Einstein and Spinoza

Note: This is a repost from 2011.

Einstein's religious beliefs were a direct result of his love of Spinoza'a ethics in dealing with the dual questions concerning God and Free Will. Baruch Spinoza, like Einstein, was Jewish.

He was a philosopher in 17th Century Amsterdam, where he was ex-communicated for his belief in Causal Determinism. (I did not know that the Jewish faith did ex-communications, having only heard previously of the practice in conjunction with the Catholic Church.)

Causal Determinism is the belief that the existence of a superior being reveals itself in the harmony of nature and the natural order of all things. Einstein was interested in Spinoza as a way of reconciling science with his own religious beliefs.

I think that Einstein would be in agreement with the words of the late Pope John Paul II when he said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."

I think he would have accepted that. I know that I do. It assumes the worst of both religion and science, while at the same time recognizing the strengths that each of the two bring to the human condition. In other words, it is a position of moderation.

In November of 1920, Einstein traveled to Spinoza's home in Leiden, Amsterdam for a visit. He even signed the guest book. The signature beneath his is that of Harm Kamerlingh Onnes, the nephew of the famed physicist, who accompanied him on the trip to Leiden.

The visit so moved Einstein that he later wrote a poem about Spinoza, titled, "On Spinoza's Ethics." I have reprinted the poem here, first in German, and then followed by the English translation. I have credited both translations to their sources at the end of each translation.

The two lines in italics are ones which Einstein wrote and then put a line through, replacing them with the lines immediately following. I have included them here simply because anything Einstein thought, or wrote, must be important in some way, even if I do not fully understand it.

The Latin phrase in the third line of the second verse translates as "For God's sake." Einstein uses the phrase here to call out Spinoza's aversion to faith alone, noting that the philosophy of amor dei "leaves him cold."

Zu Spinozas Ethik

Wie lieb ich diesen edlen Mann
Mehr als ich mit Worten sagen kann.
Doch fürcht' ich, dass er bleibt allein
Mit seinem strahlenen Heiligenschein.

So einen armen kleinen Wicht
Den führst du zu der Freiheit nicht
Der amor dei lässt ihn kalt
Das Leben zieht ihn mit Gewalt

Die Höhe bringt ihm nichts als Frost
Vernunft ist für ihn schale Kost
Besitz und Weib und Ehr' und Haus
Das füllt ihn von oben bis unten aus

Du musst schon gütig mir verzeih'n
Wenn hier mir fällt Münchhausen ein
Dem als Einzigem das Kunststück gedieh'n
Sich am eigenem Zopf aus dem Sumpf zu zieh'n

Du denkst sein Beispiel zeiget uns eben
Was diese Lehre dem Menschen kann geben
Mein lieber Sohn, was fällt dir ein?
Zur Nachtigall muss man geboren sein
Vertraue nicht dem tröstlichen Schein:
Zum Erhabenen muss man geboren sein.

Written circa 1920.
Transcribed from ms. facsimile, Albert Einstein Archive, 31-018

On Spinoza's Ethics

How I love this noble man
More than I can say with words.
Still, I fear he remains alone
With his shining halo.

Such a poor small lad
Whom you'll not lead to freedom
The amor dei leaves him cold
Mightily does this life attract him

Loftiness offers him nothing but frost
Reason for him is poor fare
Property and wife and honor and house
That fills him from top to bottom

You'll kindly forgive me
If Münchhausen here comes to mind
Who alone mastered the trick
Of pulling himself out of a swamp by his own pigtail

You think his example would show us
What this doctrine can give humankind
My dear son, what ever were you thinking?
One must be born a nightingale
Trust not the comforting façade
One must be born sublime

©2007-2008 English translation by Jonathan Ely

Two Men Come Down the Same Chimney

This is one of those old stories which are often attributed to the Talmud. This is the version from Rabbi Telushkin's book, "Jewish Humor." There are slight variations in any version of the story, but you'll get the point. I have posted this before. 

Two Men Come Down the Same Chimney

A young man in his mid-twenties knocks on the door of the noted scholar Rabbi Shwartz. “My name is Sean Goldstein,” he says. “I’ve come to you because I wish to study Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic?” the rabbi asks.

“No,” replies the young man.

“Hebrew?” asks the Rabbi.

“No,” replies the young man again.

“Have you studied Torah?” asks the Rabbi, growing a bit irritated.

“No, Rabbi. But don’t worry. I graduated Berkeley summa cum laude in philosophy, and just finished my doctoral dissertation at Harvard on Socratic logic. So now, I would just like to round out my education with a little study of the Talmud.”

“I seriously doubt,” the rabbi says, “that you are ready to study Talmud. It is the deepest book of our people. If you wish, however, I am willing to examine you in logic, and if you pass that test I will teach you Talmud.”

The young man agrees.

Rabbi Shwartz holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

The young man stares at the rabbi. “Is that the test in logic?”

The rabbi nods.

”The one with the dirty face washes his face,“ he answers wearily.

“Wrong. The one with the clean face washes his face. Examine the simple logic.The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Very clever,” Goldstein says. “Give me another test.”

The rabbi again holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We have already established that. The one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Wrong. Each one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face. When the one with the dirty face sees the one with the clean face wash his face, he also washes his face. So each one washes his face.”

“I didn’t think of that,” says Goldstein. It’s shocking to me that I could make an error in logic. Test me again.”

The rabbi holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Each one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Neither one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. But when the one with the clean face sees the one with the dirty face doesn’t wash his face, he also doesn’t wash his face. So neither one washes his face.”

Goldstein is desperate. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”

He groans, though, when the rabbi lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Do you now see, Sean, why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is "narishkeit", foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”

Note: The illustration does not represent the hypothetical fireplace to which the 2 hypothetical men would descend from the hypothetical chimney. It must be assumed that there would be no fire in it at the time of the descent. I only add this to provide some tongue in cheek clarity; as well as to ward off any deep discussion on the matter.

"The Hill" with Sean Connery and Michael Redgrave (1965)

In 1965 Sean Connery took a gamble and walked away from the Bond film series; and we have been reaping the rewards of that decision ever since. In this 1965 movie; based loosely upon the Greek Myth about Sisyphus; he plays a soldier who is punished by his superiors in much the same way as the Gods punished Sisyphus, by being given a futile and impossible task, which he must perform over and over again.

In Albert Camus' “The Myth of Sisyphus”, the author draws the conclusion that although Sisyphus has no hopes, no future and no chance at even succeeding at his task; “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” I don’t wish to sound pompous; or even to overreach in my status as a mere blogger; but such reasoning smacks of the “Albrecht Mach Frei” sign above the entrance to Auschwitz. “Work will set you free”; tell that to all those who died there while struggling to survive.

A more realistic portrayal of what happens to human beings when confronted with hopelessness is contained in the script of this film; which was taken from the book by Ray Rigby from a play he co-wrote with R.S. Allen. Undoubtedly they read Sisyphus, and they too must have had their doubts. It all depends on how you interpret this film.

The film takes place in a military prison in the Libyan desert; sometime around World War Two. Any prisoners who violate the rules are forced to tackle the “Hill”; which is a mass of scrap iron, stone and sand; all piled into the shape of a pyramid. Prisoners are forced to run double-time over the hill wearing all their gear. They must do this endlessly; until they drop; as they always do. It’s inevitable.

The movie is stark; there is no music; and in a film about World War Two, not a shot is fired. Yet this is a violent film. The prisoners are composed of a group of misfits; commanded by a sadistic Commandant; played by Harry Andrews. Sergeant-Major Wilson is a rigid, unmoving man. He revels in the “discipline” he metes out and the power which it gives him over the prisoners under his charge. He’s evil in the worst sort of way; not entirely by desire; but rather by order. He was told to do this; so it must be right.

The prisoners consist of not only British soldiers; but also all of the different colors and nationalities who were then under the Royal yoke as colonists.

Sean Connery plays Joe Roberts; an officer imprisoned for having defied a stupid order which would have resulted in the loss of his men; only to lose them anyway. Talk about futility!  In the camp he is the main witness in a trial against a sadistic officer; Staff Sergeant Williams, played by Ian Hendry; whose action have resulted in the death of a man.

Ossie Davis plays Jacko King; a Caribbean prisoner who comes to realize that his white superiors are mad and loathsome, and not worth the respect they demand. He finds the whole system to be absurd; just as Sisyphus may have felt about his punishment.

Alfred Lynch plays George Stevens; a man who lives only for his wife’s letters; and is despised by Sgt. Williams for it. When he uses the Hill to kill him Connery realizes something he has known all along; that the Devil hides in the Truth. He sees his lack of redress against the rules as his authority to be insubordinate. As a matter of fact, he sees it as his Duty.

With a cast including such notables as Roy Kinnear; who plays Monty Bartlett; Jack Watson as Jock McGrath; and Sir Michael Redgrave as the unnamed Medical Officer; this film has a well-seasoned cast of performers who make every scene hurt.

As an indictment of ruthless rigidity, it stands the test of time. As a commentary on our own contemporary world, it also fits the bill nicely. Complacency; or inertia, in the face of evil and overwhelming odds; is not laudable. While it may be unavoidable in order to survive, the question then becomes one of what you are willing to accept. For every person, that answer will be different.

"The Boy at the Window" - Richard Wilbur (1952)

This is another of my favorite poems. The stark imagery of the outdoors; as endured by the Snowman; juxtaposed against the warmth and love which the boy experiences indoors; breaks my heart each time I read it. And the sympathy of the snowman as he melts is truly amazing. Being born to die he has no fears at all, while the boy remains trapped, fearing the loss of the things which he thinks possesses; but which in reality possess him.

"The Boy at the Window" - Richard Wilbur

Seeing the snowman standing all alone

In dusk and cold is more than he can bear.

The small boy weeps to hear the wind prepare

A night of gnashings and enormous moan.

His tearful sight can hardly reach to where

The pale faced figure with bitumen eyes

Returns him such a godforsaken stare

As outcast Adam gave to Paradise.

The man of snow is, nonetheless, content

Having no wish to go inside and die.

Still, he is moved to see the youngster cry.

Though water is his element,

He melts enough to drop from one soft eye

A trickle of the purest rain, a tear

For the child at the bright pane surrounded by

Such warmth, such light, such love, and so much fear.

The Heifer, the She Goat and the Ewe in Partnership with the Lion

Jean LaFontaine, the noted French fabulist and poet, wrote the following poem several hundred years ago in 1668. It has never been more applicable than now, and so I offer it here in two translations from the French for your enjoyment, as well as your enlightenment. The poem adds credence to the adage of being wary of  whom one would lie down with. You might feel secure relinquishing a few rights here and there; but the point is, will you survive the change?

The best critique concerning La Fontaine's "Fables" was penned by Silvestre de Sacy, who believed that the stories were capable of three interpretations. Children enjoy them for their sheer delight and imagination; and students see the beauty of their composition; while the more mature appreciate the moral lessons to be learned, and are also able to see the relevance of these fables to human nature. As usual, great insights can be found in the classics.

THE HEIFER, THE GOAT, AND THE SHEEP, IN COMPANY WITH THE LION.

The Heifer, Goat, Sheep, and Lion.

A partnership with men in power

We cannot build upon an hour.

This Fable proves the fact too true:

An Heifer, Goat, and harmless Ewe,

Were with the Lion as allies,

To raise in desert woods supplies.

There, when they jointly had the luck

To take a most enormous buck,

The Lion first the parts disposed,

And then his royal will disclosed.

"The first, as Lion hight, I crave;

The next you yield to me, as brave;

The third is my peculiar due,

As being stronger far than you;

The fourth you likewise will renounce,

For him that touches, I shall trounce."

Thus rank unrighteousness and force

Seized all the prey without remorse.

and still, another translation.

The heifer, the goat, and their sister the sheep,

Compacted their earnings in common to keep,

'Tis said, in time past, with a lion, who sway'd

Full lordship o'er neighbours, of whatever grade.

The goat, as it happen'd, a stag having snared,

Sent off to the rest, that the beast might be shared.

All gather'd; the lion first counts on his claws,

And says, 'We'll proceed to divide with our paws

The stag into pieces, as fix'd by our laws.'

This done, he announces part first as his own;

'Tis mine,' he says, 'truly, as lion alone.'

To such a decision there's nought to be said,

As he who has made it is doubtless the head.

'Well, also, the second to me should belong;

'Tis mine, be it known, by the right of the strong.

Again, as the bravest, the third must be mine.

To touch but the fourth whoso maketh a sign,

I'll choke him to death

In the space of a breath!'

Einstein and Spinozza

Einstein's religious beliefs were a direct result of his love of Spinoza'a ethics in dealing with the dual questions concerning God and Free Will. Baruch Spinoza, like Einstein, was Jewish. He was a philosopher in 17th Century Amsterdam, where he was ex-communicated for his belief in Causal Determinism. (I did not know that the Jewish faith did ex-communications, having only heard previously of the practice in conjunction with the Catholic Church.) Causal Determinism is the belief that the existence of a superior being reveals itself in the harmony of nature and the natural order of all things. Einstein was interested in Spinoza as a way of reconciling science with his own religious beliefs.

I think that Einstein would be in agreement with the words of the late Pope John Paul II when he said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." I think he would have accepted that. I know that I do. It assumes the worst of both religion and science, while at the same time recognizing the strengths that each of the two bring to the human condition. In other words, it is a position of moderation.

In November of 1920, Einstein traveled to Spinoza's home in Leiden, Amsterdam for a visit. He even signed the guest book. The signature beneath his is that of Harm Kamerlingh Onnes, the nephew of the famed physicist, who accompanied him on the trip to Leiden. The visit so moved Einstein that he later wrote a poem about Spinoza, titled, "On Spinoza's Ethics."

I have reprinted the poem here, first in German, and then followed by the English translation. I have credited both translations to their sources at the end of each translation. The two lines in italics are ones which Einstein wrote and then put a line through, replacing them with the lines immediately following.

I have included them here simply because anything Einstein thought, or wrote, must be important in some way, even if I didn't fully understand it. The Latin phrase in the third line of the second verse translates as "For God's sake." Einstein uses the phrase here to call out Spinoza's aversion to faith alone, noting that the philosophy of amor dei "leaves him cold."

Zu Spinozas Ethik

Wie lieb ich diesen edlen Mann

Mehr als ich mit Worten sagen kann.

Doch fürcht' ich, dass er bleibt allein

Mit seinem strahlenen Heiligenschein.

So einen armen kleinen Wicht

Den führst du zu der Freiheit nicht

Der amor dei lässt ihn kalt

Das Leben zieht ihn mit Gewalt

Die Höhe bringt ihm nichts als Frost

Vernunft ist für ihn schale Kost

Besitz und Weib und Ehr' und Haus

Das füllt ihn von oben bis unten aus

Du musst schon gütig mir verzeih'n

Wenn hier mir fällt Münchhausen ein

Dem als Einzigem das Kunststück gedieh'n

Sich am eigenem Zopf aus dem Sumpf zu zieh'n

Du denkst sein Beispiel zeiget uns eben

Was diese Lehre dem Menschen kann geben

Mein lieber Sohn, was fällt dir ein?

Zur Nachtigall muss man geboren sein

Vertraue nicht dem tröstlichen Schein:

Zum Erhabenen muss man geboren sein.

Written circa 1920.

Transcribed from ms. facsimile, Albert Einstein Archive, 31-018

On Spinoza's Ethics

How I love this noble man

More than I can say with words.

Still, I fear he remains alone

With his shining halo.

Such a poor small lad

Whom you'll not lead to freedom

The amor dei leaves him cold

Mightily does this life attract him

Loftiness offers him nothing but frost

Reason for him is poor fare

Property and wife and honor and house

That fills him from top to bottom

You'll kindly forgive me

If Münchhausen here comes to mind

Who alone mastered the trick

Of pulling himself out of a swamp by his own pigtail

You think his example would show us

What this doctrine can give humankind

My dear son, what ever were you thinking?

One must be born a nightingale

Trust not the comforting façade

One must be born sublime

©2007-2008 English translation by Jonathan Ely

"The Corpse Walker" by Liao Yiwu

I was wondering what I had posted 5 years ago today and was very pleased to come up with this book review. My posts for the entire month of May 2009 consists of only books; about 6 in all. At the time I was only planning on reviewing books and movies. 

For better or for worse, I began daily postings in 2010. It's a great way to keep a journal and I enjoy going back a few years and being able to see what I was doing, or reading, at the time. Anyway, this is a great book by a very controversial author, which makes it an even more interesting read.

Liao Yiwu is a Chinese dissident who was imprisoned for 4 years after writing a poem about the Tiananmen Square Massacre. In spite of his continued monitoring by Chinese officials he is still active and writing. This book was written and smuggled out of China for publication. The translation is by Wen Huang.

It is a most interesting book as it takes some of the occupations and trades that were banned by the Chinese Government and explores how these prohibitions affected the Chinese people through the years of Mao Tse Tung and beyond.

There are 27 professions examined through interviews with the members of China’s “forgotten classes”. Liao Yiwu asks the questions and the subjects let go with a “no holds barred” account of their lives and professions.

Here we have the Corpse Walker- an ancient art, whereby the corpse is “walked” to the funeral. The practice was banned as being superstitious. The “walkers” interviewed here tell the history of the profession and explain why they continue with the practice and what it meant to Chinese culture.

The Public Rest Room Attendant- a former landlord before his re-education- gives us his views on the “new” China and where it is heading. He sees all manner of people in his profession- toilets, you see, are the real equalizers in all societies.

From the Feng Shui practioner , Blind Street Musician and on to the Human Trafficker and Falon Gong member this is a unique perspective of where China has been, where it is, and where it may be heading. With a keen eye and a writers wit Mr. Liao has painted a portrait of China that is both a history and a narrative of a land that has always fascinated me.

Private Parts in Public Places

This is a delicate subject, one which has sparked debate between various co-workers and I over the years past. I say “past” as I no longer have co-workers; being retired; but the subject of this particular debate applies in the private sector as well. I’m talking about washing your hands when using the bathroom. Don’t take me wrong; I am a firm believer in washing your hands; and mine as well; whenever either of us use the “facilities.” My point of contention is whether, or not, this said washing of the hands should take place before, or after, using the bathroom.

I look at it in this way; when I go to use the bathroom my hands have been all over God’s creation; touching things in stores, shaking hands with people; you name it, they’ve been doing it. And, while they have been so active, they have probably picked up a few germs along the way. So, that is why I wash my hands before I use the “facilities”, as opposed to after.

Think about it; while my hands have been involved in all the aforementioned activities, my private parts have been safely ensconced in a clean pair of underwear, right where I put them after taking a shower. So, in my mind, washing my hands before makes perfect sense. I wouldn’t want to inadvertently place public germs in my most private of places.

Would you believe that I have observed men who simply walk into a rest room; right after working on their car, or digging a ditch; just unzip and spray away? Only then, after sullying their “best friend” in such a manner, do they wash their hands. I have often wondered what was on their clean “private part” that needed to be scrubbed away with so much vigor before they go back to digging the ditch.

Realistically, I do like that there are signs for restaurant employees which instruct them to wash their hands before going back to the kitchen.  That seems to make sense. I mean, when you come right down to it,  your meat should never touch my meat;  in any way, at any time. Besides, I know where my meat’s been, but I haven’t got a clue about yours.

So, in summation, I think it would be best to wash both before and after. Take this missive in whatever light you prefer; mild satire, silliness, plain ribaldry, or just the ramblings of someone with nothing to say today. Either way, I’m glad to have finally gotten this off of my chest.

Ockham's (Occam's) Razor and the Chimney Story - A Study in Opposites?

I had an e-mail the other day about a post I did, over a year ago, concerning the old Talmudic story about 2 men coming down the same chimney, and which one needed to wash his face. I will reprise it here for those who missed it. But first, an overview of the comment and another theory; which may, or may not, be in opposition to the Talmudic tale. We shall see.

First, the comment received was in question form; asking whether or not there was a fire in the fireplace; which of course, is irrelevant to the question at hand concerning who came down the chimney and washed his face, or not. Since the fire would have precluded any descent down the chimney, it is of no consequence.

Briefly the Chimney story involves 2 men who come down the same chimney for unstated purposes. The question is which one will wash his face first. The one with the dirty face, or the one with the clean face? After many permutations, it is decided that the question is a foolish one to begin with, and thus unworthy of the time spent in attempting to solve it. Adding the aforementioned fire to the story only serves to obfuscate the matter.

And this brings us to Ockham's razor, which assumes what Ptolemy had already considered when he first said, "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." What he meant was made even clearer by Franciscan friar Father William of Ockham (1285-1349), who further opined that, in essence, by shaving down the argument to its simplest point, ensured the quickest, and most logical answer. Hopefully, it would also be the right one.

On the other hand, Lord Edward Charlton,(1370-1421) the 5th and last Lord of Powys, proposed that since the world was too complex, and contained too many variables, it would be impossible to arrive at the truth using Ockham's theory. I tend to agree. Even the exact meanings of the simpler forms of an explanation can be nuanced, and therefore refutes Ockham's own theory. Both of these points of view were used in vain attempts to prove the existence of God, or not. Both theories are prone to failure simply because a belief in God is rooted in faith, rather than ascertainable "facts." Draw your own conclusions; as the English say, "Horses for Courses."

Here is the story, from Talmud, of the 2 men coming down the same chimney;

A young man in his mid-twenties knocks on the door of the noted scholar Rabbi Schwartz. “My name is Sean Goldstein,” he says. “I’ve come to you because I wish to study Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic?” the rabbi asks.

“No,” replies the young man.

“Hebrew?” asks the Rabbi.

“No,” replies the young man again.

“Have you studied Torah?” asks the Rabbi, growing a bit irritated.

“No, Rabbi. But don’t worry. I graduated Berkeley summa cum laude in philosophy, and just finished my doctoral dissertation at Harvard on Socratic logic. So now, I would just like to round out my education with a little study of the Talmud.”

“I seriously doubt,” the rabbi says, “that you are ready to study Talmud. It is the deepest book of our people. If you wish, however, I am willing to examine you in logic, and if you pass that test I will teach you Talmud.”

The young man agrees.

Rabbi Schwartz holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face; the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

The young man stares at the rabbi. “Is that the test in logic?”

The rabbi nods.

”The one with the dirty face washes his face,“ he answers wearily.

“Wrong. The one with the clean face washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So, the one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Very clever,” Goldstein says. “Give me another test.”

The rabbi again holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We have already established that. The one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Wrong. Each one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So, the one with the clean face washes his face. When the one with the dirty face sees the one with the clean face wash his face, he also washes his face. So, each one washes his face.”

“I didn’t think of that,” says Goldstein. It’s shocking to me that I could make an error in logic. Test me again.”

The rabbi holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Each one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Neither one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. But when the one with the clean face sees the one with the dirty face doesn’t wash his face, he also doesn’t wash his face. So, neither one washes his face.”

Goldstein is desperate. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”

He groans, though, when the rabbi lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face; the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Do you now see, Sean, why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is "narishkeit", foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”

A Moment with Jupiter and Venus

I have always loved the stars and planets. To me, they represent the divine, the unattainable, and the mystery of life. I don't worship them, rather, I admire them. They do exactly as they are supposed to do without question, or complaint. They are the time clock of our existence.

Looking at a star that is no longer there; the light having taken so long to reach us that the star has long since burned out; always reminds me of the fleeting moments of time which we call our lives. Those years represent only a "needle in a haystack"; or, a lone grain of sand in a desert.

I took this picture last night in front of our house in Concord, North Carolina. There is a street light behind me, and several more down the road. But still, the majesty of these two planets remained visible, even through the clouds. The larger of the two is Jupiter, which is the largest object in the sky, at 9 times the size of our own planet. The shot is of the two planets setting in the western night time sky. For me, this was a huge reminder of just how small we all are.

Is God Fair? A Question of Faith.

This is Michelangelo's beautiful work from the Sistine Chapel showing God Creating Adam. Whether or not you believe in Creationism, or even God, the works of Michelangelo are certainly evidence of the beauty we are capable of carrying within us.

Man has been arguing religion for so long now, thousands of years, with no progress having been made concerning the respect for different beliefs. At times it seems more like a war than a theological discussion. And, at times, it has been just that.

I really enjoy stories from the Talmud and the Mishna. They are the codifications of the events, and their meanings, in the Old Testament. The Talmud and Mishna are almost as old as the Bible itself, and though they are chiefly concerned with the teachings of the Old Testament, many lessons can be learned from these wonderful stories. From them have sprung up many Talmudic "type" of stories, which usually illustrate some principle which has already been expressed in either the Talmud or the Mishna. My favorite is the one about "Two Men Coming Down the Same Chimney", which I have posted here before. But there are so many more. Here is another of my favorites, illustrating a basic concept;

Once a man was visiting a small town for the weekend. He attended the local services at the synagouge. When it was time to honor some of the congregants with Torah blessings, he noticed that the Rabbi was calling random people to be blessed, without regard to name, age or community status. After the service he went to the Rabbi to complain about what he perceived to be an unfair practice. The Rabbi said, "You have been in this synagogue only one day, and yet you feel that there is no order here? I have a list, and I make sure that everything is in order. Remember, we are only on this earth for a short time, and that God has a list, too. Rest assured, verything is in order."

The point here is that we never get to see the whole, larger picture. So how can we judge what is fair, or not? Just a thought for the day...

Einstein and Spinoza

Einstein's religious beliefs were a direct result of his love of Spinoza'a ethics in dealing with the dual questions concerning God and Free Will. Baruch Spinoza, like Einstein, was Jewish. He was a philosopher in 17th Century Amsterdam, where he was ex-communicated for his belief in Causal Determinism. (I did not know that the Jewish faith did ex-communications, having only heard previously of the practice in conjunction with the Catholic Church.) Causal Determinism is the belief that the existence of a superior being reveals itself in the harmony of nature and the natural order of all things. Einstein was interested in Spinoza as a way of reconciling science with his own religious beliefs.

I think that Einstein would be in agreement with the words of the late Pope John Paul II when he said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." I think he would have accepted that. I know that I do. It assumes the worst of both religion and science, while at the same time recognizing the strengths that each of the two bring to the human condition. In other words, it is a position of moderation.

In November of 1920, Einstein traveled to Spinoza's home in Leiden, Amsterdam for a visit. He even signed the guest book. The signature beneath his is that of Harm Kamerlingh Onnes, the nephew of the famed physicist, who accompanied him on the trip to Leiden. The visit so moved Einstein that he later wrote a poem about Spinoza, titled, "On Spinoza's Ethics." I have reprinted the poem here, first in German, and then followed by the English translation. I have credited both translations to their sources at the end of each translation. The two lines in italics are ones which Einstein wrote and then put a line through, replacing them with the lines immediately following. I have included them here simply because anything Einstein thought, or wrote, must be important in some way, even if I do not fully understand it. The Latin phrase in the third line of the second verse translates as "For God's sake." Einstein uses the phrase here to call out Spinoza's aversion to faith alone, noting that the philosophy of amor dei "leaves him cold."

Zu Spinozas Ethik

Wie lieb ich diesen edlen Mann
Mehr als ich mit Worten sagen kann.
Doch fürcht' ich, dass er bleibt allein
Mit seinem strahlenen Heiligenschein.

So einen armen kleinen Wicht
Den führst du zu der Freiheit nicht
Der amor dei lässt ihn kalt
Das Leben zieht ihn mit Gewalt

Die Höhe bringt ihm nichts als Frost
Vernunft ist für ihn schale Kost
Besitz und Weib und Ehr' und Haus
Das füllt ihn von oben bis unten aus

Du musst schon gütig mir verzeih'n
Wenn hier mir fällt Münchhausen ein
Dem als Einzigem das Kunststück gedieh'n
Sich am eigenem Zopf aus dem Sumpf zu zieh'n

Du denkst sein Beispiel zeiget uns eben
Was diese Lehre dem Menschen kann geben
Mein lieber Sohn, was fällt dir ein?
Zur Nachtigall muss man geboren sein
Vertraue nicht dem tröstlichen Schein:
Zum Erhabenen muss man geboren sein.

Written circa 1920.
Transcribed from ms. facsimile, Albert Einstein Archive, 31-018

On Spinoza's Ethics

How I love this noble man
More than I can say with words.
Still, I fear he remains alone
With his shining halo.

Such a poor small lad
Whom you'll not lead to freedom
The amor dei leaves him cold
Mightily does this life attract him

Loftiness offers him nothing but frost
Reason for him is poor fare
Property and wife and honor and house
That fills him from top to bottom

You'll kindly forgive me
If Münchhausen here comes to mind
Who alone mastered the trick
Of pulling himself out of a swamp by his own pigtail

You think his example would show us
What this doctrine can give humankind
My dear son, what ever were you thinking?
One must be born a nightingale
Trust not the comforting façade
One must be born sublime

©2007-2008 English translation by Jonathan Ely

Is It Wrong to be Angry with God?

The Following was published in the Saturday Charlotte Observer as part of an article titled "Voices of Faith", which is a weekly column dealing with issues of religion. Sometimes they can be very insightful, as in this answer to the question posed in the title. It more closely resembles the outlook of the Jewish faith, than the Catholic viewpoint. I found it interesting that it comes from a Catholic Minister, and so, being Sunday, I thought I would share it here.

This is the face of God, as depicted by Michaelangelo in the Sistine Chapel.When trying to select a suitable illustration, I decided to use this stern depiction in order to evoke the image of an Old Testament "fire and brimstone" sort of God. The text below is very consistent with my own beliefs, though I usually refer to Noah arguing about how much wine to take aboard the Ark, as well as the haggling betwen Lot and God concerning how many righteous people he needed to find in order to spare Sodom, as evidence of man's ongoing battle with his Creator.

The Rev. Pat Rush, Pastor, Visitation Catholic Church, Kansas City, Missouri:

In the Bible, it seems that God’s people of the First Covenant are more comfortable arguing with God and complaining about God’s perceived lapses in duty than most Christians are. The prophets Jeremiah and Habakkuk, as well as the Book of Job, are prime examples of this.

Those writings evidence the presumption that even a divinely made covenant is a two-way street and the sense that sometimes God forgets about God’s end of the bargain. Habakkuk complained that God was not listening, because God had promised to be a rock of safety for his people, and, when their enemies attacked and defeated them, God failed to intervene.

People influenced by this tradition are not afraid to argue with God and complain when it feels that the Lord is neglecting them. This attitude is not rooted in a shallowness of faith.

Rather, it is usually rooted in a faith relationship so strong that an honest exchange is acceptable and in no way damaging. It is rooted in a faith conviction that God’s commitment to us is so deep that God can handle our disappointment and anger.

God did respond to those biblical heroes who brought their complaints to him. God said, “stay faithful because good things will come, just not now and not as you expect.” God said they, and we must live in patient trust.

God’s love is steadfast in the face of anger.

Two Men Come Down the Same Chimney

The following story concerns the Talmud, the book that codifies the meaning of Judaic Law. They are somewhat akin to the Parables used in Christianity when explaining the meaning of some things in the New Testament. I first ran across this tale a few years ago while reading Rabbi Telushkin's "Jewish Humor." I hope you will enjoy the story, but more importantly, the meaning of the story. And the book is terrific, as are all of Rabbi Telushkin's writings.

Two men Come Down The Same Chimney

A young man in his mid-twenties knocks on the door of the noted scholar Rabbi Shwartz. “My name is Sean Goldstein,” he says. “I’ve come to you because I wish to study Talmud.”

“Do you know Aramaic?” the rabbi asks.

“No,” replies the young man.

“Hebrew?” asks the Rabbi.

“No,” replies the young man again.

“Have you studied Torah?” asks the Rabbi, growing a bit irritated.

“No, Rabbi. But don’t worry. I graduated Berkeley summa cum laude in philosophy, and just finished my doctoral dissertation at Harvard on Socratic logic. So now, I would just like to round out my education with a little study of the Talmud.”

“I seriously doubt,” the rabbi says, “that you are ready to study Talmud. It is the deepest book of our people. If you wish, however, I am willing to examine you in logic, and if you pass that test I will teach you Talmud.”

The young man agrees.

Rabbi Shwartz holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

The young man stares at the rabbi. “Is that the test in logic?”

The rabbi nods.

”The one with the dirty face washes his face,“ he answers wearily.

“Wrong. The one with the clean face washes his face. Examine the simple logic.The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Very clever,” Goldstein says. “Give me another test.”

The rabbi again holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We have already established that. The one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Wrong. Each one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So the one with the clean face washes his face. When the one with the dirty face sees the one with the clean face wash his face, he also washes his face. So each one washes his face.”

“I didn’t think of that,” says Goldstein. It’s shocking to me that I could make an error in logic. Test me again.”

The rabbi holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Each one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Neither one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. But when the one with the clean face sees the one with the dirty face doesn’t wash his face, he also doesn’t wash his face. So neither one washes his face.”

Goldstein is desperate. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”

He groans, though, when the rabbi lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Do you now see, Sean, why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is "narishkeit", foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”