Elegantly stated. Thank you.

@TheMiddleWay

I still disagree. Your are splitting between two very different Masters, even if not in the same location. You will never be totally true to either. It's different than wearing two hats. Hats are passive, paradigms are not.

@TheMiddleWay

Culture is a difficult thing to overcome. When you are born into a culture that has a strong religious tradition its is difficult to deny and overcome. From the time you are born to the time you die you are bombarded by symbolism, imagery, and messages that insist you believe. If becomes difficult to consider other alternatives. Your peers believe, your family believes, your friends believe, and the institutions you are beholding to wrap themselves in these beliefs. The exoectations are that you believe. It's a rare few that can fight against and overcome this type of pressure and take a different path.

Nobel prize winners are no exception. In fact they often tend to somewhat timid and undercongident when they are not In their academic environment and among their peers. I suspect that many are believers in word only, just to protect themselves. Furthermore. I suspect that their competing paradigms got in their way on more than one occasion. I also suspect that their religious beliefs suffered on more occasion as they had give in to their scientific paradigm.

I hate equivocation.

@TheMiddleWay

Given the total number of Nobel Prize winners and scientists extant, this is a significantly insignificant number. The fact that these scientists felt brave enough or held strong enough convictions to come forward is laudable.

The danger to them comes from the fear that publically acknowledging their atheism could be used as a criterion for denying them advancement, or funding for a project. There is no easy accessible empirical evidence, but substantial anecdotal evidence to the fact that this operates in society. Just read the corpus of posts on this site, denial or discrimination due to proclaiming atheism brings repercussions.

My first degree was in Anthropology. One of the things that Anthroplogy makes evident is that culture is a very powerful force. Denying or bucking the culture is too uncomfortable for many. Having been in Academia, I am also aware how assiduously academicians protect their potential financial sources. Such simple things as an ill thought out comment in a bio can lose one a funding source.

I have no way of empirically knowing if a "theist" scientist compromised their science by being a believer. I'm not sure they would be aware of any such decision or compromise themselves. I still contend that you cannot serve two masters without some compromise in either or both. In the big picture or long run, the same results may eventually arise, perhaps not. I for one am tired of people trying to meld the two and diluting both, eg. "The Zen of Physics" or "Dancing Wu Li Master". If you generalize too far anything is related, but nothing is said.

@TheMiddleWay

The danger is like white privilige or women's unequal pay issues.. It exists, is subtle and never spoken of directly, only alluded to. No funding source, department, or entity is going to come out directly and say, " we are denying you this grant, or this money, or this position because you are atheist". That would lead to a civil suit for discrimination, yet those judgements get made.

Departments, Agencies, Staffs begin meetings with prayers assuming everybody is Christian and on the same page. Ftom the highest levels of government, to Academia, to Elementary School. Many atheists make it look like they are participating, but rather biding their time until the prayer is over so they can begin the meeting. All you have do is pay attention to the numerous posts on this site for examples.

You are lucky you never experienced, or didnt recognize it if you encountered it. I still contend I'm not fond of equivocation.

There is a form of belief that resembles spiritualism. In this you hold a high respect for the mechanisms that govern and run a system. Like Nature and Scince, you can appreciate then for both their complexity, their simplicity, and their interconnectedness. But it's not religion, it's not spiritualism in the traditional sense, it respect and appreciation. Perhaps that's what you are searching for?

@TheMiddleWay

Who's Fern? Like I said you are fortunate to not have experienced in your world. However, I'm not sure your experience is consistent with many others.

Its apparent that we are not going to agree, as we haven't in the past. As I have stated before, I am not a fan of Pascal's wager applied to Science and Religion.

I've been in the science world for 40 years, and I admit my evidence at this stage is anecdotally based. I could go to the case law and literature to find cases, but I'm not sure I could still convince you. So I will agree to disagree, even if you don't.

@TheMiddleWay

Middle, it sounds like perhaps you work in an insular environment of very likeminded individuals. Physics, like other technical fields, tends to draw and attract people who are extremely focused in their field but not necessarily attentive to what goes on around them beyond their field. You may be a little naive regarding what other academicians around you are experiencing. I have screenshot front pages of four articles related to anti-atheist discrimination. They do not specifically mention science per se, as that specific research may not exist. You asked that I provide evidence. Here is some.

@TheMiddleWay
This got deleted by accident

@TheMiddleWay
Experience working in marginalized communities where discrimination is an everyday occurence. It becomes easy to recognize when present, whether its weaponized against minorities, women, or atheists.

I definitely agree, however science is in the realms of uncovering evidence that disproves particular religious claims or undermines some religious belief, as well as exposing charlatans and attempting to protect the vulnerable..

Unfortunately the Muslim religion appears to be growing.

@TheMiddleWay Religions, Christianity in particular, see anything that does not encompass it or its beliefs as either Persecuting it or being at 'War' with it.
After all, is not the hymn " Onward Christian Soldiers" one of their 'mainstay' hymns?
Religions the world over have at war with each since time immemorial BUT they cannot and will not admit to that,they simply pass the blame on to the nearest available and most innocent scapegoats that they can find.
E.G. The Christians declared war on the Muslims which started the First and all other Crusades, Catholics declared war on the Lutherans, Protestants, etc, and even their own, the Cathars, Muslims have declared war on the various sects, etc, of Islam YET it is ALWAYS blamed upon the convenient Scape-goats such as Atheists, etc, that they are the War-mongers and NOT the Churches, etc.
Sadly, in my honest opinion, 'tunnel vision' is a very limiting thing but a boon to those who choose to living with it.

@TheMiddleWay To your 'assertion' and that of Rational (???) Wikipaedia I say Crap, Crap, Crap.
The War between Christianity and other beliefs and science has been going since before the Early Christian Sect destroyed over 60% of the Great Library of Alexandria in Egypt,murdered possibly hundreds of Non-Christians including numerous Scholars and ALL in the name of their God and Jesus.
That , SIR, is a well known and documented FACT.
For centuries Christians have relished in screaming words like ' persecution,' 'discrimination, ' etc, etc, when in truth they have been perpetrators thenselves all along But HEY, if they can't scream 'persecution,' etc, then how can they expected to 'share' in the presecutions and sufferings of their great, mythological Idol, Jesus?
If they did not take part in the wholsale massacresw of Jews and Muslims during the Crusades then how on earth would the Roman Catholic Church and Empire have been able to accumulate so much land from the Estates of the Dead Warriors who fought and died during those very Crusades.
The very same Warriors who were given ( sold actually) Papal 'Free Passes to Heaven and total Absolution for their sins and crimes both prior to the Crusades and DURING the Crusades?
How would Catholicism have gained the foothold it has in countries like Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Argentina, etc, etc, WITHOUT declaring a 'Holy War' on those native inhabitants to whom they referred to as being Pagans/Heathens, etc, etc, and either enslaving them or killing them by the hundreds and thousands?
Christianity and Christians particularly have for centuries been extremely vocal in shouting down science and sciences BUT they have never short on accepting and embracing the advances and advantages that these very 'enemies' they oppose so strongly and vehemently have brought foward for them to embrace with open arms, have they?
A very PRIME example of Christianity SCREAMING about 'persecution is the ages ld myth of Christians being either put to death or slaughtered by the Romans in the Arenas such as the Flavian Arena ( Colusseum), a total myth btw.
The truth being, and histirically recorded btw, is that the victims in places such as the Flavian Arena were mainly either Slaves, Thieves, Murderers, etc, and on very RARE occassions the odd Gladiator or two.
Yet another created myth perpetrated by Christians and Hollywood Movie Producers alike just as is the myth of Hebrews being enslaves in Ancient Egypt as per the book of Exodus in the bible, the Plagues of Egypt, the part of the Red Sea, etc, etc.
Ergo, IF youare trying to play the part of the 'Devil's Advocate' then, imo, you are falling somewhatv short of the mark, but if you are being deliberately obtuse then, imo, you are succeeding well above your own expectations.

@Triphid 'Deliberately obtuse' ? Yeah, that's a tough one. Middleway's posts are notoriously shallow and/or absurd. He seems sincere, but the content could just as easily come from a patent troll. Does it matter which? It it hard to resist responding to inflammatory comments, sincere or otherwise. I thank you for your replies which I've found interesting. The claim that religion isn't at war against science flies in the face of current events where the evangelical champion had badly damaged the country. Plainly he derives significant motivation from his own anti-science hatred, though some of that is probably red meat for his base. That's the point; his base loves every instance where science is disrespected, even if it means losing a loved one. That's eff'd up. But claiming Christians aren't at war against science is also eff'd up. Have you seen the figures on how much they spend on anti-science campaigns? Science certainly has no such war chest. Scientists can only rely on their valid arguments.

@TheMiddleWay Friend, I have no fewer that 3 Degrees in both Modern and Ancient History, a ThD and 2 Phd's and am studying to gain ever more knowledge, what do you hav to offer?

@TheMiddleWay The Christian 'sacking' of the Great Library of Alexandria occurred in the period A.D. NOT in the period B.C.E.
There were NO 'books' stored/held in the library at that time since 'books' were totally unknown then , they were ALL scrolls,either papyrus scrolls or vellum scrolls as were the norms of that era.
The Serapeum (Library) was estimated to have housed approx. 11,000 scrolls written by some of the Greatest minds of the times both prior to the A.D. era and before the Christians destroyed it.
THAT, Mr. Middleway, IS historical FACT and not the propanga as per issued by the Christian Sects.

@TheMiddleWay Now perhaps I would go back and drop the 'for the greater part' bit and say that religions is simply another word for anti-education. It is a little like the common saying about alternative medicine. "There is no alternative medicine, because if it works it is just called medicine." If it is education it is just called education, the fact that it is called something else, 'religion' simply means that it is not education but anti-education.

Yes of course religions love to claim that they had a role in founding universities, but what better way is there to promote the cause of anti-education, than to fill the world with fake educational establishments pedaling anti-education as hard as they can, to suppress real learning, by squeezing it out with just the size and volume of their output. And certainly for a thousand years until at least the middle of the last century, and still to a degree today, few things have so successfully stood in the way of education than the clergy dominated universities.

@TheMiddleWay I am tempted to say that. Well of course they would say that, most of them have and do work in those universities, so if anyone had a vested interest in promoting that lie, they would. But that is a cheap shot even if true.

But the more important point, which you seem to have overlooked, I hope not deliberately, is that I said "until the middle of the last century," by which time genuine academic study and even science was begining to dominate the universities indeed. Even though most of those you list still have subjects such as theology on the lists, and still to to this day promote anti-education to a degree, while there is no doubt that in their origins, there was little intention to do anything else.

The only area available to religion now is the dark. Religion lives by providing an alternative to the mainstream secular education and thought. In the dark ages when mainstream culture meant, the culture of vicious warlords, no doubt the alternative did seem like a wonder of light and joy. But in the renaissance secular culture chose to follow the path of light and truth, and later of humanity and human rights. What does that leave to religion, and what is the alternative to truth, light and humanity ? As with a game of chess if one player takes the white, then the other can only take the black.

Religion can now only turn into the dark, because that is the only territory available to an alternative now, apart from a few nebullus areas around issues of meaning etc. only of interest to the privileged few who often find what they need elsewhere anyway, without the costs of religion. And that is what we observe, the only growth area for religion, is on the dark far right. There is a lot of religious growth in some areas, such as islamic states and the evangelical Christianity of the west, but they are only on the far and inhuman fascist right, while moderate religion fades fast, because the fascist right is now the main alternative to mainstream culture, and therefore it is the only place that religion being an alternative can go. Like it or not the future of religion is to become increasingly the champion of evil, simple because the is no other place for it to go, and even the most superficial observer will see that happening.

@TheMiddleWay Maybe, to some degree all institutions are anti-education, and that is why I hated it. Certainly the main reason I did hate it was because, I felt that in a Church of England dominated, school, and being a child addicted to reading books, I did feel that I was being cheated.

The high point of which was when I was told by a teacher, not to read the classical authors, since they had been completely supperceeded by modern and Christian thinking. He then made several remarks about the classics, from which it became obvious later that he had not read any of them himself and was only parroting what he had been taught to say by others.

So naturally, being twelve years old, and being told not to do something, I went out and read Plato, Aristotle and some others, and found much in them that was good and useful, even if I agree with little of it now.

I love this though.
"Ummmm.... science was dominating in the university since the time of Newton. Maxwell, Joule, Celcius, and others were all members of religious universities (and religious men themselves) way before the 20th century"

Can you not see that there is a complete contradiction in that, or like all apologists are you so lost in Cognitive dissonance that contradition has become meaningless.

Science certainly did not come to dominate in the universities before at least the middle of the twentieth century, except perhaps in the minds of revisionist historians with hidden agendas.
Here is a direct quote from a person, H.G. Wells, who was a science professor, at just such a university in the first half of the 20th century.

"The early developement of British science went on , therefore, in spite of the formal educational organization, and in the teeth of of the bitter hosility of the teaching and clerical professions." "after the Refformation the English universities ceased to be organs of the general intellectual life, and shrank to be merely the educational preserves of the arisocracy and the church. Jews, Roman Catholics, Disenters, Sceptics, and all forms of interllectual activity were carefully barred out from those almost extinguished lamps of learning. Their mathmatical work was poor, a series of exercises in mere patience games and forulae-writing of lower mathematics; science they despised and excluded, "

Even Darwin had to take a degree in theology, due to the simple fact that apart for medicine there was no science based course availlable to him.

A prime example is one of the ones you quoted, Newton. Whose scientific work would never have been published and would have been completely lost, had not Halley and one or two others, and a dispute with Leibniz, rescued it and Newtons thinking, even to a degree Newton himself, from the strangle hold of Cambridge University. So that even Newton, would probably only be known today as anything but a minor theologian, with an interest in finding hidden codes in the bible and alchemy.

@TheMiddleWay Darwin did not have to take a class in religion, he had to study religion, total, because that was all that was on offer. Science was only a part time activety for an interested few. That is the whole point. With very few scientific seats, even by Darwins time let alone in Newtons day.

Newton did not have any publishing woes, the whole technical story of the publication is irrelievant. The point is, that without Halley there would have most likely been no attempt to even publish, because in the intellectual culture of the time, generated by the universities, such things were not seen as valuable as possible publications even by Newton himself.

@TheMiddleWay I learn for anyone I can, even science fiction authors, though if you think that Wells was only a science fiction author, then you are badly misinformed. Diversity of learning from many sources is generally better than living in an apologists echo chamber with as small group of revisionist historians pedaling a narrow predetermined agenda.

Yes, you could argue that science was deeply entrenched in European university life, though I think that would be a subjective, but universities and the church were the only grounds available for intellectual life at the time, and that fact that Darwin and many scientists of the Newton, Darwin era were clergy, (Buckland, Maskelyne etc.) only justifies the point. Science was seen as a fringe activety. My point about anti-education is not merely that it disputes with genuine education, the overworked science/ religion debate, but that it works by bulk, filling up the space and time, wasting resources and creating an illusion of education where there is none.

But it hardly matters just exactly what the ratio between science and religion was, because the point is that religion was dominant, and even more importantly that that dominance has declined. That is the trend, and my whole point was, that as religions dominance in the world of mainstream thought has declined so has its role as the champion of extremism and fascism grown. That is its direction and its destiny.

Thank you for informing me that you are going to leave the conversation to me, but it was hardly needful, since it was expected. Having met you on this site on several times before, I am well familiar with your habit of running away. I therefore make these last two comments for the unlikely benefit of anyone else.

Not sure people choose to be ignorant. I think it is human nature. In the genes. The ignorant are unaware of their ignorance

@Healthydoc70 I think a lot of this ignorance is due to the FEAR of the unknown country.

What makes a country more ENLIGHTENED? Will you please share examples of countries that are indeed ENLIGHTENED and those that are not?

@TheMiddleWay And
IF you note, almost every country listed is or has been led by a Governmemt or Political Party with a more than obvious leaning towards a religious belief of one kind or another in the last 7-10 years.
E.g. The U.S. with Trump, Aust. with the Liberal Party and its heavy Catholicism, etc, leanings, Arabian Countries with Islamic Leaders and so on and so forth.
Here in Australia we had a Full-on, Up-Front Atheist Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, but the Faithfools in her party and the LNP Coallition consorted quickly and got rid of her, that is one of methods REligion and the Religious employ these days to try to maintain their grip, as shakey as it is getting, on society.
And, in my opinion, that is why your 'vaunted' Trump went 'full-on' religious because he knew full well that without the Faithfools and their support he'd be looking down the barrel of becoming a One Term President .

@TheMiddleWay I'm an historian myself, not specializing in the history of science, but in social science, which means I look especially at "the popular mind", as the article terms it. And 85 pecent of religions may very well accept science as helpful, but that's like saying 85 percent of Republicans aren't enthusiastic about Trump; they're the quiet ones. It's the loudest voices that result in the public's perception, so when, for example, the state of Kansas wants to teach "Intelligent Design" (Creationism in a three-piece suit) in the classrooms on equal footing with real science, that's what people see; fundamentalist Christians rejecting science and insisting that it's all just a matter of opinion. The public understanding of science worldwide is woefully inadequate, due in large part to the efforts of fundamentalist religion to keep it there.

But Sir, any religious belief system/dogma/tenet, et, etc, both requires and demands Faith without Questioning whereas Science, on the other hand, requires Questioning, Research, Evidence, Examination, Re-examination, Discussion, re-discussion and Questioning over and over until it is proven or disproven, is that not so?
To 'borrow' your 'cards analogy, even ghe most amateur of Poker players know that youcan ONLY bluff your way through a hand for just so long UNTIL someone eventually calls you out and you either have to show your hand or fold up, i.e.either you PROVE that you do have the Winning hand or you merely shut up and takeyour losses on the chin like a man.

@Triphid I think there are religions that do not required unquestioning faith, or even any kind of belief. A few come to mind: The Society of Friends, Unitarianism, New Thought Churches. Buddhism is not founded on belief. In some Hindu schools doubt is perfectly acceptable. Of course with any undertaking some level of faith is needed or you would never start. Most religions are not in conflict with the findings of science, but some of the largest ones are in some ways.

You seem to have absolute faith and belief in the pronouncements of science, with your proof and disproof analogy. For myself I don’t think of truth as absolute, though some of the findings of science are relatively true. Science in its current form can never replace our reverence and awe for the mysterious and inexplicable foundation of reality. Mystery to me is why anyone would think that it should or that there is any inverse relationship between religion and science. We need both.

“Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.” Albert Einstein

@WilliamFleming I TRUST in science to tell the truth whether or NOT it is right or wrong on any subject.
I do NOT have any kind of "Faith " as per the meaning you appear to be using.
I know that, for example, the ground beneath my feet is solid and has been around for well over millions of years, the Earth orbits the Sun over a period of 365.25 each year approximately and that the Earth, the Sun and the other planets, etc, in this Solar System came into being, not by the magical 'waving' of some mystical God, by the accretion effects of particles in a massive cloud od dust and gases over a very long time.
I know that the Sun does NOT rise above the Easter Horizon but that the Earth turns from West to East instead thus GIVING, to the unenlightened mind, the impression that the Sun rotates around the Earth.
Science has never gone about trying to disprove religion nor replace it, it just goes about thinking, theorizing, researching, finding facts and evidences then proving or disproving those very thoughts and theories.
Religion has for countless generations cried "woo-woo" at the things science has proven, for example, Evolution, but has always resisted vehemently ALL calls to show any definable, tangible, irrefutable, peer tested and PROVEN evidences that IT is 100% correct, WHY is that I ask you?

@Triphid Saying that religion does this or that is stereotyping. Some people involved with religious organizations resist science and espouse belief in literally interpreted church dogma, but that’s not all there is to religion. How do you interpret or explain Einstein’s statement above?

The planetary model is a good one for many purposes and I’m glad that you derive such solace from your trust, which is the exact same thing as faith . However, the planetary model is just that—a useful model which offers no insight into ultimate reality. Those clumps of particles doing the orbiting—they are not concrete “things” or objects. They are quantum events. Time and space do not exist except as a mode of thinking, and therefore such concepts as speed, distance, place, causation and even existence itself are pure imagination.

Religion is not in the business of showing “definable, tangible, irrefutable, peer-tested and proven evidences that it is 100% correct“. All those attributes are shallow and superficial qualities of the imaginary world of our senses and from a cosmic perspective are absolutely meaningless.

What religion does, or ought to do, is foster deep awareness, awe and reverence for the staggering implications of the mystery of existence, thereby imparting great value and appreciation for existence as a consciously aware being.

Your 100% correctness is sitting on quicksand. The correct reaction is 100% bewilderment.

@WilliamFleming AGAIN with the 'circular reasoning.'
Do you ever tire of having your mind and thoughts merely traveling around in circles?
In your comment/question re-Einstein and his 'being religious about the "subtle, intangible, inexplicable force" you read, imo, the word RELIGION and take its meaning literally, is that not so?
I tske it as meaning ' seeking that very force with diligence in a very religious manner, in other words diligently and with a very strict system of controls, recording of results both for and against, testing and retesting, that is what Scientists do and it clasified as a Regimen towhich they adhere in a very religious ( STRICT) manner.
Almost everyone has a Regimen to which they adhere in their daily lives, no less 'religiously' than anyone else, I for one, have such a regimen in that I, as a part of my Oath to my teenaged daughter, that I would shave my head EVERY day, without fail before sunset, firstly due to the fact that the Chemotherapy she had to undertake caused her to lose her and hence mine would be shaved off in support AND that I gave my Oath to her on her deathbed that " since her hair had NOT regrown then neither would mine be permitted to do so and remain shaved every day that I am able to honour both her memory and to homour both ALL other children who have died from cancers, etc, and those in the future as well.
By adhering 'religiously' to a Regimen it does NOT mean anything akin to praying to it, etc, etc, it simply means that one abides by it in a strict and regular manner, ergo your 'concept'of Einstein being 'religious' in his scientific researches is quite unfounded.

@Triphid What Einstein was talking about was not strict diligence in using the scientific method to learn about nature, and if you are actually reading it that way you are deluding yourself. Read it again, and more carefully this time. Please note the words “inexplicable”, “veneration”, “intangible”, etc. Take note of our limited means of comprehending the force beyond.

Maybe my arguments just appear as circular. From earth the sun appears to go around, but it is actually we who are orbiting. I don’t know about circular, but your arguments are very repetitive and you refuse to address the points that I make.I feel like I am talking to a rock.

I am sorry that you lost your daughter. That must have been very painful

@WilliamFleming I was waiting for you to reply with yet more 'circular reasoning' what took you so long, running out ideas or something were you?
Yes, I have probably know for as long or if not longer thanyou that the Earth ORBITS the Sun and not vice versa, we were taught that in Primary School when I was about 6 or 7 years old.
As to our 'limited means, etc,' the limits are lessening as time passes by and we learn more and more thanks to the religious diligences of Scientists, etc, so TRY not to always read the word religious/religiousness, etc, as solely meaning a belieffaith in some mystic higher power/God like figure/being or the Mystical All-Powerful Spirit, etc, etc.
Tell me, and be 100% honest IF you can that is, what strict personal type regimens to you adhere either daily, weekly or whatever and MUST do without fail?
I have already told you and anyone reading my earlier response openly and unashamedly of my regimen every day and the reason why, to me, it is so important and needs to done in a diligent 'religious' kind of manner/routine, so don't be shy.

@Triphid

I always get up around six and make coffee and eat a small amount of raw oatmeal with sugar, peanut butter, raisins, almonds and milk.

While drinking the coffee I always read the news and come to this forum. I find this forum to be stimulating, and rewarding. It is a chance for me to speak from the heart.

I always walk along woodland trails for about an hour, followed by a half hour of meditation. Generally I do some sort of physical work such as gardening, getting firewood, etc.

I always make bread in a frying pan using freshly ground corn or feed wheat. Generally lunch consists of cooked greens and some meat or fish, along with the bread. I then lie down for an hour or so and do games on my iPhone such as Sudoku. Usually I doze off for awhile.

I like to read about science and history. I am currently reading about Hindu religious philosophy. Sometimes in the afternoons I do lathe work, turning wooden bowls and such. Dinner consists of a light snack of whatever is handy.

In the evenings I watch YouTube videos and listen to music, mainly classical. I go to bed at 10:30.

I have settled into a very routine life, but every second of conscious awareness is a miracle beyond all miracles, full of wonder, awe and reverence.

@WilliamFleming Ergo, one can easily say that your morning regimen is quite religiously adhere to then, since, as you have stated, that IS always your regimen and you stick to it as you seem to do with everything else in your day.
Now, perhaps and that is ONE Huge, almost Cosmos sized PERHAPS imho, you may chance upon seeing that the terminology of one being 'religious' in nature/manner about a regimen is NOT used in sole reference to a System of Religious belief but to the adherence to a set routine as well.

@Triphid Of course I am familiar with that usage of the word “religious”, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that that was not the kind of religion Einstein was talking about. How you could think such a thing is beyond me.

Speaking of routines, it’s nearly my bedtime. I suppose you just got up. What day is it down there in Australia? I hope you have an enjoyable day.

@WilliamFleming Ah so you HAVE an intimate insight into the workings of the mind of such a great man as Albert Einstein do you, wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles.
Perhaps you also have such an insight into the minds of other great men and women such as Da Vinci, etc, can you enlighten us as to exactly what their thoughts were as well please.
FYI, it IS Monday, May the Fourth here in Australia, the time is 1.05 pm the sun is shining, the birds are singing and I arose from bed a little later than usual but my day is looking good as do most every other days thanks to living in reality and without woo-woo.

@Triphid Yes, I do have that intimate insight. I can read and understand his words and they resonate with me on a deep level. You could do the same if you tried.

BTW, woo is real.