"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". do you believe this is true?

Question

ok for all of you who did not see the quotes in fron of the question look up again , i know very well its a quote. my question was not is this a qoute i asked if you thought that way..im pretty sure my question was clear

Answer 1

No. It's the only pro-religion quote that Einstein has ever uttered, and it's taken out of context. He didn't even believe it in the way you'd think.

Answer 2

Science does much better without the restrictions and silliness of religion.

I think the confusion lies here - science is not only about ovbservations - its about theories, and often times those theories take into account critical thinking, philosophy, etc etc. Yes, science would be a little dry without philosophy - but science with religion is not science at all

Answer 3

I do not believe religion has anything to do with science, nor does it need to.

The context:
"Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But 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. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Answer 4

Science in the role of religion is false and Darwin himself confessed on a deathbed that He was wrong and repented but the mark he made on science was straight from the pit of hell..

Answer 5

Yes.
I believe that there are"nonoverlapping magisteria", as S J Gould said, or different 'local' sources of authority when it comes to the physical sciences and the realm of the spiritual,even though God is the ultimate authority in both realms.
Ethical and moral issues are a different story since both science and religiosity can be abused to cause great destruction of human life." Life Ethics" has to govern behavior in all fields.

Answer 6

Monistic Idealism.

Answer 7

What does religion add to science? Did religion help scientists wipe out smallpox? What verse of the bible helped Edison harness electricity? Where in the bible did Copernicus turn in order to come up with his heliocentric model of the universe? In what way did religion help Darwin figure out the theory of evolution?

Religion doesn't belong in science. In fact, it can be counter-productive. Science ends the second you throw up your hands and say, "Well, god must've done it."

As far as the converse, I'm not religious, so I can't speak to it, but I have to say it is interesting that most professional scientists are either atheistic, deistic, or very very moderate in their religious beliefs, and it's also interesting just how many man-hours are devoted by fundamentalist believers to fighting science they believe destroys their faith.

Answer 8

No, I think science without religion is blind, and religion without science is overlooking how wonderful our Creator is.

Answer 9

not sure of the original context, but I think it works if you substitute morality for religion.

science only answers the questions you ask, it is continually proving itself wrong, like morality or spirituality it is a tool to understand the world at large. . .

an unbounded, immoral quest for knowledge can lead to things like tuskegee, or the horrible nazi experiments. . .

Answer 10

Lame doesnt seem to fit in there (sound wise), but the meaning that I get from it I do agree with.