More recently, the danger of a “pure philosophy” separated from science has been more and more recognized in the Soviet Union. A close co-operation between scientists and philosophers has been more and more required as the only basis of progressive thought. Discussions between physicists and philosophers removed the most harmful misunderstandings, and in 1942, after “twenty-five years of philosophy in the U.S.S.R.” the leading Soviet philosopher, the Academician M. Mitin, gave an address in the Russian Academy of Science at the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Soviet Union in which he celebrated as an important achievement of these twenty-five years of philosophy the fact that the attacks against Einstein’s theory had ceased and its compatibility with a sound brand of materialism had been established.
“As a result,” says Mitin, “of the tremendous work that our philosophers and physicists had carried out, as a result of many impassioned discussions … it may be now said that our philosophical conclusions concerning this theory have been firmly established. The theory of relativity does not deny that time and space, matter and movement, are absolute in the sense of their objective existence outside human consciousness.… The theory of relativity establishes only the relativity of the results of measuring time and space by observers who are moving relatively to one another.”
And then Mitin proceeds to characterize Einstein’s theory in almost the same words that Einstein himself had used to summarize the gist of his theory in one sentence to the newspapermen who interviewed him at his first arrival in New York Harbor.
Mitin says:
“Time and space are indivisible from the moving body and must be regarded relative to that movement. In this respect time and space are relative.… In place of the old metaphysical conception of pure time and space having only geometrical qualities, we obtain a new theory of time and space inseparable, bound up with bodies and movement.”
5. Einstein’s Theories as Arguments for Religion
We have seen how Einstein’s theories were linked to expressions such as “materialism” and “idealism” in a fairly ambiguous manner and in this way used to support political creeds. It is not surprising therefore that they were used in a similar fashion in the battle over religious ideas.
It will be remembered how (ch. VIII, sect. 6) the Archbishop of Canterbury had gone to a great deal of trouble to study the theory of relativity, and how he had felt reassured by Einstein’s statement that this theory had nothing to do with religion. Nevertheless, a man like Sir Arthur Eddington, who not only was an outstanding astronomer and thoroughly conversant with the theory of relativity, but had also achieved a great reputation in the field of the philosophy of science, did not agree at all with Einstein’s remark. In his book The Philosophy of Physical Science, published in 1939, he said that Einstein’s answer to the Archbishop was not very conclusive.
Consequently I wish to describe some attempts that have been made to establish a connection between Einstein’s theories and religion. Once again the course taken was by way of philosophy, and here too the starting-point was the question: Is Einstein’s theory idealistic or materialistic?
Several years ago in an address to Catholic students Cardinal O’Connell, Archbishop of Boston, said:
“Remembering the tremendous excitement over the Darwinian theory of evolution during my boyhood and the furore created less than ten years ago by Einstein’s theory of relativity I tell you that those theories became outmoded because they were mainly materialistic and therefore unable to stand the test of time.”
Nevertheless, Catholic philosophers were themselves not agreed whether Einstein’s theory is actually materialistic. The Irish philosopher A. O’Rahilly, who is also thoroughly conversant with theoretical physics, disagrees with Einstein’s theory of relativity because it is based on “subjective idealism.”
Thomistic philosophy, which is at present generally regarded as the scientific foundation of Catholic theology, rejects both idealism and materialism. Consequently, to the Catholic who takes his stand on the basis of Scholasticism, either philosophical interpretation of Einstein’s theory is a weapon that can be turned against him. If, however, the scholastic foundations of religion are not considered and one consults simply one’s feeling, then a religious person will regard any theory that can be interpreted as an argument for idealism as supporting his faith. On the occasion of Einstein’s visit to London the conservative Times had stated triumphantly in an editorial: “Observational science has, in fact, led back to the purest subjective idealism.”
What the journalist stated briefly and concisely for the public at large was soon demonstrated professionally by the British philosopher Wildon Carr in a book for philosophers and theologians. In it he said:
“The adoption of the principle of relativity means that the subjective factor, inseparable from knowledge in the very concept of it, must enter positively into physical science.… Hitherto the scientific problem has been to find a place for mind in the objective system of nature and the philosophical problem to validate the obstinate objectivity of nature.… Now when the reality is taken in the concrete, as the general principle of relativity requires us to take it, we do not separate the observer from what he observes, the mind from its object, and then dispute as to the primacy of the one over the other.”
According to this, the achievement of the relativity theory for religion is simply that it provided a place for mind in nature, which during the period of mechanistic physics had been regarded as completely “material and mindless.”
If the reader will recall Einstein’s physical theories, he will easily see that this interpretation is more closely related to the wording than to the content of these theories. This is even more obvious in the case of authors who use the four-dimensional representation of the theory of relativity as an argument for traditional religion. As a typical example I wish to quote from an article written by the director of the Department of Theology of an English college abroad, which appeared in the Hibbert Journal in 1939. He said there:
“If the idea of time as a fourth dimension is valid, then the difference between this mortal life and the ‘other life’ is not a difference in the time nor in the quality of the life. It is only a difference in our view of it — our ability to see it whole. While we are limited to three-dimensional understanding, it is mortal life. Where we perceive it in four dimensions, it is eternal life.”
This is obviously an interpretation of the words used in the theory of relativity and has hardly anything to do with its factual content. Einstein’s own attitude to religion, however, has never been determined by his particular physical theories, but rather by his general judgment about the role of science and faith in human life. The numerous attempts to make the theory of relativity a springboard for excursions into the field of theology have never been encouraged by Einstein.
XII
EINSTEIN IN THE UNITED STATES
1. The Institute for Advanced Study
As the racial and political purging proceeded in the German universities, it soon became evident throughout the entire world that a large number of capable and often famous men were looking for positions outside Germany. It thus became possible for institutions abroad to acquire many outstanding scholars cheaply. One of the greatest German scientists, whom I visited at his Berlin laboratory in the summer of 1933, showed me a long list of men who were available and said half-jokingly: “What we are now doing in Germany is organizing a bargain sale of good merchandise at reduced prices. Shrewd persons will certainly seize this opportunity to buy something from us.”
The scholars who had been dismissed in Germany could actually be compared in this way to merchandise that had to be sold at reduced prices as “irregulars.” Even such a slight defect as the ancestry of a scientist’s wife made the sale necessary. And of these bargains which appeared on the market at that time, Einstein naturally created the most sensation. It was as if a great museum were suddenly to offer for sale Rembrandt’s most valuable paintings a
t a very low price simply because the new directors of the museum did not like to have pictures of a certain style.
Einstein, of course, did not have any troubles in finding a new position. Many universities offered him posts. The Universities of Madrid and Jerusalem, among others, invited him, and one of the oldest and most esteemed institutions of Europe, the venerable Sorbonne in Paris, actually appointed Einstein a professor though he never really occupied this position. Einstein wanted to leave Europe because he did not expect any change for the better in the immediate future. His friends also cautioned him against settling anywhere near Germany since, in view of the fantastic ideas regarding Einstein’s political influence and activity held by the ruling party, the danger was always present that some fanatic might order Einstein to be “liquidated.”
Einstein had no difficult decision to make, since he had been offered already and had accepted an ideal position in the United States. The offer had been made in the summer of 1932, and at that time it was for him an unexpected sign from heaven to prepare for emigration from Europe.
In 1930 Mr. Louis Bamberger and Mrs. Felix Fuld, on the advice of Abraham Flexner, who had done so much for the reform of American education, donated a sum of five million dollars for the founding of an entirely novel institution for research and teaching. They had asked Dr. Flexner how in his opinion they could most usefully employ their money, and he had replied that there were already in the United States many universities where students could work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, but he felt the lack of another type of institution. He had recognized the important need for promising young scholars who had completed the work for the doctorate to continue their training and research in daily informal intercourse with the leaders in their fields. Flexner felt that this informal contact between outstanding scholars and students had been the great achievement of the German universities during their golden era. In his opinion the American universities were still not yet adequately organized for this purpose, with the courses only serving to prepare students for certain academic degrees and the professors too greatly overburdened to maintain any contact with students who had completed their studies.
This institute, which was named the Institute for Advanced Study, and whose direction Dr. Flexner was asked to assume, was to be an institution in which a small group of professors served as the nucleus of a larger, temporary group of mature, though generally younger scholars. The choice of the staff and admission of students were to be based entirely on ability, and no consideration of a social or political nature, which must necessarily enter into any appointment at collegiate institutions, was to be made. The founders of the institute made this clear in a letter addressed to the trustees, as follows:
“It is our hope that the staff of the institution will consist exclusively of men and women of the highest standing in their respective fields of learning, attracted to the institution through its appeal as an opportunity for the serious pursuit of advanced study and because of the detachment it is hoped to secure from outside distraction.
“It is fundamental in our purpose, and our express desire, that in the appointments to the staff and faculty, as well as in the admission of workers and students, no account shall be taken, directly or indirectly, of race, religion, or sex. We feel strongly that the spirit characteristic of America at its noblest, above all, the pursuit of higher learning, cannot admit of any conditions as to personnel other than those designed to promote the objects for which this institution is established, and particularly with no regard whatever to accidents of race, creed, or sex.”
It was also intended to free the faculty of this institute as far as possible from all administrative and pedagogical duties, so that they could concentrate on their academic work. In the letter the founders also said:
“It is our desire that those who are assembled in the faculty of the institution may enjoy the most favorable opportunities for continuing research in their particular field and that the utmost liberty of action shall be afforded to the said faculty to this end.”
In his address at the organizing meeting Flexner emphasized particularly that the members of the institute were to have better living conditions than in most universities. He said:
“The sacrifices required of an American professor and his family are to a high degree deterrent. The conditions provided are rarely favorable to severe prolonged and fundamental thinking. Poor salaries frighten off the able and more vigorous and compel the university instructor to eke out his inadequate income by writing unnecessary textbooks or engaging in other forms of hackwork.… It is therefore of utmost importance that we should set a new standard.”
It thus became the policy of the institute to have a faculty consisting of a few excellent but well-paid members.
At first no decision was made as to which subjects would be cultivated at the institute, but if the principles laid down by the founders and Dr. Flexner were to be realized, the limited means that were available made it necessary that the institute restrict its activities at first to a certain special field. After a good deal of reflection and consultation Flexner decided to devote the institute first to mathematical sciences. He was led to this choice by three reasons. Firstly, mathematics is fundamental; secondly, it requires the least investment in equipment and books; and thirdly, it became obvious to Flexner that he could secure greater agreement upon those who were considered the outstanding leaders in the field of mathematics than in any other field.
Until the institute could have its own building, President Hibben of Princeton University turned over to Flexner a part of Fine Hall, the mathematics building on the Princeton campus. The beautiful campus with the shady trees and the buildings in the Gothic style of the English universities presented a stimulating environment. Also, the institute obtained a certain point of departure for its activities by collaborating with the mathematicians of the university. It was expected that as time went on, outstanding men from the entire world who had already obtained the doctorate in mathematics would come to Fine Hall.
From the very beginning it had been the idea of the founders that it should somehow have a cloistered character. As Flexner once expressed it: “It should be a haven where scholars and scientists may regard the world and its phenomena as their laboratory without being carried off in the maelstrom of the immediate.” This seclusion of the institute was increased in 1940 when it moved away from Fine Hall and the Princeton campus to its own building, situated a few miles outside of the town of Princeton.
2. Einstein’s Decision to Join the Institute
Flexner first set out to look for the great masters who were to form the basis of his institute. He traveled through America and Europe looking for men of such rank who were available. In the course of these journeys he came to Pasadena in the winter of 1932. There he discussed the matter with R. A. Millikan, the famous physicist, who said to him: “You know that Einstein is a guest here at present. Why don’t you tell him about your plan and hear his opinion?” At first Flexner was rather hesitant about discussing such questions concerning teaching and administration with a man who had already become a legend. He was afraid to approach Einstein because he was “a too much lionized man.” Millikan told him, however, that Einstein was a man who was interested in all projects for improving the training of young scholars and who liked everything that was new and bold. “I will tell him about you immediately. Look him up at the Athenaeum.” This is the faculty club of the California Institute of Technology, situated in the midst of a beautiful palm garden, where foreign scholars stayed as guests.
Flexner described this visit as follows:
“I drove over to the Athenaeum where he and Mrs. Einstein were staying and met him for the first time. I was fascinated by his noble bearing, his simply charming manner and his genuine humility. We walked up and down the corridor of the Athenaeum for upwards of an hour, I explaining, he questioning. Shortly after twelve, Mrs. Einstein appeared to remind him that he had a luncheon engagemen
t. ‘Very well,’ he said in his kindly way, ‘we have time for that. Let us talk a little longer.’ ”
At this time Flexner did not yet consider Einstein himself for this institute. He wanted only to hear his opinion about the plan. They agreed to meet again early the next summer at Oxford, where Einstein was to lecture.
As they had planned, Einstein actually met Flexner on the beautiful lawn of the quadrangle of Christ Church College at Oxford, where Einstein was staying. Flexner describes the meeting:
“It happened to be a superbly beautiful day and we walked up and down, coming to closer and closer grips with the problem. As it dawned on me during our conversation that perhaps he might be interested in attaching himself to an institute of the proposed kind, before we parted I said to him: ‘Professor Einstein, I would not presume to offer you a post in this new Institute, but if on reflection you decide that it would afford you the opportunity which you value you would be welcome on your own terms.’ ”
They agreed that during the summer Flexner would come to Berlin to continue the talks. It was the summer of Papen’s interim government in Germany, the summer when the German Republic was already dead and led only a ghostly existence. Einstein saw the future with complete clarity and had decided to keep the road to America open for himself.
When Flexner came to Berlin, Einstein was already living in his country home at Caputh near Potsdam. It was the same summer and the same house of which I have already spoken in Chapter X. Flexner arrived at Einstein’s country house on a Saturday at three in the afternoon. He describes his visit as follows:
Einstein Page 36