博主按：对于爱先生的宗教观，科学主义者和宗教信徒双方一般都是从爱同学的言论中各取所需来佐证自己的观点。对于爱因斯坦本人的宗教观反而没有多大兴趣。我现在把爱同学关于宗教的言论都收集起来，而且还有刚刚被拍卖手稿的内容。另外关于爱同学的宗教旅程的最好解读来自于“霍尔顿：爱因斯坦的第三乐园”。此译文发表在《科学文化评论》第一卷，第4期，（2004）。

   该文探讨了爱因斯坦融科学与宗教追求于一体的朝圣之旅。通过描述此旅程中先后出现的三个乐园——宗教乐园、科学乐园以及科学一宗教合一的第三乐园，揭示了爱因斯坦作为一名科学家兼“怀有深刻宗教情怀的不信教者”所特有的宽阔而深邃的心灵世界。

   博主认为该文值得对爱因斯坦的宗教观感兴趣的所有人拜读。网络上可搜索此文。

     爱因斯坦关于宗教的言论

      1、上帝对于我来说只不过是人类软弱和胆怯的产物，圣经是一系列光辉事迹的集合，但仍然是极为天真幼稚的原始传说。不管多么狡猾精明的解释都没法让我改变这一看法。（来自于最近拍卖的手稿）

       2、犹太教，在我看来和别的宗教一样，是孩童般的迷信的具体化身。而作为一个犹太人—我很高兴自己这一身份，并且深深赞同这一民族所具有的精神—我并不觉得犹太民族比其他人具有高人一等的特质。据我经验看来，我也不觉得犹太人比其他民族更优越，尽管他们因为缺乏权力而避免了腐败。我没有看到什么特性能够说明犹太人是上帝‘选定’的子民。（来自于最近拍卖的手稿）

     3、你所读到的关于我笃信宗教的说法当然是一个谎言，一个被有系统地重复着的谎言。我不相信人格化的上帝，我也从来不否认而是清楚地表达了这一点。如果在我的内心有什么能被称之为宗教的话，那就是对我们的科学所能够揭示的、这个世界结构的没有止境的敬仰。 (爱因斯坦1954年3月24日给一位机工的回信)

     4、我不相信个体的永生，我认为伦理纯粹只是人类自身的关怀，并没有超人的权威躲在后面。 (爱因斯坦1953年7月17日给一位浸礼会牧师的回信)

     5、１９２９年４月２４日，纽约犹太教堂牧师哥耳德斯坦从纽约发出一份海底电报到柏林，问爱因斯坦：“您信仰上帝吗？回电费已付。请至多用五十个字回答。”爱因斯坦在接到电报的当天，就发了回电：“我信仰斯宾诺莎的那个在存在事物的有秩序的和谐中显示出来的上帝，而不信仰那个同人类的命运和行为有牵累的上帝。”

     6、这种信仰在我１２岁那年就突然中止了。由于读了通俗的科学书籍，我很快就相信，《圣经》里的故事有许多不可能是真实的。其结果就是一种真正狂热的自由思想，并且交织着这样一种印象：国家是故意用谎言来欺骗年青人的；这是一种令人目瞪口呆的印象。这种经验引起我对所有权威的怀疑，对任何社会环境里都会存在的信念完全抱一种怀疑态度，这种态度再也没有离开过我，即使在后来，由于更好地搞清楚了因果关系，它已失去了原有的尖锐性时也是如此。（来自《自述》）

     7、我很清楚，少年时代的宗教天堂就这样失去了，这是使我自己从‘仅仅作为个人’的桎梏中，从那种被愿望、希望和原始感情所支配的生活中解放出来的第一个尝试。在我们之外有一个巨大的世界，它离开我们人类而独立存在，它在我们面前就像一个伟大而永恒的谜，然而至少部分地是我们的观察和思维所能及的。对这个世界的凝视深思，就像得到解放一样吸引着我们，而且我不久就注意到，许多我所尊敬和钦佩的人，在专心从事这项事业中，找到了内心的自由和安宁。在向我们提供的一切可能范围内，从思想上掌握这个在个人以外的世界，总是作为一个最高目标而有意无意地浮现在我的心目中。有类似想法的古今人物，以及他们已经达到的真知灼见，都是我的不可失去的朋友。通向这个”天堂”的道路，并不像通向天堂的道路那样舒坦和诱人；但是，它已证明是可以信赖的，而且我从来也没有为选择了这条道路而后悔过。（来自《自述》）

      8、1953年，在致斯威泽(J.E.Switzer)的信中，爱因斯坦谈到科学的起源：

      The development of Western science has been based on two great achievements，the invention of the formal logical system(in Euclidean geometry)by the Greek philosophers，and the discovery of the possibility of finding out causal relationships by systematic experiment(at the Renaissance).In my opinion one need not be astonished that the Chinese sages did not make these steps.The astonishing thing is that these discoveries were made at all.

 
    西方科学的发展是以两个伟大的成就为基础的：希腊哲学家(在欧几里得几何学中)发明了形式逻辑体系，以及(在文艺复兴时期)发现通过系统的实验有可能找出因果关系。在我看来，人们不必对中国圣贤没能做出这些进步感到惊讶。这些发现竟然被做出来了才是令人惊讶的。（方舟子译）

    附一：爱因斯坦：科学与宗教

     要我们对什么是科学得出一致的理解，实际上并不困难。科学就是一种历史悠久的努力，力图用系统的思维，把这个世界中可感知的现象尽可能彻底地联系起来。说得大胆点，它是这样一种企图：要通过构思过程，后验地来重建存在。但我要是问自已，宗教是什么，我可就不能那么容易回答了。即使我找到了一个可能在这个特殊时刻使我满意的答案，可是我仍然相信，我决不可能在任何情况下都会使所有对这个问题作过认真考虑的人哪怕在很小程度上表示同意。

      因此，我想先不去问宗教是什么，而宁愿问，一个我认为是信仰宗教的人，他的志向有哪些特征：在我看来，一个人受了宗教感化，他就是已经尽他的最大可能从自私欲望的镣铐中解放了出来，而全神贯注在那些因其超越个人的价值而为他所坚持的思想、感情和志向。我认为重要的在于这种超越个人的内涵的力量，在于对它超过一切的深远意义的信念的深度，而不在于是否曾经企图把这种内涵同神联系起来，因为要不然，佛陀和斯宾诺莎就不能算是宗教人物了。所以，说一个信仰宗教的人是虔诚的，意思是说，他并不怀疑那些超越个人的目的和目标的庄严和崇高；而这些目的和目标是既不需要也不可能有理性基础的。但是它们的存在同他自已的存在是同样必然的，是同样实实在在的。在这个意义上，宗教是人类长期的事业，它要使人类清醒地、全面地意识到这些价值和目标，并且不断地加强和扩大它们的影响。如果人们根据这些定义来理解宗教和科学，那末它们之间就显得不可能朦胧什么冲突了。因为科学只能断言“是什么”，而不能断言“应当是什么”，可是在它的范围之外，一切种类的价值判断仍是必要的。而与此相反，宗教只涉及对人类思想和行动的评价：它不能够有根据地谈到各种事实以及它们之间的关系。依照这种解释，过去宗教同科学之间人所共知的冲突则应当完全归咎于对上述情况的误解。

      比如，当宗教团体坚持《圣经》上所记载的一切话都是绝对真理的时候，就引起了冲突。这意味着宗教方面对科学领域的干涉；教会反对伽利略和达尔文学说的斗争就是属于这一类。另一方面，科学的代表人物也常常根据科学方法试图对价值和目的作出根本性的判断，这样，他们就把自已置于同宗教对立的地位。这些冲突全都来源于可悲的错误。

      然而，尽管宗教的和科学的领域本身彼此是界线分明的，可是两者之间还是存在着牢固的相互关系和依存性。虽然宗教可以决定目标，但它还是从最广义的科学学到了用什么样的手段可以达到自已所建立起来的目标。可是科学只能由那些全心全意追求真理和向往理解事物的人来创造。然而这种感情的源泉却来自宗教的领域。同样属于这个源泉的是这样一种信仰：相信那对于现存世界有效的规律能够是合乎理性的，也就是说可以由理性来理解的。我不能设想一位真正科学家会没有这样深挚的信仰。这情况可以用这样一个形象来比喻：科学没有宗教就象瘸子，宗教没有科学就象瞎子。

       虽然我在上面曾经断言宗教同科学之间实在不可能存在什么正当的冲突，但我还是必须在一个重要地方再一次对这个断言作一点保留，那就是关于历史上宗教的实际内容。这种保留必然同上帝的概念有关。在人类精神进化的幼年时期，人的幻想按照人自已的样子创造出了各种神来，而这些神则被认为通过它们意志的作用在决定着，或者无论如何在影响着这个现象世界。人们企求借助于巫术和祈祷来改变这些神的意向，使其有利于他们自已。现在宗教教义中的上帝观念是古老的神的概念的一种升华。比如，人们用各种祈祷来恳求所信奉的神明的援助，以求得满足他们的愿望，这一类事实就说明了这种上帝观念的拟人论的特征。

       肯定不会有人否认，这个认为有一个全能、公正和大慈大悲的人格化了的上帝存在的观念，能给人以安慰、帮助和引导；因为这个观念比较简单，它也容易被最不开化的心灵所接受。但是另一方面，这种观念本身有它致命的弱点，这是有史以来就被苦痛地感觉到了的。这就是说，如果这个神是全能的，那末每一件事，包括每一个人的行动，每一个人的思想，以及每一个人的感情和志向也都应当是神的作品；怎么可能设想在这样全能的神面前，还以为人们要对自已的行动和思想负责呢？在作出赏罚时，神会在一定程度上对它自已作出评判。怎么能够把这样的事同神所具有的仁慈和公正结合起来呢？

      今天宗教领域同科学领域之间的冲突的主要来源在于人格化了的上帝这个概念。科学的目的是建立那些能决定物体和事件在时间和空间上相互关系的普遍规律。对于自然界的这些规律或者定律，要求—而不是要证明—它们具有绝对的普遍有效性。这主要是一种纲领，而对于这种纲领在原则上是可以完成的信仰，只是建立在部分成功的基础上的。但是大概不会有谁能否认这些部分的成功，而把它们归之于人类的自我斯骗。至于我们能够根据这些定律很精密和很确定地预测一定范围内的现象在时间上的变化情况，这个情况已经深深地扎根于现代人的意识之中，即使他对这些定律的内容也许还了解得很少。他只要考虑一下这样的例子就行了：太阳系中行星的运动可以根据少数几条简单的定律，事先非常准确地计算出来。同样，尽管精确程度有所不同，但还是可能事先算出电动机、输电系统、或者无线电装置的运转方式，甚至在处理比这些还要新的事物时也是这样。

       显然，当一个复杂现象中起作用的因子数目太大时，科学方法在大多数情况下就无能为力了。人们只要想起天气就可知道，对于天气，甚至要作几天的预测也不可能。但没有谁会怀疑，我们这里所碰到的是这样一个因果联系，它的起因成分大体上我们是知道的。这个领域里的现象之所以在精度预测的范围之外，是因为起作用的因素的庞杂，而不是自然界中没有什么秩序可言。

      关于生物领域里的规律性，我们所洞察到的还很不深刻，但至少也已足以使人感觉到它是受着确定的必然性的支配的。人们只要想一想遗传中有规律的秩序，以及毒物（比如酒精）对生物行为的影响就可明白。这里所缺少的仍然是对那些具有广泛普遍性的联系的了解，而不是秩序知识的本身。

       一个人愈是深刻感受到一切事件都有安排好的规律性，他就愈是坚定地深信：除了这种安排好的规律性，再没有余地可让那些本性不同的原因存在。对他来说，不论是人的支配还是神的支配，都不能作为自然界事件的一个独立原因而存在着。固然，主张有一个能干涉自然界事件的人格化的上帝这种教义，决不会被科学真正驳倒，因为这种教义总是能够躲进科学知识尚未插足的一些领域里去的。

        但我确信：宗教代表人物的这种行为，不仅是不足取的，而且也是可悲的。因为一种不能在光天化日之下而只能在黑暗中站得住脚的教义，由于它对人类进步有着数不清的害处，必然会失去它对人类的影响。在为美德而斗争中，宗教导师们应当有魄力放弃那个人格化的上帝的教义，也就是放弃过去曾把那么大的权力交给教士手里的那个恐惧和希望的源泉。在他们的劳动中，他们应当利用那些能够在人类自已的身上培养出来的善、真和美的力量。不错，这是一个比较困难的任务，然而却是一个价值无比的任务。在宗教导师们完成了上述的净化过程以后，他们必定会高兴地认识到：真正的宗教已被科学知识提高了境界，而且意义也更加深远了。

       如果要使人类尽可能从自私自利的要求、欲望和恐惧的奴役中解放出来是宗教的目标之一，那末科学推理还能够从另一角度来帮助宗教。固然科学的目标是在发现规律，使人们能用以把各种事实联系起来，并且能预测这些事实，但这不是它唯一的目的。它还试图把所发现联系归结为数目尽可能少的几个彼此独立的概念元素。正是在这种把各种和样东西合理地统一起来的努力中，它取得了最伟大的成就，尽管也正是这种企图使它冒着会成为妄想的牺牲品的最大危险。但凡是曾经在这个领域里胜利前进中有过深切经验的人，对存在中所显示出来的合理性，都会感到深挚的崇敬。通过理解，他从个人的愿望和欲望的枷锁里完全解放出来，从而对体现于存在之中的理性的庄严抱着谦恭的态度，而这种庄严的理性由于其极度的深奥，对人来说，是可望而不可即的。但是从宗教这个词的最高意义来说，我认为这种态度就是宗教的态度。因此我以为科学不仅替宗教的冲动清洗了它的拟人论的渣滓，而且也帮助我们对生活的理解能达到宗教的精神境界。

       在我看来，人类精神愈是向前进化，就愈可以肯定地说，通向真正宗教感情的道路，不是对生和死的恐惧，也不是盲目信仰，而是对理性知识的追求。从这个意义上来说，我相信，一个教士如果愿意公正地对待他的崇高的教育使命，他就必须成为一个导师。

      以下是《科学与宗教》的英文原文

       This section is from Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

       It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.

       At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

         For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

       Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But 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. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

        Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

         Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

          The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required—not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.

          To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.

         We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.

       The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel’s book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

         If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.

        The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission.