Albert Einstein, Cosmos and Religion

Serb. Astron. J. } 174 (2007), 61 - 72 UDC 524.8 DOI: 10.2298/SAJ0774061D Original scientiﬁc paper

ALBERT EINSTEIN, COSMOS AND RELIGION

V. Dokovi´c- 1 and P. Gruji´c2

1VinˇcaInstitute of Nuclear Sciences, 11001 Belgrade, Serbia 2Institute of Physics,11080 Belgrade, Serbia

(Received: September 11, 2006; Accepted: December 27, 2006)

SUMMARY: We consider Einstein’s attitude regarding religious as such, from both cosmological and epistemological points of view. An attempt to put it into a wider socio-historical perspective was made, with the emphasis on ethnic and religious background. It turns out that the great scientist was neither atheist nor believer in the orthodox sense and the closest labels one might stick to him in this respect would be pantheism/cosmism (ontological aspect) and agnosticism (epistemological aspect). His ideas on divine could be considered as a continuation of line traced by Philo of Alexandria, who himself followed Greek Stoics and (Neo-) Pla- tonists and especially Baruch Spinoza. It turns out that Einstein’s both scientiﬁc (rational aspects) and religious (intuitive aspects) thinking were deeply rooted in the Hellenic culture. His striving to unravel the secrets of the universe and the roots of cosmological order resembles much the ancient ideas of the role of knowledge in fathoming the divine as such, as ascribed to Gnostics.

Key words. Cosmology: miscellaneous

1. INTRODUCTION damental concepts, like space, time, causality, put into standard frames of our contemplating the most elusive notions like faith, God(s) etc? We shall claim All science is cosmology, I believe. in the following that (i) Einstein was arguing for a Karl Popper new kind of religion and (ii) at the same time was As Einstein’s annus mirabilis centenary playing a role, albeit subconsciously, of a prophet, evolved, the Number One personality of the previ- even a god himself. ous century became the focus of world’s attention. Cosmology is intrinsically linked with mythol- Many aspects of his extraordinary personality were ogy and religion as a quasirational elaboration of the subjected to scrutinized analysis, including his rela- former. Einstein was the cosmologist par excellence, tion to religion. Although Einstein was not a pro- for it was him who made it a hard science. He was as fessional religious thinker, his fame and authority in well involved in the profound research of the under- pure science make his personal beliefs both interest- lying microstructure of the material world and has ing and influential. decisively contributed to our understanding of the Was Albert Einstein a religious man? But be- microcosm. In both aspects, presently strongly cou- fore we attempt to answer this question, another one pled in modern investigations of the ultimate nature seems in order: Is this a proper question at all? May of the material world, Einstein considered the possi- one expect from such a profound scientific mind to ble role of divine, but with considerable efforts made be analyzed in less profound terms? Particularly, in distinguishing the latter from banal religiosity. We could the mind that has transformed our most fun- shall consider his views of religious from both tempo- 61 V. DOKOVI- C´ and P. GRUJIC´ ral development point of view and their implications bound by covenant to his chosen people. This di- to his cosmological and epistemological views chotomy will be resolved by Christian teaching, what resulted in a quick spread of the Judaistic mythology over a large part of the globe. But apart from her 2. HELLENISM AND JUDAISM Christian ”heresy” (minim) Judaistic common religion retained its principal features up to now. We now turn to the more august religious When Albert was twelve a young student from sphere, that of thinkers and philosophers. Greek de- Poland, who used to come to Einsteins’ for dinner, velopment on this more abstract level followed the brought to him a popular edition of Euclid’s Ele- line of Xenophanes (Kirk et al. 1983), Plato and ments. It seems to have been a decisive instance Aristotle, who conceived an abstract deity, devoid of for the young boy, who was at the time obsessed by banal anthropic properties and disinterested in hu- the biblical fables. He must have already felt a suspi- man affairs. To Aristotle the First Mover was nec- cion about the historical reality of biblical events and essary just to start the life of Nature, whose fur- the issue of the truth must have been raised in his ther history was to be governed by the laws of Na- mind, when he met Euclid. Unlike biblical authors ture, to be inferred by human mind. A particular who offered incredible fables and interpretations, Al- concept of supernatural Demiurge was conceived by bert found in Elements the absolute (mathematical) Anaxagoras (Kirk et al. 1983), who introduced the truth, exposed by an iron logic, firm and undeniable. notion of Mind (Noυς), engaged in creating Cosmos Incidentally, the treatise was composed in the same rd out of a primordial mixture of seeds (σπερµατα). period (3 century BC) as the translation of Holy It seems that Anaxagoras’ Mind was something be- Scriptures (Septuagint) was made. Both books epit- tween moving agency and natural principle. In any omized the Judaistic and Hellenistic ideologies, as case this Greek philosophical line was interrupted by the paradigms of fictitious and rational as such. The the Christian faith and was never canonized into a further intellectual development of the young Albert common religion. was determined by the interplay of his Jewish ethni- Judaistic tradition followed two main streams. cal origin and rational Hellenistic education. One was orthodox rabbinic one, mainly present to- Technically speaking, Einstein remained day within Jewish milieu, the other adopting an es- within the sphere of the Judaistic tradition. But oteric rout, developing somewhat extravagant ideas his personal development led him to depart from on divinity, as the case with Cabbala is. Extravagant the Orthodox Judaism, and this evolution resulted as they appear, some of the esoteric concepts resem- in two main accomplishments. First, his religious ble remarkably well modern cosmological scenarios of evolution started with the traditional common re- the World creation. The case in point is Cabbalistic ligion, as practiced by clergymen, to progressively constructs of Ain Soph and Zimzum (Masson 1970), abstract concept of piety, and second, he found in with its striking similarity to Big Bang inflationary retrospective that the mankind followed the same paradigm. The case of Baruch Spinoza stands some- route. One might consider this sort of individual where between the orthodox and esoteric lines and and historical correlation as another manifestation deserves our particular attention here. of the famous Hoeckel’s thesis: Ontogeny is a reca- pitulation of phylogeny. This development was by no means original, and could be traced in at least two 3. SPINOZA AND PANTHEISM Western traditions: Hellenic and Judaistic. Since these two traditions turn out crucial for understanding Einstein’s view on the religious phenomena, it Broadly speaking Spinoza’s doctrine may be seems in order here to sketch common features and differences regarding their content and ultimate his- considered as a continuation of the Judaistic philo- torical fates. sophical tradition, whose beginnings may be traced Both traditions followed the same evolution back to Philo of Alexandria (Saunders 1997, Si- pattern, starting from common religions, more pre- mon et Benoit 1998). Living in the metropolis of cisely – religions designed for common people. The the Hellenistic world, with a large Greek popula- principal feature of these stages is personalized, even tion and numerous Jewish community, Philo’s con- anthropic gods. Greeks had a well-developed, though cern was mainly in reconcilliating the Jewish faith, not unique and fixed Pantheon, whereas early He- based on the Torah mythology, and the superior brews started with a number of henotheistic gods Greek philosophical teachings. Squeezed between too. But after this initial phase, these two tra- the elaborated rational systems of Plato, Aristotle, ditions diverged. Greek people’s religion remained (neo) Pythagoreans etc, from one side, and the scle- polytheistic up to the appearance of Christianity rotic canonized religious dogmas and tradition of the (Veyne 1983) as a quasi-monotheistic faith, Hebrews Holy Scripts, which were not to be modified, Philo soon reduced their concept of divine oligarchy to the resorted to the old way out to save the phenomena – monotheistic one, their own tribal god, (Jehovah). to the allegorical interpretation of the written sacro- At further stages this god became the God, a unique sanct texts. One of his first tasks was to deperson- deity, which acquired two principal, albeit contradic- alize the God, interpreting the assertion that God tory, attributes. He was the God of all mankind, the created man according to his own image as not re- universal Demiurge, and yet the tribal, Jewish god, ferring to a physical appearance of the Creator, but

62 ALBERT EINSTEIN, COSMOS AND RELIGION to his ethical essence. This departure from the liter- remark does not hit far from the target. Einstein’s ary meaning was a big step from the common faith most fundamental contributions to the physical sci- toward more rational, abstract religion, making it a ences may be focused on one single pursuit, that on philosophical subject. It is this new concept of God, fathoming the nature of light. It is well known, ac- which Spinoza took over and developed further to cording to testimony of Einstein himself, how young the extreme rational and logical limits. Albert was occupied running in front of a light beam. Spinoza was Einstein’s religious hero, and for His inquiries on the subject resulted in Theory of the good reason. His teaching epitomized the best Relativity, which was an answer to the two issues. amalgamation of the two principal roots on which First, what happens to our apprehension of space European culture rested: Hellenistic ratio and Ju- and time if the speed of light is absolutely the same daistic faith. His principal philosophical tract, Ethics for any observer, and second, light motion can not (Spinoza 1910) had a formal form of Euclid’s Ele- be accelerated nor decelerated. Beside the Special ments, with its strict deductive structure. Adopt- and General relativity, another important instance ing the rational method of exposing his metaphysical where light played prominent role in Einstein’s re- ideas, Spinoza adopted at the same time the Greek search was that of the quantum of light, later to be rationale for scientific truth. Something is not just dubbed photon, the central construct in his model of true; it is so because it must be so, within the con- the interaction of the electromagnetic field and iner- text of the overall system. That the Jewish-Dutch tial matter, as elaborated in the photo-effect model. philosopher gave the title Ethics to his book on the It was for this achievement that Einstein received divine nature reveals another rationale for his en- his Nobel Prize in 1921. By inverting the rationale deavor - the moral content of the Judaistic religion, of the quantum of energy as a particle-like entity to which might be expressed as the relation: God is the wave associated with a massive particle, Louis de ethics. If the first rationale may be considered as a Broglie will open the rout for Erwin Schrödingerto form of causa efficientis. within its deductive pro- Wave Mechanics, another capital achievement of the cedure, the second rationale is manifestly of the na- twenty-century physics. ture of causa finalis. Human ultimate goal is self- A great number of other Einstein’s valuable divination, immersion into divine. God is everything contributions may be ascribed to his fascination with man can conceive of, God is Nature. Man is alone the light phenomena. Theory of radiation (Einstein’s before the God, since he is a part of Nature. By ac- coefficients), Bose-Einstein statistics, and even the quiring the supreme Good, as the essence of divine famous conundrum contrived in the EPR paradox being, he attains the nature of God. (which has been, perhaps, the most powerful exposi- Spinoza’s concept of religion is considered as tion of the weird nature of the Quantum mechanics) pantheism. The Amsterdam Jewish community in- – all refer, in one way or another, to the electro- terpreted it, rightly, as a form of atheism and ban- magnetic field phenomena. In his later years of life ished Spinoza from their community. To state that Einstein, used to say that all his life he will strive to God is everything is tantamount to saying she is comprehend the nature of light and despite an over- nothing (les extremes se touchent). Pantheism is simplification as it might sound, it was not far from alien to European cultural sphere and is more appro- the truth. And here one encounters one of Einstein’s priate to relate to Buddhism, which is not based on most mysterious features - affinity to the mysterious. the concept of god at all. Judaistic tradition might tolerate some form of panentheism, but not pantheism. The former states that everything is God, but 5. MYSTERIOUS EINSTEIN VERSUS God is not everything, he comprises Nature, but the MYSTERIOUS COSMOS latter does not exhaust his existence. The panenthe- istic formula thus reads: Everything is in God. By re- Strictly speaking science is not a creative hu- moving all anthropic attributes from divine, Spinoza man activity, unlike music, for instance (or modern dissolved God into cosmic reality, thus annihilated art in general), or technique. Science reveals, tech- it. His image of God appears hence closer to that of nique creates. But the further one goes from the or- Anaxagoras’ Mind, than to Mosaic monotheism. dinary scientific level toward the fundamental issues, the nature of the scientific discovery becomes less of 4. EINSTEIN AND a revealing type and more a creative endeavor. When SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY in his mature age Einstein set to apply the General Relativity formalism to describe the entire Universe, he left the ground of a purely discovering interests Va yomer Elohim, yehi or va yehi or. and set to a more ambitious task – to create a picture Einstein was from the very youth inclined to of the overall physical reality, of the Cosmos. Note question unquestionable, suspect self-evident, test that in Biblical terms Cosmos is not purely given trivial. His ideas on space (commensurability) and entity, it is a Creation. In the prehistoric phase of the homo sapiens’ mental evolution, the era of magi, time (simultaneity), put into the formulae that will to name meant to control. This magical ritual was be called Special Theory of Relativity, were fruit of recorded in Bible, too, with Adam given the right to some five years meditations, as recognized by Ein- ascribe names to living creatures, whose master he stein himself. In a conversation with Levi-Civita, was supposed to become. In a more advanced phase Einstein remarked that he had just a couple of ideas naming was not enough, and a more detailed des- in his scientific career. Modest as it might sound, this

63 V. DOKOVI- C´ and P. GRUJIC´ cription of an entity implied control over it. Knowl- 6. EINSTEIN AND COSMOGENESIS edge meant power over things. And it is this aspect of the understanding which was the rationale for God’s forbidding Adam to eat the fruit from the If both above mentioned papers dealt with tree of life in Eden, for this allegorical narrative was subjects already in the air, the construction of the a story about control share. It is the first record of General Theory of Relativity has been considered as the eternal struggle between religious and rational, a great achievement of a sole mind of genius. Though between the concepts governed by logic and those the motivation for generalization of the physical situ- controlled by fear and mysterious. ation from inertial to noninertial frames of reference It was Vico who noted that one best compre- looks straightforward, the task was too ambitious hends a concept by inventing it himself (Berlin 1976). even for Einstein, who lacked the necessary mathe- But the case with Einstein’s contributions to what is matical background for setting up the equation that known today as Special Relativity is not simple one, was to replace Newton’s dynamics. The story of in that respect. As we know today, the matter was devising the famous equation which connects three already in air at the turn of the century and other re- most fundamental physical quantities, space, time searchers were on the track, notably Henri Poincaré, and matter is well known. Einstein acted as inspirit- who first defined the relativity principle (Poincaré ing manager, creator etc, until the equation appeared 1904). The same holds for the famous E = mc2 in its final form. (That Hilbert derived it about formula, derived by a number of people before and the same time as Einstein is of little importance after 1905. Again, Poincaréasserted in 1900 that for us here, though some authors refer to the equa- electromagnetic energy is endowed with an equiva- tion as Einstein-Hilbert expression.). As an admirer lent mass E/c2, but did not pursue the idea to its of Mach’s approach to mechanics, more precisely of general consequences. As it was found many years his epistemology, Einstein was eager to incorporate afterwards, Einstein’s original derivation in 1905 was Mach’s idea that the local properties within a finite part of cosmos are determined by the overall influ- flawed (circulus viciosus) (Ives 1952), but he derived ence from the rest of the universe. In particular, it again next year, this time correctly. It was Max Mach principle, as Einstein termed it himself, that Planck who in 1907, following the original idea due the inertia of a massive body depends on the mass to Hasenöhrl,derived the formula on the most gen- distribution and its gravitational force of the uni- eral, thermodynamical grounds (Jammer 1961). But verse acting on the test object. It is this concept, this is of minor importance for our arguments here. which Einstein never incorporated fully into the the- In neither of two papers in 1905 Einstein refers ory that led him in 1917 to apply the same theoretical to predecessors, his bibliography item is empty. The construct to the universe as whole. His model of a old controversy concerning a possible influence of fa- cosmos without boundaries, a sort of closed infinity, mous (in retrospect) Michelson-Morley experiment was the first fully scientific, mathematically rigor- on ether drift on the genesis of Special Relativity ously determined, universe. With his model modern has never been resolved satisfactorily (see, e.g. APS cosmology started its relentless march. News, March 2004, pp 4-5 for the recent discussion What might be the feelings of this modern of the subject). Einstein himself did not help the cosmocreator when devising something that has ever controversy to be resolved, adding from time to time been the domain of divine? Interestingly, his model new mysteries to the subject. It seems unlikely that was static one, a cosmos without (cosmic) time, de- the experimental result, even if it was well known at void of a global evolution. Here a few words about the time, could be crucial for postulating the central this feature of the early Einstein’s cosmos. At this concept of the Special Relativity – the absolute speed stage of development of the cosmology as such, this of light. First of all, the result was neither the only choice was more a necessary zero-order approxima- on the market and second, it was far from convinc- tion than a deliberate choice between various op- ing, concerning the (statistical) nature of the method tions. The static, eternal by implication, universe employed. Einstein resorted to an epistemologically has been in air for long time before the last-century decisive option. He turned to the most primitive ex- cosmological models. Abderian cosmology belongs to perience (ontological aspect), but of a special kind – this paradigm (Grujić2001, 2006)), as well as Aristo- gedanken experiment (epistemological aspect). It is tle’s and Kant’s mutatis mutandis (Grujić2002). En- ironical that he resorted to Newton’s epistemology, gels opted for this model in his Antidüring too. Early to modify his basic notions of space and time. Cristian thinker Origen was somewhat ambigious on Both results published in those papers have this matter (Jaeger 1961), his choice being spanned been considered since as Einstein’s own contribu- between an eternal universe, as a sign of God’s infi- tions, stemming from his mind like Athens coming nite goodness, and an ”eternaly temporary” cosmos, from Zeus’ head. The reason for this was surely the whose existence was dependent on the God’s free will fact that he offered a single underlying idea for both (see, e.g. Grünbaum 2000). The latter option had results – the concept of the extraordinary nature of nothing to do, of course, with a rational choice, but light, as a primitive construct. The lack of reference was one of religious ”eschatological warnings” to the to other, previous or contemporary, authors might believers, and thus a matter of politics. The con- have been considered as risky, had not it concerned cept of an eternal universe appears radically differ- already known final results – Lorentz’s transforma- ent from the biblical mythology, where the notion of tions and E ∼ mc2. ”creation” plays the central role, with the same ”political” aim – to make humans dependent of God and

64 ALBERT EINSTEIN, COSMOS AND RELIGION thus Her debtors. It was this feature that made Fred municate with divine was not allotted to everybody, Hoyl feal that his Steady-state cosmos was indepen- again. Only those endowed with a sufficiently pen- dent from divine presence, though later he retracted etrating mind are able to infer the secrets which di- somewhat from this bold statement.1 In addition, vinity concealed in her Creation, the secrets which his idea of a universe as a creation of a supercivili- na¨ıve scientist name laws of nature. But what use sation does not appear incompatible with the notion of revealing those secrets are to those chosen hu- of the hierarchical cosmos (Grujić,2002). mans? As different from the Gnostic doctrines of Hence, Einstein could not be considered as a salvation through knowledge, science offers personal (human) Demiurge, in Platonic terms, or the first satisfactions of sharing a profound inference into the Mover, as Aristotle termed it. We shall come to this ”nature of nature”. It was up to this point that Ein- point later on and here we concentrate on the very stein indulged himself in revealing publicly his episte- notion of devising and describing the universe and mological background, or philosophical motivations. possible psychological consequences on the theoreti- His frequent mentioning of God made, however, im- pression that he was somehow familiar with divinity, cal (mortal) mind. which he claimed to fathom deeply. In a sense he Einstein was the first to introduce mathematics into cosmology, but as for the physical aspects seemed to play a role of a mediator, like the ancient Kant could be considered the first scientific cosmol- prophets. The nature is the open book, but not ev- ogist (Kant 1968). What were Kant’s feelings while erybody is literate enough to read it. interfering into divine business? He was fully aware Buddha eliminated the gods from his horizon. of his delicate position in that respect and insured As a result hundreds of thousands of his effigies are himself from both possible fronts of attacks. In the scattered around the world, with devotees adoring very dedication to the King of his famous tract, he him before these corporeal images. Einstein played apologized for his bold intrusion into forbidden di- well with this point, becoming for the contemporary vine domain, expressing his awareness of his hum- surrounding the eponym of superhuman. ble position. In the very tract, on the other hand, he contrived protection from the inevitable assault from clerics, defending his concept of an infinite uni- 7. EINSTEIN AND MICROCOSMS verse by alluding to God’s omnipotence. This tac- tics, smart as it was, bore not negligible risks, as Galileo found himself when trying to interpret the Though he did not invent either of two formu- Holy Scriptures to his advantage (better to say, to lations of Quantum mechanics, Einstein’s contribu- Copernicus’ case) (Biagioli 1993). By the Einstein tion to development of Wave mechanics and subse- quently to interpretation of its epistemological back- time, however, European emancipation has passed ground can not be underestimated. But as the Gen- a long way from theocracy to secular society and eral Relativity ascribed to the previous theory of contemporary cosmologists were not worried about space and time the attribute Special, so the advent of harsh clerical response, certainly not about Inquisi- Quantum mechanics, both Heisenberg’s Matrix - and tion. But a rational emancipation, at the conscious Schrödinger’sWave - mechanics dubbed the previous level, is but a part of story. The fear of divine, deeply physics, relativistic and otherwise, classical theory. rooted into human subconscience, acts as an archety- But despite his active involvement in the develop- pal barrier between liberal mind and traditional lay- ment of the new theory of matter, Einstein remained ers deposed by centuries, if not millennia. The fa- a classical physicist. The same thing happened to his mous accident that Omar Khayam experienced after generation as to the Pythagoreans who discovered a blasphemous shouting on God after the latter (sic) the irrational number, discovery of which destroyed overturned his vase, is the case in point. It is this the entire ideological base of their philosophy. The conflict between rational and irrational that shaped stochastic, intrinsically probabilistic nature of new Einstein’s attitude towards relation faith versus sci- theory did not fit the classical mind, which expe- ence, as we shall see in the following. rienced it as an epistemological failure to compre- The development of the biblical exegesis was hend the deep layer of the nature of the microscopic dictated by the general evolution of the human mind, world. Interestingly, the proverbial Einstein resis- which met more and more difficulties in swallowing tance to indeterministic interpretation of the Quan- the biblical naive narrative, in particular that of the tum physics came after his significant contribution Genesis. This evolution took many aspects, but one (in 1905) to the description of the epitome of stochas- may distinguish two principal lines: (i) abstractions tic behaviour – Brownian motion. But here we shall (ontological aspect) and (ii) allegorical approach (in- be more interested in psychological aspects of his as- terpretative aspect). As we saw before, philosoph- sertion that Quantum mechanics is an incomplete ical minds, like Spinoza, adopted an abstract im- theoretical description of the microcosmical reality. age of God, devoid of the human features. On the Why he could not accept the probabilistic concept other hand pantheistic divinity, though retaining the of laws of nature maybe speculated about, but here designation of God, being omnipresent, allowed to we shall just note that the motivation might stem humans to establish contacts with Her, the contact either from epistemological or psychological sources lost after Joshua’s conquest of the Promised Land (or maybe from both). From an epistemic viewpoint, (Canaan), when Yehovah used to collaborate closely the traditional wisdom was that probability comes with his tribe. But this new opportunity to com-

1We are indebted to the referee for drawing our attention to this point. 65 V. DOKOVI- C´ and P. GRUJIC´ in when the empirical evidence of the reality is de- The question arises, then, whether the God’s infer- ficient (ontological aspect). Generally, probabilistic ence into the physical reality, the creator of which approach is adopted when describing macroscopic ef- he is supposed to be, is equivalent to our possible fects the sources of which are supposed to remain at possession of such an omnipotent theory. Or, to put the microscopic, inaccessible level. it another way, is it possible that a creator is not The psychological resistance to legalization of capable of controlling his creation? Or, in view of uncontrollable events may be traced to a need to de- Vico’s argument mentioned above, that He does not fend the power of human mind to fathom the physi- comprehend his design? But is this a real issue at cal reality. Einstein was not the only one to express all? And here we come to the essence of religious his skepticism concerning the completeness of quan- versus rational thought. tum mechanical description of reality (Schrödinger Is there a genuine religious attitude bound to himself was one of the opponents to the Copenhagen a rational mind, like Einstein’s one? Einstein must interpretation of the wave function, though he sub- have been be aware, at least subconsciously, that sequently complied with the general view), but his there is no, and there cannot be, anything outside opinion on the matter carried a particular weight, human mind. One need not go back to Xenophanes regarding his reputation at the time. After the con- and his famous dictum that it is not gods who cre- firmation of one of the principal effects predicted by ated men, but the other way round. The issue that his General Relativity in 1919 (the amount of light Einstein (and rational mind in general) was facing deflection in a gravitational field), ”suddenly famous is the same as Eleatics put it - what are the human Dr Einstein” (as a newspaper described him at the abilities concerning their own mental powers? (Kirk time) was considered the highest authority on the 1983). More precisely, can every gedanken problem, subject. The more so considering that he personally put forward by a particular (human) mind, be re- contributed to the invention and rise of the new fun- solved by another (particular) human mind? Or, damental theory of the microphysical reality. It was more abstractly, in Gödel’ssense, can we hope to an attitude of a human mind regarding its own abil- conceive a reasonably general mental construct that ities. But what about divine? If the outcome of an is devoid of contradictions, paradoxes, conundrums experiment can not be predicted, does it mean that etc? The issue is all the time, not a confrontation of it is inherently unpredictable to anybody, including human and divine, but the completeness of human God? And here we come to the crux of the matter, mentally constructed systems. It could be considered as illustrated the best by the famous Einstein-Bohr as well as a tension between archetypal, in Jung’s arguing on the issue. sense, and rational (Jung 1978). The latter issue To Einstein’s assertion ”God does not play may be best epitomized by Jung’s experience with dice”, Bohr responded ”Who are you to decide what Pauli’s subconscience, as revealed by his dreams. God is supposed to do?” Both arguments expose nicely the dichotomy, which Einstein used to retain during his mature and late phase of life, with re- 8. EINSTEIN AND JUDAISM I gard to religious feelings as such. Despite his humble playing with mortal limitations, which we shall discuss later on, his human pride built upon remark- Einstein’s life and work were fully imbed- able intellectual achievements could not be concealed ded into the shrine of Science, as conceived by an- from an attentive listener. The ambivalence toward cient Greeks and rediscovered by da Vinci, Galileo, divine is even better expounded by his response to Descartes, Newton and other European Hellenistic the (false) reports that ether was detected, by the fa- heirs. On the other hand, Einstein belonged to the mous phrase: ”Subtle is the Lord, but malicious he is small Jewish community, immersed into the large not” (Pais 1982). It is difficult to escape the notion Christian European sea. In the above sections we that Einstein, at least on this occasion, treated God dealt with intrinsic features of the tension between as his partner, whose loyalty he found necessary to rational and religious, as emerged from these two defend. We shall return to this point later on, when principal pillars of European culture. Now we shall discussing the parallel with Moses. consider a number of external factors, which deter- The issue of determinism versus indetermin- mined his attitude towards religion. ism in microworld revolves around the meaning of Albert Einstein was born in a German Jew- ”determinable”. It has at least three levels of mean- ish family, on March 14, 1879. His parents were ing. First, technical one, bound to the experimental not particularly religious and, although they never feasibility. Second, epistemic one, which is an in- rejected their Jewish faith, they did not strictly fol- trinsic feature of a particular theoretical frame, the low traditional rites and never attended religious ser- Quantum mechanics in this case. The most abstract vices. However, when Einstein, at age six, entered a meaning transcends the sphere of a positive science, Catholic public primary school in Munich, they hired and implies the absolute attribute of a physical real- a tutor to teach him about Judaism in order to coun- ity, irrespective of the human mental constructs, like teract his compulsory Catholic instruction. During a particular, even most general, theoretical scheme. that time he gained a deep religiosity and started to It is here that the notion of divine power comes in. follow religious prescriptions in every detail. In his Einstein ultimately accepted that Quantum mechan- 1949 autobiography (Schilpp 1979), Einstein states ics could (and should) be considered complete, but that his religious sentiment was originally initiated it does not mean that one might one day contrive by the traditional education machine. Nevertheless, a more general theory, which will be deterministic. the fact that he was, even in such young age, strongly

66 ALBERT EINSTEIN, COSMOS AND RELIGION influenced by nature and music (Jammer 1999) obvi- In his reply to one of the letters sent to him ously made him suitable material for the acceptance in Princeton, he was even more explicit: ”I do not of religious ideas. To understand Einstein’s religios- believe in a personal God and I have never denied ity one must bear in mind this type of complex feel- this but have expressed it clearly ” (Dukas and Hoff- ing emerged from the entangled mixture of nature, man 1979). On the other hand, after refusing to im- music and God (Jammer 1999). Later on, close to plement purpose, goal or anthropomorphic principle his 13th birthday, he becomes completely irreligious into Nature, Einstein introduced the notion of ”cos- and refuses to go through with his bar mitzvah, but mic religious feeling” through which he tried to sum- it seems that the feelings of reverence that he felt in marize his beliefs (Einstein 1954)... Basically, cosmic contact with nature were present all his life (Dukas religious feeling concerns his conviction in the ratio- and Hoffman 1979). The origin of Einstein’s con- nal structure of the world. By entering into the field version lies in novel ideas that he acquired through of science, we are trying to grasp that ”grandeur rea- the reading of scientific books. This led him to the son incarnate in the existence which, in its profound conviction that the stories in the Bible could not be depths, is inaccessible to man” (Einstein 1941). This true and, as he was an independent spirit, he became leads to the mysterious experience, which arises with suspicious of every kind of authority. Since there is an awareness of the insufficiency of human mind to but one step from denying authority to replacing its fully understand the harmony of the Universe and position, we think that his attitude towards science it is the core of Einstein’s religious feeling (Einstein and religion should be considered as starting from 1952). Although, throughout these debates, Einstein this instance. It should be noted that Einstein did tried to keep an autonomous position (”I’m not an not attend religious services, nor prayed at a place atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a panthe- of worship of any kind. His civil marriage to Mil- eva Marić,who belonged to the Serbian Orthodox ist” (Jammer 1999), his religious views can be con- Church, also shows Einstein’s indifference towards sidered pantheistic. Some remarks about Spinoza, religion affiliations. On the other hand, despite his ”I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals Himself in refutation of Orthodox Judaism, he saw himself as a the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God Jew. In his interview with Peter Bucky we find fol- who concerns himself with fates and actions of hu- lowing statement through which he tried to clarify man beings” (Schilpp 1970), or Buddhism; ”The reli- his position (Bucky and Weakland 1992): gion of the future will be cosmic religion, The religion which is based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. ”. . . Actually it is a very difficult thing to even If there’s any religion that would cope the scientific define a Jew. The closest that I can come to de- needs it will be Buddhism....” (Dukas and Hoffman scribing it is to ask you to visualize a snail. A snail 1979) can easily support the former conclusion. (Ein- that you see at the ocean consists of the body that is stein 1933). snuggled inside of the house which it always carries How can one elucidate underlying rationality around with it. But let’s picture what would happen of the Universe? Einstein directs us to mathematics: if we lifted the shell off of the snail. Would we not still describe the unprotected body as a snail? In just ”Our experience hitherto justifies us in believ- the same way, a Jew who sheds his faith along the ing that nature is the realization of the simplest con- way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a ceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we Jew.” can discover by means of purely mathematical con- structions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the under- 9. EINSTEIN AND JUDAISM II. standing of natural phenomena. Experience may sug- gest the appropriate mathematical concepts, but they Had good Lord consulted me while creating most certainly cannot be deduced from it. Experience World, remains, of course, the sole criterion of the physical I could have given him some good advice. utility of a mathematical construction. But the cre- Alphonso X ative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain As his fame grew, the number of Einstein’s sense, therefore, I hold it true pure thought can grasp texts concerning science and religion gradually in- reality, as the ancients dreamed” creased. In his writings and interviews, Einstein’s The origin of these ideas could be traced to statements are sometimes ambiguous, even contra- Kant’s ”Critique of pure reason”. Einstein was se- dictory, but it is easy to recognize some key facts in rious reader of Kant’s philosophy. Besides scientific his opinions. Einstein’s starting point was refutation books, he had read ”Critique of pure reason” in his of the traditional concept of a personal God, a God early age, just before he refused to be bar mitzvahed who rewards and punishes his object of creation: . (Jammer 1999). It is necessary to mention that Kant (Bucky and Weakland 1992). attempts to explain in his book, among other mat- ”I cannot then believe in this concept of an an- ters, how mathematics is possible in the first place thropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering (Tasić2001). We can treat mathematical knowledge with these natural laws.... If there is any such con- in two ways: as empirical in its essence, which could cept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a be, simplistically speaking, Hume’s viewpoint, or as man that so many have fixed in their minds” an outcome of pure reason (Descartes’ viewpoint) (Tasić2001). In the first approach, a priori truth-

67 V. DOKOVI- C´ and P. GRUJIC´ fulness of mathematics is just an imagination For this reason, it is not unusual that he, him- through which nature rescues us from the lack of self, took the task to continue the endeavors of these pure reason, and if we accept Descartes view, we great people from the past. As a voice of novel spir- must explain why this invention of our spirit, i.e. itualization, he started to play the role of Moses, mathematics, is so successful in practice? To give an a prophet of the new faith manifested through cos- answer to this question one might obviously use an mic religious feeling. As was mentioned earlier, a ontological argument (Tasić2001). For that reason closer look at the history of religion and philosophy Kant turns to the notion of subject, which becomes reveals that ideas about exceptional religious person- a crucial point of his philosophy. He started with alities are almost permanently present in the west- the well-known fact, that for each subject, the ob- ern or Judeo-Christian civilization. Besides obvious jects of the outside world are, actually, mental rep- influence from the Torah, with prophet figures so im- resentations or phenomena. This does not mean that manent to Judaism, we can also find spiritual here- he took solipsistic position and denied the existence sies present in Christianity since Joachim of Fiore of object outside our senses (Ding an sich). Kant (ca. 1132-1202). In these heresies (which some- just tried to make the difference between the thing times include philosophers, for example, Hegel) the as it is and the thing as we know it (phenomenon). teachings about Holy Spirit are emphasized to such On the other hand, this introduces the problem of an extent that even incarnation, personification of establishing something common to the mental rep- God, becomes a continuous, at all times present and resentations of all subjects, something that could be repeatable event (Gadamer 1976). Bearing this in called knowledge. Kant attempted to solve this prob- mind, it can be argued that Einstein’s prophet posi- lem (i.e. gaining knowledge and/or the existence of tion is not completely unjustified. Sincerely speak- mathematics) by introducing notion of a priori intu- ing, if we adopt the above definition of knowledge as ition of time and space. However, his solution first something common to our individual, phenomeno- induced reactions of romantic idealism and later on logical experiences, then Einstein has indeed created of the other schools of philosophy. Since this subject our world. His General relativity theory gives us is still a matter of dispute, we will leave it aside and knowledge about the Universe, a picture of the world concentrate on Einstein’s approach. that exists independently of our senses, which is, in Obviously, Einstein assumed that mathemat- fact, the maximum that we can grasp with our feeble ics can offer us knowledge about the Universe or, minds. Therefore, we still might consider Einstein as following the above discussions, a perspective that a demiurge; a God creator. The question remains, is independent from our mental representations. His of course, whether he was aware of this position and view is platonic. It can be understood as a combi- whether he played on this card, consciously or un- nation of the platonic school of mathematics, which consciously. When he wrote ”When I am judging a claims that mathematical objects are not derived but theory I ask myself whether, if I were God, I would possess an autonomous existence, and the opinion have arranged the world in such a way.” (www) it that they (i.e. these mathematical objects) can be was not merely late reflection of the famous remark directly realized in nature. The discovery of this hid- by Alphonso the Wise, since the Castilian king was a den rational nature of reality should be the principal mere organizer of a compilation of astronomical ta- goal of humankind, as he pointed out at the end of his bles, while Einstein was devising theoretical models, article from the Symposium on Science, Philosophy which should reflect the physical reality itself. and Religion in New York 1941. (Einstein 1941): The reverence which his eminent colleagues felt with regard to Einstein’s scientific achievements ”The further spiritual evolution of mankind surely added additional weight to his feelings of self- advances, the more certain it seems to me that the respect. Here it is what Paterniti wrote in his book path of genuine religiosity does not lie through the (Paterniti 2001). fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, Another contemporary of Einstein, Erwin but through striving after rational knowledge. In this Schrödinger,claimed that Einstein’s theory of rela- sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher tivity quite simple meant ”the dethronement of time if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mis- as a rigid tyrant”, opening up possibility that there sion.” might be an alternative master plan. ”And this Furthermore, Einstein considered the peo- thought”, he wrote, ”is a religious thought, nay I ple who acted according to these principles as the should call it the religious thought.” With relativ- ”priests” of his religion (Einstein 1954): ity, Einstein, the original cosmic slacker, was himself touching the mind of a new god, trying to wriggle ”The religious geniuses of all ages have been through some wrinkle in time. ”It is quite possible distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which that we can do greater things than Jesus,” he said. knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s im- The dethronement of time, with the latter be- age; so that there can be no church whose central ing the most fundamental (and elusive, for that mat- teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among ter) entity within the physical world, meant at the the heretics of every age that we find men who were same time ”overruling” the most reverent Hellenic filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and god, Chronos. And when Kurt Gödelfinds in 1949 were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries that Einstein’s GR allows for the so-called time-like as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in curves, the ”rigid tyrant.” was not only overthrown, this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, but killed altogether. (It turns out that Alice’s cry and Spinoza are closely akin to one another” in the Wonderland ”He is killing the time!” was a

68 ALBERT EINSTEIN, COSMOS AND RELIGION prophetic warning to unrestrained scientific specula- transient nature of our life. That all these motives tions.). It must be emphasized here, however, that appear disjunctive, if not contradictory, taken alto- Einstein himself did not dare to go so far with this in- gether, should not bewilder us, since the very con- terpretation of Gödel’ssolution and did not renounce cept (and phenomenon) of death is counter-intuitive the reality of time as such.2 (In fact he might well in itself. have felt Gödel’scontribution as undermining his rel- It is interesting, in this regard, to comment on ativistic building ”from inside”). Einstein’s attitude towards political power. His re- fusal to take the post of the president of Israel may The last sentence in the above quotation was be interpreted in many ways, but we shall consider an obvious allusion to Jesus’ ”tunneling” through here only one aspect, which one might term prophetic the ”spatio-temporal barrier” between the Crucifix- one. It is a well known Old Testament tradition that ion and Resurrection, and the so-called ”wormhole” prophets considered themselves as messengers of God in the four-dimensional space-time manifold (the ide- and never engaged in fighting for layman power, in ological background of the modern time machines). particular for the position of a sovereign. For good The mild irony, so characteristically present when- reasons. Firstly, they did not have to share politi- ever Einstein referred, albeit indirectly, to the reli- cal responsibilities, if the things turn bad, while re- gion, reminds us of his ambiguous attitude to the taining their right to criticize the government (po- subject. We shall return to this sentence later on, sition which modern heads of churches hold until when discussing his relation with Christianity. now). Secondly, they are protected in their activi- Apart from these analogies, we cannot over- ties by the Supreme Being, and thus keep their au- look Einstein’s late age manners and behaviour. gust position relative to the earthly power (Coogan His unorthodox clothing, avoidance of sockets, us- 1998). Thirdly, they retain their independence from ing rope instead of a belt, his general appearance the mob, for the ruling implies a mutual dependence resembling Chaplin’s dressings, etc all this points to- between the dominating and dominated. Last, but ward hermitic lifestyle. True, this could be equally not the least, these wise men knew that it is the bal- interpreted as a disregard (even demise) of petit bour- ance between spiritual and political power that keeps geois conformism, the latter being so far from his a society stable and functioning. Einstein used to anti-traditionalism in every respect. But one may distance himself from his environment, both familiar equally assign it to his prophetic self-image, more and social (even scientific), since his fame took global precisely at least a subconscious awareness of being dimensions. Engaging in any sort of public official a law-giver. The latter is particularly indicated by activities would break his ”splendid isolation”. And Einstein’s prominent hair, which inevitably reminds surely spoil his self-image of somebody who is ”above one of Samson and other biblical symbols of might everything”. And here we come to the last point of (which, in its turn, was borrowed from lion’s mane our discourse. paradigm). Moreover, if we recall the death of Moses in the way Bible presents it (Deuteronomy 34:5-6) : 10. EINSTEIN AND CHRISTIANITY ”So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab So far we have been dealing with Einstein’s opposite Beth-pe’or; but no man knows the place of link to the Old Testament tradition. We shall finish his burial to this day” our analysis of his religious attitude by considering briefly his relations with the faith that was prevailing a strange parallel to the destiny of Einstein’s where- in his immediate environment, the Christianity. The abouts arises. After his death Einstein was cremated latter has been involved in Einstein’s development according to his will and his ashes were scattered at regarding religion in many ways, albeit implicitly. It a secret spot on the Delaware River (probably into helped, first of all, young schoolboy, while attend- water) (Paterniti 2001). It seems that he was ready ing parallel religion lessons in Mosaic and Christian to play the role of his great ancestor to the very end. dogmatists, to realize the naivety of religion as such. (The analogy between Mileva Marićand Agar (Ha- At a more mundane level, early Christianity tradi- gar) cases comes to mind, too, but we shall not dwell tion, first of all its ascetic aspects, surely did not fail on it here). to influence Einstein’s manners, both concerning his Another, equally valid, interpretation would way of life (clothing etc) and attitude towards fame be to conceive the act as a religious ritual of unify- he used to be the object in the second half of his ing with Nature-God. The choice of water is indica- life. Those manners oscillated between subtle arro- tive, as a generic dissolver in many religions. It is a gance and humble modesty, just as Christ’s attitude primeval element as well, as with Thales, then the towards environment used to jump from servitude substance that washes our human sins, albeit in a to (godly) warnings of (the) Lord. One is tempted symbolic manner, also in numerous religious move- to deprive his modesty of sincerity, but there is no ments, like with Essens (Veyne 1983), Hindus, Chris- reason to disbelieve Einstein’s honesty. After all, was tians etc. The choice of river waters is not insignifi- not the humiliation syndrome that secured both Jew- cant too, for the water flow epitomizes the everlast- ish survival and Christian victorious march through ing change in Heraclites’ sense, and reminds us of the numerous persecutions?

2We are indebted to the referee for pointing out this instance. 69 V. DOKOVI- C´ and P. GRUJIC´

One might object to this interpretation to not a mystic and in his case one might better think be redundant in view what was said on Einstein’s in terms of Spinozian pantheism with a scientific cu- Prophet’s simulations, but we know that the Chris- riosity overlayer. On the other hand Einstein never tian way of gaining dominance was contrived accord- considered scientific inquiries as natural human im- ing to the Old Testament religious strategy, too. pulse, devoid of any external or internal motivation. Concerning the very personality of Jesus of In this respect he lacked Hellenistic (hedonistic) ex- Nazareth, Einstein shared the common attitude of perience of intellectual activities as autonomous hu- his ”apatrid compatriots”. As he confessed himself, man sector. Or, he did not show it in his personal he did not doubt Jesus’ existence as a real man, communications with the environment, at least. whose life was so vividly described in Gospels. As for Jesus’ miracles, divinity and other religious and mythical overlayers, he did not have to be particu- 11. EPILOGUE larly explicit, in view of his general attitude concerning the concept of a personal god. He occasionally made allusions on the matter, as in the aforemen- Einstein was not a religious thinker and it tioned quotation on Jesus’ achievements according would not do justice to him to judge his opinion and to New Testament. As somebody who was not committed to any attitude toward religious in terms of self-consistency, particular religious faith, being aware of his Jewish or even intellectual evolution. But one can certainly heritage and at the same time imbedded into quasi- discern in his addressing the issue an endeavor to Judaistic (Christian) sea, Einstein was occasionally fuse two principal sectors of human life, religious (ir- exposed to temptations to deal with intimately del- rational) and scientific (rational) ones. Though he icate and socially risky situations. In his letters to never said it explicitly, his motivation was to formu- his future wife, Else, he used to refer to his still of- late a unique point where these two aspects merge ficial wife, Mileva, marking her simply by a cross, again, being separated in archaic times, as the Bibli- omitting her name. Whether he referred to Mileva’s cal narrative on the Original sin informs us, albeit in Serbian-Orthodox origin, or it was a mere allusion to allegorical terms. Just as he was striving during the her as a ”burden” in his actual life (Albert was about second part of his life to formulate what one would to divorce Mileva), or both, is a matter of choice (or term it today as Theory of Everything (TOE), trying to fuse his theory of gravity with Maxwell’s electro- taste). dynamics. Talking about his first wife Mileva Marić,it is Einstein was not an explicit atheist, unlike interesting to quote a passage from (Krstić2005), re- Marx and Freud, for example, but he was an or- lated to Albert’s and Mileva’s stay at her father’s cot- thodox believer neither. He failed to unify gravity tage at Kać(Vojvodina, then in Austro-Hungary). and electromagnetism, since, in all probability, they (It was just after submitting his ”Special relativ- are incompatible, in the sense that gravity is not a ity” paper to Annalen der Physik, and Mileva told force at all (as Einstein considered himself). Like- proudly her parents that the paper will make her wise, to know and to believe will most probably re- husband famous). main forever in separate spheres of human mental space. Even as powerful mind as Einstein’s could ”He liked the most riding a donkey. He no- not overcome this dichotomy. ticed soon that wherever he rode a flock of sheep used to follow him, even when they were rather faraway. He asked Rada if it was he who trained the sheep to Acknowledgements – We would like to thank follow the donkey, but the answer was negative. Al- Dr Gillian Peach for the critical reading of the bert was quite curious about the sheep behaviour and manuscript. We acknowledge with pleasure useful started analyzing the influence of the mutual distance conversations with Dr Zoran Stokić.Thanks are due and velocity between the donkey and sheep on the ”at- Dr Milan Cirkovićfor´ his useful suggestions and com- traction” on the latter. Workers on the estate found ments. We also wish to thank Milica Manojlović Albert’s ”investigations” quite odd and used to refer for her assistance in the literature search. One of to him as ‘that crazy Marić’sson-in-law’.” us (P.G.) expresses his gratitude to Professor Ljilja- na Dobrosavljević-Grujićfor her invaluable help and One could not help thinking, reading this pas- support. This work has been partially supported by sage, that if Somebody wanted to arrange an alle- the Ministry of Science and Environment Protection gory on the famous New Testament episode of Jesus of Republic of Serbia (Project No 146022 ”History entering Jerusalem (or even on the entire New Tes- and Epistemology of Natural Sciences”. tament mythology), he could not have done it more picturesquely. On a more ideological level, one is tempted to REFERENCES see in Einstein’s insistence of impersonal God and his secrets imbedded into Nature, to be revealed by human mind, a kind of Gnosis. Though the latter was Berlin, I.: 1976, Vico and Herder, The Hogarth in all probability developed somewhat before Chris- Press, London. tian faith appeared on the religious stage, it has al- Biagioli, M.: 1993, Galileo Courtier, The University ways been linked with Christianity, as one of its spe- of Chicago Press, Chicago. cific heresy (Jung 1978) . But surely Einstein was

70 ALBERT EINSTEIN, COSMOS AND RELIGION

Bucky, P., Weakland, G. (Ed.): 1992, The private Princeton. Albert Einstein, Andrews Mc Meel, Kansas Jung, C.G.: 1978, Psychological Reflections, Bollin- City. gen, Princeton. Coogan, M. (Ed): 1998, The Oxford History of the Kant, I.: 1968, Universal Natural History and The- Biblical World, Oxford University Press. ory of the Heavens, Greenwood, New York. Dukas, H. and Hoffman B. (Eds.): 1979, Albert Ein- Kirk, G., Raven, J. and Schofield, M.: 1983, The stein – The Human Side, Princeton University Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge. Press, Princeton. KrstićU.D.:- 2005, Mileva and Albert Einstein, Mat- Einstein, A.: 1933, ”On the method of theoretical ica Srpska (in Serbian). physics”, cited from Einstein A., 1954, ”Ideas Masson, H.: 1970, Dictionnaire Initiatique, Pierre and Opinions” Crown Publishers, New York. Belfond, Paris. Einstein A.: ”Religion and Science” New York Times Pais, A.: 1982, Subtle is the Lord... The Science and Magazine, November 9, 1930, cited from Ein- the Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford University stein A., 1954: ”Ideas and Opinions” Crown Press, Oxford. Publishers, New York Paterniti, M.: 2001, Driving Mr. Albert, Delta, New Einstein A.: 1941, article from Science, Philosophy York. and Religion, A Symposium; The Conference Poincare, H.: 1904, La Revue des Idees, 80, Nov., p. on Science, Philosophy and Religion in their 15. relation to the democratic way of life, Inc., Saunders, J. (Ed): 1997, Greek and Roman Philoso- New York, 1941, cited from Einstein A., 1954, phy after Aristotle, Free Press, New York. ”Ideas and Opinions” Crown Publishers, New Simon, M. et Benoit, A.: 1998, Le Judaism et le Christianism Antique, Nouvelle Clio, PUF, York. Paris. Einstein A.: December 17, 1952, Letter to Beatrice Schilpp, P.A. (Ed.): 1970, Albert Einstein: Frohlich, Einstein Archive 59-797. Gadamer, H-G.: 1976, Vernunft im Zeitalter der Philosopher-Scientist, The Open Court Pub- Wissenshaft, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am lishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, 3rd ed. Main. Schilpp, P.A. (Ed.): 1979, Albert Einstein, Auto- Grujic, P.: 2001, Serb. Astron. J., 163, 21. biographical notes, Open Court Publishing Grujic, P.: 2002, Serb. Astron. J., 165, 45. Comp. LaSalle and Chicago, Illinois. Grujić,P.: 2006, Found. Sci., in press. Spinoza, B.: 1910, Ethics, J.M. Dent and Sons, Lon- Grünbaum, A.: 2000, Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 52, 1. don. Ives, H.: 1952, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 42, 540. Tasić,V.: 2001, Mathematics and the Roots of Post- Jaeger, W.: 1961, Early Christianity and Greek modern Thought, Oxford University Press, Paideia, Harvard University Press, London. New York. Jammer, M.: 1961, Concepts of Mass in Classi- Veyne, P.: 1983, Les Grecs ont-ils Cru a Leur cal and Modern Physics, Harper Torchbooks, Mythes?, Points essais, Seuil. London. www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/∼history/ Jammer, M.: 1999, Einstein and Religion: Physics Quotations/Einstein.html and Theology, Princeton University Press,

71 V. DOKOVI- C´ and P. GRUJIC´

ALBERT AJNXTAJN, KOSMOS I RELIGIJA

V. Dokovi´c- 1 and P. Gruji´c2

1VinˇcaInstitute of Nuclear Sciences, 11001 Belgrade, Serbia 2Institute of Physics,11080 Belgrade, Serbia

UDK 524.8 Originalni nauqni rad

Razmatran je Ajnxtajnov odnos prema linije zacrtane od strane Filona Aleksan- religiji kao takvoj, sa kosmoloxkog i episte- drijskog, koji je sam sledio grqke Stoike i moloxkog gledixta. Napravǉen je pokuxaj da (neo)Platoniste i naroqito Baruha Spinoze. se ovaj odnos stavi u xiri socio-istorijski Izlazi da je Ajnxtajnova misao, kako nauqna okvir, sa naglaskom na etniqu i religioznu pozadinu. Pokazuje se da veliki nauqnik (racionalni aspekt), tako i religiozna (intu- nije bio ni vernik ni ateista u ortodok- itivni aspekt) bila duboko ukoreǌena u He- snom smislu i da bi najpogodnija etiketa lensku kulturu. ǋegovi napori u otkrivaǌu koja bi mu se mogla staviti bio panteizam- tajni svemira i korena kosmiqkog ureeǌa kosmizam (ontoloxki aspekt) i agnosticizam potseaju umnogome na stare ideje o ulozi znaǌa u razumevaǌu boanskog kao takvog, (epistemoloxki aspekt). ǋegova koncepcija kako se to pripisuje Gnosticima. boanskog mogla bi se smatrati nastavkom