"Science w/out religion is lame, religion w/out science is blind"?

Question

What is your take on this ? please explain yourself?

As a fan of Richard Dawkins I diagreed at first too meaning it went over my head but it is somewhat paradoxical and his special meaning is usually lost . he speaks of the most important need of a scientist as character and where did most discernment morals foundation begin even though his deist appearance is more pantheistic or metaphorical of nature Science needs guidance and much like a laser before it breaks free the very guidance that is needed by science guides also guides that guidance in his own sense of the word . though it is genius it is a cunundrum as well yes it was Albert Einstien and as Dawkins says probably deserves to be a religion in itself.

Answer 1

Isn't that Einstein? Brilliant man. One of life's great conundrums

Answer 2

I absolutely agree with this statement. For example science helps religion by filling in and explaining certain aspects of life religion cannot answer and thus helps religion become better by correcting its views or adding to them. Religion, through its most basic and concrete teachings, helps science by giving direction and placing morals and ethics within the scientific sphere to prevent unwanted actions such as harm to people. Whether people like to believe it or not, science and religion do complement each other. Basically Science adds color to religion and religion adds color to science. Many theories include the use of science and religion, such as the theory of the creation of the universe. Some speculate that the universe had to have a creator(s) or some supernatural being(s) outside the universe to start its evolution through time and once that creator(s) has sparked the existence of the universe, things such as biological evolution, physics, etc. came about (Theory of intelligent design). For you science geeks out there how can something come from nothing? Does there not need to be some sort of catalyst to get something going such as the creation of the universe. Is it not hard to believe the universe sprung from nothing? well it is! is it not more likely that some being(s) outside the universe was the catalyst to its beginning. For all those religious zealots out there how could Adam and Eve be the first humans when there is paramount of proof that people do indeed evolve and thus most likely had an inferior beginning in the form of Monkeys! Indulge me and ponder this for a moment!

Answer 3

I think that was from Einstein, and it only proves that even a genius can't be right every time (referring to the first part).

And why do so many people still insist that science can't say anything about morality? That's a load of crap, because without an instinct for caring for their young most vertebrates would go extinct in one generation. This sense of caring may be more or less emotionally developed in various species, but it must be there for those animals whose young are born helpless to survive to adulthood - and that includes humans.

It starts with the immediate family and spills over to other kin, then other tribes, other species (who doesn't love their dog, and vice versa?), and one hopes before it's too late, the entire planet. What could be more moral, and more easily explained by evolution, than that?

Answer 4

i have heard a few different people who have analyzed this statement who would argue the core of this statement is a call for a morally guided society which is not encumbered by dogmatism.

Science is certainly going to tell us more about the nuts and bolts of our natural world than religion is going at this point in human history. We know the limitations of religious creation narratives and we continue to expand our understanding of the natural world. However, science if is left to its own may lack a purpose outside of the analysis of what is, and understanding what something is without a direction that can embetter the human condition is a very empty pursuit. Religion, seemingly at its best, provides us with some good moral compasses about raising up those who need our aid and coming together or working inwardly to create a better world. Hence...the technological appartus which can help create the better world given in parts by religion both can work well together.

The latter part of the statment is a response to those who dont feel the need to challenge the standards set by their given faith tradition. This of course can be a very attractive stance, as often modernization creates uncertainity. However any strict holding onto of a specific doctrine leaves us painfull incapable of adapting to a world which is going to continue moving, whether or not anyone is ready. Therefore...if we stay too steadfastly to elements from our tradtions, without holding them up to the specific inquiry that the scientic method can provide, we render ourselves ineffective to meeting the changing demands of the modern world.

Much like the aspects of the statement itself, if we hold ourselves to specifc defintions or worldviews of either of these terms, they are less useful than they could be if we work to become adaptive and responsive the world around us, something that a forward thinking science, and an open minded freedom embracing religion can coxeist to help us achieve.

Answer 5

Aristotle's aether as the quintessence, reasoning that whereas Fire, Earth, Air, and Water were earthly and corruptible, since no changes had been perceived in the heavenly regions, the stars cannot be made out of any of the four elements but must be made of a different, unchangeable, heavenly substance.[1] The word aether was revived by late 19th century physicists as a term for the proposed invisible medium which permeated the universe, the luminiferous aether.

My point is . luminniferous aether =GOD is the 1st of all elements . He is what makes all the rest work.

Answer 6

Looking to the original source, Einstein makes it plain what he means. He states that "science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." Why he, a scientist, should consider a desire to discover and understand the truth to be within the "sphere of religion" I don't know, since that's what science is, the search to understand ourselves and the universe around us. Religion does not search for truth. It hands us a warm blanket of beliefs and rituals in which to wrap ourselves so we'll feel safe and comfortable and calls it Truth, all the while threatening us never to take off or peek out from beneath that blanket--or else! Religion calls itself Truth, but it is not truth.

Answer 7

I disagree with that statement.
Science and religion are two subjects that are almost similar, but are definitely not.
Religion is based off of theory.
So is science, however, science does not state something is definite and that you must follow the belief. There is always room for questions in science, and always room for more research and proof.
In religion, we take one person's theory for life and make it into a huge deal, and everyone fights over it trying to prove each other wrong. But if you are the said religion, you are supposed to follow the theory to a tee, and never question it.

Answer 8

I partially agree.

"Science without religion is lame": Well, not really. The scientific method, which defines science AS science, has absolutely no need of religious doctrine, and in fact can suffer because of it if the objectivity of the religious scientist is compromised in terms of evaluating data (for example, causing them to reject data that does not fit with their religious views). In that sense, it could be said that science without religion runs quite well, but religion can in fact hobble the scientific process in the same way a ball and chain could hobble a marathon runner.

"Religion without science is blind": Probably. Science has proven to be an excellent tool for analyzing and understanding the physical world around us. I think that any religion that discounts science is in danger of becoming divorced from reality.

Interesting question.

Answer 9

Totally agree.

Science does not give us any real idea on how to live. It's objective, and that's good, but we need to act in the world.

Religion depends on faith. Trying to live a 100% science proven life would be paralyzing. You could not have enough scientific experiments to quantify all of humanity's potential actions. Faith allows one to not only act in the world, but to (hopefully) grow in that action.

Science, and more importantly reason on a personal level, needs to study and analyze these actions to make sure they are having the desired effect.

A religious person should be totally willing to abandon a belief if it goes against science or reason.

Answer 10

I disagree with Einstein on this one, I suppose I don't know the full context though. In my opinion science isn't lame at all and religion only corrupts it. Religion on the other hand is often blind with or without science.

Answer 11

Albert Einstein