Posted by Zia Shah
We (Allah) have created you. Why, then, do you not accept the truth? What think ye of the sperm-drop that you emit? Is it you who have created it or are We the Creator? We have ordained death for all of you; and We cannot be prevented from bringing in your place others like you, and from developing you into a form which at present you know not. And you have certainly known the first creation. Why, then, do you not reflect? Do you see what you sow? Is it you who grow it or are We the Grower? If We so pleased, We could reduce it all to broken pieces, then you would keep lamenting: ‘We are ruined! Nay, we are deprived of everything.’ Do you see the water which you drink? Is it you who send it down from the clouds, or are We the Sender? If We so pleased, We could make it bitter. Why, then, are you not grateful? Do you see the fire which you kindle? Is it you who produce the tree for it, or are We the Producer? (Al Quran 56: 58-73)
Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times
Prof. Richard Dawkins is a loud apologist for atheism and for all practical purposes can be considered to be Pope of atheism, for this decade. He is a vice president of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book the Blind Watchmaker, he argues against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he describes evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics. In his 2006 book the God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—”a fixed false belief.” As of January 2010, the English-language version had sold more than two million copies and had been translated into 31 languages. Apologists for theism certainly need to take him on and the Muslim Times is taking a lead in this endeavor.
The video clip below is titled: Albert Einstein on god, the god delusion and would reveal Dawkin’s Papal Fatwa, which he has issued on more than one occasion, here and elsewhere:
I agree with Prof. Dawkins expressions of religious tolerance but take issue with how he describes Einstein’s religion. Dawkins in this clip and in his book the God Delusion, claims that Albert Einstein was a Pantheist, to substantiate his own position of being an atheist. But, the fact of the matter is that Einstein, like the Founding Fathers of USA, was a Deist. This should become abundantly clear, by reading of Zia H Shah’s article about Albert Einstein and definition of Deist and Pantheist. After all Einstein did believe in Spinoza’s God. Of course, as a Deist, he did not believe in a Personal God!
The word Piper should make one think of Deism and not Pantheism 
So, if Einstein said, “Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect, as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper,” does it sound like Pantheism or Deism to you?
Einstein’s quote in the above picture certainly speaks that there ought to be a Creator for our universe and for our human race. However, there is no denying that Einstein denied Personal God on more than one occasion, but, his life, his pursuit of science, his commitment to Judaism and Israel, his writings and quotes about nature, science and religion can be comprehended only if he is understood to be a Deist, someone who believes in a Creator God, who does not answer prayers.
Prof. Dawkins defines the terms of theism, deism, pantheism and atheism, in the first chapter of his book, the God Delusion and at one point also writes, “Pantheism is sexed up atheism. Deism is watered down theism.” But, as the Pope of atheism, Dawkins issues his Papal Fatwa that Einstein was a Pantheist more than once in this very first chapter of his book, but, as is the case of many of his contemporary atheist Mullahs, he offers no arguments and reasons for his Fatwa! You be the judge! Read his book, articles about Albert Einstein linked in this post and see for yourself, is Dawkins correct in claiming him to be a Pantheist or the Muslim Times in calling Einstein a Deist?
I know that Prof. Dawkins has shared stage with Michael Shermer in defense of atheism. If he is not open to hear what I have to say, may be he will be more open to what his fellow atheist Michael Shermer has said about Albert Einstein. First a few words about Michael Shermer from Wikipedia: Michael Brant Shermer (born September 8, 1954) is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. The Skeptics Society currently has over 55,000 members. Shermer also engages in debates on topics pertaining to pseudoscience and religion in which he promulgates the need for scientific skepticism.
Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family (now ABC Family) television series Exploring the Unknown. Since April 2001, he has been a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine with his Skeptic column. Shermer states he was once a fundamentalist Christian, but converted from a belief in God during his graduate studies, and has described himself as an agnostic, nontheist, atheist and advocate for humanist philosophy as well as the science of morality. He has expressed reservations about such labels, however, as he sees them being used in the service of “pigeonholing”, and prefers to simply be called a skeptic.
The following is a short article by Michael Shermer:
Albert Einstein famously opined, “God is cunning but He is not malicious.” And: “God does not play dice.” When asked his motivation for doing physics, Einstein replied: “I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” In the final weeks of his life, when Einstein learned of the death of his old physicist friend Michele Besso, he wrote the Besso family: “He has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubborn illusion.”
What did Einstein mean by “God” playing dice, or “us believing physicists”? Was he speaking literally or metaphorically? Did he mean belief in the models of theoretical physics that make no distinction between past, present, and future? Did he mean belief in some impersonal force that exists above such time constraints? Was he just being polite and consoling to Besso’s family? Such is the enigma of the most well-known scientist in history whose fame was such that nearly everything he wrote or said was scrutinized for its meaning and import; thus, it is easy to yank such quotes out of context and spin them in any direction one desires.
When he turned 50, Einstein granted an interview in which he was asked point-blank, do you believe in God? “I am not an atheist,” he began. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”
That almost sounds like Einstein is attributing the laws of the universe to a god of some sort. But what type of god? A personal deity or some impersonal force? To a Colorado banker who wrote and asked him the God question, Einstein responded: “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals or would sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”
The most famous Einstein pronouncement on God came in the form of a telegram, in which he was asked to answer the question in 50 words or less. He did it in 32: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”
Here, Shermer is painting a picture of Einstein being a Deist, like President Thomas Jefferson and many of the Founding Fathers of USA. This is helpful as it defies the claim of some atheists that Einstein was one of them. Einstein denied Personal God but all his life continued a deep involvement with the Jewish tradition, so in some subtle ways he subscribed to the Personal God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aron, David, and Jeremiah.
I have provided a more complete and detailed analysis of Einstein’s religion in an article: Albert Einstein’s search for God.
Once a seeker properly understands Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aron, David, and Jeremiah, he or she is ready to appreciate Jesus and Muhammad, in their true colors. May peace be on all the Prophets of Allah!
1. Albert Einstein — Quoted in interview by G.S. Viereck , October 26,1929. Reprinted in “Glimpses of the Great”, 1930.
Shermer’s article has been removed from the original site but is quoted elsewhere: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2010/12/einsteins-god.html
I have reproduced the whole article or detailed comment by Michael Shermer to preserve it for the posterity.