The following article by Albert Einstein appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It has been reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pp 36 - 40. It also appears in Einstein's book The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.
Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests.
The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God. This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God.
The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates.
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41
- 49. The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological
Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years,
New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from 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. During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held
that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief.
The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief
should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself
rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According
to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way
to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the
people's education, must serve that end exclusively. One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint
expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how
one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to
state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind
as to its nature. It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and
clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme
rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those
convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments
cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way. For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts
are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such
objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and
you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements
and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that
knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be.
One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet
not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations.
Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements
of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach
it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for
the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the
setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of
truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a
guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the
aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore,
the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part
in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes
that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means
itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation
of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate
and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations,
and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to
me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform
in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority
of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely
by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful
traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of
the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without
its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come
into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the
medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them,
but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to
us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal
which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which
gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were
to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely
human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development
of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in
the service of all mankind. There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class,
let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it
is said in religious language? Indeed, even the divinization of humanity,
as an abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of that ideal. It is
only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the
individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any
other way. If one looks at the substance rather than at the form, then one can
take these words as expressing also the fundamental democratic position.
The true democrat can worship his nation as little as can the man who is
religious, in our sense of the term. What, then, in all this, is the function of education and of the school?
They should help the young person to grow up in such a spirit that these
fundamental principles should be to him as the air which he breathes. Teaching
alone cannot do that. If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and compares
them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that
civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger, In the totalitarian
states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that
spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance,
as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten
to choke these most precious traditions. A realization of how great is the danger is spreading, however, among
thinking people, and there is much search for means with which to meet
the danger--means in the field of national and international politics,
of legislation, or organization in general. Such efforts are, no doubt,
greatly needed. Yet the ancients knew something- which we seem to have
forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not behind
them a living spirit. But if the longing for the achievement of the goal
is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find
the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds.
It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.
At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: 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 superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, 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 and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. 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, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But 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. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. 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.
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.
To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.
We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.
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 persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For 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. 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. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.
If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.
A response to a greeting sent by the Liberal Ministers' Club of New
York City. Published in The Christian Register, June, 1948. Published
in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1954. Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion
and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these
questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and,
indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that
in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative
answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while
most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they
are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion." As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical
thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual
experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly,
means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set
up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements
of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent
of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions
as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the
independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain
beyond science's reach. As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that
it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional
foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined
by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion
is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing
of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship.
These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence
on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily
accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence
evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals. It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious
traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs
whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements
on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital
importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be
avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential
for the pursuance of the religious aims. When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential
substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to
differ as basically from each other as the proponents of the "relativistic"
or conventional theory wish us to believe. And this is by no means surprising.
For the moral attitudes of a people that is supported by religion need
always aim at preserving and promoting the sanity and vitality of the community
and its individuals, since otherwise this community is bound to perish.
A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would
be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long. When confronted with a specific case, however, it is no easy task to
determine clearly what is desirable and what should be eschewed, just as
we find it difficult to decide what exactly it is that makes good painting
or good music. It is something that may be felt intuitively more easily
than rationally comprehended. Likewise, the great moral teachers of humanity
were, in a way, artistic geniuses in the art of living. In addition to
the most elementary precepts directly motivated by the preservation of
life and the sparing of unnecessary suffering, there are others to which,
although they are apparently not quite commensurable to the basic precepts,
we nevertheless attach considerable imporcance. Should truth, for instance,
be sought unconditionally even where its attainment and its accessibility
to all would entail heavy sacrifices in toil and happiness? There are many
such questions which, from a rational vantage point, cannot easily be answered
or cannot be answered at all. Yet, I do not think that the so-called "relativistic"
viewpoint is correct, not even when dealing with the more subtle moral
decisions. When considering the actual living conditions of presentday civilized
humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious commands,
one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful disappointment
at what one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relations
among the individuals and groups, the actual spectacle more resembles a
battlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere, in economic as well as in political
life, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at
the expense of one's fellow. men. This competitive spirit prevails even
in school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation,
conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive and
thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection.
There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is necessarily
inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such views that are
the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby that religious teachings
are utopian ideals and unsuited to afford guidance in human affairs. The
study of the social patterns in certain so-called primitive cultures, however,
seems to have made it sufficiently evident that such a defeatist view is
wholly unwarranted. Whoever is concerned with this problem, a crucial one
in the study of religion as such, is advised to read the description of
the Pueblo Indians in Ruth Benedict's book, Patterns of Culture.
Under the hardest living conditions, this tribe has apparently accomplished
the difficult task of delivering its people from the scourge of competitive
spirit and of fostering in it a temperate, cooperative conduct of life,
free of external pressure and without any curtailment of happiness. The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence
of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly
materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that
scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations,
those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science
were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe
of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for
knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and
if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor
Dei Intellectualis, they wouid hardly have been capable of that untiring
devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements.