Do you folks agree with this statement?

Question

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

rob, i know that einstein was an atheist but im talking about the statement not about the person that made it. i wrote who made it just for the sake of it, and to let others know im a freethinker so i do not intend to impose my point of view on a particular religion(or atheism)

Answer 1

I do agree with Einstein, as do many theologians and cutting-edge scientists.

From Science & Theology news: More than 50 years after his death, Albert Einstein continues to inspire not only scientists but also theologians worldwide.

“Einstein’s ideas still fascinate physicists and philosophers,” said Harvey Brown, a member of Oxford University’s philosophy faculty who spoke at the recent “Einstein, God and Time” conference in Oxford, England.

Notable figures in science, theology and history assembled to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s miracle year. In 1905, he published five papers about light, motion and relativity that changed the face of modern physics.

Using Einstein’s theory of relativity — or the idea that time might occur differently for people in different places — participants discussed the concept of God and of time itself.

The nature of time is “a problem that sits neatly on the fence between science and theology,” said Michael Parsons, executive director of the Ian Ramsey Centre in Oxford, which co-hosted the event with the Clarendon Laboratory and the Science and Religion Forum.

Einstein’s development of special and general relativity is important because it influences how we view the universe, said keynote presenter the Rev. Antje Jackelén, an associate professor of systematic theology at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago.

Asking “Can God know the future?” Chris Isham, a professor of theoretical physics at Imperial College, London, and Sir John Polkinghorne, former president of Queen’s College at Cambridge University, examined issues of time in both physics and theology. The two debated each other concerning the plausibility of a “block” universe — or the theory that the whole of space and time is laid out and determined — and its rival theory that God cannot know the future because it hasn’t happened yet.

The issues Einstein dealt with transcend the latest fads and trends in physics, said Isham. “These are issues that stick with us.”

Topics like time are fascinating to mull over, said physicist Russell Stannard, president of the Science and Religion Forum. Although most conversations do not end with a definitive conclusion, he said it is still fruitful to discuss Einstein’s important ideas.

Answer 2

Yes this is a good quote, another quote to illustrate the point is "Philosophy without Religion is mental speculation and Religion without Philosophy is sentimentality".

Many people today cannot be persuaded to accept and participate in spiritual life without a certain measure of proof, this opens up many possibilities, scientifically, philosophically and spiritually.

Empirical science certainly has its limitation when presenting evidence of an absolute nature, the real flaw is when adherents of science claim it as an exclusive method to determine the validity of objective truth, similar to the fundamental mental conditioning of religious zealots, who claim exclusive rights to methodology when discussing salvation, it is this closed minded approach on both sides of the debate that produces a never ending stream of conflict.

When an accepted paradigm requiring proof is required, it must be understood that the proof or truth of a Supreme Absolute Person is attained through revelation, that revelation is attained when a bona fide proven process to perceive and experience an absolute reality is practised and perfected, the Absolute truth is ultimately personal and is for those individuals who venture beyond the boundaries of empirical science, philosophical speculation and fundamental religiosity to acquire and actively promote.

To discuss further:-Sriman Sankarshan Das Adhikari ([e-mail])

Answer 3

Well, it may of been true then, and true in his heart. However, no I don't agree with this. Science these days is godless, and hedonistic. They seek to define the world without god, saying that it only a massive puzzle. We may not know how to peices where created (god?), but we know that we cannot see god in them. So if we were to believe such a statement we would be bringing ourselves back to the ages of alchemy, where only the grace of god and the power of magic can turn lead into gold. When we now know that only a star colliding in on itself can create the denser particles such as gold. It's just a phrase of a bygone age, and it can be understood that science today isn't a religious stimuli. Why Darwinism, which is taught in our very schools, is a religious view in it's own. It's the lack of religion, it is it's opposite, and can be deemed as unacceptable if they don't allow us to say that even god could have wanted it this way.

Answer 4

In the context he meant it, it's not too bad. To Einstein, religion was the sense of a comprehensible world that motivats research. He was not talking about the dogmatic religions of the world. If you read the whole speech, you'll see that.

Of course dogmatic theists love to show this one out of context.

Answer 5

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been 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 prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Albert

Answer 6

No, I don't. I think science without religion is the perfect combination. 100% of science + 0% of religion.

Answer 7

Yes. The more you look into either one, it begins to prove the truth of the other NOT disprove it.

The more you understand it, you realise there is no disagreement between religion and science. They're both part of the same reality.

There's just lots of disagreement between people.

Answer 8

i have to agree with this. as a christian who is also a scientist, i find that science must include religion, at least as a debate, or it is blind to possible end products.

as for religion...although one can blindly follow a religion and if theirs is the "right" one, then they are okay. but if someone blindly follows a religion and it turns out to be the "wrong" one, then the they are eternally hosed.

using science, history and archeology, you can prove the people, places and things of the bible. one day, i hope to be able to prove the divinity of Christ and God through science.

-eagle

Answer 9

Very wise.. Leave it to Einstein to try and close one of the largest unnatural dichotomies of the human race.

Answer 10

Nope