Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?JP Cusick wrote: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".
Science without religion is lame,
Moderator: Moderators
-
McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Science without religion is lame,
Post #1Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #101[Replying to post 99 by Monta]
I'll explain the joke: JP Cusick made a very ornery claim that all of his claims and arguments are true and accurate. This isn't something that needs to be stated in a debate, and ironically lessens credibility because it's effectively an exercise in futility.
If someone presents an argument, the veracity of their claims depends on how well they present it, not on whether or not they themselves claim it to be true without actually demonstrating it. "Demonstrating" that their arguments are true is not the same as simply stating "my arguments are true."
What's more, JP Cusick acts as if merely claiming his arguments are true is enough for them to be persuasive (despite all the counterarguments pointing out that he isn't correct). Clownboat indicates that this is meaningless; any debater can make the same claim, and have just as much (if not more) legitimacy to make the claim. When an entire argument stands based on claims of honesty and accuracy, but the debater themselves has no intellectual credibility, it stands to reason that their argument should not be taken more seriously than their opponent's.
I'm sure if it were necessary, every member of this forum would end their posts with "Everything I'm saying is true and accurate, so there." But, just the same way as saying "a property of myself is that I exist," it's a redundancy, and doesn't achieve anything.
What's more, claims of honesty that aren't demonstrated as being valid are hilarious because any liar would claim they are being honest, too. Hence the futility. It's an insubstantial statement that, to be perfectly honest, requires a mentality that is not conducive towards debate environments. We've already seen that evidence against JP Cusick's position is dismissed, outright, with no counterargument except by way of Cusick saying he's still right.
I'll explain the joke: JP Cusick made a very ornery claim that all of his claims and arguments are true and accurate. This isn't something that needs to be stated in a debate, and ironically lessens credibility because it's effectively an exercise in futility.
If someone presents an argument, the veracity of their claims depends on how well they present it, not on whether or not they themselves claim it to be true without actually demonstrating it. "Demonstrating" that their arguments are true is not the same as simply stating "my arguments are true."
What's more, JP Cusick acts as if merely claiming his arguments are true is enough for them to be persuasive (despite all the counterarguments pointing out that he isn't correct). Clownboat indicates that this is meaningless; any debater can make the same claim, and have just as much (if not more) legitimacy to make the claim. When an entire argument stands based on claims of honesty and accuracy, but the debater themselves has no intellectual credibility, it stands to reason that their argument should not be taken more seriously than their opponent's.
I'm sure if it were necessary, every member of this forum would end their posts with "Everything I'm saying is true and accurate, so there." But, just the same way as saying "a property of myself is that I exist," it's a redundancy, and doesn't achieve anything.
What's more, claims of honesty that aren't demonstrated as being valid are hilarious because any liar would claim they are being honest, too. Hence the futility. It's an insubstantial statement that, to be perfectly honest, requires a mentality that is not conducive towards debate environments. We've already seen that evidence against JP Cusick's position is dismissed, outright, with no counterargument except by way of Cusick saying he's still right.
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #102I missed this earlier, and it is important because it clearly shows that you are not following (purposefully or not) what I and other s have been telling you - that in other quotes he (Einstein) clarified what he believed about god.
So, once again, here is the quote where he says he does not believe in a personal god:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
So, when Einstein mentioned religion in the Science Is Lame quote, he meant a religion that did not have a personal "god" - it does not have one that answers prayers nor does it meddle in human affairs (since he does not believe a personal one exists). And THIS does not support your interpretation of his quote, and certainly does not support your claim that his ToR was taken from the bible.
No amount of saying I'm Right and You're Wrong will change these facts.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #103[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]
The Judeo Christian Bible reveals to us that God created heaven and earth and has all authority. The field of science (true science, that is) is honest, unbiased inquiry that leads us to deeper understanding of truth of the universe that God created. Isaac Newton made a similar statement. Hence the revelation of cures of diseases, the development of ever increasingly complex devices that serve us, etc.
The Bible and the field of science thus go hand in hand in advancing our understanding. But do we accept the Biblical revelation (more commonly called religion) given us?
ELD
The Judeo Christian Bible reveals to us that God created heaven and earth and has all authority. The field of science (true science, that is) is honest, unbiased inquiry that leads us to deeper understanding of truth of the universe that God created. Isaac Newton made a similar statement. Hence the revelation of cures of diseases, the development of ever increasingly complex devices that serve us, etc.
The Bible and the field of science thus go hand in hand in advancing our understanding. But do we accept the Biblical revelation (more commonly called religion) given us?
ELD
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #104[Replying to post 101 by KenRU]
"So, when Einstein mentioned religion in the Science Is Lame quote, he meant a religion that did not have a personal "god" - it does not have one that answers prayers nor does it meddle in human affairs (since he does not believe a personal one exists)."
Since you have his God as 'god', or maybe his god was 'god', is this god figment of imaginatin, does he/she/it have/had any power what does it do, is he/it responsible for anything at all; perhaps some other qualities I did not ask?
"So, when Einstein mentioned religion in the Science Is Lame quote, he meant a religion that did not have a personal "god" - it does not have one that answers prayers nor does it meddle in human affairs (since he does not believe a personal one exists)."
Since you have his God as 'god', or maybe his god was 'god', is this god figment of imaginatin, does he/she/it have/had any power what does it do, is he/it responsible for anything at all; perhaps some other qualities I did not ask?
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #105'Life' being of paramount importance, does he/it have life, is it Life does it give Life?Monta wrote: [Replying to post 101 by KenRU]
"So, when Einstein mentioned religion in the Science Is Lame quote, he meant a religion that did not have a personal "god" - it does not have one that answers prayers nor does it meddle in human affairs (since he does not believe a personal one exists)."
Since you have his God as 'god', or maybe his god was 'god', is this god figment of imaginatin, does he/she/it have/had any power what does it do, is he/it responsible for anything at all; perhaps some other qualities I did not ask?
-
Kenisaw
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #106The Vedas reveals the same thing. Different god, but same thing. Egyptian Mythology reveals the same thing. Different god, but same thing. Why don't the writings from those religions have "all authority"?Erexsaur wrote: [Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]
The Judeo Christian Bible reveals to us that God created heaven and earth and has all authority.
Let me guess: Evolution isn't "true science"? How about radiometric dating?The field of science (true science, that is) is honest, unbiased inquiry that leads us to deeper understanding of truth of the universe that God created.
See, here's the thing about statements like yours. I hope you see the rather interesting double standard that cultists have in their dealing with science. They never claim science is wrong as it relates to their cell phones, or GPS, or computers, or medicines, or any time they use a plane or a car or a boat to get somewhere. Why? Because it doesn't contradict with their ancient manuscripts. But suddenly you get into something like the theory of evolution, and science is now some totally inaccurate mass conspiracy, incapable of getting anything right as it relates to the age of the planet or the progression of life.
It's a ludicrous self serving ploy.
Science cannot be both a highly effective and efficient form of investigation into the universe, AND a self-serving conspiracy whose main goal is hiding the truth about a particular god being, that just so happens to be the basis of belief for the people claiming foul and evil intentions.
Ramanujan said all the amazing new math he came up with was inspired by his Hindu gods. Since he was groundbreaking and really smart too, this means you should give equal consideration to his gods also, no?Isaac Newton made a similar statement.
That's the problem with appeals to authority. You can find the same thing for other dogmas, which you ignore because it doesn't fit your particular flavor of sky daddy, which makes appeals to authority utterly useless.
No one has ever been able to show, at this website or any other, any connection between advancements made by man and the Bible (or other religious text). And I'm quite confident you won't be able to either...Hence the revelation of cures of diseases, the development of ever increasingly complex devices that serve us, etc.
Science and the Bible couldn't be more opposite.The Bible and the field of science thus go hand in hand in advancing our understanding. But do we accept the Biblical revelation (more commonly called religion) given us?
ELD
-
Kenisaw
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #107According to the qualities listed in the Bible, it's a schizophrenic egotistical omni-everything being that didn't even know land animals became before flying creatures. But it can turn water into wine, like a middle-eastern Dionysus...Monta wrote: [Replying to post 101 by KenRU]
"So, when Einstein mentioned religion in the Science Is Lame quote, he meant a religion that did not have a personal "god" - it does not have one that answers prayers nor does it meddle in human affairs (since he does not believe a personal one exists)."
Since you have his God as 'god', or maybe his god was 'god', is this god figment of imaginatin, does he/she/it have/had any power what does it do, is he/it responsible for anything at all; perhaps some other qualities I did not ask?
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #108If you are asking what does Einstein's god actually do? My guess is that Einstein is equating the order that he sees in the universe to a very non-personal and non-interacting god. In other words god as a very natural phenomena. The order (the laws) is god, imo. That's it.Monta wrote: [Replying to post 101 by KenRU]
"So, when Einstein mentioned religion in the Science Is Lame quote, he meant a religion that did not have a personal "god" - it does not have one that answers prayers nor does it meddle in human affairs (since he does not believe a personal one exists)."
Since you have his God as 'god', or maybe his god was 'god', is this god figment of imaginatin, does he/she/it have/had any power what does it do, is he/it responsible for anything at all; perhaps some other qualities I did not ask?
Does that answer your question? If not, please let me know.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #109According to Einstein's beliefs, no, not in the manner you are implying. There is no agency, if we are to believe Einstein's quotes.Monta wrote:'Life' being of paramount importance, does he/it have life, is it Life does it give Life?Monta wrote: [Replying to post 101 by KenRU]
"So, when Einstein mentioned religion in the Science Is Lame quote, he meant a religion that did not have a personal "god" - it does not have one that answers prayers nor does it meddle in human affairs (since he does not believe a personal one exists)."
Since you have his God as 'god', or maybe his god was 'god', is this god figment of imaginatin, does he/she/it have/had any power what does it do, is he/it responsible for anything at all; perhaps some other qualities I did not ask?
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #110Thanks for leaving the door open for me.KenRU wrote:If you are asking what does Einstein's god actually do? My guess is that Einstein is equating the order that he sees in the universe to a very non-personal and non-interacting god. In other words god as a very natural phenomena. The order (the laws) is god, imo. That's it.Monta wrote: [Replying to post 101 by KenRU]
"So, when Einstein mentioned religion in the Science Is Lame quote, he meant a religion that did not have a personal "god" - it does not have one that answers prayers nor does it meddle in human affairs (since he does not believe a personal one exists)."
Since you have his God as 'god', or maybe his god was 'god', is this god figment of imaginatin, does he/she/it have/had any power what does it do, is he/it responsible for anything at all; perhaps some other qualities I did not ask?
Does that answer your question? If not, please let me know.
My famous thologian whom I like because he makes sense, says that God is order itself, man was created a form of divine order, divine truths are the laws of divine order then gives us the process how this order descends to man.
The quote from your another post in response to the question of whether his god is life, gives life:
"According to Einstein's beliefs, no, not in the manner you are implying. There is no agency, if we are to believe Einstein's quotes.
I see big gap between the two. One is alive, moving, performing, the other automated machine. Is that correct?
