Dr. Pronab K. Chowdhury justifies his claim that Albert Einstein had no “true feeling” for ethnicity
or religion by arguing that Einstein’s public identity was a “matter of convenience” (myweavi
e¨vcv‡i) and a “transactional” performance rather than a deep-seated conviction 1, 2.
The author provides the following specific justifications:
● Lack of Early Connection: The author highlights that prior to 1914, Einstein showed no
record of interest in Jewish tribal identity, religious faith, or the Zionist movement 3, 4.
In his early career, he consistently presented himself as a secular, “science-focused”
individual without any ethnic or religious leanings 4.
● The 1911 Job Application: As evidence of Einstein’s indifference to religion, the author
cites Einstein’s 1911 application for a professorship at the University of Prague 4.
Einstein initially wrote “none” in the section for religious affiliation and only changed it to
“Mosaic” after being informed that a religious declaration was a mandatory requirement
for the position 4.
● Transactional Shift in Berlin: The author characterizes Einstein’s “awakening” of
Jewish identity after 1914 as a calculated professional move 2, 5. By affiliating himself
with the Jewish intellectual elite in Berlin, Einstein allegedly secured the social and
financial support necessary to propel his image as a “global icon” 2. The author argues
that this was a trade of his original ideals for “hedonistic opportunism” 5, 6.
● Contempt for Traditional Faith: Einstein’s private correspondence is used to show his
true feelings toward religion 7. The author cites a 1954 letter in which Einstein described
the Jewish religion, and all religions, as an “incarnation of the most childish
superstitions” 7.
● Rejection of a Personal God: The author emphasizes that Einstein explicitly denied
belief in a “personal God” who is concerned with the fate of mankind 7. Instead,
Einstein stated his belief in “Spinoza’s God,” which the author interprets not as a
religious faith, but as a philosophical appreciation for the “lawful harmony of the
world” or the unity of nature 7, 8.
● Behavior Toward Family and Friends: The author points to Einstein’s willingness to
abandon his Christian wife (Mileva Maric) and his baptized children to align himself
with the Jewish elite in Berlin as proof that his “tribalism” was not rooted in genuine
feeling but in professional utility 2, 9.
● Detachment from the State of Israel: Finally, the author argues that Einstein’s true lack
of ethnic devotion is proven by his actions after 1948 10. Despite being the “strategic
brand name” of the Zionist movement, Einstein never once visited the State of Israel
during the seven years between its founding and his death, and he refused the offer to
serve as its president 10-12.
In summary, the author portrays Einstein as a figure who used religious and ethnic labels as
political tools to enhance his celebrity and secure his “comfort nest,” while privately holding
these very identities in low regard 13-15.
