Albert Einstein's 'God letter' expected to sell for $1.5m

[bluehillside Retd.]

"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses," he writes. "The Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends."
It continues: "No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can [for me] change anything about this."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46438116

Not making a point here, but just thought the story might interest some.

[Dicky Underpants]

"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses," he writes. "The Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends."
It continues: "No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can [for me] change anything about this."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46438116

Not making a point here, but just thought the story might interest some.

Hi blue

Those comments are certainly worth pondering, especially by those who glibly repeat Einstein's apparent statement "I do not believe God plays at dice".

Here are some further comments by another great 20th century figure who was (to his amusement often confused with Einstein). I mean Albert Schweitzer, who is generally regarded as an important religious figure:

A 1967 journal article by Erwin R. Jacobi discusses a previously unpublished letter from Schweitzer dated three years before his death, in which Schweitzer makes the following statement:




Hence there arises the question whether the religious ethic of love is possible without the belief in an ethical God and World Sovereign, or knowledge of this God, which can be replaced by a belief in Him. Here I dare say that the ethical religion of love can exist without the belief in a world ruling divine personality which corresponds to such an ethical religion ["Fromm Sein. Gedanken zu einem Brief von Albert Schweitzer," Divine Light, Vol. 2, No. i, June 1967].




I



According to Schweitzer’s own words, then, the ethic of reverence for life is not founded upon a belief in a personal God. This conclusion may seem strange to those who regard Schweitzer as one of the 20th century’s greatest religious figures. It is disconcerting enough to realize how theologically unorthodox -- indeed, revolutionary -- he was. He denied, for instance, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the atonement, the miracles, and the inerrancy of the Scriptures. But it may be even more unnerving for some to find that the concept of a Supreme Being apparently does not play a central role in his religious philosophy, at least not in his ethical teachings.

Did Schweitzer Believe in God? – Religion Online


https://www.religion-online.org/article/did-schweitzer-believe-in-god/

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky, always nice to hear from you.

Those comments are certainly worth pondering, especially by those who glibly repeat Einstein's apparent statement "I do not believe God plays at dice".

Here are some further comments by another great 20th century figure who was (to his amusement often confused with Einstein). I mean Albert Schweitzer, who is generally regarded as an important religious figure:

Quote
A 1967 journal article by Erwin R. Jacobi discusses a previously unpublished letter from Schweitzer dated three years before his death, in which Schweitzer makes the following statement:

Hence there arises the question whether the religious ethic of love is possible without the belief in an ethical God and World Sovereign, or knowledge of this God, which can be replaced by a belief in Him. Here I dare say that the ethical religion of love can exist without the belief in a world ruling divine personality which corresponds to such an ethical religion ["Fromm Sein. Gedanken zu einem Brief von Albert Schweitzer," Divine Light, Vol. 2, No. i, June 1967].

According to Schweitzer’s own words, then, the ethic of reverence for life is not founded upon a belief in a personal God. This conclusion may seem strange to those who regard Schweitzer as one of the 20th century’s greatest religious figures. It is disconcerting enough to realize how theologically unorthodox -- indeed, revolutionary -- he was. He denied, for instance, the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the atonement, the miracles, and the inerrancy of the Scriptures. But it may be even more unnerving for some to find that the concept of a Supreme Being apparently does not play a central role in his religious philosophy, at least not in his ethical teachings.

Did Schweitzer Believe in God? – Religion Online

https://www.religion-online.org/article/did-schweitzer-believe-in-god/

Interesting stuff. Reminds me a bit of the Christianity of Don Cupitt, about whom no doubt you know a great deal more that I do. Essentially they both seemed to reject the various claims of fact (god, a resurrection etc), but to embrace the ethos and morality.