"Science must be based on religion and religion must include scientific rationality. I think that the words of Albert Einstein. 'Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind', are of even greater importance now than when he uttered them.
I believe greatly in this. What do you think of it?
2007-04-26 14:50:07 · 20 answers · asked by Vanella 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I believe it. I see that scientific results will agree with the Bible, and vice versa. If not, either our science is flawed, we are deceived. God created an orderly creation, and has allowed us to discover it.
2007-04-26 15:00:22 · answer #1 · answered by RB 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Many confuse Einstein's religion which was the wonder of the universe, perhaps more accurately now titled PHILOSOPHY with the dogmatic, literal religion practised in places like the US.
His quotations make his views clearer
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism...."
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being."
[Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann]
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
[Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]
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."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
2007-04-26 22:02:51 · answer #2 · answered by nicevolve 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You left out the most important part of the quote.
"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts."
-Albert Einstein
Yeah. He means that they deal with completely different things, and that both are essential.
2007-04-26 21:54:54 · answer #3 · answered by Dylan H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
BIG difference between:
"Science MUST BE BASED ON religion"
and
"Science without religion is lame."
If you say that science must be based on religion, then:
OBJECTIVITY is gone,
NEW PHENOMENON can not be addressed,
What happens if the established religious beliefs CHANGE?
I believe that Einstein's intent (provided that this is not a MISQUOTE) was that religion gives us a WORKING HYPOTHESIS FOR EVERYTHING that has not already been explained scientifically.
.
2007-04-26 21:58:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Albert Einstein was great. Incredible. Genius.
Because of certain verifiable theories. But using him as a "celebrity" in a field he knew little about (no more than any other man) is what we call false rhetoric.
Hey Ray: u just said if reality conflicts with a created image of the universe, then screw reality.
2007-04-26 21:54:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe Einstein was an atheist. And even if he weren't this is an example of Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area.
2007-04-26 21:57:05 · answer #6 · answered by dharmabum2 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He didn't mean it the way you think. He clarified it later when asked and pointed out that he did not believe in a personal god. He was more referring to the ethics and philosophical side of it.
Science doesn't need religion at all. It has made the idea of a god redundant. That does not mean that we don't need a philosophy to live by.
2007-04-26 22:01:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are both laughable. Two opposites of the equalibrium. One is based on ideals. The other is based on knowledge through the 6 senses. Ha Ha Ha!
2007-04-26 22:00:59 · answer #8 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is too true. People who don't think so are ignorant to the facts of science vs. religion. They coincide with one another, nomatter how religious you may be.
2007-04-26 21:56:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
well i think that is kinda right.
but i think setting religion to science then whats the meaning of the theory of evolution?
2007-04-26 21:54:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋