Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[Monta]

How would conductor explain that his piece of music is beautiful to
someone who has no ear for music?

As in deaf? Build a machine that translate vibration to visual images, for example. Or build a machine to monitor the brains of those listening to a piece of music. That's the difference between testable material claims versus metaphysical/theological claims.

What meant is that some people have no ear for classical music for instance.

[JP Cusick]

Because then the Atheist would know too as does the Theist that the entire universe and beyond has a real purpose and meaning. This is a BIG advantage.

What you see as purpose and meaning we atheist see as order, so we are on even ground there.

The Atheism is on the right track with that view, because the laws and order come from the Creator.

I love science, and science is not to be condemned just because it is wrong in some ways.

As like another famous saying from Einstein = " God does not play dice with the universe. "

And that lead him towards the incorrect conclusion, it's an disadvantage in this case.

I do not claim that Einstein was some Prophet or Priest of God - certainly not - as I see him as a spineless and immoral jerk - and the reason he did so well in science is because he gained huge insight from the scriptures - and that was smart of him to do.

And that saying does appears to be inadequate because God does take humongous risks and makes extraordinary calculations which could fail with any slight increase or decrease, and so it does indeed look as if God were playing dice with the universe.

My view is that the Father God simply has a kind of supreme confidence and faith which is very hard for humans to comprehend.

And I do see it as important to concede that Einstein did not ever mean any major religion as he meant a science type of God, being a God of truth and of reality, and in that I agree with him again.

Okay.

I see this as more than okay - no criticism intended.

In this Einstein was accurate that the real Creator is viewed inaccurately by religions, and science might give us a far more accurate understanding of whatever the Creator might really be.

Even the English name = "God" - is not accurate, because the word "God" applies to idols and superstitions, and the English language is very inadequate and often barbaric in its terminologies.

I use the word "God" because I am speaking / writing in English and that is the word that other people use.

I expect science to give the Creator a different name instead of calling it as "God" then it (the Creator) will be given some new scientific terminology of a name.

As like on Star Trek the movie - the machine used the name V'ger because that was the only name it knew.

[Bust Nak]

How would conductor explain that his piece of music is beautiful to
someone who has no ear for music?

As in deaf? Build a machine that translate vibration to visual images, for example. Or build a machine to monitor the brains of those listening to a piece of music. That's the difference between testable material claims versus metaphysical/theological claims.

What meant is that some people have no ear for classical music for instance.

As in someone who does not like classical music? You were asking me how a conductor would explain that his piece of music is beautiful to someone who don't like that piece of music? You don't, this is a matter of taste. As such you would never catch me telling someone that a piece of music is objectively beautiful. Had I made such a claim, then you can ask me to prove it.

[Bust Nak]

The Atheism is on the right track with that view, because the laws and order come from the Creator.

I love science, and science is not to be condemned just because it is wrong in some ways.

We were asked how being a theist has the advantage in science, not sure what you said here has anything to do with that. You believe that order comes from God, but that is not an advantage.

I do not claim that Einstein was some Prophet or Priest of God - certainly not - as I see him as a spineless and immoral jerk - and the reason he did so well in science is because he gained huge insight from the scriptures - and that was smart of him to do.

But as I said, it also lead him in the wrong direction re: rolling dice. So again, not an advantage but a disadvantage with that example.

And that saying does appears to be inadequate because God does take humongous risks and makes extraordinary calculations which could fail with any slight increase or decrease, and so it does indeed look as if God were playing dice with the universe.

My view is that the Father God simply has a kind of supreme confidence and faith which is very hard for humans to comprehend.

Right, so why did you use that as an example when I challenged you on showing how a theist has an advantage in science?

In this Einstein was accurate that the real Creator is viewed inaccurately by religions, and science might give us a far more accurate understanding of whatever the Creator might really be...

Granted, but you are just told me what you believe, and doesn't seem to have much to do with the debate at hand. How does any of these mean a theist has an advantage over an atheist in science?

[JP Cusick]

I am just saying that Einstein got his original inspiration for the Theory of Relativity from the scriptures, but he did not tell anyone his source,

If he didn’t tell anyone his source, um, then how do you know what it is?

I know because I read the Bible and there it was to be seen.

I do not need Einstein to tell me what is said in the Bible, even if he might help with his own insights.

The questions about time are very important to religious people because we need to understand the measurement of time from the Bible in order to understand the Prophesies and the Feast Days and the length of life and lots of other religious based interest. Things like a day for God being 1000 years is a huge revelation for believers, and the 19 year cycle of the Moon is another twist for our religious interpretations, and all of those scriptures demand that time is relative in very different ways.

This does not mean that Einstein cheated or was dishonest - and he had no reason to disclose his source to anyone.

… “... I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. ...� - Albert Einstein ...

Oh wait, now we don’t have to wonder why.

If we look at that quote honestly then Einstein was only denouncing "a personal God" but not a real Creator God.

He was not disclaiming any Creator God but only a personal God.

And if we choose to be critical, then he was simply rejecting the Christian God.

Einstein still envisioned a scientific kind of God, and a scientific view of God is completely compatible with Judaism.

Link = Humanistic Judaism

I myself agree with rejecting the wrong and hurtful beliefs of every religion, but also in keeping the rightful parts of every religion - it is not that complicated.

Because then the Atheist would know too as does the Theist that the entire universe and beyond has a real purpose and meaning. This is a BIG advantage.

Just as the fact that since you can’t fathom a universe without meaning, it then becomes a BIG advantage for the non-believer. It works both ways. If you can assert this advantage, so can a non-believer. Fair is fair.

Yes fair-is-fair and you can assert anything you want, but for those who demand truth and accuracy then we can not just assert anything.

This is not a competition, and it is not a battle between Atheist and Theist.

I most certainly can fathom a universe without purpose or meaning, just as any person can fathom falling into a pit, because that is the easy way to avoid the bigger challenges and the bigger questions of life and of living.



--------------------------------------

What meant is that some people have no ear for classical music for instance.

You are totally correct Monta.

The problem is that some people simply refuse to hear.

They refuse to hear even when the words are being sung in beautiful tones.

[Clownboat]

HERE = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

If this is true, please evidence which religion is required in order for science to not be lame. If you could, please show the mechanics behind how a religion makes science no longer lame.

4,200 religions
According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect.

[KenRU]

I am just saying that Einstein got his original inspiration for the Theory of Relativity from the scriptures, but he did not tell anyone his source,

If he didn’t tell anyone his source, um, then how do you know what it is?

I know because I read the Bible and there it was to be seen.

You are also aware of his position on an interactive god.

… “... I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. ...� - Albert Einstein ...

Oh wait, now we don’t have to wonder why.

If we look at that quote honestly then Einstein was only denouncing "a personal God" but not a real Creator God.

He was not disclaiming any Creator God but only a personal God.

He may well have been a deist, I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure given his beliefs he put little credence in the bible.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

This does NOT sound like someone who got inspiration from a holy book, if we are looking at Einstein and his quotes honestly as you say.

And if we choose to be critical, then he was simply rejecting the Christian God.

No, if we choose to be honest, he rejected religion and all versions of a personal god.

He may have been a deist. But that is it.

Einstein still envisioned a scientific kind of God, and a scientific view of God is completely compatible with Judaism.

And yet Einstein said this: "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Apparently he considered himself a cultural Jew, and not a religious one.

I myself agree with rejecting the wrong and hurtful beliefs of every religion, but also in keeping the rightful parts of every religion - it is not that complicated.

Admirable quality.

quote="KenRU"]

Because then the Atheist would know too as does the Theist that the entire universe and beyond has a real purpose and meaning. This is a BIG advantage.

Just as the fact that since you can’t fathom a universe without meaning, it then becomes a BIG advantage for the non-believer. It works both ways. If you can assert this advantage, so can a non-believer. Fair is fair.

Yes fair-is-fair and you can assert anything you want, but for those who demand truth and accuracy then we can not just assert anything.

Agreed. That is why you need to rethink your position on Einstein, his ToR and its origin.

This is not a competition, and it is not a battle between Atheist and Theist.

But it is a debate forum, between theist and non-believers, no?

I most certainly can fathom a universe without purpose or meaning, just as any person can fathom falling into a pit, because that is the easy way to avoid the bigger challenges and the bigger questions of life and of living.

Oddly, I find the reverse true. Those preoccupied with an afterlife and worrying about the motives and concerns of an invisible and undetectable being often lose sight of what is important in the here and now.

-all the best

[JP Cusick]

You are also aware of his position on an interactive god.

I did see where you and only you used those words of = no interactive god - but I saw no quote from Einstein ever saying such a thing.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 68 by JP Cusick]

What do you think Einstein meant by not believing in a personal God, if not "no interactive god?" The "-or" suffix in "creator" can only apply to a person.

[KenRU]

You are also aware of his position on an interactive god.

I did see where you and only you used those words of = no interactive god - but I saw no quote from Einstein ever saying such a thing.

Allow me to clarify (apologies for being unclear), when I say interactive, I meant on a personal level, god interactive with man, which is clearly what Einstein meant.


What do you think he meant by "personal"?