Dear reader
There always seems to be this conflict between faith and reason. Modern PC thought sides with reason. However, perhaps a person should consider what a man of reason says.
Is he right? Why or why not? Not an easy question.
of course he’s right.
Modern PC is religion.
Scyth
That may be true but the question remains as to the value of science, of critical thought, without religion and the value of religion without critical thought necessary for good science.
Popular opinion from what I’ve read seems to be that science is just fine the way it is and loses nothing from its separation from religion. I don’t believe this to be true and I’m curious how others believe.
You are right, Not an easy question. I cannot fully agree with it but niether can I point blank disagree. Truthfully though I do not remember his aproach to religion. How did he apply religion to science? that would be my first step to answering your question. Finding out. Was he only speaking of religious morals and ethics, or faith and trust of religion. two different aproaches will bring two different thoughts and answers.
We know that science without ethics and morals can be horrifically dangerous, as can religion when it shuts off science, learning and knowledge. Both will be handicapped and both will prove dangerous and harmful.
Science with out faith and trust and faith and trust with out science, well, It is pretty much as above but, this can spin off into a different direction. either a dead standstill for both or cataclysmic events.
Pretty rough summation, not at all detailed but, its a start.
Kris
If you are interested in Einsteins conception of degrees orlevels of religion, read how he develops the concept to the cosmic and concludes with:
sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
Quite a difference between the usual battles between devotees of the anthropomorphic conception of God and the Atheistic, rigid, narrow minded, men of science.
Might that comment be talking about religion/deity as a backdrop to science and a quest to unravel what has been put in place?
There is no conflict between science and religion. It is only the pseudo scientists making a conflict and the sheep religious people.
well, it’s not that they want a seperation of religion influencing scientific discoveries, they want a seperation of YOUR religion from science.
Hi Astral and Connections
I agree with both of you and there is enough results of human nature to create this unnatural divide.
Rather than write on this, I invite those interested to read from the middle of P.4 through to P.6. It isn’t long; just very deep and thought provoking. I, as usual agree with Simone. It is in full accordance with Einstein’s remark.
Oh, I thought this would be a question about relativity. Nevermind~
I kind of agree with this. I’d say that there’s no conflict between science and religion when the religion(s) involved stick to the supernatural (ie, non-empirical) and don’t tread on science’s toes. A good example of this, with respect to evolution, is Ken Miller - a Catholic who regularly rubbishes ID.
Back the question of the thread: no, Einstein was wrong. Religion is superfluous to science. HOWEVER, what I would say is this:
The fullest possible understanding of the world around us has to come from a combination of science and metaphysics.
Ordinary thought is a little guess.
Religion is a big guess.
The amount of faith needed for a belief determintes whether or not it qualifies as “religious”.
How many crazy spiritualist beliefs exist today – makes the word “religion” look bad, but metaphysics is more complex then physics, so don’t expect laymen to get it right…
Yep! Exactly. Though you have to make a leap of faith somewhere, secularists choose to do it where the gap is smallest. For example: science is nothing without cause and effect, yet hume. I have faithm but I make a point of having the least I can.
Hello F(r)iends,
What do you get when you mix science and religion? Scientology.
-Thirst
Thirst
Quite true. Just like science is of different qualities, so is religion. So the result of their union can either be something reflecting an accurate representation of mechanical universal laws within a conscious framework revealing the “good,” or an abomination created from egotism and fantasy.
The fact that the blend of science and religion can benefit humanity is not to say that what is normally defined as religion and science will do so. As is said: “no good deed goes unpunished” which will always be true for efforts trying to understand the ideal of the unification of science and religion.
Lol @ thirst
On topic: I think Einstein was right, but considering how short that sentence is, it’s hard to say whether Einstein believed the same thing I believe about what he said. Oh well, I guess he’ll just be rolling over in his grave about now.
Religion is motivation, science is means. Of course there are exceptions (and a lot of qualifications that both I and Einstein could use on our sentences), but I think that is what it comes down to. Science doesn’t talk about purpose, or rouse emotion. It doesn’t move people. Religion can’t count to ten. Put the two together and it’s a match made in heaven (figuratively). Contrarily a purely scientific thinker would have no justification for doing anything, thus would have no ability to do anything, and thus would be lame. A purely religious thinker wouldn’t know anything about the how the world right in front of his/her face works, and would thus be blind.
And of course this is all terribly politically incorrect, as we’re comparing closed minded people to cripples; I’ll just assume you know what I mean, instead of making my sentences complicated enough to be politically correct.
I have said in my thread of the art and philosophy.
those who produce a great achievement is equal of that to a great philosopher. Those who wish to see the greatest should first see the works that are popular, then look at his writings and philosophies,
while no works and plain philosophies are useless.
“Just thinking can not help feed you” Bodhidharma