Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

[Itoero]

Einstein supposedly said this.

What do you think about this statement?

 

I don't think it makes much sense.

'religion' should be replaced with 'philosophy'.

[Phi for All]

'religion' should be replaced with 'philosophy'.

 

... and then it still wouldn't make sense to me.

[EdEarl]

I agree that religion without science is blind.

[DrmDoc]

Science without religion is empirical. So, yeah, I disagree with that portion of Einstein's alleged comment.

[John Cuthber]

Science without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.

Religion without science is ... religion.

[Itoero]

... and then it still wouldn't make sense to me.

Many interpretations concerning science are based on evidence but are made with logic.

Is that science or is it 'philosophical science'?

Edited June 7, 2017 by Itoero

[Phi for All]

Many interpretations concerning science are based on evidence but are made with logic.

Is that science or is it 'philosophical science'?

 

It's not logic being used, it's critical thinking, it's a reasoned approach to explain what's going on in reality. I think philosophy crosses the border into why, which is outside science's jurisdiction of what/where/when/how. And as soon as you start asking why, I don't think you're doing science anymore. Would it still be science if it allowed for all the guesswork involved in why?

 

But I also think that since science deals with the natural, religion would have to account for all its supernatural components before one could even consider the two compatible. But would it still be religion if it didn't deal with the supernatural?

[DrP]

I get where you are coming from there John C - readdressed the neg.

 

Basically - Science doesn't need religion - one is empirical measuring and the other is mythology. The non supernatural ones address life philosophies and aren't really science even then.. so, like a fish needing a bike, science needs religion. Religion (the big world ones anyway) totally ignore science or try to explain it through twisting what was written a very long time in their books... this fails and indeed, religion without science is just religion.... as you said in 2 lines. ;-)

Edited June 7, 2017 by DrP

[Prometheus]

I interpret it to mean that science without imbuing meaning into what we have discovered is lame. Not to say we should impose meaning at the level of scientific investigation, but once something is 'discovered' we should try to fit it into the human narrative.

 

So, for instance, the evidence that the Earth is found on one arm of a spiral galaxy among countless other galaxies should stand on its own: but given that fact we should seek what that means for the human condition.

 

May not accord to what most people think religion is, but i reckon that was what he was getting at.

 

I think we're all agreed what the latter part means.

[dimreepr]

But I also think that since science deals with the natural, religion would have to account for all its supernatural components before one could even consider the two compatible. But would it still be religion if it didn't deal with the supernatural?

 

Therein lies the rub, religion doesn't need a deity, the supernatural/god is a teaching aid which (but time denudes understanding) has become the predominant factor which automatically deters anyone with critical thinking from delving further into the bibles teachings; karma is a natural phenomena but it's so much easier to understand with a supernatural element.

Science without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.

Religion without science is ... religion.

 

Religion was the science of it's day; understanding (is more than just knowledge) is built on half truths, even in science.

Edited June 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[studiot]

I thought I would try to track down the original quote and I ended up here, where I have to say there is a more wide ranging discusion.

 

https://www.quora.com/What-did-Einstein-mean-when-he-said-Science-without-religion-is-lame-religion-without-science-is-blind-And-do-you-agree-with-him

 

One particluar (short) response sums it up

 

 

I would suggest reading the whole article to understand what Einstein was trying to say there, although I don’t think it’d be too much of a spoiler to say that the “religion” Einstein refers to within this article bears little resemblance to the traditional understanding of that word.

 

Please note the entire article is reproduced as well as detailed information on the history and circumstances surrounding it.

[tar]

studio,

 

Thanks for the full quote, I think I get what Einstein meant when he said, "To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason." I think that means that to be a scientist and trust in math and natural laws and such you have to trust that objective reality can be counted on, unconditionally. To this there is a direct analogy to "trust in God".

 

Without this faith, that 2 plus 2 will always be 4, science is lame.

 

But without science, without reason and facts and experimentation, there would be nothing of objective reality to actually know . Like you were walking around with your eyes closed, or you were blind to the actual objective reality you had faith in.

 

Regards, TAR

 

So...Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind.

[John Cuthber]

 

Therein lies the rub, religion doesn't need a deity, the supernatural/god is a teaching aid which (but time denudes understanding) has become the predominant factor which automatically deters anyone with critical thinking from delving further into the bibles teachings; karma is a natural phenomena but it's so much easier to understand with a supernatural element.

 

Religion was the science of it's day; understanding (is more than just knowledge) is built on half truths, even in science.

"Was" <> "is".

[Itoero]

It's not logic being used, it's critical thinking, it's a reasoned approach to explain what's going on in reality. I think philosophy crosses the border into why, which is outside science's jurisdiction of what/where/when/how. And as soon as you start asking why, I don't think you're doing science anymore. Would it still be science if it allowed for all the guesswork involved in why?

 

But I also think that since science deals with the natural, religion would have to account for all its supernatural components before one could even consider the two compatible. But would it still be religion if it didn't deal with the supernatural?

I suppose it depends how you define religion.

In Hinduism and Buddhism many people don't believe in supernatural stuff.

When religion only teaches a form of karma...is it a real religion?

 

Scientists do use their logic or imagination to invent or create new things.

Like the things Einstein came up with...those were made with logic/imagination.

 

Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment. You can use such judgements to create a new model. If you create a new model then you use your logic to do that.

The subject of a thesis often concerns a new model made by logic and imagination.

 

A friend of mine is making a thesis about how information can be transmitted faster via satellites. This model was first a logical idea in his head.

[Phi for All]

Scientists do use their logic or imagination to invent or create new things.

Like the things Einstein came up with...those were made with logic/imagination.

 

I think you give imagination too much credit (many people who don't know math want imagination to be more powerful). When you can think in math like Einstein (and most physicists and mathematicians), and when you have lots of prior work to build on, insights happen and critical thinking helps put them on firmer footing. Logic is a mathematical tool.

[Eise]

I would suggest to read Einstein's article completely, he definitely has a different understanding of what 'religious' means:

At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

 

[Prometheus]

It's interesting that he frames his understanding of religion around the superpersonal rather than the supernatural. But i'm not sure what he means by superpersonal. Qualities that transcend humanity? Is he referring to the idea that we feel like things separate from the universe when in fact we are part of it?

[iNow]

Caveat: I'm not sure, but my best guess is that this stems from his more deistic view of god wherein god = nature. Given this perspective as the starting point, calling something "above nature" or supernatural doesn't make any sense, but calling something "above self" or "above personal" as in super personal perhaps does.

[dimreepr]

^ Nail meet hammer +1

[Joel_Edgerton]

Science can't explain everything so you will need religious. But believing in a religious without scientific proof is blind.

[zapatos]

 

Basically - Science doesn't need religion - one is empirical measuring and the other is mythology.

 

To describe religion as mythology is equivalent to saying that science is test tubes and bunsen burners. Both are oversimplified and misleading, while completely ignoring their objectives.

[John Cuthber]

 

To describe religion as mythology is equivalent to saying that science is test tubes and bunsen burners. Both are oversimplified and misleading, while completely ignoring their objectives.

It's important to recognise the purpose of religion.

 

It exists to maintain a privileged group in a position of power.

Here's an example, but there are many, and they are a feature of every religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States

[Itoero]

It's important to recognise the purpose of religion.

 

It exists to maintain a privileged group in a position of power.

Here's an example, but there are many, and they are a feature of every religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_in_the_United_States

It can maintain a privileged group in a position of power. But that's just one aspect. Edited June 10, 2017 by Itoero

[dimreepr]

It exists to maintain a privileged group in a position of power.

 

Where have I heard that before???

It's important to recognise the purpose of religion.

 

Couldn't agree more, but what do think that purpose is?

[John Cuthber]

 

Where have I heard that before???

 

Couldn't agree more, but what do think that purpose is?

Well, I know what it's used for- and that's the usual definition of "purpose"

It exists to maintain a privileged group in a position of power.

 

Do you think it has a different one?