Science without religion is lame,

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
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 #1

Post by McCulloch »

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

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #71

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 62 by JP Cusick]
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.
I wonder J P...are you trying, as in honestly trying to get Einstein as wrong in as many ways as possible? Surely you cannot be unaware of the famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe". Whatever he may have precisely meant by the quote, surely you understand that you are being facetious if you take this negative statement and turn it into a positive one, and say that that was what Einstein said or meant.
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.
Here JP contradicts himself, since in earlier comments he said

Einstein told us the principle = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." and based on that principle the basis of the science is to be found in the religious text.

I followed the principle - but I do not follow Einstein.

When we want the evidence then we go to the source = the religion - the Bible = as I did in my comment #4.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #72

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 65 by JP Cusick]
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.
Bravo J P. You somehow understand Einstein, to such a degree that even with Einstein not once in his life saying he got relativity from Genesis, you can solve this little dilemma, and figure out that he MUST have got it from Genesis.
I mean, look at your sterling track record in this thread. You were dead on target in explanations of gravity, time, relativity, the moon. I mean, just look at it. Only someone who got it completely backward would have said that the reason people on Earth see people on the Moon moving slowly is because of relativity, and you certainly didn't do that...right?

Right?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #73

Post by JP Cusick »

Bust Nak wrote: 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.

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

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

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. 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.

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.
Bust Nak wrote: The "-or" suffix in "creator" can only apply to a person.
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.

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.

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 which does not exist in the Father, see Exodus 33:20-23.

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.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #74

Post by H.sapiens »

[Replying to post 73 by JP Cusick]

Try reading the Jerry Coyne link I provided earlier.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #75

Post by JP Cusick »

H.sapiens wrote: [Replying to post 73 by JP Cusick]

Try reading the Jerry Coyne link I provided earlier.
I read your link when you first posted it, LINK, and now again I read it again because of you.

Perhaps you might again try reading my comment #4

At least in my comment I am speaking for myself.

As to your guy Jerry Coyne then the same applies to Einstein which is that I do not care what either of them say or believe, as I am just saying this principle is true and accurate:

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

I do not give homage to Eistein or to Coyne or to any person, so it being a true principle does not matter whatever Einstein meant or intended or believed.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #76

Post by H.sapiens »

JP Cusick wrote:
McCulloch wrote:
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".
Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?
I firmly believe that Einstein himself used the Bible to get his own basic ideas and really he is saying just that in that quote.
Your belief means nothing, especially when it flies in the face of facts.
JP Cusick wrote: The theory of relativity comes straight out of the old Testament as it tells of people living hundreds of years, then the Bible tells that God shortened the human life span down to 120 years, and it tells that a day for God is 1000 years, and the old method of measuring time was the Moon cycle of 19 years, so all of this told Einstein that time was relative and he expanded from there.
Wow ... is that ever a stretch or ignorance.
JP Cusick wrote: This is his own principle:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

It puzzled me that after Einstein died they cut out his brain to see why he was so brilliant, and instead of having a larger brain it turned out to be a bit smaller than normal, and so in their logic perhaps a smaller brain could be a smarter brain = such fools.

No one took his words literally that science without religion is lame.

Religion without science being blind needs no comment.
You are reading into his phrase things that Einstein clearly never meant, but then you're a well practiced quote miner.
JP Cusick wrote:
H.sapiens wrote: [Replying to post 73 by JP Cusick]

Try reading the Jerry Coyne link I provided earlier.
I read your link when you first posted it, LINK, and now again I read it again because of you.

Perhaps you might again try reading my comment #4

At least in my comment I am speaking for myself.
[/quote]But what you are saying is abject foolishness, as Coyne points out.
[Replying to post 73 by JP Cusick]
As to your guy Jerry Coyne then the same applies to Einstein which is that I do not care what either of them say or believe, as I am just saying this principle is true and accurate:

HERE = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
[/quote]
Easily falsified.

How many times has science correctly falsified religion? Hundreds if not thousands of times.

How many times has religion correctly falsified science? Never![Replying to post 73 by JP Cusick]

I do not give homage to Eistein or to Coyne or to any person, so it being a true principle does not matter whatever Einstein meant or intended or believed.[/quote]
As demonstrated, it is not a "true principle" save in your imagination.

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #77

Post by H.sapiens »

JP Cusick wrote:
McCulloch wrote:
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".
Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?
I firmly believe that Einstein himself used the Bible to get his own basic ideas and really he is saying just that in that quote.
Your belief means nothing, especially when it flies in the face of facts.
JP Cusick wrote: The theory of relativity comes straight out of the old Testament as it tells of people living hundreds of years, then the Bible tells that God shortened the human life span down to 120 years, and it tells that a day for God is 1000 years, and the old method of measuring time was the Moon cycle of 19 years, so all of this told Einstein that time was relative and he expanded from there.
Wow ... is that ever a stretch or ignorance.
JP Cusick wrote: This is his own principle:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

It puzzled me that after Einstein died they cut out his brain to see why he was so brilliant, and instead of having a larger brain it turned out to be a bit smaller than normal, and so in their logic perhaps a smaller brain could be a smarter brain = such fools.

No one took his words literally that science without religion is lame.

Religion without science being blind needs no comment.
You are reading into his phrase things that Einstein clearly never meant, but then you're a well practiced quote miner.
JP Cusick wrote:
H.sapiens wrote: [Replying to post 73 by JP Cusick]

Try reading the Jerry Coyne link I provided earlier.
I read your link when you first posted it, LINK, and now again I read it again because of you.

Perhaps you might again try reading my comment #4

At least in my comment I am speaking for myself.

As to your guy Jerry Coyne then the same applies to Einstein which is that I do not care what either of them say or believe, as I am just saying this principle is true and accurate:

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

How many times has science correctly falsified religion? Hundreds if not thousands of times.

How many times has religion correctly falsified science? Never!

So ... who is blind? Who is lame? Who is just flat out lying?
JP Cusick wrote: I do not give homage to Eistein or to Coyne or to any person, so it being a true principle does not matter whatever Einstein meant or intended or believed.
It is not a question of "homage," you made an attempt at the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority and were caught red handed. Tough luck, that sort of stunt does work with this crowd. Besides, as demonstrated above, this is not a "true principle" save in your imagination.

User avatar
JP Cusick
Guru
Posts: 1556
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 12:25 pm
Location: 20636 USA
Contact:

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #78

Post by JP Cusick »

H.sapiens wrote: You are reading into his phrase things that Einstein clearly never meant, but then you're a well practiced quote miner.
There is a thought that Einstein might have got his theories from his first wife who was a Serbian physicist herself, and it is possible that she was the one who got the Theory of Relativity from her own knowledge from the scriptures.

It is even unknown whether Einstein read all of the scriptures, or just a few parts of scripture, or he might have just heard some references to scripture in Sabbath class if he ever even went to a Sabbath class?

There is no reason to view Einstein as having any higher level of understanding of the scripture than any other person.
SIGNATURE:

An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #79

Post by H.sapiens »

JP Cusick wrote:
H.sapiens wrote: You are reading into his phrase things that Einstein clearly never meant, but then you're a well practiced quote miner.
There is a thought that Einstein might have got his theories from his first wife who was a Serbian physicist herself, and it is possible that she was the one who got the Theory of Relativity from her own knowledge from the scriptures.

It is even unknown whether Einstein read all of the scriptures, or just a few parts of scripture, or he might have just heard some references to scripture in Sabbath class if he ever even went to a Sabbath class?

There is no reason to view Einstein as having any higher level of understanding of the scripture than any other person.
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.

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #80

Post by Monta »

H.sapiens wrote:

[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.
Ah, the need for editing Eisnstein's letter...

“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.�

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.

Post Reply