Theres no place for Religion in Science?

[Itoero]

Darwin had nothing to say in his published work about the creation of life.

I meant that before Darwin the creation of humanity had no explanation.

 

I think you'll find that most students of religion have several other factors that were responsible for its emergence.

What other factors can there be for all those creation stories and the massive amount of gods?

 

I recommend you investigate a little more deeply what Einstein meant by that remark and of how he conceived the role of religion. You may then revise your opinion.

Then what did Einstein mean with 'religion' ?

He was an agnost and admired Spinoza's work.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Itoero

[Ophiolite]

I meant that before Darwin the creation of humanity had no explanation.

I see your point. It wasn't clear. I'm not sure I entirely agree with this assertion. For example the Comte de Buffon had emphasised the natural origin of life and the evolution of species, though he decided against any relation between man and apes after studying the matter. Erasmus, Charles' grandfather, and Lamark had also implicitly offered evolutionary explanations for the origin of humans.

 

 

What other factors can there be for all those creation stories and the massive amount of gods?

Creation stories are only one aspect of religion. The plethora of gods arose because many natural phenomena were ascribed to the activities of Gods. That is one of the reasons religion arose - as a means, initially of explaining such phenomena, then as a means of seeking to influence them.

Religion also provided a means of excising control over increasingly complex societies and of creating a sense of social coherence. These aspects of the origin of religion are, I believe, accepted as standard, though the details and the emphasis may vary from researcher to researcher.

 

 

 

Then what did Einstein mean with 'religion' ?

He was an agnost and admired Spinoza's work.

I think you have answered your own question.

[dimreepr]

I do think the big bang is supernatural...

 

 

 

 

This still works if you replace the word "Christian" for "me", the word "God" for "myself" and the word "Christ" for "understanding". I think that was what Jesus was trying to teach; time, language, interpretation and lack of knowledge gets in the way of understanding; given that why do we need a supernatural explanation for anything?

[Itoero]

Einstein has been proven right about so many things it is uncanny.

What happens when God and Nature are equated.

[This is the Religion subforum so using that word is not taboo.]

 

The argument around the laws of physics is an interesting one. Did they originate at the big bang? When did they originate?

Einstein was also wrong in his idea's of Quantum theory.

He tried to debunk Heisenberg's uncertainty and was not a fan of quantum entanglement.

 

What do our physical laws say about black holes?

It's not clear what the big bang was, so I suppose I was wrong to make assumptions about physical laws.

Creation stories are only one aspect of religion. The plethora of gods arose because many natural phenomena were ascribed to the activities of Gods. That is one of the reasons religion arose - as a means, initially of explaining such phenomena, then as a means of seeking to influence them.

Religion also provided a means of excising control over increasingly complex societies and of creating a sense of social coherence. These aspects of the origin of religion are, I believe, accepted as standard, though the details and the emphasis may vary from researcher to researcher.

That's true.

So it's science in general that causes the belief in the supernatural to decline/evolve.

 

I think you have answered your own question.

But isn't 'religion' a wrong term?

Einstein was supposed to be a deeply religious non-believer.

If you look to his beliefs then he wasn't religious at all.

Einstein uses the word 'religion' as it was 'philosophy'.

If you replace 'religion' with 'philosophy' then it imo makes more sense:

 

Philosophy without science is blind. Science without philosophy is lame.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Itoero