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?

[JP Cusick]

[ "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ]

It matters little save academic interest, the reality is that the quote, which you claim to support, is easy to falsify and thus should be consigned to that heap where meaningless but well crafted sentences go to be rot and be recycled by misguided theists.

Anything can be falsified, and there are far too many liars in this world, but that is no justification for discarding a valuable guiding principle.

And I do not see it as fair to view science or Atheism as dishonest just because they fail to follow the principle, or even when they try to fake it.

In the end the truth always comes out, and being false will always become exposed. This too is a well established principle.

[H.sapiens]

[ "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ]

It matters little save academic interest, the reality is that the quote, which you claim to support, is easy to falsify and thus should be consigned to that heap where meaningless but well crafted sentences go to be rot and be recycled by misguided theists.

Anything can be falsified,

No. Were that true there would be no science.

and there are far too many liars in this world, but that is no justification for discarding a valuable guiding principle.

So you claim but fail to make even the sketchiest case for.

And I do not see it as fair to view science or Atheism as dishonest just because they fail to follow the principle, or even when they try to fake it.

Dishonest is failing to admit falsification when it occurs or claiming falsification when it does not. Both are sins that you are guilty of.

In the end the truth always comes out, and being false will always become exposed. This too is a well established principle.

Yup, your posts are living proof of that.

[Bust Nak]

I do not know whatever Einstein meant in that regard - and my psychic abilities do not extend that far.

Then perhaps you should stop speaking for Einstein and emphasize you are giving your own interpretation and opinion.

For myself I was thinking the words meant as told in Christianity that each person has their own personal relationship with God...

That's not what "personal god" mean in Christianity either. It is the fact that God is a person that makes him a personal God. It means God is a living being, it means God has a name, it means God has thoughts and can think, it means God is conscious. He doesn't have to have any relationship with anyone to be a personal God.

There are other religions of the world who view God as impersonal.

Right, in those religion God is a force, does not think, is not conscious, with no will.

I do not even see the word "interactive" as clearly defined, as like a hurricane or a tornado are not really interacting as they are just blowing and storming without any regard to the humans underneath.

That's it right there. An impersonal God is like a tornado, he is just blowing and storming without any regard to the humans underneath. That is the kind of god Einstein believes in.

Many people view that God created the universe to function independently so the interaction is already built into life so then only humans are interacting.

But most people also believe that God answers prayer, i.e. a personal God.

I find God to be interactive in my own life and in the entire world, and Jesus and Buddha and Muhammad and Abraham were are persons, but the Father God is some thing much more complicated. IMO.

If Einstein meant "no interactive God" then Einstein was just wrong, but I do not believe he meant that, and by seeing God in physics then we interact with gravity and with space and we do interact with physics.

But that is not what is meant by interactive either, see the tornado example above. It does stuff, like blow things around, but it is not consciously blowing things around.

I certainly do not agree that the word "Creator" must thereby be a person.

Let us never forget Star Trek V'ger where the machine did not recognize its creator because humans were not seen as real life forms.

Are you suggesting that it meant the human creator, are not people? If not then what the machine recognizes or not is irrelevant.

I would agree that God or Creator has a personality but I do not jump to the conclusion that the Creator is indeed a person.

Does the world personality not seem familiar to you?

My understanding is that the Creator (the Father God) is some very different form of life, and the point of Jesus being the spokesperson (the word) for God was that Jesus gave the Father a human person contact...

Are you thinking that only human can be people? Human being and person is mostly interchangeable but not app people are human.

I have long hoped that science would discover a better definition and better name for the thing that we call as God.

Some people view the science of the origin of the universe as a "singularity" to be a scientific name for God, and that is a fitting metaphor if not a reality, because the one God (Singularity) created the entire universe which thereby makes the entire universe as the expression of God.

But then it wouldn't be a personal god.

[Justin108]

What do you think Einstein meant by not believing in a personal God, if not "no interactive god?"

I do not know whatever Einstein meant in that regard - and my psychic abilities do not extend that far.

Yet you insist that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" meant "I got my Theory of Relativity from the Bible"?
You can't feign ignorance now, JP. You apparently have such great insight into the mind of Einstein.
As Bust Nak perfectly phrased it: perhaps you should stop speaking for Einstein and emphasize you are giving your own interpretation and opinion?

How is it you "know" what Einstein meant when he said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" but when asked what Einstein meant when he said he doesn't believe in a personal God, you suddenly have no clue because you're not psychic?

I'll ask this for the umpteenth time. Your evasion of my question suggests a great amount of dishonesty.

Is saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" the same as saying "I got my Theory of Relativity from the Bible"?

[JP Cusick]

Yet you insist that "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" meant "I got my Theory of Relativity from the Bible"?
You can't feign ignorance now, JP. You apparently have such great insight into the mind of Einstein.
As Bust Nak perfectly phrased it: perhaps you should stop speaking for Einstein and emphasize you are giving your own interpretation and opinion?

How is it you "know" what Einstein meant when he said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" but when asked what Einstein meant when he said he doesn't believe in a personal God, you suddenly have no clue because you're not psychic?

I'll ask this for the umpteenth time. Your evasion of my question suggests a great amount of dishonesty.

Is saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" the same as saying "I got my Theory of Relativity from the Bible"?

I really can not grasp why you and others (Bust Nak) can not comprehend that I do not like Einstein and I do not promote Einstein, and me making quotes from Einstein simply mean that I embrace the quote but not the person.

Why is it that you people can not separate the message from the messenger?

Einstein made a truthful and enlightening statement - but that does not mean that he himself was truthful or enlightened.

The message is not the messenger.

I would consider myself to be mentally ill if I did have too much insight into Einstein's brain or his thinking, and whatever Einstein meant by his words is just none of my concern - even when you and others get obsessed over Einstein.

Now after doing some more research then now I figure that the Theory of Relativity surely came with the help of his Serbian physicist wife, and that Einstein was surely the one who used the info from the scriptures while working with his wife. It is doubtful that she used the scriptures until Einstein added that perspective.

On a similar point = the quest for a "unified theory" by Einstein was him looking for a new description of God, except in this case he did not have his Serbian Physicist wife to help him do the work.

[Bust Nak]

I really can not grasp why you and others (Bust Nak) can not comprehend that I do not like Einstein and I do not promote Einstein, and me making quotes from Einstein simply mean that I embrace the quote but not the person.

You can embrace a quote without embracing the person, but you cannot embrace a quote without embracing its message.

Why is it that you people can not separate the message from the messenger?

Einstein made a truthful and enlightening statement - but that does not mean that he himself was truthful or enlightened.

How can you say he made a truthful statement without endorsing the meaning of the statement in question? That's like an atheist cheering on a pastor who says "there are no atheist in hell..." Technically he is correct, there is no hell, therefore there is not one person in hell, but the pastor who said it, meant a completely different thing: he is suggesting that someone in hell would no longer lack a belief in the existence of God.

The message is not the messenger.

But you got the message wrong! You thought the message says something that it wasn't intended.

I would consider myself to be mentally ill if I did have too much insight into Einstein's brain or his thinking, and whatever Einstein meant by his words is just none of my concern - even when you and others get obsessed over Einstein...

And that right there is the problem. You endorsed his words without considering what he meant.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 82 by Bust Nak]


"That's it right there. An impersonal God is like a tornado, he is just blowing and storming without any regard to the humans underneath. That is the kind of god Einstein believes in."

Einstein saw beauty and order in universe.

[KenRU]

Why is it that you people can not separate the message from the messenger?

Oh I am quite capable of doing so. What I can't grasp is why you claim the quote means one thing, when all the evidence (context, other letters, history) clearly and without a doubt say another.

Einstein did not believe in a personal god, therefore he could not mean the quote the way you interpret it.

To compound your error, you then go on to say that the same man who thinks religion is childish got his ToR from the bible.

You, in essence, are doubling down on ignorance. And seem proud to do so.

That is what I can't grasp.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 84 by JP Cusick]

I really can not grasp why you and others (Bust Nak) can not comprehend that I do not like Einstein and I do not promote Einstein, and me making quotes from Einstein simply mean that I embrace the quote but not the person.

You responded to a quote from Justin108 there. In reading that quote, I don't see anything that indicates that he thinks you like Einstein or promote him. The closest is when he says
You apparently have such great insight into the mind of Einstein.

Why is it that you people can not separate the message from the messenger?

Off-topic, I know, but this is one of the reasons why I don't accept Christianity. It cannot separate its message from the messenger. Christianity's claims about reality, the universe in general, go out the window if it turns out Jesus Christ is not what the religion promotes him to be (the Son of God, divine in some fashion).

I would consider myself to be mentally ill if I did have too much insight into Einstein's brain or his thinking, and whatever Einstein meant by his words is just none of my concern - even when you and others get obsessed over Einstein.

So, we're obsessed with Einstein...yet you're the one constantly posting this line about science without religion is lame, and how apparently you're the only one who sees that Einstein meant the God of Genesis...and yet what he meant by the words is none of your concern?

I figure that the Theory of Relativity surely came with the help of his Serbian physicist wife

...why bring up her nationality? Why not name her? Seems odd...
I also have to question this statement, since the Wikipedia article on this wife of his takes great pains to explain how she didn't help with the Theory of Relativity. Of course, this may be a false flag, but still, the article is there, and has citations.

that Einstein was surely the one who used the info from the scriptures while working with his wife.

I notice you have yet to provide any further quotes from anything Einstein wrote or said to support your claims. Off hand, all I can recall from yourself is the original "Science without religion" line, and that's it.
Since your information about the actual theory itself is massively wrong (as I have previously corrected you over), I don't see how your claim just above has any legs to stand on. Not only did Einstein NEVER indicate he got his "Aha!" for ToR from Genesis, but the very idea itself is absurd, since nothing in Genesis relates to the ToR in anyway.
You might as well have said that Wolfgang Pauli got his inspiration for the Pauli Principle by reading Mein Kampf.

the quest for a "unified theory" by Einstein was him looking for a new description of God, except in this case he did not have his Serbian Physicist wife to help him do the work.

Again with the pointing out of her nationality? Why mention it? Twice? Do you not know her name, despite apparently having researched this?

Also, can you quote anything from Einstein as to this being the reason for his search for a unified theory? I know about a reason which may be the reason for why he set out to do so.
So...what have you got?

[JP Cusick]

How can you say he made a truthful statement without endorsing the meaning of the statement in question?

Because the sentence has a literal meaning - in and of itself.

I just do not really care what Einstein meant, as I do not give him much regard in anything.

The sentence means what it says - it does not mean any hidden interpretation.

I have even considered to just quote the sentence without quotes and do not give the author's name, but it is far too famous to do that.

I do not want to be accused of plagiarizing.

That's like an atheist cheering on a pastor who says "there are no atheist in hell..." Technically he is correct, there is no hell, therefore there is not one person in hell, but the pastor who said it, meant a completely different thing: he is suggesting that someone in hell would no longer lack a belief in the existence of God.

This is funny.

I appreciate that.

But you got the message wrong! You thought the message says something that it wasn't intended.

All I really said about that one sentence is that he said what he meant and he meant what he said.

You are saying that it does not mean what it says.

And you are saying that he did not mean what he said.

We could see the ironic humor in this that people take the Bible literally and other argue what the Bible really meant, and now here I take Einstein literally and you say the verse means differently. ~ irony indeed.


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

Einstein saw beauty and order in universe.

Seeing that beauty and order is in fact seeing God.


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

Einstein did not believe in a personal god, therefore he could not mean the quote the way you interpret it.

He said religion and did not say "a personal God" and thereby he did mean religion as I do.

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


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

So, we're obsessed with Einstein...yet you're the one constantly posting this line about science without religion is lame, and how apparently you're the only one who sees that Einstein meant the God of Genesis...and yet what he meant by the words is none of your concern?

That one sentence is the subject of this thread, so it can be repeated.

All I say about this one sentence is that he followed his own words in this sentence when he came up with the theory of Relativity.

...why bring up her race? Why not name her?

Again with the pointing out of her nationality? Why mention it? Twice? Do you not know her name, despite apparently having researched this?

Me using her first name would seem disrespectful of me.

Giving her nationality as a Serbian physicist just seems more respectful.

I notice you have yet to provide any further quotes from anything Einstein wrote or said to support your claims.

The evidence about the theory of Relativity comes from the Bible, and I did give that way back in my comment #4 on the 1st page of this thread.

As such there is no need to quote anything from him.

Also, can you quote anything from Einstein as to this being the reason for his search for a unified theory? I know about a reason which may be the reason for why he set out to do so.
So...what have you got?

Nothing more from him - no.

He was a spineless immoral jerk.

All we need do to see is apply seeking the "unified theory" along with this famous principle:

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