"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - A. Einstien..................what do YOU think?
2007-05-03 02:38:59 · 22 answers · asked by amecake83 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
( i never said that I was a Christian) (i do not care what Albert Einstien's religious preference was, i care that he was an intellectual...just like me)
2007-05-03 02:47:20 · update #1
I think that without "religion", science would have destroyed mankind along time ago.
2007-05-03 02:52:49 · update #2
JP.....i think you are taking ME out of context!!!
2007-05-03 03:08:17 · update #3
lame is an actual english word used "back in the day" for all you teeny boppers...meaning: having a disabled limb that impairs movement or a lacking of needful and desireabal substances.
2007-05-03 07:28:55 · update #4
I think that is exactly on point. Take the Old Testament stories of the Bible and look at them from this perspective. They are true stories being told in an extremely simplified style to very ignorant, simple people. Look at a scientific explanation for them. For example: What if the story of Adam and Eve is really about a species on earth being genetically modified by a higher intelligence, to create man?
Suddenly, the religious and scientific no longer clash but compliment each other.
Try reading the Bible with the assumption that God is really a being from a higher plane or dimension that used the spiritual or magical explanation because it was easier for the simple people to understand. Suddenly, the science and religion work together.
.
2007-05-03 02:53:44 · answer #1 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a concept that assumes ideology will result in the same lifestyle and it's only a personal preference thing. History shows that what we believe governs how we act and it filters into legislation, education and scientific direction. Science at this time cannot prove or disprove religious matters nor is it likely to in the near future. If it could this section would boring as the answers would all be self evident. Your concept is true that science and religion can co-exist which they do and most of science is concerned with operational matters and is not affected by belief systems as it is all measurable and can be tested. It is only origin science where speculation is rife and the dogma is more fixated on the implications than the actual science. I agree with your ideal that you can have both and with an open mind I think we all can.
2016-05-19 06:49:52 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
lame1 (lām)
adj., lam·er, lam·est.
Disabled so that movement, especially walking, is difficult or impossible: Lame from the accident, he walked with a cane. A lame wing kept the bird from flying.
Marked by pain or rigidness: a lame back.
Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory: a lame attempt to apologize; lame excuses for not arriving on time.
answers.com.
It's a often quoted statement of Einstein's. I, for one agree, but to those who disagree, I 'd say that the debate would be over what is meant by religion. I do not take it to mean anything of an organized religion as we know them, but a deep sense of awe and reverence at the mysteries of the universe.
2007-05-03 05:32:27 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think religion is what has destroyed society, not science. Science looks for answers to nature's mysteries and religion just says "Let it be a mystery, God did it." We need to understand our world in order to live in it. Science can and will find cures and preventions for diseases and what can religion do about that matter...pray and just hope it turns out for the best? Praying wont stop cancer and/or the spread of AIDS. If the world had to go without one or the other (science or religion) it would stand a MUCH much better chance without religion. The world could not be without science.
2007-05-03 02:58:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that people need to know where science leaves off, and religion takes over.
If it can't be observed, duplicated or falsified, any opinions about a phenomena are just that, opinions. If it does not emanate from the Scientific Method, it isn't science.
2007-05-03 02:45:40 · answer #5 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the question has been asked at least once before:
Standardized Answer
OK I am getting the hang of this game. This will be my standard answer to your "standardized" questions.
Atheist, agnostics and believers in alternate religions: at the top of the Y/A page there is a search box. Type your question in there and Yahoo will take you to a page that lists all the questions like yours that have been asked and answered. Believe me YOUR question has been asked and the answer is in there.
2007-05-03 02:43:14 · answer #6 · answered by John 1:1 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Science is nothing more than a tool, Religion is nothing more than a school and God is more than just a concept,.. that's what Spiritual knows.
2007-05-03 02:58:43 · answer #7 · answered by spir_i_tual 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"I am a deeply religious non-believer. This is a somewhat new kind of religion." -- Albert Einstein.
I think you're taking the man entirely out of context.
2007-05-03 02:42:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Science can stand on its own with reproducible, observable truths, whereas religion requires one to suspend their disbelief and invest faith for an unclear, if any, return on the investment.
SCIENCE!!!
2007-05-03 02:44:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I very seriously doubt Einstein ever used "lame".To describe anything other then an injured limb.
2007-05-03 02:43:13 · answer #10 · answered by Dr. NG 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋