Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

[Itoero]

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.

Ok but insights are caused by imagination or logic.

The use of imagination is what we call creativity.

Creativity is very important in science.(including math)It's basically about pattern recognition (imo this is the same as finding logical relationships between data) and finding new solutions to old problems.

Pattern recognition can indirect give a solution to an old problem.

 

Many important breakthroughs leaned on creativity(finding new solutions to old problems). Like the evolutionary process that lead to the invention of the wheel, language, writing,...

 

Researchers believe mathematical creativity is associated with problem solving.

Mathematical creativity is then the same as creativity in other sciences, which is very logic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257715118_Mathematical_creativity_Some_definitions_and_characteristics

[zapatos]

It's important to recognise the purpose of religion.

 

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

Opposite end of the spectrum, but you are no different than the religious fundamentalists.

[John Cuthber]

Opposite end of the spectrum, but you are no different than the religious fundamentalists.

Yes, you can tell by the number of people I have killed.

Or not- depending on whether you use evidence or mythology.

That kind- of illustrates my point.

 

Incidentally, "different from" is usually considered better than "different than".

[zapatos]

Yes, you can tell by the number of people I have killed.

Or not- depending on whether you use evidence or mythology.

That kind- of illustrates my point.

 

Incidentally, "different from" is usually considered better than "different than".

The point I was making went right over your head.

[John Cuthber]

The point I was making went right over your head.

Feel free to try to explain it- preferably without saying things that are plainly untrue.

[zapatos]

Feel free to try to explain it- preferably without saying things that are plainly untrue.

You have a real knack for coming across as an ass.

[John Cuthber]

You have a real knack for coming across as an ass.

Thanks.

Feel free to actually answer the question; what point were you trying to make?

[zapatos]

Thanks.

Feel free to actually answer the question; what point were you trying to make?

No thanks. I'm tired of your insults and trolling. Be rude to someone else.

[iNow]

Opposite end of the spectrum, but you are no different than the religious fundamentalists.

I suppose this depends entirely on WHICH religious fundamentalists to whom you're referring. They're not monolithic bloc.

[beecee]

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

[zapatos]

I suppose this depends entirely on WHICH religious fundamentalists to whom you're referring. They're not monolithic bloc.

No they are not, but they generally believe they know the objective truth and are unwilling to consider that the views of others may have any validity.

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

Why do you bring this up?

[iNow]

In the case of many/most atheists, I suspect they don't consider the views of others have any validity precisely because they HAVE considered them (unlike many/most religious fundies), but I won't belabor it.

[zapatos]

I don't think it is an atheist position that 'religion exists to maintain a privileged group in a position of power'. Identifying that one negative behavior of specific individuals and suggesting it is the 'purpose of religion' tells me the views of others in religion have NOT been considered (just like many/most religious fundies).

 

It is ludicrous to suggest that the purpose of religion for missionaries who take a vow of poverty and care for the sick and aged, is to maintain a position of power for a selected few.

[John Cuthber]

No thanks. I'm tired of your insults and trolling. Be rude to someone else.

I'm sure we have all seen little kids behaving like that- you know the sort of thing.

Saying "I have a secret- but I'm not telling you what it is".

In the end it turns out the reason they wouldn't tell you is that there was nothing to tell.

 

BTW, likening people to religious zealots, withe their murderous ways, is insulting.

All I did was to call you out on it.

In refusing to explain yourself and answer reasonable criticism- like the fact that I'm not a killer so I'm clearly distinct from the religious fundamentallists- you are trolling.

 

So, why not prove me wrong and answer the question (at the 3rd time of asking)?

I contend that you can't- because you don't have a point, and you know it.

Edited June 11, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Itoero]

Religion does not have a purpose. Defining the purpose of religion is like defining the purpose of the universe.

It does not make much sense...

Religion does have a reason (concerning evolution) to be here.

[Eise]

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.

 

I think you are confusing deism with pantheism. Einstein mentions explicitly 'the God of Spinoza':

 

I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.

 

Spinoza is well known as pantheist (par excellence, I would say).

 

You're completely right about the 'superpersonal'. I even think that for Einstein this has a dimension that one could call religious. I think that Einstein did not just apply this to science, but also to morality, meaning that we in our life should not live according to our small self interests, but must orient us to more universal values. In this sense science without religion really is blind: if we use science, and its derivation, technology, for every aim we have in life, how stupid it might be, nothing good comes from it. With our technology we can perfection killing other people, eavesdropping on them, pollute our environment etc., (in contrast with the good things that science enables us to).

 

So in my interpretation, Einstein wanted to warn us that our moral development lags wide behind our scientific development.

[dimreepr]

 

I think you are confusing deism with pantheism. Einstein mentions explicitly 'the God of Spinoza':

 

 

Spinoza is well known as pantheist (par excellence, I would say).

 

You're completely right about the 'superpersonal'. I even think that for Einstein this has a dimension that one could call religious. I think that Einstein did not just apply this to science, but also to morality, meaning that we in our life should not live according to our small self interests, but must orient us to more universal values. In this sense science without religion really is blind: if we use science, and its derivation, technology, for every aim we have in life, how stupid it might be, nothing good comes from it. With our technology we can perfection killing other people, eavesdropping on them, pollute our environment etc., (in contrast with the good things that science enables us to).

 

An excellent post +1, just one caveat:

 

So in my interpretation, Einstein wanted to warn us that our moral development lags wide behind our scientific development.

 

 

Did you mean to say "moral development"? because that's an innate quality of many creatures, which includes humans.

 

I think perhaps the following is more precise:

 

So in my interpretation, Einstein wanted to warn us that our moral development wisdom lags wide behind our scientific development.

[John Cuthber]

Religion does not have a purpose. Defining the purpose of religion is like defining the purpose of the universe.

It does not make much sense...

Religion does have a reason (concerning evolution) to be here.

It could be said that religion has a "purpose" in the same way that a virus has a "purpose"- to make more copies of itself.

In some instances that's beneficial.

But you can't sensibly say that the "purpose" of the cowpox virus is to stop humans getting smallpox.

It seems to me that the religion meme is doing much the same as the cowpox virus.

[dimreepr]

You seem to conflate religion with politics, and disregard any other purpose religion may have on the back of that conflation.

 

That was zapatos's point, your belief that religion can't possibly contain wisdom is just as extreme as a deist that contends science is wrong for the very same reason; a mirror position that's been demonstrated with as many deaths on the secular side of the argument.

Edited June 11, 2017 by dimreepr

[iNow]

There are many positive aspects of religion, but folks are mistaken when suggesting religion is their source.

 

The social and community aspects, helping each other when in need, caring for one another and each other's children, do unto others... these are all extremely positive, but are not derived from religion. They're derived from our existence as a tribal species existing in packs and groups.

 

Religion has borrowed these qualities and leveraged them to their advantage, but religion is not required for them and is not their source any more than the NFL is the source of barbecues where people drink beer and eat burgers.

[zapatos]

There are many positive aspects of religion, but folks are mistaken when suggesting religion is their source.

 

The social and community aspects, helping each other when in need, caring for one another and each other's children, do unto others... these are all extremely positive, but are not derived from religion. They're derived from our existence as a tribal species existing in packs and groups.

 

Religion has borrowed these qualities and leveraged them to their advantage, but religion is not required for them and is not their source any more than the NFL is the source of barbecues where people drink beer and eat burgers.

 

Agreed.

[John Cuthber]

You seem to conflate religion with politics, and disregard any other purpose religion may have on the back of that conflation.

 

That was zapatos's point, your belief that religion can't possibly contain wisdom is just as extreme as a deist that contends science is wrong for the very same reason; a mirror position that's been demonstrated with as many deaths on the secular side of the argument.

OK

Two questions- you have met the first one before because I have repeatedly asked it and you haven't replied..

What wisdom is available in religion, but not science?

Second question

Who was killed in the name of atheism?

 

(Please note that doesn't say "who was killed in the name of Communism, or Nazism?")

[dimreepr]

What wisdom is available in religion, but not science?

 

 

None at all, I've never suggested otherwise.

 

Who was killed in the name of atheism?

 

 

No-one, I've never suggested otherwise:

 

But what I did suggest is secularist lead politics has killed as many as religious lead politics.

you have met the first one before because I have repeatedly asked it and you haven't replied..

 

You're mistaken, in the extreme; I've repeatedly answered it, but you don't seem to notice...

Religion has borrowed these qualities and leveraged them to their advantage,

 

Just one caveat:

 

 

 

Shouldn't that read:

 

Politics? Or, at least, Religion and politics?

Edited June 11, 2017 by dimreepr

[iNow]

Adding "politics" does not decrease the validity of my comment, but it's also not required for my comment to remain valid.

[dimreepr]

Neither does it change my point, it's not only religion that borrows things for leverage.