Who says he said that ? I haven't seen that. Here's a little bit about him from another source:




Pg. 95

Einstein objected to Werner Heisenbergs uncertainty principle and, in general, to the statistics-based, ultimately random foundation of life Bohr was promoting. "God does not play dice" with the universe. Einstein protested.

Pg. 99

Einstein said some politically incorrect things that have been suppressed by highschool textbook writers. Einstein said that, "There is only one reality to be described." Many prominent physicists today who follow in Bohrs flawed footsteps beleive in multiple universes and multiple realities.

Pg. 102

Let us never forget what Einstein said: "Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things, easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts ... the road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." Let us not be blinded by the authority of Marx, Freud, Bohr, and Darwin, because they may very well have been in error.

Ok, so I polished up the above. Let me know what you think, or if there's something you'd add or say differently:

Members of our society spend more time working and running errands and other less communal activities that make up our modern lives. The next time you go out in public, take notice of how many people won't even look you in the eye. We spend a lot less time actually hanging out with each other, say on a front porch with friends, or a town hall with fellow citizens, talking with each other and really taking an interest in what others have to say or why they think the way they do. The internet has become a replacement for this and it doesn't work because it removes the human element. So, for some reason, even though we're becoming more and more self absorbed with our own little cosmos, we've somehow become more concerned with how other people live their lives or what they believe. We don't take time to get to know each other and understand each other, but somehow we won't hesitate to criticize what others do or what they believe. It's very easy to DO now that we don't actually have to deal with each other in person. We can each have our own anonymous little sphere we inhabit and feel superior to everyone else that doesn't do what WE do or think like WE think.

He said so on numerous occasions:

Albert Einstein: Quotes on God, Religion, Theology

(from the link, emphasis added):

This is accurate: Einstein was philosophically strongly inclined
toward an ultimate determinism.




This is garbled. The "Many Worlds" interpretion of Quantum Mechanics
was not discovered (by Hugh Everett ca. 1957) until after Einstein's
death. Bohr certainly did not subscribe to it, although many physicists
now do.




By contrasting "Concepts...assum(ing)... authority over us"
with "we forget their terrestrial origin" Einstein is again, I believe,
making a case against a personal, ethical God.

The rest of this statement is a truism alerting us to the need for
skepticism where the evidence is not decisive.

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord deliver us.

Yeah, I didn't really have the internet in mind, I guess for some folks it is true though.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

I gotcha. There's a very interesting write - up about the debate between him and Bohr though. From the source I got the original bit from.

I have a feeling that, like me, he was at LEAST agnostic. There are sources that explain how his findings and his mind workings led him to actually believe in a God though. Of course this will be a very debated topic with the liberal education establishment. God forbid one of the most important people of science/physics consider the possibility of a God or creator.

We couldn't have THAT :-)

Well, being that I was around before the internet (or microwave ovens) I thought that it was an important factor in what you were explaining. I think it has played some PART of what you were talking about. The rest of the argument is how LARGE a part. We would only be hazarding guesses I think.

Atheists seem like anti Americans to me
if no GOD=Global Originator Divine then what???
a big bang??? and it just was all there???
if no creation??? then how???

stars, nebula's, etc etc couldn't have created anything
we all know what those are

Here's a fuller version of what is there:


Pg. 92

Is there an objective reality ? Is there an objective truth ? Intellectuals used to beleive in objective reality. Intellectuals used to believe in one objective truth. This all changed when Neils Bohr supposedly defeated Albert Einstein in a series of quantum physics debates in Copenhagen in 1927 and 1930. Neils Bohr stated emphatically that quantum physics called for a "radical revision of our attitude toward the problem of physical reality."

Most physicists today are disciples of Bohr and Heisenberg. They are indeterminists and subjectivists. They believe in Bohrs complementarity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They believe everything is random and based on statistical probabilities. They believe that there is no reality unless and until it is observed. They believe there is no reality independant of the observer. They are the liberals of modern physics and they control most of the physics departments in our educational institutions. They are known collectively as the "Copenhagen School" of quantum physics.


Pg. 93

A minority of physicists today are intellectual proteges of Albert Einstein. Einstein and his followers are determinists and objectivists. They don't believe in Bohrs complementarity. They don't believe in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Instead, they believe in objective reality independant of the observer. They believe there is only one reality. One truth. This group of physicists includes Einstein, Schrodinger, Planck, and Carver Mead.



The academic orthodoxy in theoretical physics for the last seventy years is that Bohr was right and Einstein was wrong. This false orthodoxy was pushed in the textbooks for political and philosophical purposes. The truth was suppressed. Any new scientific evidence that undermined Bohr and strengthened Einsteins interpretation was swept under the rug. It was not printed in the textbooks. The promoters of subjectivity and uncertainty were 100 % certain that they were right.


Pg. 94

Einstein said, "I reject the basic idea of contemporary statistical quantum theory." Schrodinger attacked Bohr's complementarity as "intellectually wicked." Murray Gell-Mann accused Bohr of "brainwashing" the majority of physicists. (Murray Gell-Mann was a nobel prize winner in physics.)

What was "intellectually wicked" about Bohrs lack of belief in an objective physical reality ? Part of it was that he did not want this belief confined to the feild of physics. He wanted to spread this virulent strain of ideology to dominate all fields of human inquiry and knowledge, not just science. "Bohr regarded complementarity as providing an 'epistemological lesson' for the field of human learning, and beyond physics his own discussions were principally in biology, psychology, and social anthropology." In 1939 , Bohr preached cultural subjectivity (that all cultures are equal) and moral subjectivity (that no moral decision is inferior to any other moral decision). For instance, a cannibalistic culture is not inferior to a culture that does not practice cannibalism. Bohr said, "each culture represents a harmonious balance of traditional conventions by means of which latent potentialities of human life can unfold themselves in a way which reveals to us new aspects of its unlimited richness and variety."

Pg. 95

Selleri says that the Copenhagen paradigm of Bohr and Heisenberg contains a "falsification." Selleri goes on to say that there is an objective reality in spite of the falsification put forth so effectively by the Copenhagen clan.

Einstein may have lost the debate in the short term, but Einstein will be proven the victor in the long run. Carver Mead proved that Einstein was right and that it was Bohr who was wrong about quantum physics. Mead proved this in his book Collective Electrodynamics, which was published in 2001.

Rich Karlgaard states in Forbes on March 18, 2002, in a review of Carver Meads book,

"Einstein had objected to Werner Heisenbergs uncertainty principle and, in general, to the statistics-based, ultimately random foundation of life Bohr was promoting. 'God does not play dice' with the universe. Einstein protested. Carver Mead said that Bohrs signature contribution to physics, complementarity, is crap. There is only one reality. The supposed conflicts of Bohrs day were a result of limited instrumentation.

Pg. 96

But instead of being patient, Bohr forced the issue and declared all problems solved. He silenced two generations of physicists. Carver loathes Bohrs legacy. He thinks Bohr perpetuated one of those monstrous intellectual frauds that every now and then slip through the asylum gates and confuse people for decades. Think Freud and Marx."

Pg. 97

Carver Mead lists ten experimental discoveries which vindicate Einstein and debunk Bohrs interpretation of quantum physics: 1933-Persistent current in superconducting ring, 1933-Expulsion of magnetic field by superconductor, 1954-Maser, 1960-Atomic laser, 1961-Quantized flux in superconducting ring, 1962-semiconductor laser, 1964-superconducting quantum interference device, 1980-integer quantum hall effect, 1996-Bose-Einstein condensate.

Sorry, I have not read Richard Dawkins. I think some people do not like religion because they feel threatened by it. Some gay people like Elton John for instance. Some families are broken when a member ‘loses his faith’. Some are annoyed when it gets in the way of discussions of topics like abortion or evolution. Whether the complexity of the universe is organised or not does not seem to indicate the presence or absence of something as ill-defined as ‘God’. Nobody should be belittled for their belief in God, but it should be possible to question those beliefs the same as any other. Some religionists feel threatened by such questions. Some people are inconvenienced when they are trying to help people in Catholic countries combat Aids and the Pope says not to use condoms.

Religion should be choice of individual, not Rocket Man - Opinion

One is bound to resent religion if one has been harmed by it I suppose. One accepts it more if one is raised to associate everything good with it. Either you have faith or you do not. That is how these discussions always end.

Not only Atheists ask: are organised religions harmful? Arguably, religion facilitates conflict in a similar way to nationalism. It is not personal, private beliefs in God so much as organised religion that seems unhelpful nowadays. We need community and belonging, not religions. A spiritual need does not need a spirit world. Give me a boy of seven and I will give you a Catholic for life. Is that the Stockholm syndrome? Brainwashing? What is the difference between religion and superstition?

I like the sentiments expressed in John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’.