Einstein’s God
by Bill Lauritzen
Einstein’s God
… if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God.
Carl Sagan
1 Einstein’s Correspondence
Einstein sometimes used the word “God.” In this chapter I am going to describe and elaborate on “Einstein’s God.” I think you might find it interesting. So let’s first look at some of his books and letters. Perhaps his most famous letter is called the “God Letter” which was auctioned in 2018 for $2,892,500. In it, he writes, “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”
When you examine his other letters and books you find a man, one of the most famous scientists of all time, who is very humble when viewing the universe: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” Also, “My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding…” Also, in his letter of 1936, to a school teacher who asked him if scientists pray, he responded, “… everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”
Although in one letter he referred to himself as an atheist, sometimes he preferred the term agnostic and was disparaging toward atheists: “ …fanatical atheists…are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against the traditional ‘opium of the people’ — cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Also, “You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
Even though Einstein was mostly apolitical, he did get involved in politics when it was necessary to do so; hence his famous letter to President Roosevelt urging the building of the atomic bomb. I think that if he still had been living in the United States during the rise of Christian Nationalism he might have again taken some political action to counter this rise.
Finally, Einstein discusses pantheism: “I am fascinated by Spinoza’s Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.”
Spinoza (1632–1677) was a Jewish rationalist who was effectively expelled and shunned by Jewish authorities and his own family, and his books were banned by the Catholic Church. He was called an atheist, although he never argued against the existence of God. Like Einstein, Dorion Sagan wrote that his father, Carl Sagan, “believed in the God of Spinoza and Einstein, God not behind nature, but as nature, equivalent to it.” Other famous pantheists include Alan Watts, Emily Dickinson, Nikola Tesla, Terence McKenna, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau.
I am interested in Einstein’s and Spinoza’s God, as nested ecosystems, with the elements of each nest containing its own nest. Nesting has a history. Chinese boxes are nested — with each box sitting into boxes of larger sizes. Russian dolls can also be nested. In literature we find stories that are nested within larger stories. There are several different ways to build a nested ecosystem model. But first, let’s briefly discuss materialism.
2 Materialism Equals Energism
Materialism as a philosophy extends back to the ancient Greeks, but the word materialism has a somewhat negative connotation among common folks. “I didn’t come from mud!” seems to be the sentiment. Also, materialism is generally associated in our minds, due to ancient misconceptions, with tangible objects. It took a long time for humanity to realize that air was also material — matter which could be compressed, combined with other substances, etc. As discussed previously, humans are about 93% oxygen, carbon and hydrogen by mass, whereas a typical soil contains less than 50% of these elements. So with each breath, we intuitively know that we are lighter than mud.
Unlike materialism, the word “energy” has positive connotations. So, since Einstein showed the equivalence of matter and energy — matter could be considered a sort of frozen or slowed down energy — we could replace the word materialism by the word energism.
3 Biological Nested Systems
In the “natural” environment, there are nested ecosystems. A search on the Internet reveals many possibilities. [The mathematical symbol ⊂ means “is a member of”.]
4-nested: individual ⊂ population ⊂ community ⊂ ecosystem ⊂ biosphere.
10-nested: molecule ⊂ cell ⊂ tissue ⊂ organ ⊂ organ ⊂ system ⊂ organism ⊂ population ⊂ community ⊂ ecosystem ⊂ biosphere.
10-nested: organelle ⊂ cells ⊂ tissues ⊂ organs ⊂ organ systems ⊂ organisms ⊂ populations ⊂ communities ⊂ ecosystem ⊂ biosphere.
4 Human-Centered Nested Systems
Here is a loose anthropocentric 4-nested system: the self is a member of the family, which is a member of a group and its symbiotes, which is a member of humanity and its symbiotes. We get: self ⊂ family ⊂ group and its symbiotes ⊂ humanity and its symbiotes. These can be illustrated as concentric circles with the inner most circle being the self.
In a nested ecosystem there is a complex interaction between and within the various nests. Thus, one needs to take into account all these interactions when making a decision. This kind of thinking may have originated in Asia. For example, the Chinese book The Great Learning by Lezheng Ke says:
The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the empire, first ordered well their own States. Wishing to order well their States, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. … Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their States were rightly governed. Their States being rightly governed, the whole empire was made tranquil and happy.
We get: heart is a member of the person, which is a member of the family, which is a member of the state, which is a member of the empire. Symbolically we get this: heart ⊂ person ⊂ family ⊂ state ⊂ empire.
Political systems could be nested: individuals are members of towns, which air members of counties, which are members of states or provinces, which are members of nations, which are members of alliances. Symbolically: individuals ⊂ towns ⊂ counties ⊂ states or provinces ⊂ nations ⊂ alliances.
Furthermore, nowadays we have nested digital systems:
self with a connected device ⊂ digital groups ⊂ large cyber-organisms (such as Facebook, X, and Google) ⊂ the Internet.
5 A 14-Nested Anthropocentric System
I have somewhat arbitrarily devised an anthropocentric system into 8 nests (outside of us) and 6 nests (within us) to make 14 nests.
subatomic particles ⊂ atoms ⊂ molecules ⊂ cells ⊂ tissues ⊂ body systems and organs ⊂ individuals ⊂ families ⊂ groups ⊂ humanity ⊂ animals ⊂ Earth’s biosphere ⊂ the Solar System ⊂ the Galaxy ⊂ the Universe.
In this system, “groups” could include various large or small and sometimes overlapping entities: friends, neighbors, clubs, schools, teams, corporations, political parties, language-groups, towns, cities, states, nations, communities, businesses, cultures, ideology-groups, electronic-groups (such as talk radio), digital groups.
We can symbolize these nests as, say, 6 circles around one central circle, which extends outwards in an expanding fractal pattern. (See image.) One circle could represent seven families (a community), with each family having seven people, and each person having seven body systems, etc., (although there are actually eleven body systems).
20.6 Implications
I think that a nested model may help to clarify several issues such as truth, free will, good/evil, and suffering. For example: how can God (or the Universe) allow suffering? The answer is that from a more encompassing nest the suffering may be necessary:
Truth and Free Will:
Verbal “truth” can depend on the nest (or perspective). (I’m not going to get into a discussion of scientific realism versus epistemic or cultural relativism, or the nuanced positions between these two extremes.)
Example 1: The famous parable of the elephant. Several blind men (or men in the dark) are asked to describe an elephant by touching different parts of it, and they all relate different descriptions. We are at a wider nest and can see a different picture.
Example 2: If I draw a large number “6” on the sidewalk with chalk, my friend, in a wider nest that me individually, may walk up from the other side, and say that he sees I have drawn the number “9.”
Example 3: A very, very long, wide building (3D), when viewed from high up, may look like a flat strip (2D). From even farther out, it becomes just a line (1D). From farther out, it becomes a curved line on the Earth. Go out far enough and the Earth becomes a point (0D). What appears “true” about this building’s dimensions depends on how far away you are when you look at it.
Example 4: A person is three dimensional (3D) up close. From farther away that person begins to look increasingly 2D (but as part of larger complex systems) and from farther away to look increasingly like a one-dimensional point (but seen as part of even larger systems). The farther away you get, the more you see the interaction with wider nests.
Example 5: We feel we are making decisions and thus have free will, but others, at a more encompassing nest, can see how the environment and genes have shaped us. From my viewpoint, trapped inside my head and body, I am free to choose. This is the viewpoint of psychology. To someone from a larger nest, outside of me, such as Robert Sapolsky, I am only making decisions based on my genes, my environment, and preceding events. This is the viewpoint of biology.
Example 6: Some people feel humans have caused and can ameliorate global warming. In other words, we humans think we have “free will” as a species. However, when humans are viewed from a wider nest, when they are seen as a biological species, why are they not just as predetermined as, say, bacteria, lizards, squirrels and whales? So when humans think they are causing global warming, they are not viewing themselves as part of nature. So, is it nature causing global warning? From the viewpoint of the biosphere, humans are not separate from the rest of nature (they were not specially created). This doesn’t mean we should not try to reverse global warming — the biosphere can cause us to do that too.
Humanity, when viewed up close, has certain characteristics. When viewed from far away, other characteristics appear. I think this is often why psychological theorists, political theorists and various others do not always agree. They are looking at things from different nests (distances, levels, or perspectives). Of course, many disciplines try to incorporate multiple nests, even though they often emphasize one nest over others. For example, within psychology there is the “Bio-Psycho-Social” model, with three contiguous large nests.
Conflict:
Disharmony between various elements in the same nest is necessary for selection/elimination to take place: sibling rivalry, family feuds, corporate and team rivalry, national rivalry, and species rivalry. The Darwinian principle of 1) abundance, 2) variation, and 3) selection/elimination applies. Harmony is restored when one element defeats another, or engulfs another, as when entire genomes are acquired, or when one nation, in occupying another, assimilates it, or when two opposing elements become aware of a cooperative advantage or common threat.
Example 1: Two brothers stop fighting when their family is threatened by another family or when they realize they can work together on a project; two families stop fighting when the community is threatened by a flood and they cooperate to control it; two communities stop fighting when they are both threatened by another species (tigers); two species (man and tigers) stop fighting when they are both threatened by a forest fire, two nations stop fighting when they are attacked by aliens from another world, etc.
Pressures Between Different Distances:
Some individuals or organizations do not appreciate their connections to less comprehensive levels or more comprehensive levels.
Example 1: A social media company that only works to maximize profits and thus allows foreign nations to interfere with domestic affairs and weaken their home nation.
Example 2: Corporations that pollute the environment or exploit workers in an attempt to do better than competition.
Example 3: The mafia emphasizing family over nation.
Secrets:
Secrets at the same level, or between different levels, can prevent the smooth flow of information and thus promote disharmony. All level can have secrets (the nucleus, cells, tissues, organs, systems, individual, family, groups, humanity, etc.) from other levels.
Example 1: A person is struggling with a serious health issue but keeps it a secret from their family.
Example 2: Excessive government secrecy may undermine the functioning of a nation.
Example 3: Corporate environmental pollution that is kept secret may harm the nation, humanity, and wildlife.
Example 4: Corporate “insider” trading may harm individual investors and the smooth functioning of the economy.
Example 5: A disease in a tissue that the individual doesn’t know about.
Example 6: An individual that steals money from his family.
Good and Evil:
Goodness at one level may not be good at another.
Example 1: “Violence against Joe” is evil; however, if Joe is a murderer, violence may be necessary to prevent violence to the larger group.
Example 2: Limited warfare can be “evil” from the individual perspective of someone who is killed or injured; however, from a more comprehensive level, limited warfare could be “good” as nature selects/eliminates technologies, nations, tribes, individuals, etc. Besides facing possible extinction from the various sources mentioned, we may also be competing in the galaxy with lifeforms that have little or no interest in our survival.
Suffering:
“Suffering” at one distance is necessary as selection/elimination restores homeostasis at another distance.
Homeostasis Hypothesis:
All points and levels influence the other points. From inside, genes, in order to survive, pressure the individual organism. From outside, culture pressures the individual organism, also to allow it to survive. There is a mutual feedback “dance” between these two. So at each distance, the structure is trying to reach an equilibrium, a homeostasis, by the mechanism of selection/elimination perhaps to dissipate the energy differential between the Sun and outer space or other differences (more in this later).
Of course, since the map is not the territory, any definition of God, including Einstein’s or Spinoza’s, can never completely describe objective reality, assuming there is such a thing.
Current theories in physics do not account for dark matter or a force that repels gravity known as dark energy, and they do not integrate gravity with quantum mechanics. Likewise, Darwin’s theory, Newton’s theory, religious theories, cellular automata, string theory, as well as my own theories can never completely explain something. So any description of reality or a description of a God is incomplete, but may be useful.
By recognizing the interconnectedness and multi-layered nature of the universe, from the subatomic to the cosmic, we can begin to develop a more nuanced and holistic understanding of the forces that shape our reality and give rise to the complexities of life and meaning. The nested systems perspective, grounded in Einstein’s and Spinoza’s conception of God, provides a useful tool for navigating the mysteries of the universe and for finding our place within the grand cosmic dance.
See my book, The Invention of God: The Natural Origins of Mythology and Religion. https://www.amazon.com/Invention-God-Natural-Mythology-Religion/dp/0978754336
Also, a short story: “Detective Z Searches for God: The Metaphysical Detective 3”: https://bill360.medium.com/detective-z-searches-for-god-8a0abce9816a
