I don’t have a problem with it. A lot of overheated atheist rhetoric makes it appear that widespread embracing of atheism would itself be a sufficient condition for some sort of near utopian society (for example, that stupid John Lennon song to which the freethinker billboard alludes). Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. clearly provide counterfactuals to this claim.

I don’t think this would be such an issue if atheists didn’t tend to oversell the benefits of a world without religion.

It is worthwhile to read the entire piece from which those quotes were ripped: Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941

Here’s a couple bits to show that a) Einstein had his own definitions for key words, and thus any quote out of context is misleading and b) Einstein did not believe in a personal God.

Here’s the complete paragraph from wich the blind and lame quote was taken:

…
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.
…

This paragraph has multiple problems.

* A NOMA claim that science and religion occupy separate “realms.” And yet, if these realms are “clearly marked off from each other,” why is it that the dividing line is so frequently crossed? How many of the worlds thousands of religions refrain from making truth claims about the natural world, which is the realm of science?

* Values, such as “aspiration toward truth and understanding” are attributed to “the sphere of religion.” This is nonsense. Religion does not have an exclusive claim to values, and that particular value is more commonly expressed in scientists, who are disproportionately irreligious. It seems that when Einstein says “religion” it would be more accurate to substitute “axiology,” which is the philosophical term for the study of values.

* Einstein refers to “the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.” But this is not faith at all in the usual sense of “belief without evidence,” it is a justified and provisional conclusion resulting from over half a millenium of scientific investigation. So here we see that Einstein misuses the term “faith.”

* In other writings, Einstein used the word “God” when he means something else, such as the laws of nature (e.g. “God does not play dice”).

If someone is seeking a clear and accurate voice on the topic of science and religion, Einstein is not the best source.

Regarding the second quote above, Einstein followed that up in the same work

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.

So, almost all actual religions do not meet the criteria of non-conflict with science that Einstein alluded to in the original quote, which referred to some mythical redefined “religion” of his own imagination.

The term Free-Thinker emerged toward the end of the 17th century in England to describe those who stood in opposition to the institution of the Church, and of literal belief in the Bible. The beliefs of these individuals were centered on the concept that people could understand the world through consideration of nature.

It’s true that through modern scientific knowledge ‘consideration of nature’ leads to strong evidence against religions which, for example, preach direct intervention by a god whose intellect is comprehensible to humans. And that is certainly a strike against the majority of extant religions – as is the freethinker opposition to religious institutions . But any religion which allows its institutions to be questioned, and also allows consideration of nature to affect its traditions, according to the evidence, is a religion of freethinkers. The author of the Colorado Springs Gazette opinion, and anyone else who interprets ‘freethinker’ as implying that all religious people are not free or not thinkers misunderstands the word. Given the frequency with which historically religious people such as Jefferson, Franklin, and others are described as ‘freethinkers’, I am not convinced that said misunderstanding is always accidental.

That being said, the referenced editorial is one of the nastier attacks on atheists I have ever seen, and the fact that it was written by an unsigned editor and approved by the editorial board is more upsetting. I never intended to go to Colorado Springs, anyway.

However, the religious writer’s statement contains an amazing amount of bullshit for which no concession can be offered. Atheists believe that the extent of the universe is limited to the extent of scientific inquiry to this date? Umm, no. That’s just stupid. Atheists believe they have absolute knowledge? Umm, no. That’s religion. Atheists are the one’s saying that it is the religionist who is claiming absolute knowledge yet is providing absolutely nothing close to sufficient evidence.

Atheist charities compared to religious charities. Well first off, I’ll give religious communities their due here. Much good work has been done by religious communities. However, having pre-existing communities makes it far easier to engage in group work. It is difficult to form atheist communities for a few reasons. Firstly, atheists are a reactionary group reacting to religious ridiculousness and persecution of atheists by the religious. What unites us is standing up for our rights and for reason. We don’t have some illusion that we are partaking in fellowship with the ultimate force of the universe. We do not believe that by meeting weekly with each other, we are altering our chances of going to heaven or hell when we die.

Next, once in the church, there is a lot of less-than-genuine reasons for churchgoers to do good things. There is a desire to look good and not look bad in front of one’s family, friends and religious community. There is also the pursuit of God’s heaven-hell brownie points. I’m not trying to take anything away from religious people’s good work, I’m just saying that we should consider the whole picture and acknowledge the good, the neutral and the bad where they are present.

Next, the statement that if there were no religions there would be no religious charities and other good religious social organizations. Well, had there never been religion or had religion died off a long time ago I imagine that there would be far more in the way of nonreligious charities. With around 70% of the Western world being religious today and with the figures being much higher than this throughout history, and with the persecution that the nonreligious have undergone throughout history, it is not a surprise that there aren’t nearly as many atheist charities out there. And, again, because atheist organizations are reactionary they are less likely to be as tightly-bound as religious organizations. These groups have tended in history to be political lobby groups rather than community centres. I wonder if other lobby groups are known for their good prosocial activities outside of their primary mission? I personally would love to see the development of secular humanist community centres that bring together such pursuits as the celebration and encouragement of wisdom, discovery, rationality, meditation, growth and prosociality, but thus far such communities are pretty rare.

Lastly, the whole Mao, Pol Pot, blah blah bullshit is getting pretty old…