Einstein descended on both parents’ sides from Jewish tradesmen and peddlers who had, for at least two centuries, made modest livings in the rural villages of Swabia in southwestern Germany. With each generation they had become increasingly assimilated into the German culture they loved–or so they thought. Although Jewish by cultural designation and kindred instinct, they had little interest in the religion itself. In his later years, Einstein would tell an old joke about an agnostic uncle who was the only member of his family who went to synagogue. When asked why he did so, the uncle would respond, “Ah, but you never know”!

Einstein’s parents, on the other hand, were “entirely irreligious”. They did not keep kosher or attend synagogue, and his father Hermann referred to Jewish rituals as “ancient superstitions”, according to a relative. Consequently, when Albert turned 6 and had to go to school, his parents did not care that there was no Jewish one near their home. Instead he went to the large Catholic school in their neighborhood. As the only Jew among the 70 students in his class, he took the standard course in Catholic religion and ended up enjoying it immensely.

Despite his parents’ secularism, or perhaps because of it, Einstein rather suddenly developed a passionate zeal for Judaism. “He was so fervent in his feelings that, on his own, he observed Jewish religious strictures in every detail”, his sister recalled. He ate no pork, kept kosher and obeyed the strictures of the Sabbath. He even composed his own hymns, which he sang to himself as he walked home from school.

Einstein’s greatest intellectual stimulation came from a poor student who dined with his family once a week. It was an old Jewish custom to take in a needy religious scholar to share the Sabbath meal; the Einsteins modified the tradition by hosting instead a medical student on Thursdays. His name was Max Talmud, and he began his weekly visits when he was 21 and Einstein was 10. Max brought Einstein science books, including a popular illustrated series called People’s Books on Natural Science, “a work which I read with breathless attention”, said Einstein. The 21 volumes were written by Aaron Bernstein, who stressed the interrelations between biology and physics, and reported in great detail the experiments being done at the time, especially in Germany.

Max also helped Einstein explore the wonders of mathematics by giving him a textbook on geometry two years before he was scheduled to learn that subject in school. When Max arrived each Thursday, Einstein delighted in showing him the problems he had solved that week. Initially, Max was able to help him, but he was soon surpassed by his pupil. “After a short time, a few months, he had worked through the whole book”, Max recalled. “Soon the flight of his mathematical genius was so high that I could no longer follow”.

Einstein’s exposure to science and math produced a sudden transformation at age 12, just as he would have been readying for a bar mitzvah. He suddenly gave up Judaism. That decision does not appear to have been drawn from Bernstein’s books because the author made clear he saw no contradiction between science and religion. As he put it, “The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence”.

Einstein would later come close to these sentiments. But at the time, his leap away from faith was a radical one. “Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of free thinking coupled with the crushing impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies!

My only comment about science was that it TOO had at its foundation axioms = A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof. ie although rationally, intellectually and even support by unbiased experimentation, there is a certain amount of faith involved.

It is hard to explain sugiyas like that. the easy way is that they were wrong. The trouble is how you understand Divrei Elokin chaim.. this is why some people do intellectual gymnastics to explain it. Either way could be right – who knows.

Yes we don’t have to get into philosophy but you did dodge a direct questions.

Simon stated he didn’t believe in G-d and then made up different definitions of the G-ds he did not believe in. He had some limited knowledge of chassidus and Kaballah and states he doesn’t believe in that G-d either.

He is an academic. He makes a hypothesis and searches for proof to support it. Is he correct? I can not disprove him. I just follow my faith which is based on revelation and the oral and written transmission of millions of people throughout thousands of years. He follows his faith.

People should just not fool themselves into thinking every decision, philosophy is purely based on logic, reasoning and proof. Otherwise they get fixed, stubborn and instead of supporting possible alternative views they just belittle and dismiss them. And they become blind to criticism and disproofs.

I found someone well versed in Kaballah to show a connection between string theory (not that I full believe in it) and he dismissed him as not being accredited. So I found a physicist… He misinterprets or misquotes me.. maybe his opinions are that fragile.

If that’s the case, I don’t quite understand your initial attack on science in which you placed it’s plausibility on equal par with that of religious faith. If emunah is understood as accepting certain empirical statements, I think that it fares much worse than science.

But I don’t think that that is what the bulk of religious thought is – Torah consists in its majority of normative statements, that is, prescribed and proscribed practices. Also, the descriptive statements can almost always be understood on a phenomenological level (as expressions of wonderment at the world; as expressions of gratitude for being delivered from disaster, etc.). Science doesn’t do those things – it is not art, and it is not law. So yes, science has its limits. However, as I said, if we understand the world better (simple example: patterns of social behaviour that are harmful) that has normative implications (to discourage that kind of behaviour).

Here is what I think might be our point of disagreement: Certain descriptive statements made by Chaza’l are simply incorrect: Take the famous sugya in Pesahim (94a? – I don’t have it in front of me, so I might have that a little off; and it goes onto the next amud) which describes the way in which the sun revolves around the earth, and whether or not it is above or below some kind of firmament when it ventures below the earth. On the one hand, they are attempting to explain phenomena that they see with their eyes, and it is not difficult to work out why they thought what they thought. On the other hand, Rebbi himself concedes that the Greek model is better, for it explains more of the observable data. So in some sense, they were wrong (but on the other hand we have a nice Talmudic example of a proto-Occam’s razor – or rather an awareness of what consitutes a good theory versus a bad theory). But a lot of frum people find this very troubling (I don’t) and do mental somersaults to try to defend the accuracy of such statements.

Also, certain claims are simply not demonstrable or falsifiable in any sense. For example, reincarnation (a la chassidus/kabbalah) versus heaven-or-something (a la Saadya Gaon in Emunot ve-De’ot – and he openly and vehemently rejects belief in reincarnation) versus sometimes-no-afterlife (Rambam) versus no afterlive at all… Well, there is simply no empirical reason to believe anything at all. However, the burden of proof does lie with a person trying to make a positive claim.

Anyway, I have a vague suspicion that the conversation on science/faith is going to start to become circular… Shall we move onto politics? Just kidding. Really.

Re the Rambam: I’m neither equipped nor willing to explain his position on prophecy (and the authorship/transmission of Torah) here. But I will say this: the only way you can get a good understanding of his thought is to read as much of it as possible – including Moreh Nevukhim. And learn Sefer Hamada’ well. He uses two different methods of hiding his true opinion – in the Guide, he uses a system of contradictions (which is annoying – he explains it in the introduction), while in Sefer Hamada’ he just uses ambiguous language. I had a teacher in yeshivah who recommended learning them side by side – the Guide can be used as a sort of dictionary for the Mishneh Torah. And I know Lubavitchers learn a perek yomi, that’s very good. But it’s pretty much exclusively halakhah – which I think is a good thing too. Still, you won’t get his philosophy from that. (btw I also very much enjoy learning chassidus – it’s funny, in my mind I think that there are 3 little voices: One of an angry little misnagged; one of slightly shiker khusid; and one of a perfectly enlightened Taoist fish. Well, that description will surely confirm anyone’s suspicion that religion is rational…) And don’t worry, Chaim: You’re not trying to khapp me, and I’m not trying to apikorsify you. Still, if you want to understand the Rambam more broadly, you gotta read him.

Anyway, we should all be zoykhe to chill out and expand our minds.

Enjoy the Amish, Chaim.

“G-d is an objective reality but that, unless you use this reality to find practical and personal meaning in your life, it’s a rather useless concept.”

While yes he is an objective reality, I said finding “thy why” in the universe is a useless concept without a practical and personal consequence.

As you your surmise that it is because I am part of a like minded community – I was neither born into nor brought up in this community. IN fact I had no idea Chabad existed for most of my life. It started with intellectual honesty and research and the faith I mentioned grew out of it. I am really not an emotional person.

AGAIN I never tried to prove G-d existence. I can not. It is a useless pursuit. I explained about faith in G-d existence.

CyberJew – I don’t know how to make this more clear – I do not reject the method. It does work wonderfully for its stated goals but like any method it has limitations.. Do you really think it is perfect?

axiom: A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

I may be still understanding you. Is your point that D-d does not write books but that the Torah was given to Moshe who wrote it through prophecy? Is it still of divine origin? If so what is the chiddush? Again what about the first set of tablets?

PS most lubavitchers learn 1 or 3 chapters of Rambam daily.

PPS I am off to be with the Amish for the week so no computers. You have your reprieve from me. Simon – you can breathe.

PPS I do personally like both of you in at least a virtual way. One day a beer would be nice. You could see I personally am not pushy nor do I proselytize, I like arguing to learn more and test my knowledge and beliefs only.

5 veges and 2 fruit per day.

I don’t think that keeping kashrut is silly, and I realise that it is considerably more complex than simply avoiding the combination of meat and milk. Besides, my shwarmas tend not to be kosher, so even if I were to add cheese (which, incidentally, sounds revolting to me anyway) it would not be that particular prohibition that I would be guilty of breaking.

Kashrut features within a few of the Biblical books, but so do a variety of other practises that I can safely say that I do not agree with. I like some of the psycho-social reasons that can be applied to it, but I do not agree with the principles that are delineated within those texts themselves. That goes for a variety of mitzvot. It is perhaps beyond the scope of this thread, but Leibowitz’s (and, I suppose, Rav Soloveitchik’s) understanding of halakha as something that you do for no other reason than the fact that it is halakha is something that appeals the most to me. Most other attempts at legitimising it from the perspective of a contemporary hermeneutic smack of apologetics.

Chaim – good questions but too many of them! I am currently residing in Yerushalayim, so there’s a difference in time zone. Hence the delay.

So there are a few points to respond to: Firstly, superstring theory is just a theory – but it’s a theory that is intended as a possible solution to a problem in theoretical physics (about which I know very little). When I say that you reject the method (which I had assumed from reading your responses), I didn’t mean that you rejected the data. I assume that you believe in gravity, maybe even atoms. But that’s not the point. Science is a method, and it is that overall approach – not the specific data – that you appear to be sceptical of. I, on the other hand, think that the method works wonderfully.

But I do agree that science doesn’t answer all questions. Science helps us to understand and describe (and thus manipulate) the world more accurately. But it doesn’t necessarily offer answers to normative questions: How should I live? What is a good life? What are positive values? The descriptive data can help us to make wise decisions, so it has implications for normative questions, but it doesn’t respond to them directly. Those questions are addressed in different fields, like philosophy and religion.

Re the Rambam: I too can quote the opening passage of Sefer Hamada’, but let me ask you this: When he says that God exists, what does he mean by that statement? If you look in Moreh Nevukhim, the question becomes a little more complicated (this is aleady in the Mishne Torah, but is much more fully developed in the Guide): God does not change, act, have any agency… In fact, the Rambam says that we only say that God “exists” because we don’t want to say the opposite – but the word “existence” in the sense that we use it for anything else doesn’t apply. It actually sounds vary similar to non-dualistic Buddhist philosophies that say things like “Nirvana is beyond both existence and non-existence…” Fundamentally, the God according to the Rambam is impersonal, abstract and transcendent. So how does he write books?

So the Rambam doesn’t approach it from that angle. Instead of describing exactly how books themselves are written, he attacks the question of prophecy. (There’s a long bit on it in Moreh Nevukhim) Prophecy, according to the Rambam, is fundamentally a human endeavour – highly developed intellectual and imaginative thought. It works from the bottom upwards: Human to God. This is a famous makhloykes/disagreement between the Kuzari and the Rambam.

But beyond all of this, I want to explain something very important: Any true Maimonidean must reject some things in the Rambam’s philosophy. He himself accepted scientific and philosophical method, and the fact is that philosophy and science have moved on. However, his approach to the mitzvot and understanding them remains deeply relevant, and I subscribe to it happily. I.e. He believes that mitzvot have a reason (in itself a reasonable assumption, since all social norms have some kind of reason), and that they fit into a broader social picture constucted by the Torah. The more I learn, the more I agree with this.

And: I never said my opinions were those of the Rambam, just that they were based on his approach. I kind of like to have my own opinions. Life’s more fun that way.

And: All I meant by saying that the discussion is boring, is that the question of whether or not God “actually exists” has been beaten to death over many centuries, and isn’t a very productive argument. Incidentally, it isn’t the topic of the above article either. It seems more to me (correct me if I’m wrong, Simon) a discussion of how one discusses these things and an attempt to distinguish between the different elements of the question of belief – with Simon articulating his own position in the process. That is, he distinguished between literal belief in the biblical God, belief in some kind of variation on a god (or maybe more than one) of some sort, and whether or not one ascribes value to Judaism/Torah. Three distinct questions that are usually conflated. He feels, and I agree, that they need not be conflated. But he implies (Simon? You there?) that kashruth is silly, even though it features in a book that he likes very much, and I think that kashruth is a good thing. I also ascribe more current authority to that book/Book, but that isn’t the discussion either.

There ya go. Another bloody long response. Give me some breathing time between your comments, Chaim!

Don’t forget to eat a hearty and nutritious breakfast every day.

Very different again are the varying depictions of God in the Bible to the depictions of God in the Rabbinic literature, and this continues to change as we make our way further and further into the modern era. If you are inclined to believe that God is an objective reality and that each of these texts hit the nail on the head, then you will also be inclined to believe that they each present different characteristics simply because they each focus on different elements. If you are disinclined to believe that God is an objective reality, then you will perceive these differences, at best, to be the result of an evolving religion and, at worst, as being no different to the variations that exist between one religion and another.

Chaim has an interesting philosophy. He seems to think that God is an objective reality but that, unless you use this reality to find practical and personal meaning in your life, it’s a rather useless concept. I think that such an outlook derives, not from a systematic appraisal of the evidence, but from the comfort that comes from living within a particular community of like-minded individuals, all of whom derive the same practical and personal meaning from the idea. Like most forms of serious religion, it’s an emotional choice and not an intellectual one.

As I said before, I have no problem with people making emotional choices and, as I should also reiterate, I am not intending to show any disrespect towards Chaim as a person. He should therefore not get quite so upset about intolerance; his opinions are not that fragile.