Albert Einstein quoted
Science without Religion is lame, Religion without Science is blind.
Science seems to be based on evidence and technology. Science lacks inspiration as it seems to be in the mode of irrelement conclusions' Making Science lame for the imagination of the darkest. In the context of the size of the universe, if science tries envisioning the scale of Universe they would tend to ignore the many possibilities. Today's science acknowledges dealing with vast lack of knowledge of dark matter and dark energy, is humbling to our minds.Yet, Einstein quoted the most incomprehensible thing about Universe is the Universe is comprehensible.
Religion without Science is blind
Increase our knowledge without growing spiritually is lacking strength and balance. If anyone has not made a mistake may have not tried many new things and most likely living in denial. Tiring to find science through Religion that is based on the dark ages and low consciousness hardship makes living for today, incomprehensible.
Religion lacks a great deal of science as most profession scientist go lack the belief in magic and in God. Religion on a scale of 1 to 10 Religion is on a scale of 2 and non believer of God on a scale of 8 Universe is all connected, yet, tend to separate, Religion tends to be based on magic and experience.
My personal feelings Religion dose more harm than good. As for non- believers ,I see a little progress in living longer, little effort of being paid higher and tiny steps in Government. A little lame yet headed in the right direction.
A sum up
Science technology is indistinguishable from magic or call it phenomenon extraordinary.
Your thoughts?
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
2 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Irrelement conclussions??
mordant
Level 8
Dec 9, 2019
0
Only in the sense that evolution and big bang are theories also. Better than anything I've seen come along. When most of nonbelievers find they come closer to the empowerment of spiritual age, yet where Religion is not the enlighten way. I think the nonbelievers imagination will expand much further and balanced the greatest corruption of hierarchy Religions and politics, finally with good sense and clarity.
@Castlepaloma I think you meant "irrelevant conclusions" then. Beyond that, your explanation is not getting through to me though. Perhaps English is a 2nd language for you? Or perhaps I'm having a bad day.
Evolution is a scientific theory, which is not "some idea that feels right to me", but a proven explanatory framework that is accepted as true -- the highest level of acceptance and substantiation in the scientific world.
The Big Bang is more of a hypothesis or origin story and does not rise to the level of scientific theory, but it is a falsifiable hypothesis and therefore scientifically valid. Both evolution and the BB are not irrelevant therefore or lacking in ability to inspire a sense of awe, because their predictive and explanatory power has proven to be very great -- far greater than the unsupportable assertions of religion about such topics.
I certainly agree with you that religion "does more harm than good" but I'd take it a step further and say that it gets credit for more good than is justified, and gets excused for more harm than is generally recognized.
Einstein is a product of his time. Nowadays we see a significant rise in secularism. This means that it is more acceptable to question or challenge religion. Not so the case for Einstein. He grew up at a time when it was mot acceptable to profess secular beliefs, especially if you were an important personage of the stature of Einstein. This does not say that Einstein didn't believe in God or Christian doctrine and believe himself to be spiritual.
This poses a problem concerning my usual argument. Religion and Science are mutually exclusive paradigms IMO. One depends on faith and accepting supposed doctrinal truths at face value. Proof in the form of miracles are not subject to repetition, one of the fundamental tenets of science.
Science is based upon replicable proof. Evidence must be consistent and replicable before it can be accepted as evidence. All knowledge in science is based on prior knowledge and used a regular and prescribed method for moving that knowledge forward. Religion does not.
Heres the rub. The two paradigms are mutually exclusive from one another, and that any attempt to meld the two does disservice to both. It's like serving two Masters. One can never do credit to either one. To do justice to one means compromising the other, and visa versa. To compensate for the slighting of one, extra compensation must occur to set the balance right, and the seesaw goes on.
I suspect (speculation) that Einstein was only a Christian by convention. He leant credence when convention demanded, but held little deep conviction when push came to shove. He realized the unfathomable perspectives his theories opened up and dealt with this perspective in the most acceptable manner given his times.
t1nick
Level 8
Dec 9, 2019
3
Copied from Wikipedia. "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me."[6] He was closely involved in his lifetime with several humanist groups.
He was also an honorary president of the New York City Humanist organization.
Thanks for the corroboration.
Yes, Einstein was wise to play the game of survival for Nazi Germany was a strong Christains nation. Being Jewish he immigrated to the US just in time before the war. Einstein didn't believe in personal God's like Christains. Even Richard Dawkins said he is very Religious in the sense of Einstein was, open to demi God. Both Religious and non-believers like to claim him for their camp. Personally I find any over dominate group is harmful, especially when the group is not based on good sense.
@Castlepaloma is not science based on good sense?
Science is an observation of nature. It is like a tool and makes good sense when it is done well. If a tree represents life, science would be like a branch on a whole tree of life. Sometimes I wish non-believers would hook up more with anarchist, because the main conflicts are between hierarchy systems vs individualism.
Obviously Religion sucks at science, they have too much concern for war and sex. Plus suck at being natural environmentist. Religion are too large and dominate deeply in bed with military and politics,
I can't imagine any source more senseless.
That is very insightful. I agree with that stance.
You missed my point. Religion does not do science as they are oppositional., exclusionary paradigms.
I did say, Obviously Religion sucks at science.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.