When in doubt, ask Einstein.

[Mr. Sparkle]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein (Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941)

Rings pretty true to me.

 

[five]

I cannot ask Einstein, he is dead and I am without a time machine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've always disagreed with the first part of that quote. I agree that religion is blind without science, but science is by no means handicapped by the absence of religion.

 

[anffyddwyr]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein (Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941)

Rings pretty true to me.

If there is one thing I know, it's that I don't know a lot,
and what I do know, ain't worth knowing,
and if I told anybody what I know, they would say, what do I know.
(Me just now. 2007)

Writing anything on this forum is like wetting yourself in a dark suit,
it gives you a nice warm feeling, but nobody notices.

And what swine put an 'S' in Lisp.

 

[FishFace]

"[...] religion [...] is blind."
-Albert Einstein (Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941)

Edited for my opinion. Science is the only reliable method we have discovered for finding truth. If religion wants to claim something as true, then it has to go through the scientific method.

 

[Fear]

Depends on what he means by religion...

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that
the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and
blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge"

- The Big E.

 

[Shemjaza]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein (Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941)

Rings pretty true to me.

He said a lot of other things I agree with more:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

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.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Depends on what he means by religion...

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that
the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and
blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge"

- The Big E.

Great point, i dont think that science is bound to religion. it is however bound to ethics. without ethics you get nazi experimentation on jews.

 

[Shemjaza]

Great point, i dont think that science is bound to religion. it is however bound to ethics. without ethics you get nazi experimentation on jews.

I’d argue that everything should be bound to ethics.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, Einstein's religion, as you can read in one of the above quotes, is his awe for the beauty and majesty of nature. I think this was his way of saying that science doesn't work if the people involved in science don't love what they're doing. I would have to agree with that statement.

But the statement, in my opinion, cannot be applied to organized religion and remain accurate.

 

[DrkSdBls]

I cannot ask Einstein, he is dead and I am without a time machine.

That's what the Ouija board is for.

 

[truth above all else]

I've always disagreed with the first part of that quote. I agree that religion is blind without science, but science is by no means handicapped by the absence of religion.

There can be no conflict between theology and scientific knowledge, insofar as it is actually knowledge of nature.Truth seekers will always acknowledge scientific facts and will continue to question the validity of the philosophical conceptions or interpretations of the facts. The philosophical speculations associated with evolutionary thinkers are not always related to pure science...but to an invented philosophy that is laden with arbitrary definitions and carefully scripted "scientific evidence".

 

[anffyddwyr]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
-Albert Einstein (Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941)

Rings pretty true to me.

Science is everywhere, our religions are only in our minds.
When we die science remains, our religions die with us.

This also rings pretty true to me.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There can be no conflict between theology and scientific knowledge, insofar as it is actually knowledge of nature.

Of course there can. Theists are reknowned for rejected scientific knowledge in favour of their own beliefs. Not all, but enough.

Truth seekers will always acknowledge scientific facts and will continue to question the validity of the philosophical conceptions or interpretations of the facts.

Then the majority of theists, especially those in Abrahamic religions, are not seekers of the truth, but upholders of dogma.

The philosophical speculations associated with evolutionary thinkers are not always related to pure science...

What philosophical speculations is made by Evolutionary theory?

but to an invented philosophy that is laden with arbitrary definitions and carefully scripted "scientific evidence".

You make it sound like a conspiracy. I thought you valued the truth above all else?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

There can be no conflict between theology and scientific knowledge, insofar as it is actually knowledge of nature.Truth seekers will always acknowledge scientific facts and will continue to question the validity of the philosophical conceptions or interpretations of the facts. The philosophical speculations associated with evolutionary thinkers are not always related to pure science...but to an invented philosophy that is laden with arbitrary definitions and carefully scripted "scientific evidence".

how can you value truth but not the facts? There is as much philosophical implication for evolution as there is for gravity. people who use evolution for philosophical purposes are using it unscientifically. people who did that gave us the gross bastardizations of scientific theory that are eugenics and social darwinism. Scientific facts are amoral. Only the applications of those facts can have moral implications.

 

[Netbug009]

Edited for my opinion. Science is the only reliable method we have discovered for finding truth. If religion wants to claim something as true, then it has to go through the scientific method.

I can do that. Law of conservation of matter states that matter can't just come from nowhere. SOMETHING has to be exchanged for it. Now, it's illogical that the universe has "just always been there" so it must have appeared that some point along the way. The problem is, the law of conservation of mass doesn't allow for this stuff to just start getting created on it's own, so technically we should exsist. However, science is currently not able to understand the material the spirit is made of, and for all science knows it coudl totall be self creating and spriti energy could for all we know be used to create matter. Therefore, use being created by a spirit (God) makes more sense than the Big Bang just happening on it's own. Beleiving is God is proven to be more logical than atheism.

There, just backed up my beleifs with science for you. God bless.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I can do that. Law of conservation of matter states that matter can't just come from nowhere. SOMETHING has to be exchanged for it. Now, it's illogical that the universe has "just always been there"

Why is it illogical?

However, science is currently not able to understand the material the spirit is made of, and for all science knows it coudl totall be self creating and spriti energy could for all we know be used to create matter.

There is a reason for that.. The spirit and spiritual energy don't exist and science can't study what doesn't exist.

 

[Mumbo]

I can do that. Law of conservation of matter states that matter can't just come from nowhere. SOMETHING has to be exchanged for it. Now, it's illogical that the universe has "just always been there" so it must have appeared that some point along the way. The problem is, the law of conservation of mass doesn't allow for this stuff to just start getting created on it's own, so technically we should [sic] exsist.

Not too shabby, but this is an old argument, so there are several good counter-arguments already around.

The first one is the simplest: if something can't be created out of nothing, where did God come from? Unfortunately, this one never works, as most believers are fairly convinced that God is above the rules.

Luckily, the second is almost as simple, albeit trickier to grasp. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing, yes? This means that time didn't exist, so really the phrase "before the Big Bang" is meaningless. The universe has always existed because it has existed for as long as time has. That being the case, matter and energy have always existed as well. This may seem like cheating, but that's science for you.

If you're still irrevocably opposed to the Big Bang theory, the Big Crunch theory might be a bit more appealing. It essentially states that the universe is continually expanding and collapsing inward upon itself. Because this is an endless cycle, the theory implies that the universe has always existed. Of course, this would mean that time is also collapsing and expanding, so "has always existed" is just semantics. This is complicated stuff, so I can hardly blame you if Creation appeals more to you.

However, science is currently not able to understand the material the spirit is made of, and for all science knows it coudl totall be self creating and spriti energy could for all we know be used to create matter.

Excellent. If you happen to find some spirit floating around somewhere, be sure to show it to a cosmologist.

There, just backed up my beleifs with science for you. God bless.

Well, it's the thought that counts.

 

[Netbug009]

Everything has a begging somewhere. Can you prove tha it's logical for something to always be there and can you prove that apiritual energy doesn't exsist? You can't prove my point is wrong just like you say I can't prove yours.

 

[RedAndy]

The fact that we can't prove your point is wrong (i.e. that it is unfalsifiable) means it lies outside the realm of science. And just because we can't prove it wrong doesn't mean it is necessarily true. You try proving a universal negative.