Is this a Truth about science and religion?

Question

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

Peace and Love

Answer 1

no

Answer 2

In a sense, yes.

Most people are motivated by their religious beliefs and not by a sense of connection with the natural world. Look at how many believers who come here are utterly convinced that the natural world is not enough to make life worth living. Many of those people do good works, and because believers dominate politics, the media, the economy, etc., we need them to be motivated to do good works. There simply aren't enough of the rest of us to do what needs to be done (of course it'd be a LOT easier to do it if the rest of the believers would just get out of the way, but that's a whole 'nother topic that we've discussed a lot already).

If there were enough nature/science oriented people, science wouldn't be lame, but we have to work with what we've got - we've got to be able to motivate people who simply aren't bright enough to have a naturalistic worldview, and that means that we need religion.

We can see this in action right now as the American Christians are beginning to understand the need to be stewards of the Earth. They're doing it for false religious reasons, but the important thing is that they're doing it. There's some chance now that environmentalism will finally get the attention it should have, because religion is bringing supporters over to where we scientifically-minded folks already were.

Answer 3

Yes. And the good news is that science and religion are no longer at odds.

Einstein's famous equation e=mc2 shows that matter and energy are the same. Superstring theory tells us that the fundamental constituent in nature is a packet of energy. There really is nothing you call matter, only concentrated packets of energy.

Furthermore, Quantum Mechanics tells us that it takes consciousness to collapse the probability field into the state we call matter. So matter is formed when consciousness acts on energy. This is scientific fact and no physicist will argue this.

So consciousness and energy must have pre-existed creation. But whose consciousness and what energy? What better definition of God can exist than that of original source?

In the beginning there was the Creator, the original source. The Creator was all that there was and there was nothing that was not the Creator. The Creator was composed entirely of energy, and was completely conscious and aware of every aspect of it's own Divinity. Just as you might know yourself to be a generous person but would not be able to experience the act of giving generously unless there was someone other than you to whom you could give, the Creator though aware of it's own Divinity could not fully experience itself since all was one.

Therefore the Creator worked out a magnificent plan where all things could be experienced. In a singular moment we call the Big Bang, the energy of the Creator (which we call Love) was converted into the fundamental building block of matter - the photon of light (E=MC2). Through the principles of vibrating energy creation was stratisfied into density layers in the same way the vibrations we call sound stratisfy into harmonic layers. Just like some sound frequencies cannot be detected by your hearing, some densities of creation cannot be directly percieved by our senses.

Some fundamental conclusions (again supported by science) are that:

1. Everything in Creation is an individual expression of the Creator, by the Creator. Therefore every atom, rock, tree, animal, human, planet, star or galaxy is alive with it's own level of consciousness imparted by the Creator.

2. The energy of the Creator is the fundamental constituent of nature from which all things are formed. Therefore there is no separation from the Creator or anything else, this is only an illusion.

3. The gift of the illusion of separation was provided in order that each person could co-create their own variation of experience with absolute free-will. Nonetheless, it is still an illusion, in reality all-is-one.

Truth is, your very existence here is proof of the Creator. You were created BY the Creator, OF the Creator, and you exist in a highly detailed holographic environment that overlays true reality.
Like an actor in a daytime soap opera, the character you are playing now is not the real you, you are merely acting out your dramas on this stage of visible light.

Unlike a scripted TV show however, this play is an improvisation, and you are a co-creator of the entire production.

Answer 4

Einstein wrote: "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."

Answer 5

Einstein probably considered a very different definition of "science" and "religion" than most people do.

Answer 6

I think that is a fair assessment, especially given the times that he lived in. There is also the phrase, "If you don't believe in something, you will fall for anything." I wish more people would realize that religion and science are parallel subjects, not competing subjects.

Answer 7

Yes that is true, but you really have to read about Einstein to understand what he really meant. Einstein thought the universe was too orderly to not to have a creator. I believe he rejected the Judo Christian God, and his concept of GOD is hard to understand!

Answer 8

No, science doesn't deal with relgion. It's entirely unnecessary to science and beyond the scope of science.

Religion that ignores science is just plain ignorant.

Answer 9

I'd Say Yes To An Extent.

Answer 10

Like it or not the two are actually counter parts of the other. They work together. Einstein might have been an idiot-but God is Genius.

Answer 11

Islam is the religion of science.