My favorite example of bias introduced to Wikipedia is by some obviously religious fanatics that managed to add the big section of "Religious views" to biographies of most of famous people of science, and then misinterpret their quotes to support the view that all were religious, in a sense of "supporting/believing in the existing religions."
"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized." And there's no citation re "pantheistic." That is, as stated the claim appears to support the view that there were Einstein's words that mention the "pantheistic" as the most important thing of "Spinoza's" God.
If fact, the only quote, of course not cited in Wikipedia, where Einstein explicitly mentions "pantheism" is apparently:
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."
The only fair description would be "he was an agnostic" and that's all. Instead, the "pantheism" is effectively promoted before, making "agnosticism" his second choice, which it wasn't. Specifically, he quotes Spinoza in order to point to the previous thinker that rejected the belief that the soul exists separately from the body. That's why he mentions him (as seen in the full quote linked above).
He was frequently quoted to declare himself agnostic, whereas he mentions Spinoza's God only in one mail.
Still, try to remove obviously lying "pantheistic" pseudo quote/promotion from Wikipedia's texts about Einstein.
And the same thing is repeated for a lot of other scientists!
I find Neil deGrasse Tyson's case is particularly amusing, where he himself corrected it multiple times only to find it changed back to "atheist" (from "agnostic").
People often have very good reasons to pick the labels they do, but those reasons are often fairly nuanced. The only way to respect that nuance is to honor the label. And you don't even have to be Neil deGrasse Tyson to run into relabelling.
Whether that relabeling is done by a Pew poll that labels you as a religious person because you attended a single religious service one year because you were curious about an unknown slice of culture, or by a friend trying to soften your image by labeling you as something they think is less offensive, it's infuriating.
I can't imagine how frustrating this has to be for someone who actually has the burden of having a voice that people are interested in hearing; when someone reduces a careful and intimate response to a fairly personal question to not only a single word, but the wrong word.
The general thrust of Wikipedia policy is that on religion, sexuality and other similar issues, self-identity trumps all.
We've had all sorts of problems with this: there was an actor a few years ago who gave an interview to a British gay magazine talking about how he was out as gay. But then the prospect of him becoming big in Hollywood came along and his agent wanted to erase this, or sort of have it fade away into ambiguity. What do you do in those kinds of circumstances?
The flip side of that is I've cleaned up horrible biographies written by people who absolutely loathe particular people without even a faint hint of neutrality.
Why can't the people be simply exactly and fully quoted instead of having something else put in their mouth?
Why can't we see Einsteins quote from 1954 in the main article about him
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text"
instead of referring to "pantheistic" "Spinoza's God" out of his letter 1929 to interpretations of which he referred also in 1954:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Even where the quotes exist (the separate article) they are intentionally shuffled to appear that he at the end it's important that he believed in "Spinoza's God" (by placing that quote after the later ones and hiding the context).
The answer is: those that win edit wars are religious, and they try to obscure his words "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses." If the "smartest man" says that, and they do believe in God, they feel "stupid," and they simply can't accept that, facts be damned.
Still, the subject here isn't the labeling and certainly not the emotional response to it, the subject is intentional manipulation of the articles where instead of using exact quotes of people and presenting the context something opposite is written as "interpretations" which are claimed to mean "the same" by the trolls who introduce them.
It's absurd that Neil DeGrasse Tyson's (or Einstein's) full exact sentences can't be quoted in the Wikipedia article about him exactly only when it's about the contested topics.
"Tyson has argued that the concept of intelligent design thwarts the advance of scientific knowledge."
Which as far as I see he didn't say in that specific form and which can even be interpreted by ID followers as "so he said that ID is stronger than scientific knowledge" (using the meaning 2 of thwart: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thwart "To oppose and defeat the efforts, plans, or ambitions of").
Try to change that to his message that "ID is stupid" which would be less manipulative recapitulation:
With false first presentations of Einstein as "a pantheist" and Tyson as somebody who appears to acknowledge the strength of "ID"(!) at this moment religious fanatics obviously succeeded in their manipulative influence to Wikipedia articles.
No idea if the quote is accurate, but it makes sense to me. Consider the analogue: "the concept of Magick thwarts scientific progress." Or "pop culture celebtration of ignorance thwarts scientiofc progress."
It seems you're also trying to muddy the waters: a) It's not the quote (i.e. what somebody actually said or written) we discuss but the "interpretation" written by unknown or known Wikipedia troll b) The mentioned interpretation uses "the advance of scientific knowledge" not "scientific progress." Public is trained to recognize that being against the progress is bad, but the same detectors aren't triggered by "scientific knowledge" against which ID explicitly fights.
The only quote that can be properly written there in Wikipedia citing the video linked would be "Intelligent Design is philosophy of ignorance." That's what he actually said there.
The actual quote and the manipulative interpretation are by no means interchangeable.
I wasn't trying to muddy waters, I was trying to type on a phone, so I paraphrased from memory. The terms I switched are interchangable to me (anecdata).
ID absolutely does not vilify "scientific knowledge" per se. The whole point of ID is that it is a pseudoscientific rebranding of creationism, run by "Discovery Institute" that purports to find evidence for God.
To be fair, in that video he rejects the label purely on pragmatic grounds, because he doesn't have "the time, the energy" to deal with the "baggage" associated with it. His explanation of why he is not an atheist consists almost entirely of a description of the social stigma and unpleasant stereotypes associated with the word "atheist." It makes sense that people would challenge his self-labeling when he explains it in terms of a desire to avoid social bother.
It seems pertinent to note here that the opposite is true also. Many of the greatest [Western] scientist of history have been religious and/or believers in God and often have had religious support.
Galileo, Huygens, Liebniz, Kepler and Newton are the first few that spring to mind. It used to be that (some at least, I didn't do a survey) of the biography boxes included "religion" as a characteristic.
For these named at least their religious beliefs were an active and important element of their lives and places their work in perspective.
Personally I find it lacking wrt NPOV to not include that information in the biography box.
---
In response to your specifics re Einstein the cited wikipedia page includes (and included on 18 Sept the quote you claim to be missing (at least a form of it):
>"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[19]" //
I don't think it does justice to Einstein's beliefs to say "'he was an agnostic' and that's all". For example the statement - though I've not looked at the wider context - that:
>"[...] Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it [...] is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity" Einstein "Ideas and Opinions" (1954), NY, Bonanza Books [via Wikipedia]
seems quite contrary to Bertrand Russell's position of whom it could equally be said 'he was an agnostic and that's all'.
So you are misinterpreting Einstein by modifying his sentences, the actual quote is from 1934 and together with the parts you omitted is:
"If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as
Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially
those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable
of curing all the social ills of humanity."
Wikipedia at least didn't omit the parts that you do -- you omitted "If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and" and "of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching" -- so you're more malicious in this occasion, intentionally omitting Einstein words which are important the parts of the whole sentence.
Completely different context. Try to purge the teaching of both from the later additions -- almost nothing would remain -- the earliest written records of Christianity are Paul's writings, and he was a main priest. The Gospels are even later written, obviously by priests too. The rest of the Bible is even later, everything written by priest. Of course, once the humanity would accept such a purge (to drop everything written by priests) it would result in much higher level of global consciousnesses and therefore curing of social ills.
And again the "Spinoza God" quote is published 1930, his 1954 response is clear "I do not believe in a personal God." and "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." That are his words in 1954 written by him directly, he died in 1955.
There was no malice I assure you. AFAICT my edit was entirely in line with what he said, as for example "as Jesus Christ taught it" already means "free of all subsequent additions" that part (for example) is just emphasis.
I read the quote as applying equally to either Judaism or Christianity but I can see how it can be intended to include both sets of teaching taken together. The only point of the quote was to show that he wasn't "simply an agnostic" in the same way that Russell was "simply an agnostic". That's it.
Can you demonstrate to me what malice I performed? Perhaps your massive axe got in the way while you were grinding it and you misread my comment.
Now you're paragraph beginning "Completely different context" absolutely does put words in to Einstein's mouth beyond that shown in the quote. Presumably you have an additional source you didn't mention that enlarges on the point made in that minute quote? A corollary of what you state is that none of the Gospels nor Epistles represent Christianity - how then did Einstein know what Jesus taught. Your interpretation makes the quote in question nonsensical.
"Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it" (object 2)
"of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests," (of what for object 2)
(then)
"one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."
He didn't claim "to know what Jesus taught." He suggests the benefit to humanity in purging the teachings of all additions especially of those of the priests and prophets. That clearly means also to purge the teachings of Paul's writings and of Gospels as they were written by priests, and then of course of the rest of the Bible and everything written by Christians in the following 2000 years. In Judaism, that also means practically everything. Try it yourself. As soon as you can't believe the priests and use their interpretations you'll have to turn to the scientists or to use scientific methods yourself.
Well. Let's start with the Wikipedia version of the quote as if it were canonical.
>Nevertheless, he also expressed his belief that "if one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."
The disjunctive arrives from the first comma and that there aren't any conjunctive prepositions linking your object1 and object2. Thus the disjunct statements combined in this form are
A) "if one purges the Judaism of the Prophets one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity".
Wherein I'm not sure which group of prophets are antecedent here. "The prophets" in Christian theology refers to the minor prophets of the latter part of the OT.
and B) "if one purges Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity."
As I said I accept the alternate reading that these two teaching, those arrived at through A and B, combined should instead be used to create the ultimate teaching.
However you appear to believe that he said it didn't create any teaching, it created an absence of teaching. You've heavily modified the scope of his intent without there being any indication as to how it should be modified. You say the Gospels were "written by priests" and so should be purged. Yet they are primary sources of what "Jesus Christ taught" (and indeed were not written by priests). He claims this process leaves one with an ultimate teaching. But your bowdlerised version of the methodology leaves one with nothing.
You appear to want this to say "imagine no religion" (or words to that effect), that such a thing would cure humanity of all social ills - despite this being outside of Einstein's area of genius I still can't believe he was such a fool.
Primarily the point was that based on my reading Einstein and Russell take importantly distinct positions, both agnostic. That categorising their attitudes to religion, and hence the scope of agnostic beliefs, as indistinct is unhelpful verging on disingenous. I'll hold that position for now unless you have much better arguments than you've so far put.
>Try it yourself. //
Ha. I became an atheist as a child until I realised that position is scientifically unsound. Going forward I studied philosophy, maths and physics. Then I became a Christian based on personal experiences.
Studying - and being presented as trustworthy - Haeckl and Hubble at high-school taught me not to trust someone for their reputation; neither the teachers nor the purportedly eminent scientists.
I use scientific methods which rather preclude me "turn[ing] to the scientists" who are as likely as any priest to have a bias. Ultimately I'm a pyrrhonist but practically, beyond first axioms [trustworthyness of sensedata, continuity of time dimension(s), and such] I'm a Christian as that is the empirical conclusion.
So you write a lot of text attempting to hide the fact that you are not capable of even trying to see how the Christianity would look like when purged of all additions, especially of those by priests. Paul was a priest. Authors of Gospels were priests from Jerusalem, Caeserea, Antioch, each with his own biases, who mixed different souces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-document_hypothesis
Do read a little of Biblical scholarship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_studies, there are a lot of people who work to figure all that out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem
You're projecting. The passage gives no hints as to the opinions of Einstein on Pauline influence on Christian theology and in particular on the verity of the record of Paul's report of Jesus wrt the later named Christianity.
It doesn't matter one jot about _your_ argument - the point in contention is something entirely different, it is what Einstein referred to in a single line statement as the "Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it".
You wish to say that Einstein considered all the religious sources to be false, no? Then you leave Einstein saying that all that is required to cure all of humanities social ills is to teach nothing of Judaism and Christianity (all other religions would be allowed of course within this statement). Do you genuinely believe that to be first something Einstein would say and second to be true. It's laughably naive.
Your condescension does nothing to further your argument.
I'm going to end with this:
>'In an interview published by Time magazine with George Sylvester Viereck, Einstein spoke of his feelings about Christianity.[21] Viereck was a German born Nazi sympathizer who was jailed in America during World War II for being a German propagandist. At the time of the interview Einstein had been under the impression that Viereck was Jewish. Viereck began by asking Einstein if he considered himself a German or a Jew, to which Einstein responded, "It's possible to be both." Viereck moved along in the interview to ask Einstein if Jews should try to assimilate, to which Einstein replied "We Jews have been too eager to sacrifice our idiosyncrasies in order to conform."[21] Einstein was then asked to what extent he was influenced by Christianity. "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."[21] Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."[21]' [ibid] //
That doesn't sound like the response of a man who is trying to say the gospels are all false. Perhaps these points represent different views at different times. But nonetheless the onus still lies with you to demonstrate your presented interpretation of the previously mentioned quote is correct.
My interpretation is of a man who categorically denied the existence of personal god, held a Newtonian belief in mechanistic causality which appears to some extent to contradict his own scientific revelations, admired Christianity as presented in the gospels but hated the later religious authorities that he saw as perverting Jesus message. A man who denied being atheist and always had a nagging feeling that there was some form of deity an author of the 'laws' that we reveal through our scientific endeavour.
And yes a person who's agnosticism was categorically divergent from that of Russell, ergo my initial comment.
Again you stick to the quotes from 1930 written by others about him. Jesus is "the personal god" to Christians, not just a human with the attractive message who doesn't resurrect. Einstein writes in his own book which he authorizes in 1949:
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
and Einstein explicitly wrote in 1954:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated." (The texts written by others claiming that he was "believer" were published during his life too, just like Wikipedia does it now. The statement continues:)
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." (That obviously refers both to the God of Old Testament and Jesus as Christians understand him "a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves").
"If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Further on, also in 1954:
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."
The best example, Einstein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_religious_vie...
"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized." And there's no citation re "pantheistic." That is, as stated the claim appears to support the view that there were Einstein's words that mention the "pantheistic" as the most important thing of "Spinoza's" God.
If fact, the only quote, of course not cited in Wikipedia, where Einstein explicitly mentions "pantheism" is apparently:
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza.html
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."
The only fair description would be "he was an agnostic" and that's all. Instead, the "pantheism" is effectively promoted before, making "agnosticism" his second choice, which it wasn't. Specifically, he quotes Spinoza in order to point to the previous thinker that rejected the belief that the soul exists separately from the body. That's why he mentions him (as seen in the full quote linked above).
He was frequently quoted to declare himself agnostic, whereas he mentions Spinoza's God only in one mail.
Still, try to remove obviously lying "pantheistic" pseudo quote/promotion from Wikipedia's texts about Einstein.
And the same thing is repeated for a lot of other scientists!