Albert Einstein: The idea of God is a “product of human weakness"

Albert Einstein: The idea of God is a “product of human weakness”, the bible “pretty childish”

Albert Einstein's letter to Eric Gutkind (Jauary 1954)

A recently unearthed letter written by Albert Einstein in January 1954, one year before his death, is yet another strong link in the chain of proves that Einstein was not the religious believer supernaturalists claimed him to be. The handwritten letter, addressed to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, describes the idea of God as “product of human weakness” and the bible as “pretty childish” and may finally put an end to all attempts to colour the illustrious thinker as a defender of religious faith.
The extraordinary piece was auctioned by Bloomsbury in London this month. The winning bid of 404,000 dollar – 25 times the pre-sale estimate – came from an unidentified overseas collector with “a passion for theoretical physics and all that that entails”. Really sad for Richard Dawkins, who was among the loosing bidders and would have been a deserving owner of the document.


Richard Dawkins Albert Einstein
Prof. Dawkins, famous British biologist and Honorary Associate of Rationalist International, has been the strongest voice clarifying Einstein’s position on religion. In his book The God Delusion, he explains that Einstein, who called himself “a deeply religious nonbeliever” and would occasionally invoke God, was referring to something entirely different from what is commonly meant with these terms. “Einstein’s religion” clearly excluded any idea of the supernatural, but was on the contrary an expression of pantheistic reverence.
“Pantheists don’t believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or the lawfulness that governs its working. Deists differ from theists in that the deist God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that their deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist’s metaphoric or poetic synonym for the law of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered down theism. “There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like`God is subtile but he is not malicious’ or `He does not play dice’ or `Did have God a choice in creating this Universe?’ are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic. …. Einstein was using `God” in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metapher.” Dawkins quotes Einstein himself writing about his religion: “to sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.” “In this sense”, Dawkins adds, “I am too religious, with the reservation that `cannot grasp’ does not have to mean `forever ungraspable’. But I prefer not to call myself religious because it is misleading. It is destructively misleading because, for the vast majority of people, `religion’ implies `supernaturt’. Carl Sagan put it well: `… if by `God’ one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying … it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity’.”

(All quotations from: Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Great Britain, 2006)

corts.:www.rationalistinternational.net
Bulletin # 176
June 28, 2008

SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY

In almost all the much developed cities in India like Mumbai, Banglore, Delhi, Chennai, Culcatta, Pune (rather in all developing cities in all developing countries) one of the biggest problem faced everyday by the common man is traffic jams, bad road transport and inefficient public transport systems.
I am resident of Pune, Maharashtra. We have maximum number of two wheeler motors, large number of cars (private vehicles) and much criticized public bus service like PCMT & BRT. Number of private vehicles is increasing with growing population and rising income levels and under so called social influence.  People using private vehicles are troubled with

1. traffic jams
2. parking problems
3. hikes in petrol/diesel/oil prices
4. costly maintenance
5. high investment cost. 
6. risk of road accidents which takes place every minute
7. the issue of pollution
8. Most important is lose of our Time and Energy

On the other hand, People using public bus service (as we have) always complaints about 

1. high tariff rates
2. uncomfortable (not at all luxurious)
3. not running on scheduled time
4. overcrowded buses. 
5. no remote networking (Many people critics that journeys with public buses take longer time as it includes time to cover distance from door to bus stop and again bus stop to door.)

We think that vast roads with procedures like road widening, flyovers are the perfect solutions. It will regularize the traffic flow. But the scene is different.

Flyovers ?
Flyovers often only serves to shift a traffic jam to one point from another.

1. flyovers/widen roads may meet the need of vehicles today we have; it might serve tomorrow also. But what after that?
2. it encourages the number of private vehicles to grow rapidly
3. it stimulates unnecessary demand for petrol which might be consumed in any alternative helpful and fundamental purpose
4. it also increases parking problems. 
5. it is pretty expensive
6. financially it is a dead investment. No revenue is generated from it for the Government or Public. If toll is forced then it will become great burdensome. 
7. it also does not generate any permanent employment. 

All the big cities in the world have gone through this situation. Many of them went on constructing flyovers and widening roads wherever possible. But now they are stuck with them as a nightmare!! Gaining from their experience we can conclude like Suitable Public Transport is the only way out.
If Public Transport has to be made more appealing, it has to;

1. reduce walking distances
2. be very predictable
3. cheap fairs

Why should a common man put himself in a almost miserable public transport systems today we have? In response to such pressures our Central Government has launched the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission in 2006.
Public Transport is a need of time;

1. cheap fairs
2. safety
3. remote networking
4. faster in speed
5. minimum road congestion 
6. lower pollution
7. lower demand for fuel
8. it will also affect real estate prices positively
9. it requires no investment from the common man
10. it needs huge investment for Government but it will also generate revenue
11. promote permanent employment

If fuel prices are hiked, the prices of public transport have to be pull down to discourage private vehicles and  adjust the demand for fuel in society. but this might be false economics because PCMT authorities do not believe in this.

Public transport systems are definitely more profitable individually and in a social context as well. We should think about holding bikes, cars for necessity only rather than as a prestige issue. We have made cars for us and not being made to enjoy the cars only. It will be better to conclude with the fact that energy requirement of Bangalore Metro per passenger per km is only one fifth of that of road based systems and so that is much cheaper.

Regards,
Swaroop Godbole