信中，愛因斯坦以精確的措辭、清晰的筆觸叙述他罕為公眾所知的觀點，無疑問地表達他對神、宗教、及猶太族群的真正看法：
…The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses… For me the Jewish religion, like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions…
⋯⋯神這個字對我來說只是人類軟弱的表現和產物。聖經值得尊重，但始終只是原始及頗為幼稚的傳說。對我來說，任何詮譯，不管怎樣微妙，也不能改變這事實。這些微妙的詮譯各自表述，幾乎和原文沒有關係。對我來說，猶太教和其它宗教一樣，是最幼稚的迷信化身。我有幸身為猶太人，思想相近，他們沒有任何特質有別於其它民族。經驗告訴我，他們亦不比其它民族優秀。幸而他們沒有權勢，令他們免疫於最壞的頑疾。除此之外，我看不出他們有何「特選」之處⋯⋯
這套信稿曾在2008年在英國拍賣，以$404,000美元成交；著名無神論者Richard Dawkins曾參與競投，但不成功。”God Letter" 再度拍賣，Fox News估計將會以三倍底價成交。
這套信稿曾在2008年在英國拍賣，以$404,000美元成交；著名無神論者Richard Dawkins曾參與競投，但不成功。”God Letter" 再度拍賣，Fox News估計將會以三倍底價成交。
部份內容節錄：
.. I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.
.. I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.
... The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. 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. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual 'props' and 'rationalization' in Freud's language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours, A. Einstein
Yours, A. Einstein
