There is certainly a quote within a purported interview with Einstein in which the phrase appears and is attributed to Einstein (see Morgoth's answer). As such, the claim can be considered one that existed during Einstein's life, and is not a posthumous invention.
However, there may be reason to...
This seems to be based on personal arguments which are disputable. For example, half this answer is devoted to showing that Einstein did not believe supernatural religion, something which isn't in question and doesn't contradict the quote.
@DJClayworth Even if we ignore whether or not the religious statements were out of character, the excerpts relating to math and physics are pretty damning. The bit on the fifth and sixth dimensions in particular is utter nonsense, and Einstein was a competent mathematician. The bits on relativity and the Schroedinger equation aren't much better. Einstein wrote very clear descriptions of relativity aimed at laymen; I'm really skeptical that he would have phrased things in what is, at best, an awkward and imprecise manner.
(...continued) This answer may not prove that the quote isn't legit, but it certainly raises serious doubts about the source.
@DJClayworth - they are indeed disputable. That's why I emphasise that it gives only reason to doubt, not reason to confidently reject its veracity. And the conflict between his position on supernatural religion and the claimed quote isn't in the suggestion that Jesus existed, but in the way that Einstein allegedly described him. Einstein explicitly described the Bible as "legends" and "childish", which seems at odds with a claim that the truth of Jesus's existence is in the "authentic vitality" of Jesus in the words the gospels.
@PaulDraper - it doesn't. But it does indicate that the quote is out of character for Einstein. Hence the emphasis on it only being reason to doubt, not reason to reject as false.
"it is almost certain that all involved have passed away, it will be difficult, to say the least, to go beyond "doubt" or to eliminate the doubt" -- what, so Einstein had no opportunity to read and denounce a fake interview? This "answer" is pure sophism. And you seem to know nothing about Einstein, who said something to the effect that, if his theory was wrong, then God missed a great opportunity (he was, of course, speaking metaphorically, as in "God does not play dice" -- he disavowed a personal God).
@JimBalter - Einstein could have read and denounced it. But do we have evidence that he did read it? And for that matter, how can we be sure that he's not including the Viereck "interview" when he writes "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated".
@Ray "t it certainly raises serious doubts about the source" -- so why didn't Einstein refute it while alive? Why have none of his biographers mentioned a fake interview? And in the fricking Saturday Evening Post!? The thesis here is totally implausible.
@GlenO I consider that sort of response to be proof of bad faith argumentation. I'm done here.
@JimBalter - Accusing me of "bad faith argumentation" on the basis that I questioned your argument (and asked for substantiating evidence for it) is completely uncalled-for.
For context, it’s entirely normal for interviewers to editorialise an interview. Most interviews, definitely all good interviews are written this way, as “raw” questions and answers sound terrible when written out. Even good speakers hem and haw, and the result doesn’t make for good prose. However, in the context of the question it does make it more plausible that Einstein’s quote was distorted or at least taken out of context. And this answer adds good evidence to show that Einstein mistrusted the historicity of the bible.
@JimBalter You get too hung up on this being a fake interview. I don’t think Glen is suggesting this (I certainly am not), merely that it’s overly editorialised and misquoting Einstein. This happens and happened frequently, and most people do not go out of their way to denounce every single instance of it publicly.
@KonradRudolph Of course he is. His thesis is that the words of Einstein throughout the interview aren't Einstein's. He absurdly suggests that Einstein may not have refuted the purportedly extensive "misquotation" because he might not have read it. And you talk about "taken out of context" ... apparently you haven't even read the article. This whole thing is fundie style "skepticism" -- scientists can't know evolution happened because they weren't there, or it might all be faked.
And we're not talking "every single instance", we're talking the Saturday Evening Post. You don't seem to have any idea what that was, or its standing and cultural significance.
@JimBalter There are more than one ways of taking something out of context. But to be fair, what I really mean is that the author probably took something mundane Einstein said and rendered it it in the overly flowery speech and inept comparisons in the quote that make it sound as if Viereck interviewed an uneducated half-wit rather than one of the most intelligent and educated people of the period. Have you read the interview?
@JimBalter You vastly overestimate the correlation between prestige and quality. Even newspapers of the very best standing do, and always have, published blatant falsehoods, never mind inaccurate interview representations. It’s par for the course. The only thing thing I’m questioning is that such an interview can be used as good evidence of a quite controversial statement. I know enough of journalism to know that the answer is a clear no.
@KonradRudolph Again, this is fundie style skepticism. There is no valid basis for arguing that Einstein did not "comment on feeling the presence of Jesus while reading the Gospels", as the OP asks, or that he did not say essentially what he is quoted as saying. The interview is excellent evidence that Einstein made the statement, and is the only possible evidence, since the statement was made during the interview. You haven't a leg to stand on. Statements from the interview are widely quoted in lsts of Einstein quotation, including Wikiquote. Good luck getting them all withdrawn.
@JimBalter It certainly isn’t “fundie style skepticism” to remark that these esoteric and utterly unfounded supposed quotes are fundamentally at odds with other pronouncements made by Einstein. I’m not even questioning that Einstein believed in the historicity of Jesus, which is after all the mainstream belief even amongst nonreligious scholars. I’m just saying that the supposed quote is suffused with esotericism and ignorance, and both are highly uncharacteristic of Einstein. And both would be characteristic of somebody who’s a self-described “national socialist but not anti-semitic”.
@KonradRudolph "to remark that these esoteric and utterly unfounded supposed quotes are fundamentally at odds with other pronouncements made by Einstein" -- it's certainly intellectually dishonest, because they are not. You're just spinning a tale. Again, no Einstein biographer has denounced this interview as being unlike Einstein.
@JimBalter “utterly unfounded” are the historically and literarily incompetent comparisons between the gospel and other ancient hero tales. But you’re right, this is tiresome, especially since you stooped to personal insults from your very first comment. This is unacceptable, and you should know better. Please temper the way you discourse with people here.
You are making arguments based on language, but I do not see that the newspaper article (at which, however, I had only a quick look) states in which language the interview took place. It may have been in German and all of the quotes may be translations. In any case, bon mot has entered the German language (now spelled Bonmot) in the 18th century.
I read this answer as such that your concluding: the quote is questionable. Your argument seems to be: 1) Einstein was "dismissive" of religion. But you quote him saying Bible stories are "honourable" , which means it's possible he spoke positively about people in those stories. 2) The reporter got the maths and physics wrong. Which proves the Dunning-Kruger effect that you can't report about something you don't understand, it doesn't (automatically) discredit the non-scientific portions. 3) The reporter was Nazi affiliated. Which feels like Poisoning the Well. It doesn't really say anything.
There are two arguments shown here. (1) "Feeling the presence of Jesus" is a religious experience, one that goes beyond the rational. Showing that Einstein is not religious shows that he is unlikely to have said the statement. (2)The source of the statement shows signs that other quotations in the work have been edited. The interviewer himself is a known propagandist, which suggests he has no problem editing things to fit an agenda. Put together, these suggest that the quotation is of questionable veracity. I see nothing wrong with this argument.
I also note that the quotation indicates that he does not believe the stories related in the Gospels are myth. In this context, that clearly implies that he thinks they are true. Seeing as they have Jesus perform miracles and say that Jesus rose again, that would very much suggest that Einstein was a Christian. But other verifiable statements indicate he is not a Christian, nor does he believe in supernatural things like miracles. Nor a personal God, which the Gospels say exists.
@trlkly Propagandist =/= liar, dictionary.com/browse/propaganda). "Feeling the presence of Jesus" =/= religious experience, he said the story of Jesus is more "real" (for lack of a better word) than that of Theseus. He says he believes Jesus existed and that his "sayings are beautiful". It isn't unimaginable Einsteins would hold that opinion and doesn't imply he "was a Christian". Nowhere in the article he says the Gospels are true, nor the miracles written in the Gospels.
The only argument that can be made is that the exact wording might be uncertain. This is the case for all quotes that aren't captured with some sort of (good quality) recording device. Ask a any journalist you might know: paraphrasing exact quotes isn't an uncommon practice. But this answer feels a little overkill-y just to prove that it might be "paraphrased".
@JimBalter - my "thesis" is that the way that the interview is written seems like it's at least embellished. I cannot assert anything further than this, as "did an interview happen" isn't something that is likely to be either proven or denied at this time. The question is, did Einstein say that exact quote. Based on reasons to doubt as I've provided, there's good reason to think that Einstein did not say what was reported in the interview article - perhaps he said something more along the lines of "When you read the gospels, it seems as though it is stories constructed around something real".
@Jordy - paraphrasing can change the meaning of a sentence if you're not careful, and it is entirely possible that it goes beyond mere paraphrasing, without venturing into blatant lying. And in the absence of corroborating evidence, it is not impossible that there were lies. Also, the key part of "pro-Nazi propagandist" was the "propagandist" part, not the "pro-Nazi" part - I'd have felt the same if he was a "pro-America propagandist" or a "pro-church propagandist".
" I cannot assert anything further than this" -- Oh, you can assert all you want, but none of it is intellectually honest. All this "it is entirely possible" and "perhaps" and so on is the weaselly language of sophism. "perhaps he said something more along the lines of "When you read the gospels, it seems as though it is stories constructed around something real"" -- Or perhaps he said "Some day Glen O will just make stuff up because he doesn't want to believe that I said what I said".
"Also, the key part of "pro-Nazi propagandist" was the "propagandist" part, not the "pro-Nazi" part - I'd have felt the same if he was a "pro-America propagandist" or a "pro-church propagandist". " -- More blatant dishonesty. The intent of the "pro-Nazi" part is obvious. And propagandists are all around us -- just look in the mirror.
"it is not impossible " -- what a high standard; what a high bar. What a fine skeptic you are, making assertions that are not impossible.
@JimBalter - the bar is neither high nor low. It is such a simple one: "back up your claims with evidence". I have demonstrated, with evidence, reasons to think that it might not have been Einstein's words, with a variety of plausible scenarios for how this could happen. Your claim is that if they weren't Einstein's words, he would have refuted them. This is subject to the same requirements as any other claim - where's the evidence?. He was living in Germany at the time, and it was published in America. Why is it implausible that he wouldn't have read it?
And for the record, I've reported one of your comments due to your massive ad hominem attacks and utter disregard for basic civility in this discussion. If you wish to disagree with my arguments, you can do so without personal attacks on me and my motives, and others' motives for that matter. If you can't do that, kindly cease commenting.
I think this answer does a lot of speculation and bring very little hard evidence to the table. I do think it's a bit useful though. Just not a great answer because of its weakness of argument.
@Sklivvz - I agree, and if it were intended to make a definitive answer, then I'd call it a bad answer. It does suggest an interesting meta-type question, though: what to do when a quote confirmation consists only of an "original claim" with no corroborating evidence? I'm in the process of writing just such a question, because I honestly don't know the right way to deal with it - this answer was my best attempt without some guideline to work from.
@HarryJohnston The article only affirms the historical existence of an actual person upon whom Jesus was at least based, and that Einstein received instruction in the Bible and the Talmund as a child. It says nothing about His deity or lack thereof, or of the veracity of all the claims the Bible makes about this person. How is this out of character? On the contrary, this answer suggests that Einstein preferred to take a humble but skeptical approach with regard to such issues; the article below strikes me as exactly such an attitude.
"nor would he describe it as 'confirming' his 'intuitions' - it would be 'supported my hypothesis' or 'validated my theory', or other such language." Do you have evidence from the 1920s that scientists didn't speak that way? Those sound like modern developments in language to me.
@jpmc26, phrases like "enthralled by the luminous figure" and "too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers" do not strike me as being either "humble but skeptical" or consistent with Einstein's other statements on the subject. If you can find similar phrases in his better-verified writings I'd reconsider.
@HarryJohnston Forgive my poor wording. I should have said "quote" rather than article as you did originally. That said, I think I misunderstood your original comment. Thank you for clarifying.
"this description is not an accurate portrayal of relativity at all." The quote you're saying is inaccurate does not seem fundamentally wrong to me. General relativity does take certain properties that were thought to be fundamentally consistent under Newtonian mechanics, such as time and distance, and state that they are related to other properties, such as relative velocity and mass. The statement may be imprecise, but to claim it's totally wrong is an exaggeration. Your final skepticism may be warranted, but let us be careful about making claims regarding the accuracy of statements.
"the bar is neither high nor low" -- yet another obviously false claim. "it's not impossible" is the lowest possible bar. It is such a simple one: "back up your claims with evidence".
This chat interface is rather awful and doesn't cooperate with my browser, so I'm abandoning the discussion.
My last note: In response to the question, "Did Einstein comment on feeling the presence of Jesus while reading the Gospels?" -- there is strong evidence that he did, in the form of an interview published in the Saturday Evening Post. All claims that Einstein made no such comment are highly speculative and depend on analysis that is based on opinion, not on any additional historical evidence.
Oh, and the answer is now tagged "This answer is based on original data analysis or non-verifiable data. It is up to the answerer to provide valid, verifiable and potentially replicable evidence. Answers which are wholly based on "original research" are generally downvoted and may be deleted. See FAQ: What constitutes original research?" -- which is entirely correct, yet it got 82 upvotes ... ideology at play.
And lest anyone think I'm exhibiting my own ideology ... I'm an atheist who used to go by "truth machine" at Pharyngula, where I posted Einstein's statement ""It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." innumerable times.
But Einstein said a lot of other things too, like “... science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.” -- rather "esoteric", I would say.
Einstein was a Spinozan Jew (yes, Jew; he was even offered the Presidency of Israel).That people (including me) aren't comfortable with the degree of Einstein's spirituality doesn't mean that it didn't exist.
Another example of ideology at play is the comment " the article is completely kooky. It starts with the interviewer himself: “Viereck supported National Socialism but he was not anti-semitic” — Oh god. Where to start. " -- but there's nothing at all implicitly antisemitic about National Socialism. It's a well documented fact that Viereck gave public talks in support of National Socialism but exhorting his audiences to eschew anti-semitism.
That this was an absurdly naive position tells us nothing about the validity of the interview ... that's an extremely ad hominem argument.
And a lot of these ideologues would be disinclined to think that this actually happened, or that they're Einstein's words, or that he meant them: phys.org/news/2013-06-bible-einstein-nyc.html (and if I had provided the Fox News or Washington Times articles for this AP story instead of phys.org, even more people would be disinclined).
"“utterly unfounded” are the historically and literarily incompetent comparisons between the gospel and other ancient hero tales." -- Whether some of Einstein's claims were "utterly unfounded" and "historically and literarily incompetent" is not relevant. He was a bible reader, but no expert in mythical literature.
And his statements were personal opinions that, frankly, a lot of literary scholars would agree with ... the Greek characters were largely iconic, created for the mythic roles they played. But none of this tells us anything about the answer to the question, especially when the thesis that Einstein isn't the source of the statements entails a fabrication, a hoax. It isn't enough that they aren't exactly his words, the entire meaning would need to have been invented.
Of course, that's possible, but mere possibility is not a sufficient basis for argumentation.
I don't agree with the answer's use of the 'relativity' portion of the interview as another piece of evidence for casting doubt on the interview. It seems they were not talking about the Theory of Relativity, but literally about the word relativity, and its use for other purposes after it gained popularity through Einstein's use. If they were talking about just the word "relativity", the answer's point on that particular portion of the quote seems diminished.
There is absolutely no valid reason to suppose the interview was altered or fabricated. Any reason to think otherwise is apparently born from the reader's predisposed wish to believe it was. Sad to see it get so many votes.
@jpmc26 - the issue with the portrayal of relativity is found in the "Relativity, as I see it, merely denotes that..." part. If it had said "Relativity leads us to find that...", it would be a different situation, and consistent with Relativity. But those are the results of applying Relativity, not what Relativity actually means. Also, "facts" are different from "properties".
@JimBalter - Einstein was not a Jew in the spiritual, religious sense. That's made quite clear by his letters. He was Jewish culturally, and thus identified as a Jew with regards to culture, but he was openly critical of religion, including Judaism. He literally said "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions". Those are not the words of a spiritual, religious man. And when he spoke of the "sphere of religion", he was talking about faith.
@ChuckLeButt - if my points are invalid, rebut them.
@GlenO I find that to be splitting hairs. Hence your statement being an exaggeration. Yes, it's somewhat imprecise. It's not wildly misleading, though, and does communicate some basic realities of what relativistic physics tells us.
@jpmc26 - it's not splitting hairs at all. This was the man who knew Relativity better than anyone else. He discussed it constantly. He wouldn't describe the conclusions of Relativity as being the core of it.
@ChuckLeButt - this is Skeptics. Saying that everyone who upvoted it must "wish to believe it" needs more than just the claim, you're going to need to back it up by showing that the argument is flawed. What you did is the equivalent of going "I'm right, therefore you're all wrong".
I'm guessing you're feeling overwhelmed with all this attention. I've been in that position and it's not fun. I've stated my point clearly and logically, if you can't see that it's fine. I'm not getting drawn into a "prove to me that angels don't exist" style argument with you. The onus is on you to prove the interview was fabricated. Pro tip: Unfortunately comments to contrary by the subject can never be enough (people are rarely so consistent).
@ChuckLeButt - I can only see one statement by you, and all it says is "There is absolutely no valid reason to suppose the interview was altered or fabricated" (and then further commentary on people who support it). I don't need to prove that it was fabricated, only that there is reasonable doubt about the veracity of it - because I don't claim that Einstein didn't say it, only that there's some doubt remaining.
I put emphasis on this both at the start and end of my answer - it doesn't claim to be definitive in any way, it just shows reason to be skeptical of a single source, considering lack of corroboration. And it's not possible to prove fabrication of a quote, except by pointing out reasons to find it implausible.
@GlenO Except the idea that certain things we thought were consistent/constant actually aren't is the core of it. It's not a conclusion of it; that idea was the birth of the theory.
@jpmc26 - but that's actually not true. Einstein's starting point was "the speed of light is constant irrespective of observer". Relativity is rooted in the laws of physics NOT depending on observer, and the fact that things we considered constant aren't is a result of applying it. All of Special Relativity flows from "ds^2=c^2 dt^2 - dx^2", and General Relativity is a generalisation of that statement.
@GlenO Again, splitting hairs. Yes, he started with the speed of light as a a universal constant when he was deriving equations, but he also started by discarding the notion that there is a preferred reference frame. He couldn't do one without the other. And really, discarding the preferred reference frame is the more significant step with a much wider impact there.
Taking the speed of light as a constant is just choosing a new anchor after you've discovered the old anchor didn't hold very well in some situations.
The quote you dismiss is imprecise as I said, but if you look at it in the context of the core of relativity being that there's no preferred reference frame, it does make a lot more sense than you are saying it does. I acknowledge there's room that maybe it was slightly misquoted or the author embellished it a little, creating that imprecision, but it's also feasible that Einstein himself might have accidentally introduced some imprecision when trying to help a layman understand.
Einstein wasn't God speaking perfect words from the top of Mt. Sinai.
"Einstein was not a Jew in the spiritual, religious sense." -- You're flailing against a strawman.
"reason to be skeptical of a single source" -- All interviews have "a single source". Every document ever written for which no one watched it being written has "a single source". This "single source" skepticism is special pleading; it isn't applied to every other interview. Again, what we see here is sophism ... arguments are mustered solely to support a desired conclusion, rather than taking into account all the evidence and making the best inference from it.
@jpmc26 Einstein started from his thought experiment about light, realizing that you can't catch up with it, it must have constant velocity. And the author may have altered or embellished Einstein's words. But so what?
The question is about whether Einstein commented on the historicity of Jesus. Glen O's thesis is radical -- that Einstein never did and the published interview is so altered, really downright fabricated, that it puts words in Einstein's mouth that are nothing like anything he ever said. Getting into the weeds about the meaning of "relativity" is a distraction. The central thesis is highly implausible, and needs far better support -- independent verification -- to be entertained.
@JimBalter So nothing. I'm just saying that it isn't important to the point I'm making, which is that I am certain one small portion of this answer misrepresents reality and the text.
I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. I'm debating against the answer (or at least part of it), which you are also. We seem to be more on the same side than opposite.
@jpmc26 I don't believe in "sides". You can be right about one thing and wrong about another. I happen to think that Glen O is more right on this matter, but the point of my "so what" is that it is irrelevant to the issue of the question.
I would also note that the OP's question is misleading. When Einstein said the presence of Jesus could be felt, he didn't mean "in the room with me", as many religious folks would have it, he meant it metaphorically; that his presence could be felt on the page. It's a comment on the historicity of Jesus, not some "divine presence".
@JimBalter If you think that point of the answer is correct, then everything I've said is relevant because you're asserting that the article contains a "quote" that says something wholly untrue about the theory Einstein developed, which supports Glen's idea. The central point of relativity is that there is no preferred reference frame. The specific quote to which Glen responds makes sense in that context, which erodes the plausibility of this answer.
And by "on this matter", I just mean Einstein's starting point. I agree with you that far to much is being made of Einstein's phrasing ... he spoke differently to different audiences.
I apologize if my previous message didn't emphasize this enough, but I did explicitly say, "when he was deriving equations." Not where he got the fundamental idea of doing that from.
"you're asserting that the article contains a "quote" that says something wholly untrue about the theory Einstein developed" -- um, no, I'm not asserting that.
If you're agreeing with the answer (like the part of my message preceding that quote says), then yes, you would be. I'm not sure what you're talking about anymore. On what points do you agree with Glen?
You wrote " that idea was the birth of the theory" ... I disagree. But I really don't want to debate physics, and this exchange has become ridiculous. Gotta go.
@JimBalter Also, see here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…. The statements about reference frames are the novel leap in logic that relativity offers, even if Einstein didn't know about the experiment demonstrating the constant speed of light.
Discussion on answer by Glen O: Did E…
Discussion on answer by Glen O: Did E…