Page 1 of 1

it's simple to understand

PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:26 am
by briteqwote
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein !

I don't think so! what do you think ?

Re: it's simple to understand

PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:08 pm
by Saturn
Which statement do you disagree with?

I disagree with both. Even if, even though science [particularly theoretical science which to my mind has more in common with philosophy than religion] is not always an exact science, it is still mostly based on empirical evidence and experimentation with provable results that can be performed time and again.

That is not the same as centuries of unwavering belief in doctrines and books whose author[s] and motives are as much a mystery as the mystical deities they preach of.

I think religion has no business being involved with science in any way.

If science is a religion, and it may in some of it's most fantastical speculations and theories be a kind of system of belief, at least it is a religion which doesn't require steadfast unshakable belief in unwavering doctrine: science is always about progress, about learning something new, finding our more and adjusting our knowledge accordingly, it is never static or rests on it's laurels. It is always open to question, to enquiry and open to new ideas.

Re: it's simple to understand

PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:50 pm
by Raphael
I find quantum physics fascinating and string theory!

Re: it's simple to understand

PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:30 pm
by Jupiter
Einstein's religious views were always ambiguous. He seemed to believe that there was something out there beyond our comprehension:

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

but at the same time rejected religious belief as a mere superstition:

"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."

He also professed disbelief in a personal god, while also avoiding to proclaim himself an atheist:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

I am not sure what Einstein's exact intention was when he said those words, but I think his understanding of religion was something else than what is ordinarily implied, in that he rejected the idea that the world had emerged by mere chance and expressed admiration at the way the world is structured. It was definitely not a belief in Yahweh or Christ or any of the known deities.

Certainly, a typical religious apologist would disregard those issues and fallaciously give that quote as proof that a highly intelligent person as Albert Einstein advocated the compatibility of religion and science, or even their dependency on one another. But one must study further and establish the exact context in which a certain statement was made.

Re: it's simple to understand

PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:53 am
by Saturn
The truth is out there...

Maybe, perhaps, eventually...not really... :mrgreen:

I think our weak, fragile brains are too small to ever coming close to understanding the immense solitude of existence, so we created religion and science to soothe our fear of death.
That's all religion is to my mind, a product of man's inability to comprehend his own mortality, a failure to recognise as Keats said 'negative capability', a fear of being in uncertainty, of existing without meaning which is understandable, but inexcusable to maintain such self-delusion in the post-enlightenment, post industrial scientific era.

Science may not have all the answers but then it never circumscribes itself, or pretends it knows all, it believes with Socrates that all it knows is that it knows nothing, but it is eager to learn, experiment and grow in knowledge.

Well that's my tuppence worth anyway.