It can't. Which means one must run to context to figure out what was meant.
We know Einstein believed in a being that he felt appropriate to call God, and that it is a "superior reasoning power" - even a "spirit" - that wrote the laws of the universe with precision. That in and of itself refutes the idea that no will or goal is involved. I can see why you would want to focus on this statement. Perhaps Einstein was trying to tell the Rabbi that God had no goal or will for humanity? I don't know exactly. Maybe his views changed? (This statement comes from a much earlier time than the others) I don't know. It is clear he was arguing with a Jew about Jewish concept of a personal God.
What I do know is that this is a single ambiguous statement telling us what he didn't believe and that there are other unambiguous statements that make it perfectly clear what he did believe.
Context??? For every statement you find that you believe proves Einstein was a theist, you know good and well I can find one that directly contradicts it. Darwin's statements are confusing on the issue. There is nothing "unambiguous",
particularly when the context is considered.
Here's some more context:
The following excerpt is taken from Dukas and Hofmann, p. 39
In 1954 or 1955 Einstein received a letter citing a statement of his and a seemingly contradictory statement by a noted evolutionist concerning the place of intelligence in the Universe. Here is a translation of the German draft of a reply. It is not known whether a reply was actually sent:
The misunderstanding here is due to a faulty translation of a German text, in particular the use of the word "mystical." I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
This quote from Einstein appears in Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events.
To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is 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.
In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task…
The sense of the religious, which is released through the experience of potentially nearing a logical grasp of these deep-lying world relations, is … a feeling of awe and reverence for the manifest Reason which appears in reality. It does not lead to the assumption of a divine personality—a person who makes demands of us and takes an interest in our individual being. In this there is no Will, nor Aim, nor an Ought, but only Being.
— Found in Goldman, p. 33.
Context makes it appear clear that when Einstein talks about "Reason", he's talking about the laws and order of nature, not some deity who created the world.
This article is a speech by Albert Einstein to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, in the autumn of 1932. This short speech appears in the Appendix of White and Gribbon p. 262.
Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here involuntarily and uninvited for a short stay, without knowing the whys and the wherefore. In our daily lives we only feel that man is here for the sake of' others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own I am often worried at the thought that my life is based to such a large extent on the work of my fellow human beings and I am aware of my great indebtedness to them.
I do not believe in freedom of the will. Schopenhauer's words: “Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills” accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of freedom of will preserves me from taking too seriously myself and my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals and from losing my temper.
I never coveted affluence and luxury and even despise them a good deal.
My passion for social justice has often brought me into conflict with people, as did my aversion to any obligation and dependence I do not regard as absolutely necessary. I always have a high regard for the individual and have an insuperable distaste for violence and clubmanship.
All these motives made me into a passionate pacifist and anti-militarist. I am against any nationalism, even in the guise of mere patriotism. Privileges based on position and property have always seemed to me unjust and pernicious, as did any exaggerated personality cult.
I am an adherent of the ideal of democracy, although I well know the weaknesses of the democratic form of government. Social equality and economic protection of the individual appeared to me always as the important communal aims of the state.
Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated.
The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness.
In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.
And here's one more piece of confusing context:
BUCKY:
It's ironic that your namc has been synonymous with science in the twentieth century, and yet there has always been a lot of controversy surrounding you in relation to religious questions. How do you account for this unusual circumstance, since science and religion are usually thought to be at odds?
EINSTEIN:
Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to mc that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.
BUCKY:
So then, you consider yourself to be a religious man?
EINSTEIN:
I believe in mystery and, frankly, I sometimes face this mystery with great fear. In other words, I think that there are many things in the universe that we cannot perceive or penetrate and that also we experience some of the most beautiful things in life in only a very primitive form. Only in relation to these mysteries do I consider myself to be a religious man. But I sense these things deeply. What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life.
BUCKY:
You don't believe in God, then?
EINSTEIN:
Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going hand-in-hand! Each has a place, but each must be relegated to its sphere. Let's assume that we are dealing with a theoretical physicist or scientist who is very well-acquainted with the different laws of the universe, such as how the planets orbit the sun and how the satellites in turn orbit around their respective planets. Now, this man who has studied and understands these different laws-how could he possibly believe in one God who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?
No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds .
Here's what I think context reveals about Einstein's beliefs. He did not believe in a God who created the universe. He did not believe in a God who had any will, goal, aim or ought. He even referred to himself as an agnostic. But he kept emphasizing some "superior spirit". When
context is considered, it must be admitted that this superior spirit is not a cognizant deity controlling the universe in any way. Referring to the superior spirit is a way of recognizing that man's knowledge is, and always will be, incomplete. It is a way of recognizing that the universe is awe-inspiring. It is the sense of the mystical.
No one is ever going to stop theists from using Einstein to prop up their own beliefs, but the context certainly doesn't paint the clear picture Kevin imagines.
I'm not going to keep arguing this point with you, Kevin. I know from experience that you will not concede even one inch in this argument, even with the above context provided (from the website einsteinandreligion.com). I think enough context has been provided for folks who remain interested in this to judge for themselves.
In regards to Anthony Flew - I'm surprised you keep referring to him after EAllusion linked you to an article that revealed how his was the case of an elderly man beginning to lose his faculties who was manipulated and used by people with an agenda other than Flew's well-being.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magaz ... ref=slogin