From an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939:

"During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively.

One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature.

It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.

For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.

But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly..."

Good stuff. Certainly a rational view of rationalism does not claim it as an end all/be all. This stance is sometimes held unfortunately, and often set up as a straw man opponent by theists.

In the last two paragraphs he seems to be moving away from normal takes on religion. "Setting up values" does not imply blind obedience to a value giver. Not at all.

He wasn't in the Yahweh camp. Of course this doesn't mean he can't see the utility that religions can play in societies, at least before our current cynical, fraud-laced times. He seems to be hinting at a teleology built into nature, which is the camp I am in. With the "god" being something profoundly natural.

Takes on the non-incompatibility of science and spirituality have come a long way since then. His certainly was ahead of its time. Whether he didn't believe in Yahweh or did, is irrelevant. He was one of the world's greatest physicists, not one of the greatest psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, religious researchers, etc.

Elsewhere he cited three types of religion: fear-based, morality-based, and cosmology-based. We know which one of those he was in.

For sure. I saw Einstein being discussed in the IQ thread, and it made me think to post this. He expresses two sentiments that I disagree with:

The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable.

It is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values

Well, there's a difference between setting up values and figuring out what they are. If we're just going off this citation, he says, "They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly." This is something I wholeheartedly agree with. There is nothing blind about that. If you mean that we shouldn't blindly obey others who promote this or that, then I'm with you. When it comes to setting up a functioning society, that's a whole nother story.

Additionally, there's a difference between setting up a functioning society based upon an amalgam of shared and separate values, and an individual living in harmony with his or her values in that society.

"Revelation" -- a surprising and previously unknown fact, especially for one that is made known in a dramatic way.

Of course religion has their own supercharged definition for the word, restricting it to coming from a supernatural, authoritative, authoritarian, omniscient, infallible god. But Einstein is obviously not in that camp from the context of the speech and many other comments.

This shouldn't be a semantics game. He makes clear in the first paragraph of the address that an exclusive focus on knowledge (thinking) is one-sided and then goes on to stress the importance balancing that with belief (feeling). He's not talking about facts but about things that are sensed.

Other definitions from the Oxford Dictionary:

the act of making people aware of something that has been secret

sign or message from God (Spinozan)

The highlighted parts spell it out rather plainly:

And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly..."

Facts of reality can be sensed and felt. When this occurs, one might be privy to knowledge not able to be logically demonstrated, and not generally known or not known at all ... and in a position to reveal it to others. Much of Einstein's revolutionary ideas where imagined, intuited, sensed/gleaned sans demonstration or verification. There's no exclusion between facts and how they were acquired. Most of us would want a verification at some point if possible, where some would concede that to god.

Sure. Maybe there's some confusion around what each of us mean by "facts." Einstein intuiting the theory of special relativity, and providing evidence for that using math and experiments, is distinct from if he were to intuit a human value, communicate it, and then see how it resonates with others. There are similarities in human experiences, but the intrinsic subjective nature of being indicates that values are essentially non factual in an objective sense. "Verification" relies on subjectivity and will vary in individuals and cultures. Organizing a society around certain values and verifying what advances them is something else.

The arts are the most effective way of doing this.

And it is inherent in the arts to relay such knowledge through tales of events that never happened.

Agreed. This was never a point of contention in our discussions.

So the stuff about the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, The Great Flood, David and Goliath, the Immaculate Conception, Jonah and the fish, feeding the 5000, halting the winds, walking on water, healing the blind, raising the dead, talking animals, the resurrection, salvation ... that's probably allegory??

Yeah, I've said that since the beginning. The concept of salvation is meaning, otherwise, yes.

Salvation from what?

The suffering that exists as a consequence of one's sins. The Christian view entails the afterlife, but salvation concerns suffering in this life as well.

Saviors are a dime a dozen in history and in 1st Century Middle East, not to mention elsewhere. Human beings do good and bad. The idea that they need a "savior," to save them from their human nature, which is evil from birth, is just gaga religiosity.

It's made up. Gladly ... our babies aren't evil, hell is appalling religion designing, mythical stories don't make us require supernatural saving, we don't need to be saved from being human any more than chimpanzees need to be saved from being chimps. How would that work if evolution is a thing?

One needs to attune and calibrate their religion BS detector via simple critical thinking. Anything requiring you to "just believe it" is just working on you via your gullibility. "I use critical thinking and reality testing for everything under the sun except for religion, except for the tales of yester centuries" is not much of a worldview.

The idea that someone can "just believe it" is a misconception. What aspects of reality do you suggest I test, and how do I got about testing them?

Reality testing means you look for support and verification that the thing is real in all the normal ways. Does it exist or am I wishing it into "existence" via believing it?

Religion is good at fabricating a category of "supernatural," and then saying: "Well, how do you expect us to verify it? It's not of this world, therefore there is no evidence for it." Voila ... they have wished it into part of their reality. When you ask them for evidence for it, instead of responding with the obvious way that you try to verify everything else under the sun, they say: "What would be evidence for you?" If you asked them for evidence for literally anything else, they know exactly what is being required. But not for religious beliefs. That's the realm of magic.

It's really not much different than saying you have a pink, polka dot fire breathing dragon in your basement, but it's supernatural, so you just have to believe for it. "What ... are you an infidel?? You don't believe it?"

Smh.

Again, a potential reality that will be actualized and is better than the actualized reality IS MORE REAL than the actualized reality.

Why? Because reality is not solely based on actualization but on goodness as well.

Why is this the case? Because we (rightly) subjectively desire goodness and this should be included in how we determine truth and reality.

In other words, truth and reality are about morality, not just about actualization.

Put simply, if rational / empirical / factual truth takes you in one direction and in another direction is lasting goodness, I want to be aimed at lasting goodness. Since truth is my aiming mechanism, then I should associate truth with lasting goodness. Since reality is associated with truth, then I should associate reality with lasting goodness. This doesn’t mean factual truth is no longer truth, but rather it’s a lower truth in the hierarchy.

To reject the above in favor of a strict empirical truth is to reject the possible actualization of lasting goodness! If you reject the possibility of lasting goodness, then what are you? What do you represent?

We already discussed the reality of the inner life. If someone suffers—and over the course of years tries therapy, psychoanalysis, lifestyle changes, rationalization, various religious and spiritual practices and so on—and one day finds that acting upon a certain faith resonates and improves the quality of their life, would that count as verification? Is that wishing something into existence or merely a discovery about reality?

Are you under the impression that religion led me to belief in the supernatural and not the other way around? Supernatural intuitions came first and religion allowed them to blossom. Can't speak for others. I also believe that roots played a role in my experience.

What do you think of Jung's view that "religion was the symbolic expression of life's meaning [and his proposition] that optimum psychological health was not possible when consciousness loses its intrapsychic connectedness with the regulating religious factor?"

The infidel comment is bit loaded. I'm not here to vilify non-believers. I believe that we have souls and that how we live our lives matters beyond this one. Every finite being is faced with the infinite. The question is how one lives in relation to that truth.

The main purpose of organized religion is to help establish a relationship between its members and lasting goodness (heaven). This is the gospel or good news — heaven is real, it will be actualized in this world, and it’s accessible to you and your loved ones.

Let’s forget everything else and start here. Identification with lasting goodness. Nobody should be against this.

If a religion improves one's quality of life, then it has utility in that sense for that person, even while the propagation of the religion may be a negative and the dogma itself untrue. If billions of people are in different religions and claiming the true supernatural one is their's, how does that bear on the reliability of the various claims about experience?

I'd love to hear some of those supernatural intuitions. A great intuition need in no way be supernatural. I take it as subconscious synthesis. But if you claim your's are supernatural let's hear details.

"Intrapsychic connectedness" is vital (its opposite is self-alienation, the endemic bane of mankind). I might venture that Jung with that quote means that since for most people, religion is part of that foundation, or at least claimed as such, it can be an extremely unmooring experience to give it up. There are huge benefits of appreciating spiritual realities, ancient magic stories of which are often superstitious efforts in that realm, and very much akin to, say, ancient beliefs about astronomy. Which is to say wayward of actualities in many ways, but still at times useful especially when there is no better option.