeritus. Einstein traveled the world to participate in hydraulic engineering conferences. He was at a symposium at Woods Hole in Massachusetts when he collapsed and died from heart failure on July 26, 1973.[8] "

@azzow2 ,
i thought you were talking about the E= mc2 einstein.

@callmedubious I was very young at the time so I had no way to verify the information.

@callmedubious I did learn something interesting reading Einstin's bio he was only a guest speaker at Princeton not a regular professor.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:376923
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.