PDA

View Full Version : Can Science Progress Without Religion?


epix
5th February 2011, 12:07 PM
It's not wise to take on the symbol (or even god) of 20th century science, but there may be an exemption.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
~ Albert Einstein ~

It's seems to be outright foolish to argue with Herr Professor in his own game, but that's what needs to be done, coz something doesn't jibe in the quote.

a) Science - Religion = Lame
b) Religion - Science = Blind

The problem becomes more visible when the terms are substituted with numbers.

a) 5 - 2 = 3
b) 2 - 5 = -3

The problem would go away, if the following comparison holds true:

Comp1: 3 is to Lame as -3 is to Blind.

But is it really so? I think that the comparison should read

Comp2: 3 is to Lame as -3 is to NOT Lame.

Does anyone agree that Comp2 is more logical than Comp.1? Or was great thinker Albert Einstein really dead right implying that if it were not for religion, science would be limping along unaided by the faith in God's omniscience and His kind decision to share His wisdom with Man and that the pope can't ever see the face of God without specially constructed laser-guided binoculars equipped with a homing device?

Sledge
5th February 2011, 12:14 PM
He didn't believe in your god, epix. He didn't believe in your religion. And frankly, appealing to Einstein's authority on such matters is not going to win anyone over or challenge anyone's beliefs.

Good Lt
5th February 2011, 12:16 PM
Don't forget - Relativity is "only a theory," after all.

Like evolution. Just a guess.

dlorde
5th February 2011, 12:17 PM
Einstein's view of religion wasn't entirely orthodox. In the same letter that quote came from, he wrote:The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

Sledge
5th February 2011, 12:19 PM
As far as I'm aware, Einstein was more into religion as the sense of awe one feels at viewing and understanding the universe. If I'm wrong, I look forward to being educated on the matter.

TraneWreck
5th February 2011, 12:34 PM
a) Science - Religion = Lame
b) Religion - Science = Blind

The problem becomes more visible when the terms are substituted with numbers.

a) 5 - 2 = 3
b) 2 - 5 = -3


You chose the wrong numbers. It should be the following:

a) (any actual number) - 0 = (any actual number)

b) 0 - (any actual number) = - (any actual number)

Irony
5th February 2011, 12:50 PM
epix, I'm sure you've been told this before.

Science does not have "prophets" or "revealed wisdom".

The position* of a well respected scientist in a field totally outside of his expertise counts for no more than that of any other random person.

As to the original question. How exactly does science need religion? Please, no lame references to scientists who were incidentally religious (just like the vast majority of people around them). Please point out exactly where, and explain exactly how, a lack of religion would stop scientific progress.

*you misrepresented his position, but that's beside the point

The True Scotsman
5th February 2011, 12:52 PM
It's not wise to take on...

I'm pretty sure this is just a colloquialism and that you're over-analyzing it.

dlorde
5th February 2011, 12:57 PM
As far as I'm aware, Einstein was more into religion as the sense of awe one feels at viewing and understanding the universe. If I'm wrong, I look forward to being educated on the matter.

That's basically it. Science is about understanding the natural world, and without a sense of awe & wonder about the natural world, science would be pretty lame.

epix
5th February 2011, 12:59 PM
Einstein's view of religion wasn't entirely orthodox. In the same letter that quote came from, he wrote:
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

He actually capitalized the word "God." He possesed enough social awarness as not to play idiotic games.

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.

Anyway, he seems to have made a logical mistake by subtracting opposites.

epix
5th February 2011, 01:10 PM
Please point out exactly where, and explain exactly how, a lack of religion would stop scientific progress.

How can I know? I didn't write the quote, Einstein did.

There seems to be a logical mistake in the quote -- a mistake which I asked about.

John Jones
5th February 2011, 01:12 PM
Anyway, he seems to have made a logical mistake by subtracting opposites.

Be sure to point that out to him, if he ever shows up to defend his theses.

epix
5th February 2011, 01:30 PM
That's basically it. Science is about understanding the natural world, and without a sense of awe & wonder about the natural world, science would be pretty lame.
Well, Eintein was not that much at awe with nature; he seemed to be pretty knowlegable about what nature did or didn't do, or what nature was,

1) "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

2) "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

3) "God is subtle but he is not malicious."

but his knowledge of nature didn't seem to be complete.

4) "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

Beth
5th February 2011, 01:36 PM
I've always interpreted that quote asEinstein saying that that both religion and science were necessary for humanity to progress.

Foster Zygote
5th February 2011, 01:37 PM
As far as I'm aware, Einstein was more into religion as the sense of awe one feels at viewing and understanding the universe. If I'm wrong, I look forward to being educated on the matter.

In pretty much the same way as Sagan when he later wrote of his own profound sense of religious awe regarding the wonders of the universe.

Foster Zygote
5th February 2011, 01:39 PM
He actually capitalized the word "God."

So what?

epix
5th February 2011, 01:41 PM
You chose the wrong numbers. It should be the following:

a) (any actual number) - 0 = (any actual number)

b) 0 - (any actual number) = - (any actual number)
:D

They got plenty of oil, so what's the problem? (http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/17/us-report-saudi-arabia-has-zero-religious-freedom/)

Lowpro
5th February 2011, 01:43 PM
Wait this argument is really about the validity of this axiom and then acting as if it has a case?

That's silly.

epix
5th February 2011, 02:05 PM
As far as I'm aware, Einstein was more into religion as the sense of awe one feels at viewing and understanding the universe. If I'm wrong, I look forward to being educated on the matter.
As far as I'm aware, Einstein wasn't exactly into organized religion and its interpretation of anything that pertains to it.

When asked directly if he believed in God, he always insisted he did, and explained it once this way: We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesnt know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.

That's beside the point anyway. He seemed to have made a logical mistake in that quote, as suggested in the OP. And that could make the whole quote no good. Only when you completely separate the sentences, the logical error goes away due to the independency.

I made the font of the quote intentionally large, so folks like you wouldn't go beyond the quote and get excited thinking fox in the henhouse. LOL.

Fnord
5th February 2011, 02:09 PM
Science does not have "prophets" or "revealed wisdom".

Prophesy is a faith-based hypothesis that relies on correlation, not causation, of events as 'proof'.

"Revealed Wisdom" is a null concept. Wisdom is earned through experience, either yours or someone else's.

Fnord
5th February 2011, 02:10 PM
... Only when you completely separate cherry-pick the sentences, the logical error original meaning goes away due to the independency lack of context...
There. I fixed it for you.

Jonnyclueless
5th February 2011, 02:11 PM
Einstein's view of religion wasn't entirely orthodox. In the same letter that quote came from, he wrote:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.



Repost because a certain person here may have not read this properly.

epix
5th February 2011, 02:17 PM
So what?
Well, if you quote a text, you shouldn't alter it by vomiting your emotions into it.

dlorde
5th February 2011, 02:21 PM
He actually capitalized the word "God." He possesed enough social awarness as not to play idiotic games.
Meh. That's what I get for copy/pasting from Softpedia (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Science-Without-Religion-is-Lame-Religion-Without-Science-is-Blind-85550.shtml).

epix
5th February 2011, 02:23 PM
There. I fixed it for you.
There is the other word that starts with 'F' as well that describes your artwork much better.

sadhatter
5th February 2011, 02:24 PM
Wow, i am so confused, what is going on, i don't get it.

Now that you got the reaction you were looking for, can you just wander away epix?

Irony
5th February 2011, 02:24 PM
How can I know? I didn't write the quote, Einstein did.

There seems to be a logical mistake in the quote -- a mistake which I asked about.

Well, if that's all it's about, then yes, Einstein made a mistake.

Specifically his mistake was in calling such abstract concepts as wonder and awe "religion", and the universe, absent of a human-obsessed overconscientious, "God". His vocabulary was imprecise, and that allowed his words to be easily misconstrued. Even in the intended meaning, his point is debatable.

But so what? No one with half a brain should expect anyone to be perfect.

dlorde
5th February 2011, 02:26 PM
Well, if you quote a text, you shouldn't alter it by vomiting your emotions into it.

Take it up with Gabriel Gache (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Science-Without-Religion-is-Lame-Religion-Without-Science-is-Blind-85550.shtml) or his editor.

Foster Zygote
5th February 2011, 02:28 PM
Wait this argument is really about the validity of this axiom and then acting as if it has a case?

That's silly.

No, no. He assigned number values to it so it is now a mathematical proof.

Foster Zygote
5th February 2011, 02:35 PM
Well, if you quote a text, you shouldn't alter it by vomiting your emotions into it.
What are you on about?

Einstein wrote the letter in German, a language in which all nouns are capitalized.

phantomb
5th February 2011, 02:39 PM
a) Science - Religion = Lame
b) Religion - Science = Blind

The problem becomes more visible when the terms are substituted with numbers.

a) 5 - 2 = 3
b) 2 - 5 = -3

Mathematical axioms and definitions (of the set of real numbers, the arithmetic operations, etc.) tell us what it means to subtract 2 from 5. Which axioms and definitions tell us what it means to subtract religion from science?

epix
5th February 2011, 02:50 PM
Meh. That's what I get for copy/pasting from Softpedia (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Science-Without-Religion-is-Lame-Religion-Without-Science-is-Blind-85550.shtml).
There is no way to find out what Einstein wrote without reading the original. But there is actually chance that he might have used das Wort gott, coz "god" is a word that describes no particular deity. Here is an example:

The earliest written form of the Germanic word god comes from the 6th century Christian Codex Argenteus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Then, there is the capitalized version.

Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown.

http://wahiduddin.net/words/name_god.htm


So the idea that God or god doesn't exist have its merit: If the deity doesn't exist, so doesn't the word and folks don't have to worry whether to capitalize or not. Too late now. Where were the atheists when they were really needed?

fuelair
5th February 2011, 02:56 PM
It's not wise to take on the symbol (or even god) of 20th century science, but there may be an exemption.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
~ Albert Einstein ~

It's seems to be outright foolish to argue with Herr Professor in his own game, but that's what needs to be done, coz something doesn't jibe in the quote.

a) Science - Religion = Lame
b) Religion - Science = Blind

The problem becomes more visible when the terms are substituted with numbers.

a) 5 - 2 = 3
b) 2 - 5 = -3

The problem would go away, if the following comparison holds true:

Comp1: 3 is to Lame as -3 is to Blind.

But is it really so? I think that the comparison should read

Comp2: 3 is to Lame as -3 is to NOT Lame.

Does anyone agree that Comp2 is more logical than Comp.1? Or was great thinker Albert Einstein really dead right implying that if it were not for religion, science would be limping along unaided by the faith in God's omniscience and His kind decision to share His wisdom with Man and that the pope can't ever see the face of God without specially constructed laser-guided binoculars equipped with a homing device?

Philosophy is just words. Words control nothing (unless you believe in magic)though some people can't control their reaction to them. Science needs nothing to be true. Religion is in the subset of things that need scientific evidence to be true. Religion fails big on that one.






So do republickers, but that's another thread.

Fnord
5th February 2011, 03:04 PM
There is the other word that starts with 'F' as well that describes your artwork much better.

This thread was clustered from its inception.

epix
5th February 2011, 03:08 PM
Mathematical axioms and definitions (of the set of real numbers, the arithmetic operations, etc.) tell us what it means to subtract 2 from 5. Which axioms and definitions tell us what it means to subtract religion from science?
It's not a subtraction per se, coz subtraction mainly refers to quantities and neither science nor religion are quantities. But subtraction is closely related to the concept of difference.

Other names used in subtraction are Minus, Less, Difference, Decrease, Take Away , Deduct.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/subtraction.html
(Nice numerical example right there. LOL.)

Since there seems to be a difference between science and religion -- at least some claim there is -- you can substitute the terms for numbers. Actually, Godel did something similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering

Gawdzilla
5th February 2011, 03:17 PM
I've always interpreted that quote asEinstein saying that that both religion and science were necessary for humanity to progress.

You're half right. Science is the engine, religion is more like the radio with the busted volume control that kills your battery because the off switch doesn't work.

epix
5th February 2011, 03:23 PM
This thread was clustered from its inception.
Do you know any other word that starts with F? no?
Sorry, I shouldn't cluster.

Dinwar
5th February 2011, 03:24 PM
a) Science - Religion = Lame
b) Religion - Science = Blind

The problem becomes more visible when the terms are substituted with numbers.

a) 5 - 2 = 3
b) 2 - 5 = -3This is completely arbitrary. Why pick THESE numbers? Why define "Lame" as "3"? Why define "Blind" as "-3"? I mean, both words have legitimate definitions already--lame is unable to walk (roughly) and blind is unable to see (again, roughly, but less rough than the first). As both are biological concepts the assumption of linear relationships between them is flawed, at least until demonstrated. An increase in some The loss of some individual body part can range from annoying to deadly, depending on the part--and NOT dependent on the magnitude (weight, volume, etc) of that thing. You can live with half your pancreus removed, or an entire kidney, but damage a small cluster of nerves and you're done.

My point is, there are obviously other ways to interpret this quote, other than arbitrary mathematical values. Particularly when scale is never defined, nor is the concept of positive and negative dealt with in any rigorous fashion (does negative mean it becomes harmful? Is negative even possible?). As the argument is built on a shoddy foundation, the argument fails.

As for what Einstein thought about religion and science, as others have stated, it has no relevance to anything. It's one man's opinion, no better or worse than that of Mrs. Beachum (and, Chesterton would argue, probably a great deal worse).

Or was great thinker Albert Einstein really dead right implying that if it were not for religion, science would be limping along unaided by the faith in God's omniscience and His kind decision to share His wisdom with Man and that the pope can't ever see the face of God without specially constructed laser-guided binoculars equipped with a homing device? This is an obvious false dichotomy. Einstein's quote says nothing about the nature of the god he references--that god of Einstein's religion could be the omnicient and benificient deity you choose, or it could be a more businesslike god, such as the Romans believed. And Einstein didn't even say anything ABOUT gods in that quote; he spoke, rather, of RELIGION, which is necessarily a human construction. It's perfectly possible for a religion to exist even if the god worshiped in that religion doesn't.

You're putting a great many words in a dead man's mouth. Not a good way to start a philosophical argument.

Halfcentaur
5th February 2011, 03:45 PM
"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."


Aw, shucks.

Sledge
5th February 2011, 03:49 PM
As far as I'm aware, Einstein wasn't exactly into organized religion and its interpretation of anything that pertains to it.


That's beside the point anyway. He seemed to have made a logical mistake in that quote, as suggested in the OP. And that could make the whole quote no good. Only when you completely separate the sentences, the logical error goes away due to the independency.

I made the font of the quote intentionally large, so folks like you wouldn't go beyond the quote and get excited thinking fox in the henhouse. LOL.

So what's your point?

Halcyon Dayz
5th February 2011, 03:52 PM
As usual old Albert gets quoted out of context.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. 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 cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Full article here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm).
Einstein can't help being so wordy and somewhat vague.
He's a German intellectual after all. ;)

epix
5th February 2011, 04:00 PM
This is completely arbitrary. Why pick THESE numbers? Why define "Lame" as "3"? Why define "Blind" as "-3"?
3 and -3 are not arbitrary numbers, 5 and 2 are. I decided for the numerical option rather than for the general way involving letters.

For a>b:
a - b = d
b - a = -d

If Science=a and Religion=b and Lame=d, then -d = -Lame and not Blind, as Herr Professor claimed.

Your idea of purely verbal representation being always sufficiently defined so there is never a problem is ridiculous. That's why logic substitutes statements with letters so they could enter special methods, such as the first order logic, to arrive at a provable conclusion.


This is an obvious false dichotomy. Einstein's quote says nothing about the nature of the god he references.
It's not a case of any dichotomy, but a case of my rather free interpretation of the meaning of the quote. (See pope, binoculars, laser, homing device.) It's a simple stretch but not a dichotomy.

epix
5th February 2011, 04:15 PM
As usual old Albert gets quoted out of context.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. 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 cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Full article here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm).
Einstein can't help being so wordy and somewhat vague.
He's a German intellectual after all. ;)
What makes you believe that the above is the context of the quote? And if it is, there is nothing that contradicts the quote.

Dinwar
5th February 2011, 04:45 PM
If Science=a and Religion=b and Lame=d, then -d = -Lame and not Blind, as Herr Professor claimed.Ah! I see! You're trying to argue that because Einstein said "science without religion is lame" he meant that religion without science is a good thing!

Still doesn't work. Again, you're assuming linearity, which is not necessarily true in this case. Oh, and the context thing.

Though let's play your game. Instead of using "science-religion=lame" to define our terms, let's use "religion-science=blind". Well, by your logic that means "science-religion=not blind"; which means that Einstein was really saying that religion is evil and holding back science!

The reasons you'd use to object to the above paragraph are equally applicable to your own reasoning.

It's not a case of any dichotomy, but a case of my rather free interpretation of the meaning of the quote. (See pope, binoculars, laser, homing device.) It's a simple stretch but not a dichotomy. Yes it is. Here is your quote:

Does anyone agree that Comp2 is more logical than Comp.1? Or was great thinker Albert Einstein really dead right implying that if it were not for religion, science would be limping along unaided by the faith in God's omniscience and His kind decision to share His wisdom with Man and that the pope can't ever see the face of God without specially constructed laser-guided binoculars equipped with a homing device? The two choices you offer are in red and blue. You propose TWO choices. Thus, you have presented a dichotomy. There are a myriad of others. Thus, your dichotomy is false. It's also false because you insert a great deal of meaning into the word "religion" with no actual reason for inserting it other than "Because that's the god I believe in"--the god YOU believe in has nothing to do with the god EINSTEIN may or may not have believed in. We'd have to find his beliefs. (We did, and he was not a theist, but that's another matter entirely).

Sledge
5th February 2011, 04:49 PM
What's your point, epix? Or is this another of your fails?

Foster Zygote
5th February 2011, 04:56 PM
What's your point, epix? Or is this another of your fails?

Best I can figure, Germans capitalize nouns, therefor God.

joobz
5th February 2011, 05:58 PM
Peanut butter and Chocolate is totally Awesome.
Bacon is totally awesome.
Peanut butter and Bacon is totally gross.
Therefore:
P + C =TA
B = TA
B + P = TG
combing these equations we get:
P = TA -C
TA + TA - C = TG
2TA -TG = C
T(2A-G) =C
and
T = C/(2A-G)

So, as you can see, I've just proven that
Totally is the ratio of Chocolate to twice the awesome minus gross.

TubbaBlubba
5th February 2011, 06:00 PM
Peanut butter and Chocolate is totally Awesome.
Bacon is totally awesome.
Peanut butter and Bacon is totally gross.
Therefore:
P + C =TA
B = TA
B + P = TG
combing these equations we get:
P = TA -C
TA + TA - C = TG
2TA -TG = C
T(2A-G) =C
and
T = C/(2A-G)

So, as you can see, I've just proven that
Totally is the ratio of Chocolate to twice the awesome minus gross.

If only Al-Haythen would have known what he unleashed upon the world.

joobz
5th February 2011, 06:12 PM
If only Al-Haythen would have known what he unleashed upon the world.

Oh there's more!

If you take our totally equation and substitute it back into the first relation, we get:
P+C= C/(2A-G)*A
or
(P+C)(2A-G)=CA
2PA+2CA-PG-CG = CA
2PA+CA=PG+CG
Well, we know that PG + CG is equivalent to Pixar
and PA = Pennsylvania and CA = California.
So we are left with

Pixar is equal to 2 Pennsylvanias and a California.

devnull
5th February 2011, 07:03 PM
Best I can figure, Germans capitalize nouns, therefor God.

Nominated :)

phantomb
5th February 2011, 08:53 PM
It's not a subtraction per se, coz subtraction mainly refers to quantities and neither science nor religion are quantities.

Correct, they're not quantities, they're abstract concepts, which means that they don't have to behave like numbers on a number line.

But subtraction is closely related to the concept of difference.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/subtraction.html
(Nice numerical example right there. LOL.)

Since there seems to be a difference between science and religion -- at least some claim there is -- you can substitute the terms for numbers.

No, you can't, that makes no sense. What would the numbers represent? And Einstein said that science - religion is lame and religion - science is blind. "lame" and "blind" are adjectives describing the result, not the result itself.

Lowpro
5th February 2011, 10:44 PM
No, no. He assigned number values to it so it is now a mathematical proof.

That's even worse!

ParrotPirate
5th February 2011, 10:56 PM
Science and society in general not only can progress without religion, but would progress faster without it.

noreligion
6th February 2011, 12:22 AM
Science and society in general not only can progress without religion, but would progress faster without it.

Very true. Without the RCC and the dark ages that followed them chances are Columbus would not have sailed to the Americas but flown to the moon.

Explorer
6th February 2011, 01:16 AM
As usual old Albert gets quoted out of context.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. 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 cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Full article here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm).
Einstein can't help being so wordy and somewhat vague.
He's a German intellectual after all. ;)

Einstein certainly hit the mark here and is accurate in what he said in the bold quote above. For example, it was the Quakers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that helped to develop modern scientific methodology. This religious group were, and are, obsessed with truth. It was this religious trait that helped them develop cause and effect experimentation, that had to be subjected to test and truthful confirmation.

However, since then things have gone downhill a little and it seems that religion now has little place in current scientific thinking.

Science is progressing today in spite of religion., not because of it!

Astreja
6th February 2011, 01:21 AM
Einstein's views on religion and science, be they quoted or misquoted, are a red herring. Non-religious scientists do make important discoveries; therefore, the answer to the OP is "Yes, science can and does progress without religion."

Gawdzilla
6th February 2011, 07:28 AM
Very true. Without the RCC and the dark ages that followed them chances are Columbus would not have sailed to the Americas but flown to the moon.

Science advances in spite of religion.

Aepervius
6th February 2011, 07:52 AM
There is no way to find out what Einstein wrote without reading the original. But there is actually chance that he might have used das Wort gott, coz "god" is a word that describes no particular deity. Here is an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Then, there is the capitalized version.

http://wahiduddin.net/words/name_god.htm


So the idea that God or god doesn't exist have its merit: If the deity doesn't exist, so doesn't the word and folks don't have to worry whether to capitalize or not. Too late now. Where were the atheists when they were really needed?


We have had already a thread on that. God is capitalized in english as a title , not as a word IIRC. And more importantly this vary from language to language. Gott is capitalized in german , but so are all common name like Exkrement, and you would not compare the two. In some language god is not even capitalised because capital don't exists !

That you take a stand on capitalisation, when most internet user don't even write a proper english, is a childish argument.

noreligion
6th February 2011, 08:58 AM
Science advances in spite of religion.

Really? Examples of the scientific knowledge not lost during the dark ages please?

Gawdzilla
6th February 2011, 09:00 AM
Really? Examples of the scientific knowledge not lost during the dark ages please?

Ptolemy. Archimedes. The good folks in China may have a few examples, but that's out of boundes, yes?

timhau
6th February 2011, 09:06 AM
Can science progress without religion?

Can you be a vegetarian if there's no meat on the menu?

noreligion
6th February 2011, 09:13 AM
Ptolemy. Archimedes. The good folks in China may have a few examples, but that's out of boundes, yes?

Right, there was no scientific knowledge lost during the dark ages. You can go on believing religion isn't an opponent to science (at least then it was). In some respects it still is now. Do you know why stem cell research is as slow as it is? I suppose you believe the church has nothing to do with that. I can't understand why some people find a need to "mollycoddle" the church.

Edit: Not really lost but certainly stifled. Look at the rate of scientific advancement prior to the dark ages and again aftr the middle ages. Compare that to the scientific advancement during the dark ages and middle ages. The church was a cancer to science during that period.

Fnord
6th February 2011, 09:45 AM
Can science progress without religion?

Can you be a vegetarian if there's no meat on the menu?


Ooo ... Nominated!

Foster Zygote
6th February 2011, 09:56 AM
Einstein's views on religion and science, be they quoted or misquoted, are a red herring. Non-religious scientists do make important discoveries; therefore, the answer to the OP is "Yes, science can and does progress without religion."

It comes back to how one is defining religion. Some, like epix, seem to be defining the word to mean a belief in deities or other supernatural phenomena. But Einstein made it pretty clear that he meant something quite different when he referred to religion. His religion was a since of humility and wonder in the face of the vast, mysterious universe around him.

Steve001
6th February 2011, 10:37 AM
How can I know? I didn't write the quote, Einstein did.

There seems to be a logical mistake in the quote -- a mistake which I asked about.

You should research a subject before you post.
Here's some of what Albert thought on this subject of 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.”
Other enlightening quotes from the man can be found here http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

Steve001
6th February 2011, 10:44 AM
Well, Eintein was not that much at awe with nature; he seemed to be pretty knowlegable about what nature did or didn't do, or what nature was,

1) "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

2) "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

3) "God is subtle but he is not malicious."

but his knowledge of nature didn't seem to be complete.

4) "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

Here's some awe for you.
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
More can be found here
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

Gawdzilla
6th February 2011, 11:12 AM
Right, there was no scientific knowledge lost during the dark ages. You can go on believing religion isn't an opponent to science (at least then it was). In some respects it still is now. Do you know why stem cell research is as slow as it is? I suppose you believe the church has nothing to do with that. I can't understand why some people find a need to "mollycoddle" the church.

Do you think I'm a church mollycoddler? :jaw-dropp

noreligion
6th February 2011, 11:15 AM
Do you think I'm a church mollycoddler? :jaw-dropp

If you deny that the church has had a profound influence on stifling science, yes I do.

Gawdzilla
6th February 2011, 11:25 AM
If you deny that the church has had a profound influence on stifling science, yes I do.

When did I ever say that, please?

noreligion
6th February 2011, 11:28 AM
When did I ever say that, please?

Explain your post #57. Specifically why it was a reply to my post.

tsig
6th February 2011, 11:32 AM
Best I can figure, Germans capitalize nouns, therefor God.

That's extraordinarily lame.:)

tsig
6th February 2011, 11:36 AM
If you deny that the church has had a profound influence on stifling science, yes I do.

You totally misread his post.

TheGoldcountry
6th February 2011, 11:43 AM
Forgive me for skipping ahead, but I wanted to share my own thoughts.

Darwin and Einstein have been misquoted, taken out of context, and downright LIED about so often that they shouldn't be allowed to be quoted here any longer. I'm a newcomer here as a poster, but I have read so many posts here and on other forums that it now angers me.

STOP TAKING EINSTEIN'S QUOTES OUT OF CONTEXT. It does a disservice to his memory and defeats your own argument.

Dinwar
6th February 2011, 11:47 AM
Right, there was no scientific knowledge lost during the dark ages. The simple facts of history are that we over-estimated the amount of knowledge lost during the Dark Ages (~500 to 1000 AD). These were still humans, and while we did loose a bit it was more due to people like El Cid and Beowulf than to the monks and priests. Don't get me wrong, the Catholic Church was a VERY nasty organization, even back then--but the argument "We lost all scientific knowledge in the Dark Ages, therefore religion is bad" is built on several faulty premises.

The real issue with the Dark Ages in Europe (by the way, this IS different than the Middle Ages; the Upper Middle Ages actually included a great many advancements, as can be seen by their armor and weapons) wasn't the Church, but rather their worldview. Their Aritotelian methodology didn't require experimentation, so things got weird. The Church didn't help, but the damage would have been done with or without it.

I can't understand why some people find a need to "mollycoddle" the church.Perhaps because they care about facts. Again, the Church was not really a nice organization, even back then--but to place the blame of our loss of scientific knowledge entirely on their heads is to live in a fantasy world. The facts are more complex.

How can I know? I didn't write the quote, Einstein did. You don't see the contradiction between this statement and the OP?

noreligion
6th February 2011, 12:01 PM
The simple facts of history are that we over-estimated the amount of knowledge lost during the Dark Ages (~500 to 1000 AD). These were still humans, and while we did loose a bit it was more due to people like El Cid and Beowulf than to the monks and priests. Don't get me wrong, the Catholic Church was a VERY nasty organization, even back then--but the argument "We lost all scientific knowledge in the Dark Ages, therefore religion is bad" is built on several faulty premises.

The real issue with the Dark Ages in Europe (by the way, this IS different than the Middle Ages; the Upper Middle Ages actually included a great many advancements, as can be seen by their armor and weapons) wasn't the Church, but rather their worldview. Their Aritotelian methodology didn't require experimentation, so things got weird. The Church didn't help, but the damage would have been done with or without it.

Perhaps because they care about facts. Again, the Church was not really a nice organization, even back then--but to place the blame of our loss of scientific knowledge entirely on their heads is to live in a fantasy world. The facts are more complex.

You don't see the contradiction between this statement and the OP?

You can go on and believe the church had nothing to do with the major decrease in scientific advancement during the dark and middle ages. That is living in a fantasy world. For that matter if you refuse to see (due to stubbornness or just plain foolishness) the church still attempting to stifle scientific advancement (as far as stem cell research) you are still living in a fantasy world.

Gawdzilla
6th February 2011, 12:08 PM
Explain your post #57. Specifically why it was a reply to my post.

I'm not sure what you're confused about, but here's another version you might find more palatable?

"Science advances despite religion."

ETA: My post was not intended to be a rebuttal to your post, but a follow-on.

TheGoldcountry
6th February 2011, 12:14 PM
The simple facts of history are that we over-estimated the amount of knowledge lost during the Dark Ages (~500 to 1000 AD). These were still humans, and while we did loose a bit it was more due to people like El Cid and Beowulf than to the monks and priests. Don't get me wrong, the Catholic Church was a VERY nasty organization, even back then--but the argument "We lost all scientific knowledge in the Dark Ages, therefore religion is bad" is built on several faulty premises.

The real issue with the Dark Ages in Europe (by the way, this IS different than the Middle Ages; the Upper Middle Ages actually included a great many advancements, as can be seen by their armor and weapons) wasn't the Church, but rather their worldview. Their Aritotelian methodology didn't require experimentation, so things got weird. The Church didn't help, but the damage would have been done with or without it.

Perhaps because they care about facts. Again, the Church was not really a nice organization, even back then--but to place the blame of our loss of scientific knowledge entirely on their heads is to live in a fantasy world. The facts are more complex.

You don't see the contradiction between this statement and the OP?
The simple facts of history are that we over-estimated the amount of knowledge lost during the Dark Ages (~500 to 1000 AD). - Dinwar

So, what, we lost some knowledge but not all? What is your ultimate point? The church didn't succeed in eradicating all scientific knowledge? Yay!

Dinwar
6th February 2011, 12:15 PM
You can go on and believe the church had nothing to do with the major decrease in scientific advancement during the dark and middle ages. That is living in a fantasy world. For that matter if you refuse to see (due to stubbornness or just plain foolishness) the church still attempting to stifle scientific advancement (as far as stem cell research) you are still living in a fantasy world. Please actually read my post, rather than merely copying and pasting it. I clearly state that the Church is NOT innocent--it certainly played a role. However, the issue is VASTLY more complicated than your cartoonish explanation of "The Church did it". A great deal of knowledge was lost due to places being sacked and burned by people who weren't Christians. And a great many monks and such weren't exactly towing the party line.

As for my thoughts on the Church today, those are a completely different issue, and one which I DID NOT DISCUS.

Again, please read my post and respond to what I actually said, not some straw-man of your own creation. I'm not a supporter of the Church by any means. I'm also not going to ignore history merely because a group I dislike happened to do things I do support.

So, what, we lost some knowledge but not all? What is your ultimate point? The church didn't succeed in eradicating all scientific knowledge? Yay! My point was that noreligion's arguments are straw-men and fail to take into account what actually happened. Yes, the Church was not a benign organization. I'm just saying that we should probably attack it because of what it actually did, rather than for making up accusations and holding the Church to be guilty of things it didn't do. We're supposed to be skeptics here--let's act like it.

TheGoldcountry
6th February 2011, 12:19 PM
The fact that the "church" (I assume we're talking about Rome) isn't entirely responsible for the deterioration of scientific knowledge is a deflection. As it stands right now, fundamentalist Christians want the frigging Bible as a textbook in school. The Vatican is actually more open to science than the Bible thumpers HERE.

noreligion
6th February 2011, 12:23 PM
My point was that noreligion's arguments are straw-men and fail to take into account what actually happened. Yes, the Church was not a benign organization. I'm just saying that we should probably attack it because of what it actually did, rather than for making up accusations and holding the Church to be guilty of things it didn't do. We're supposed to be skeptics here--let's act like it.

Apparently you have trouble reading without your horse blinders on. Tell me what specific accusation I made or what I said that is untrue. After that I expect an apology for your false accusations of what I said.

Gawdzilla
6th February 2011, 12:24 PM
Have a nice life, you hear?

HatRack
6th February 2011, 01:11 PM
Tell me what specific accusation I made or what I said that is untrue.

This:

You can go on and believe the church had nothing to do with the major decrease in scientific advancement during the dark and middle ages. That is living in a fantasy world.

Dinwar's statement was:

...to place the blame of our loss of scientific knowledge entirely on their heads is to live in a fantasy world. The facts are more complex.

All he said was that the church wasn't entirely responsible for the loss of scientific knowledge. Your statement is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. Hence, it is a strawman.

After that I expect an apology for your false accusations of what I said.

You're going to be waiting an awfully long time for that apology. The only one who has made any false accusations here is you.

Apparently you have trouble reading without your horse blinders on.

Nope. You're the only one who is having trouble reading.

So, what, we lost some knowledge but not all? What is your ultimate point? The church didn't succeed in eradicating all scientific knowledge? Yay!

His point is that as skeptics, we should seek the truth rather than misrepresenting what actually happened. I'm no expert in history, but Dinwar's explanation sounds much more reasonable than its logical negation (that all lost scientific knowledge was due to the church).

Dinwar
6th February 2011, 01:15 PM
Really? Examples of the scientific knowledge not lost during the dark ages please? You can go on and believe the church had nothing to do with the major decrease in scientific advancement during the dark and middle ages. or that matter if you refuse to see (due to stubbornness or just plain foolishness) the church still attempting to stifle scientific advancement (as far as stem cell research) you are still living in a fantasy world. Right, there was no scientific knowledge lost during the dark ages. The arguments implied (strongly) in the above quotes are all false. The first implies that the church suppressed all knowledge. This implication was further supported when Gawdzilla responded with specific bits of knowledge the Church didn't suppress and you backpeddled. The second falsely implies that I said that Church had nothing to do with the Dark Ages (and ignores the distinction between the Dark [lower] and [Upper] Middle Ages). The third implies falsely that I was arguing that the Church is not currently suppressing scientific advancement (false because I said nothing about that topic). The final one again falsely implies that I argued that the Church didn't suppress any scientific knowledge in the Dark Ages.

The fact that the "church" (I assume we're talking about Rome) isn't entirely responsible for the deterioration of scientific knowledge is a deflection.I was countering a specific error--that the Church, in the Dark Ages of Europe, suppressed all knowledge, as implied by noreligion's statements quoted above. This is not a true statement. As I said, the Church at that time can be damned for enough REAL crimes that fabricating things to pin on it is irrational. Besides, I'm more concerned with the facts than I am making someone look bad, even someone I dislike.

As it stands right now, fundamentalist Christians want the frigging Bible as a textbook in school. The Vatican is actually more open to science than the Bible thumpers HERE. I agree fully. Theocracy is a horrible thing, and there are many, many religious sects out there trying to destroy modern science because it contradicts what a bad interpretation of a book of ancient fairy-tales says. My profession in particular is under direct and coordinated attack (as outlined in the Wedge Document). I don't believe I've ever said anything nice about modern religion--and in fact I haven't said very nice things about the Church in the past (as an aside, I put it that way because that's how it was referred to back then--in Europe there was only one, and it was capitalized). I firmly believe that the modern RCC is little better than the mafia, and that it's one of the better organized religions out there. Again, though, I believe that there are enough REAL crimes committed by organized religions that false accusations simply don't help our cause.

epix
6th February 2011, 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by epix
How can I know? I didn't write the quote, Einstein did.


You don't see the contradiction between this statement and the OP?

No, I don't. Illuminate me.

Hello, world. You got to see this to believe it. I quoted an idea, which I found rather strange in its literal version and also illogical in a certain aspect that I explained, yet I would be asked to defend the merit of the quote, as if I identified myself with it. When I stressed that the quote is not my idea, another nonsense jumps in claiming "contradictions." Looks like Dark Ages revisited.
:rolleyes:

timhau
6th February 2011, 01:22 PM
Hello, world. You got to see this to believe it. I quoted an idea, which I found rather strange in its literal version and also illogical in a certain aspect that I explained, yet I would be asked to defend the merit of the quote, as if I identified myself with it. When I stressed that the quote is not my idea, another nonsense jumps in claiming "contradictions." Looks like Dark Ages revisited.


In other words, you don't even know what quoting out of context means.

Sledge
6th February 2011, 01:24 PM
What point are you trying to make, epix?

epix
6th February 2011, 01:38 PM
In other words, you don't even know what quoting out of context means.
Quoting out of context means intentional abridging of a content in order to alter the meaning of what is being said in the whole. But I didn't do any abridging, coz Einstein's quotes exist in multitudes, and I just copy/pasted one of his quotes from the list called "Albert Einstein's Quotes."

An example of classic "out of context" case was your reply. You missed the the toilet bowl by a couple of yards.

timhau
6th February 2011, 01:43 PM
Quoting out of context means intentional abridging of a content in order to alter the meaning of what is being said in the whole. But I didn't do any abridging, coz Einstein's quotes exist in multitudes, and I just copy/pasted one of his quotes from the list called "Albert Einstein's Quotes."

Ah, so the context of your quotes was that list. Brilliant.

epix
6th February 2011, 01:59 PM
Ah, so the context of your quotes was that list. Brilliant.
LOL. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Never mind . . .

Dinwar
6th February 2011, 02:01 PM
No, I don't. Illuminate me.You claim to not know what Einstein meant. Yet this entire thread (with the exception of a brief sidetrack) is built around you attempting to interpret what Einstein meant. It's either-or--either you can, or you can't.

Quoting out of context means intentional abridging of a content in order to alter the meaning of what is being said in the whole. But I didn't do any abridging, coz Einstein's quotes exist in multitudes, and I just copy/pasted one of his quotes from the list called "Albert Einstein's Quotes." The fact that someone else quoted him out of context does not make their error a valid context for Einstein's quote. Or, to be more precise, it doesn't make the context a valid one in which to interpret Einstein's original meaning; it IS a valid context for interpreting the reasons the person who quoted the quote quoted the quote, but that's not what you're attempting to do.


Hello, world. You got to see this to believe it. I quoted an idea, which I found rather strange in its literal version and also illogical in a certain aspect that I explained, yet I would be asked to defend the merit of the quote, as if I identified myself with it. When I stressed that the quote is not my idea, another nonsense jumps in claiming "contradictions."There was a specific action I was calling a contradiction (see above). The rest isn't. And no one's asking you to defend the merits of the quote--what we're asking you to do is to defend your interpretation, which, it has been argued, is neither a valid literal interpretation or a valid contextual interpretation.

Dr. Keith
6th February 2011, 02:16 PM
It's not wise to take on the symbol (or even god) of 20th century science, but there may be an exemption.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
~ Albert Einstein ~

It's seems to be outright foolish to argue with Herr Professor in his own game, but that's what needs to be done, coz something doesn't jibe in the quote.

a) Science - Religion = Lame
b) Religion - Science = Blind

The problem becomes more visible when the terms are substituted with numbers.

a) 5 - 2 = 3
b) 2 - 5 = -3

The problem would go away, if the following comparison holds true:

Comp1: 3 is to Lame as -3 is to Blind.

But is it really so? I think that the comparison should read

Comp2: 3 is to Lame as -3 is to NOT Lame.

Does anyone agree that Comp2 is more logical than Comp.1? Or was great thinker Albert Einstein really dead right implying that if it were not for religion, science would be limping along unaided by the faith in God's omniscience and His kind decision to share His wisdom with Man and that the pope can't ever see the face of God without specially constructed laser-guided binoculars equipped with a homing device?

This whole post is a logical fail. But what bothers me most is that you have convinced others to discuss your illogical assumptions with very little pushback on the assumptions.

There was some mention of the how the quoted words represent nonlinear concepts, but I don't recall any mention of the fact that there is no support for using subtraction to represent the word without.

The best example I can think of is:

"chips without salsa are bland"

Whatever this means, it does not translate into:

Chips - Salsa = Bland

You can't subtract salsa from chips. Chips are made of corn and lard, salsa of tomato and peppers.

Likewise, you can't subtract religion from science or vice versa. Furthermore, that is not what Einstein said, so to call it illogical is not an indictment of him.

Not that this will help much, but I hate to see people talking about something in mathematical terms that don't fit the problem at hand.

epix
6th February 2011, 02:22 PM
The simple facts of history are that we over-estimated the amount of knowledge lost during the Dark Ages (~500 to 1000 AD). - Dinwar

So, what, we lost some knowledge but not all? What is your ultimate point? The church didn't succeed in eradicating all scientific knowledge? Yay!
Scientific knowledge acquired by who? By the atheists of antiquity? After all that brainwashing by the cardinals of atheism who paint religion as an insurmountable obstacle to gain any knowledge -- probably not even that which would set apart Homo neanderthalensis from Homo sapiens on non-genetic level -- suddenly, "the church didn't succeed in eradicating all scientific knowledge."

TheGoldcountry
6th February 2011, 02:38 PM
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. What "cardinals of atheism" do you refer to? I see 1900 years of Roman church oligarchy. Other than Islam, I see no opposition to Christianity. And I don't oppose Christianity! I oppose those who push forward a political agenda in the name of Christianity.

HatRack
6th February 2011, 02:39 PM
epix,

In response to your OP, I am a bit baffled as to your use of mathematical summation as a tool for linguistic analysis (perhaps it's time to stop conversing with doronshadmi).

I think that Einstein uses the word religion to refer to the feeling of wonderment, rather than to any specific belief system as in our common usage of the word. In other words, the sentence "science without religion is lame" has a similar meaning to the following Einstein quote:

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.

Now, in the sentence "religion without science is blind", Einstein is saying that this feeling of wonderment has no chance of making progress on its own. Scientific inquiry is needed to carefully study the phenomenon of the natural universe.

There are no logical problems here if you think of this in terms of a "has a" relationship. If someone does not use scientific inquiry to learn about the natural world, then that person is blindly guessing as to what the truth really is. If someone does not experience the feeling of wonderment, then that person has a lame existence.

I don't know about others, but wonderment is what drives me to learn science and mathematics, although there can be other motives I suppose. Similarly, I believe that without the scientific method, we would be blindly guessing as to what reality is. Thus, I tend to agree with and appreciate this quote from Einstein.

And once again, associating the words in this quote with numbers and attempting to sum them doesn't make a lot of sense.

bobc
6th February 2011, 03:10 PM
Einstein's quote is worth thinking about and analysing. Certainly it is true that from the Greeks through to pre-industrial era a motivation for scientific inquiry was to gain understanding of what was believed to be a divinely created Universe.

It is interesting to see how people like Galileo were fostered as people exploring the work of god, it is only when science came directly in conflict with church dogma that the church gained a reputation for oppressing science.

By the industrial era though the religious aspect of science was largely gone, and I disagree with Einsteins statement that all scientists must have some religious or spiritual inspiration. There are many reasons now to do science independently of religion.

noreligion
6th February 2011, 03:58 PM
The arguments implied (strongly) in the above quotes are all false. The first implies that the church suppressed all knowledge

No, your reading into it what you wish to see. That is not what I said. Since you are going to continue putting your words in my mouth, time for youto go on ignore. Is that fair?

Dinwar
6th February 2011, 04:00 PM
Dude, do whatever you want. If you're going to insist on the tactic of argument by implication, then saying "But I never said that!!!" when someone calls you out on it, I don't consider being on your ignore list much of a loss.

Foster Zygote
6th February 2011, 04:01 PM
All he said was that the church wasn't entirely responsible for the loss of scientific knowledge. Your statement is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. Hence, it is a strawman.

Quite true. One of the factors that made Europe such a harsh place to live during the "Dark Ages" was the collapse of the civilizing order imposed by the Roman Empire. The rise of numerous warlords surviving by literally raping and pillaging the populace can't be ignored as a contributing factor.

noreligion
6th February 2011, 04:08 PM
This:



Dinwar's statement was:



All he said was that the church wasn't entirely responsible for the loss of scientific knowledge. Your statement is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. Hence, it is a strawman.



You're going to be waiting an awfully long time for that apology. The only one who has made any false accusations here is you.



Nope. You're the only one who is having trouble reading.



His point is that as skeptics, we should seek the truth rather than misrepresenting what actually happened. I'm no expert in history, but Dinwar's explanation sounds much more reasonable than its logical negation (that all lost scientific knowledge was due to the church).

He now says he is basing his argument on his reading of what I said. I never said the church is responsible for all the scientific advancement that was lost (or not made). The church is responsible for the vast majority though and if Dinwar doesn't want to apologize for misrepresenting what I said and giving my words his bias, that is fine with me. He is on ignore now.

epix
6th February 2011, 04:13 PM
epix,

In response to your OP, I am a bit baffled as to your use of mathematical summation as a tool for linguistic analysis (perhaps it's time to stop conversing with doronshadmi).
LOL. I guess your escape from "doronhood" wasn't a stroll in the park, coz the OP deals with subtraction/difference and not with summation.

I think that Einstein uses the word religion to refer to the feeling of wonderment, rather than to any specific belief system as in our common usage of the word.
Duh. No traces of RCC detected.


Now, in the sentence "religion without science is blind", Einstein is saying that this feeling of wonderment has no chance of making progress on its own.

No. It is just your opinion. This is purely your interpretation, which strangely suggests to me that the wonderment called "religion" has no chance of making progress on its own when science departs.


There are no logical problems here if you think of this in terms of a "has a" relationship. If someone does not use scientific inquiry to learn about the natural world, then that person is blindly guessing as to what the truth really is. If someone does not experience the feeling of wonderment, then that person has a lame existence.


I don't know about others, but wonderment is what drives me to learn science and mathematics, although there can be other motives I suppose. Similarly, I believe that without the scientific method, we would be blindly guessing as to what reality is. Thus, I tend to agree with and appreciate this quote from Einstein.

Look, Einstein was not Ezekiel or Isaiah to be in great need of such a vast interpretation. Science is strict in its tongue and Einstein was a scientists.

And once again, associating the words in this quote with numbers and attempting to sum them doesn't make a lot of sense.
Once again, the argument was about a difference represented by '-' not '+'.

What's wrong with assigning variables, such as x and y, to words and then manipulating the variables?

$x$y(Owns(Mary, x) Cat(x) Owns(Mary,y) Cat(y)
(x=y)) ?
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~mooney/cs343/slide-handouts/fopc.4.pdf

Foster Zygote
6th February 2011, 04:26 PM
Science is strict in its tongue and Einstein was a scientists.

And he spoke with the precise language of science when presenting scientific ideas to his peers for review. Are you suggesting that no scientist should ever speak creatively or poetically when describing the emotions that they feel regarding the revelations of science, even when writing a personal letter to an individual?

Beth
6th February 2011, 04:37 PM
epix,

In response to your OP, I am a bit baffled as to your use of mathematical summation as a tool for linguistic analysis (perhaps it's time to stop conversing with doronshadmi).

I think that Einstein uses the word religion to refer to the feeling of wonderment, rather than to any specific belief system as in our common usage of the word. In other words, the sentence "science without religion is lame" has a similar meaning to the following Einstein quote:



Now, in the sentence "religion without science is blind", Einstein is saying that this feeling of wonderment has no chance of making progress on its own. Scientific inquiry is needed to carefully study the phenomenon of the natural universe.

There are no logical problems here if you think of this in terms of a "has a" relationship. If someone does not use scientific inquiry to learn about the natural world, then that person is blindly guessing as to what the truth really is. If someone does not experience the feeling of wonderment, then that person has a lame existence.
That's not quite how I would phrase things, but I wanted to say I think your assessment is spot on. Both here and in your previous post.

HatRack
6th February 2011, 04:41 PM
LOL. I guess your escape from "doronhood" wasn't a stroll in the park, coz the OP deals with subtraction/difference and not with summation.

No. Summing a and -b is the same as subtracting b from a. What you say is the difference of 5 and 2 I say is the sum of 5 and -2. They mean the same thing. Speaking of summation, do you still believe that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... is less than 1? :rolleyes:

Duh. No traces of RCC detected.

No. It is just your opinion. This is purely your interpretation, which strangely suggests to me that the wonderment called "religion" has no chance of making progress on its own when science departs.

Yes, it's my interpretation.

Look, Einstein was not Ezekiel or Isaiah to be in great need of such a vast interpretation. Science is strict in its tongue and Einstein was a scientists.

What are you even trying to suggest here? That because someone is a scientist, everything they say must be taken literally?

Once again, the argument was about a difference represented by '-' not '+'.

What's wrong with assigning variables, such as x and y, to words and then manipulating the variables?

$x$y(Owns(Mary, x) Cat(x) Owns(Mary,y) Cat(y)
(x=y)) ?
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~mooney/cs343/slide-handouts/fopc.4.pdf

Nope, you were not using predicate calculus. You were assigning variables to words and using arithmetic, which is complete nonsense. It's worse than that actually, you were assigning numbers to words, which is even more nonsensical.

joobz
6th February 2011, 04:43 PM
And he spoke with the precise language of science when presenting scientific ideas to his peers for review. Are you suggesting that no scientist should ever speak creatively or poetically when describing the emotions that they feel regarding the revelations of science, even when writing a personal letter to an individual?

IT seems scientists are only allowed to talk like Mr. Spock.

That would explain why my wife hates my pillow talk. And I thought she was being illogical.

HatRack
6th February 2011, 04:50 PM
That's not quite how I would phrase things, but I wanted to say I think your assessment is spot on. Both here and in your previous post.

Thanks for the support. Now that I look back at my post, I would've phrased things differently as well. :o But, glad to know someone agrees with me.

epix
6th February 2011, 05:41 PM
Nope, you were not using predicate calculus. You were assigning variables to words and using arithmetic, which is complete nonsense. It's worse than that actually, you were assigning numbers to words, which is even more nonsensical.
There was a reason for that. I kind of touched up on the issue here.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6846348&postcount=42
I thought it would more demonstrative than variables, but a poster still managed to call the result of the difference 3 and -3 arbitrarily chosen numbers. That makes the escape from "doronhood" very difficult, probably impossible.

I didn't use predicate calculus mainly coz I never indicated that possibility, not even remote one. I just copy/pasted the link for you to see that the idea of assigning variables to words isn't that nonsensical as you thought it was. Of course, it's hard to expect that someone would assign x to Religion and y to Science -- words taken out of Albert Einstein quote -- and do some subtraction, rather than to listen to some wild interpretations tailored according to this and that dogma.

For x > y:

If x-y=z Then y-x=-z.

But when you apply the true implication to the quote, you get a different result. That was the "trailer point." But it was preceded by a large-font quote that started with "Science without(-) religion is lame." Obviously, there was only a couple of posters who were able to clear this "heresy" after a while and proceed to the point.

Dr. Keith
7th February 2011, 10:49 AM
I didn't use predicate calculus mainly coz I never indicated that possibility, not even remote one. I just copy/pasted the link for you to see that the idea of assigning variables to words isn't that nonsensical as you thought it was. Of course, it's hard to expect that someone would assign x to Religion and y to Science -- words taken out of Albert Einstein quote -- and do some subtraction, rather than to listen to some wild interpretations tailored according to this and that dogma.

But why subtraction? He didn't say "Science less Religion" or "The difference between Science and Religion" he said "Science without Religion." Without is not logically connected with subtraction in any way.

Potatoes without gravy /= P-G

Chips without Salsa /= C-S

Fish without Chips /= F-C

The words simply do not translate into the simplified equations you have written. I don't know if you fail to understand the English or the mathematical concepts, but your translation is simply illogical, so any conclusions or assertions you make based on that translation will likely be illogical. Without does not mean subtract.

HatRack
7th February 2011, 11:01 AM
I didn't use predicate calculus mainly coz I never indicated that possibility, not even remote one. I just copy/pasted the link for you to see that the idea of assigning variables to words isn't that nonsensical as you thought it was. Of course, it's hard to expect that someone would assign x to Religion and y to Science -- words taken out of Albert Einstein quote -- and do some subtraction, rather than to listen to some wild interpretations tailored according to this and that dogma.

In addition to using subtraction in a nonsensical way as has been pointed out, you are also using mathematical equality in a nonsensical way. There's a subtle difference between the word "is" in the following sentences: "2 + 2 is 4" and "the sky is blue". In the former, "is" refers to mathematical equality, so we can write the equivalent statement 2 + 2 = 4. In the latter, "is" refers to blue being a property of the sky, it does NOT say that sky = blue. They are distinct concepts.

Thus, your conversion of the statement "science without religion is lame" into "science - religion = lame" is invalid. "Is" is used in the latter sense here. Perhaps you and Bill Clinton should get together and discuss the various shades of meaning the word "is" can take on.

epix
7th February 2011, 03:33 PM
In addition to using subtraction in a nonsensical way as has been pointed out, you are also using mathematical equality in a nonsensical way. There's a subtle difference between the word "is" in the following sentences: "2 + 2 is 4" and "the sky is blue". In the former, "is" refers to mathematical equality, so we can write the equivalent statement 2 + 2 = 4. In the latter, "is" refers to blue being a property of the sky, it does NOT say that sky = blue. They are distinct concepts.

Thus, your conversion of the statement "science without religion is lame" into "science - religion = lame" is invalid. "Is" is used in the latter sense here. Perhaps you and Bill Clinton should get together and discuss the various shades of meaning the word "is" can take on.

You messed it up big time. LOL. The nonsensical way was suspected, but never proved as being nonsensical. The terms of the "proof" are ridiculous, and your reference to IS as "=" is well clear of the real problem.

You failed to see the real subtle difference that concerns the word "without." In the Einstein quote, the word refers to a separation rather then to the subtraction used in Without John and Paul, there would be only five of us left and that's not enough for the job to be done, for example. The word "without" refers to a separation in non-quantitative way with a negative consequence. Basically, you have joined components AB. If you separate them, then "A without B" and vice versa are considered states insufficient for the task that only AB can complete. If A can walk and B can see, then A without B is blind and B without A is lame. That's all what was to it.

It all works fine, until you substitute B=Religion and A=Science ot the other way. Then the Gate of Hell crack open... LOL.

So, we at least learned that the belief in God doesn't prevent anyone to become a great scientist. On the contrary.

Foster Zygote
7th February 2011, 03:39 PM
So, we at least learned that the belief in God doesn't prevent anyone to become a great scientist.
Who claimed that it does?

On the contrary.
Lack of belief in God doesn't prevent anyone from becoming a great scientist, either.

The rest of the above post is gibberish.

KingMerv00
7th February 2011, 03:41 PM
So, we at least learned that the belief in God doesn't prevent anyone to become a great scientist. On the contrary.

You had nothing to do with that. I'm pretty sure most of us learned that a long time ago.

KingMerv00
7th February 2011, 03:43 PM
science without religion is lame.

Found the error.

Sledge
7th February 2011, 03:44 PM
So by mangling both the English language and maths, epix arrives a conclusion that he thinks supports his beliefs. I for one am shocked.

Dr. Keith
7th February 2011, 03:45 PM
You messed it up big time.

If your OP had a clear message, a point even, we wouldn't all be out here discussing your algebraic errors. A thoughtful discussion of Einstein's quote, its context, and its meaning did not require a dip into your mathematical mistakes.

You are the one who messed it up big time.

You were the OP who started all this psuedo algebra crap. Blaming others for your mistakes is immature.

ETA: Despite your mangles, I appreciate those who brought context and meaning to these words in their responses. While my responses dealt mainly with my frustrations, I actually did take something from this thread.

HatRack
7th February 2011, 04:25 PM
You messed it up big time. LOL.

Let's see if you can back this claim up somewhere in the rest of your post.

The nonsensical way was suspected, but never proved as being nonsensical. The terms of the "proof" are ridiculous,

Incoherent.

and your reference to IS as "=" is well clear of the real problem.

No. It's at the heart of your faulty "translation" of the Einstein quote into mathematical equations.

You failed to see the real subtle difference that concerns the word "without."

Enlighten me.

In the Einstein quote, the word refers to a separation rather then to the subtraction used in Without John and Paul, there would be only five of us left and that's not enough for the job to be done, for example.

I'm well aware that there is no "subtraction" going on in the Einstein quote. You are the one who equated the word "without" with mathematical subtraction, not me.

The word "without" refers to a separation in non-quantitative way with a negative consequence.

Again, I am well aware that there is nothing quantitative about Einstein's quote. You are the one who attempted to describe it in terms of a mathematical equation, not me.

So, we at least learned that the belief in God doesn't prevent anyone to become a great scientist. On the contrary.

And who here claimed otherwise? There's been great scientists who did believe in a god, and there's been great scientists who did not believe in a god. If that's the entire point of this thread, then fine. But I could never have extracted that from your OP.

And Einstein's quote is hardly good support for that point anyway. As others including myself have said here, his idea of religion and god was not the same as most people's.

Going back to the beginning of your reply:

You messed it up big time. LOL.

All you managed to prove in your reply was that you messed up big time. Almost the entire content of your post was mine and another member's posts about your nonsensical OP parroted back to us.

Dinwar
7th February 2011, 06:13 PM
I thought it would more demonstrative than variables, but a poster still managed to call the result of the difference 3 and -3 arbitrarily chosen numbers. That makes the escape from "doronhood" very difficult, probably impossible.
If you're referring to me here (and there's enough contextual evidence to strongly indicate you are), please say so. I do not, however, consider 3 and -3 to be arbitrary. It's everything ELSE about the system you proposed that I consider arbitrary. And I mean that literally--I consider "5", "2", "-", and "=" all to be arbitrarilly assigned, for no good reason other than your attempt to cram a poetic turn of phrase into your preconcieved idea of what would best support your possition.

Allow me to explain. The numbers 5 and 2 are completely arbitrary--they could literally have been any number, from any numbering system, real or imaginary, simple or complex, rational or irrational. You pulled them out of somewhere brown and smelly. The minus sign is arbitrary because Einstein did NOT say "If you take religion away from science"--he was arguing that the two are linked, somehow, in a rather nebulous way, and to state that he meant it as a mathematical equation, in complete disregard for context, is just as random as to say he meant it as an exercise for the tongue for people about to give scientific speaches. The equalls sign is also arbitrary--there is nothing in the quote to suggest that it should be =, rather than > or <. The only reason 3 and -3 are not arbitrary is that once you've accepted all of the arbitrary assumptions you made the only way they can possibly even make sense is to have the answer be 3 and -3. That doesn't make those numbers RIGHT, just a necessary product of your tortured attempt to twist logic.

What you fail to understand, epix, is the rich history of poetry in science. Eurasmus Darwin was a poet--as well as a respected biologist. Gould's works are often very poetic, which is one reason they're more easily accessable by the general public than, say, those of Ward. Dawkins often allows his proes to become very purple. Watch an episode of Cosmos and you'll note many times when Sagan uses poetic devices to illustrate a point. When a scientist waxes poetic they don't intend their statements to be taken as equations--they specifically intend their statements to be taken non-literally. Einstein did not mean "If you remove religion from science, science can no longer walk", which would be the most literal interpretation of his first sentence--the very concept is nonsensical. Bodies of knowledge, and methodologies, do not walk. He meant that science, lacking a religious aspect, looses something, and is less than science WITH that religious aspect (he was wrong, but that's another issue entirely).

By attempting to take Einstein's quote as a literal and mathematical argument, you've completely missed the (very, VERY obvious) point. It really doesn't matter what your logic is--it's based on a fundamental error, and therefore can only reach the correct conclusion by random chance.

So, we at least learned that the belief in God doesn't prevent anyone to become a great scientist. On the contrary.
Look up "Non-overlapping magisteria", or NOMA. This is a much easier and much more logical way to demonstrate this concept. And, even better, the paper Gould outlined his thoughts in is intended to be more or less a stand-alone paper, meaning the paper is the context (with the acknowledgement that all literary works are most properly viewed through the lense of the culture they were written in, obviously). You can actually use the writer's arguments to support this conclusion, rather than making massive numbers of assumptions and putting words in their mouths as you have to with the Einstein quote.

joobz
7th February 2011, 06:46 PM
So, we at least learned that the belief in God doesn't prevent anyone to become a great scientist.
That's a rather banal conclusion.
You might as well say that one's preference for football over basketball doesn't prevent one from becoming a great cook.

On the contrary.
On, the contrary, what?
That belief in god is required to be a great scientist?
That's not true. (see Richard Feynman, Watson and Crick, Linus Pauling...)

Or on the contrary, believing in science does prevent one from being a great religious leader?

That's not true either (see Pope John Paul II)



So what is your point?

Tumblehome
7th February 2011, 07:55 PM
It's not wise to take on the symbol (or even god) of 20th century science, but there may be an exemption.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
~ Albert Einstein ~


More to the point, does understanding metaphors progress without recognizing them as metaphors?;)

I'm not sure what you're getting at, either. Is it that Einstein was too imbued with religion to make his discoveries valid?

slingblade
7th February 2011, 08:10 PM
Does Epix understand that the connotation of "lame" in the Einstein quote was "halt, crippled, unable to walk or progress," rather than "stupid, useless, boring, or soooo gay?"

Foster Zygote
7th February 2011, 08:40 PM
Does Epix understand that the connotation of "lame" in the Einstein quote was "halt, crippled, unable to walk or progress," rather than "stupid, useless, boring, or soooo gay?"

Totally... not!

simper
7th February 2011, 09:21 PM
"Can Science Progress Without Religion?"

3 pages for such a stupid question. I take my hat off to you Epix.

simper
7th February 2011, 09:24 PM
OOh my response makes it 4. Fabulous.

epix
7th February 2011, 09:39 PM
"Can Science Progress Without Religion?"

3 pages for such a stupid question. I take my hat off to you Epix.

All questions that we don't have answers for are stupid, otherwise the "honor" of being stupid belongs to us.
Archangel Gabriel

Sledge
7th February 2011, 09:44 PM
epix couldn't get to a point if provided with an electric pencil sharpener and an infinitely long pencil.
Me

simper
7th February 2011, 09:54 PM
All questions that we don't have answers for are stupid, otherwise the "honor" of being stupid belongs to us.
Archangel Gabriel

I cant compete with a quote from the great Archangel Gabriel so perhaps you win by default. Unless of course the answer to your question is so obviously "no" that it goes without saying and Gabe is just a silly billy. I think all questions have answers even if they are difficult to work out. This one is not.

Foster Zygote
7th February 2011, 09:56 PM
All questions that we don't have answers for are stupid, otherwise the "honor" of being stupid belongs to us.
Archangel Gabriel

Is epix now quoting movies or comic books or whatever to support his arguments?

timhau
7th February 2011, 10:11 PM
All questions that we don't have answers for are stupid, otherwise the "honor" of being stupid belongs to us.
Archangel Gabriel

A-ha! Angels are stupid, they even admit it themselves!

"[t]he "honor" of being stupid belongs to us."
- Archangel Gabriel

devnull
7th February 2011, 10:16 PM
The most humourous thing for me is the desperation theists have to ride on science's coat-tails.

They so desperately want the legitimacy of science without the work.

Irony
7th February 2011, 10:18 PM
All questions that we don't have answers for are stupid, otherwise the "honor" of being stupid belongs to us.
Archangel Gabriel

Ah, but your question does have an answer.

"Can science progress without religion?"
Yes, yes it can. Rather like how a car can progress without a anchovies in the gas tank.

epix
7th February 2011, 10:24 PM
What you fail to understand, epix, is the rich history of poetry in science.
Maybe it's because

Science without religion is lame.
Religion without science is blind.

doesn't rhyme -- not even "arbitrarily."



By attempting to take Einstein's quote as a literal and mathematical argument, you've completely missed the (very, VERY obvious) point. It really doesn't matter what your logic is--it's based on a fundamental error, and therefore can only reach the correct conclusion by random chance.


I was thinking what would be the most ridiculous way to mess with the quote and decided on assigning numerical values to Science and Religion and apply "without" as minus. But, as I suspected, the atheists found far more ridiculous item in the OP; namely the first part of the large-font quote saying that "science without religion is lame." Obviously, they couldn't trash Einstein, so they needed to "interpret" the meaning of it in a similar way the RCC attempts to cover up many contradictions in the Bible. Since the second part of the quote casts negative light on religion, it didn't need any interpretation, only the first part. LOL. When all the interpreting was done and the "correct meaning" securely arrived at, the attention turned toward the subtraction, which I asked about whether it had any merit.

Unlike you, TraneWreck found a cool and short way to deal with the arbitrary numerical assignment. He simply assigned zero to Religion.

I just repost the difference between quality and quantity with respect to the word "without."

In the Einstein quote, the word refers to a separation rather then to the subtraction used in Without John and Paul, there would be only five of us left and that's not enough for the job to be done, for example. The word "without" refers to a separation in non-quantitative way with a negative consequence. Basically, you have joined components AB. If you separate them, then "A without B" and vice versa are considered states insufficient for the task that only AB can complete. If A can walk and B can see, then A without B is blind and B without A is lame. That's all what was to it.

slingblade
7th February 2011, 10:46 PM
Maybe it's because

Science without religion is lame.
Religion without science is blind.

doesn't rhyme -- not even "arbitrarily."

Not all poetry rhymes.

"Poetic license" doesn't refer to poetry, alone.

"Poetry" doesn't even always refer to words. A photo can be poetic, justice can be poetic, a dancer can be "poetry in motion."

It's usually those who've read very little poetry, and usually haven't composed any, who think it's only a poem if it rhymes.

I've won 5 prizes for my poetry.

Not one of them rhymed.

Dinwar
7th February 2011, 10:50 PM
Maybe it's because

Science without religion is lame.
Religion without science is blind.

doesn't rhyme -- not even "arbitrarily."Okay, I'm REALLY hoping this is a Poe....

Obviously, they couldn't trash Einstein,Bull. Science doesn't have gods.

so they needed to "interpret" the meaning of it in a similar way the RCC attempts to cover up many contradictions in the Bible. Except that this isn't what's happening here. YOU are going through some remarkable linguistic and mathematical contortions to attempt to prove that Einstein said what you want him to say. The rest of us are saying A) that's not what he said, when you look at it in context, B) it doesn't really matter anyway, because we're not blindly following the guy to begin with, and C) you're not making any sense. This statement is pure projection.

When all the interpreting was done and the "correct meaning" securely arrived at, the attention turned toward the subtraction, which I asked about whether it had any merit.The reason we're focusing on that is because that's the only part that makes ANY sense. The rest of your interpretation is nonsensical and built on completely random assumptions. If you re-define things enough, yes, you can get anything to say anything. But you don't get to then yell at us about how we misinterpret the quote.

Unlike you, TraneWreck found a cool and short way to deal with the arbitrary numerical assignment. He simply assigned zero to Religion. Good for him. Yet another reason you're wrong. Shall we make a list?

rkzenrage
7th February 2011, 11:03 PM
Science without religion is unchanged.

Halfcentaur
7th February 2011, 11:09 PM
The religious are just monopolizing the sense of awe and wonder at the universe we're capable of and claiming it for theists and religion based on a premature assumption.

Feeling "spiritual" is an aesthetic quality at the heart of beauty and elegance, it's natural to grasp around at straws desperately trying to make sense of this sensation of wonder, but seizing on anything to do with it as long as it's unexplainable and continues to perpetuate that intangible awe is what religion does best, with circular logic and self perpetuating riddles.

Case in point,... a magical ghost self that resides in each of us that get's to live on forever and ever because it sounds better than going away when we die the same way we were gone before we were born.

Curiosity and wonder drive the mind to investigate, which is at the heart of Einstein's quote. It's no coincidence that religion is invested in that sense of wonder, because religion is one of the easiest dead ends to fall in when you're trying to make sense of the overwhelming scale of reality and the staggering awe that comes with realizing these things.

Science can certainly flourish without religion, but like religion, science is dependent upon the curiosity of us all.

Just as Star Wars and Star Trek come from a single shared ancestor, and Civil War reenactors and live action role players too share common lines of descent, so too do the more poetic concepts of science and religion.

But as Jefferson said to Adams:
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter

Then we will have science to guide us one our way to the truly wondrous nature of reality, barring some other dead ends,...

epix
7th February 2011, 11:32 PM
The rest of your interpretation is nonsensical and built on completely random assumptions.
No, it wasn't any case of random assumption; it was all preconceived. Read again what I wrote:

I was thinking what would be the most ridiculous way to mess with the quote and decided on assigning numerical values to Science and Religion and apply "without" as minus.

I also used the large font for the quote and "catchy" title for the OP for a purpose. As I said, only TraneWreck didn't go for the bait. He just changed the numerical assignment to suit better his world view. (I bet he would rather drink goat piss than touch RC Cola.)

Andrew Wiggin
7th February 2011, 11:41 PM
As usual old Albert gets quoted out of context.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. 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 cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Full article here (http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm).
Einstein can't help being so wordy and somewhat vague.
He's a German intellectual after all. ;)

I believe the carbosilicate amorph has nailed it. Quoted for truth.

epix
7th February 2011, 11:50 PM
Not all poetry rhymes.

"Poetic license" doesn't refer to poetry, alone.

"Poetry" doesn't even always refer to words. A photo can be poetic, justice can be poetic, a dancer can be "poetry in motion."

It's usually those who've read very little poetry, and usually haven't composed any, who think it's only a poem if it rhymes.

I've won 5 prizes for my poetry.

Not one of them rhymed.

science without religion is lame
said einsteiN who is Man of Fame
religion without science is blind
and what else was on His Mind?

Irony
8th February 2011, 12:07 AM
science without religion is lame
said einsteiN who is Man of Fame
religion without science is blind
and what else was on His Mind?

*throws a tomato*
Forced rhymes are not poetry.
Who cares what he thought?

slingblade
8th February 2011, 12:33 AM
science without religion is lame
said einsteiN who is Man of Fame
religion without science is blind
and what else was on His Mind?

That's not poetry.
That's doggerel.

Never mind the fact that it's not even a response to what I said, though you quoted me.

Aitch
8th February 2011, 01:08 AM
That's not poetry.
That's doggerel.

Never mind the fact that it's not even a response to what I said, though you quoted me.

This isn't a response either, but it's a better poem (I use the word loosely;))


There's a wonderful family called Stein,
There's Gert and there's Epp and there's Ein;
Gert's poems are bunk,
Epp's statues are junk,
And no one can understand Ein.

timhau
8th February 2011, 02:42 AM
science without religion is lame
said einsteiN who is Man of Fame
religion without science is blind
and what else was on His Mind?

His rhymes are to poetry what his thinking is to logic.

Dave Rogers
8th February 2011, 02:49 AM
a) Science - Religion = Lame
b) Religion - Science = Blind

The problem becomes more visible when the terms are substituted with numbers.

a) 5 - 2 = 3
b) 2 - 5 = -3


The problem here is not in the numerical pair of equations, but in the pair expressed in words; specifically, equating the sign "-" with the word "without". Stating that an object is without a second, unrelated object does not imply that the first object formerly possessed the unrelated object and has now been deprived of it. For example, a bicycle is not normally part of the piscine anatomy, therefore its absence therefrom is not indicative that the bicycle whose presence one would normally expect has, at come point, been removed. Rather, the bicycle was never present, and would not be expected to be present, therefore no subtraction has occurred.

To put it more simply, science without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.

Dave

Mahaha
8th February 2011, 03:11 AM
science without religion is lame
said einsteiN who is Man of Fame
religion without science is blind
and what else was on His Mind?

Oh my, that was disgraceful to poetry.

Gawdzilla
8th February 2011, 04:22 AM
That's not poetry.
That's doggerel.

Never mind the fact that it's not even a response to what I said, though you quoted me.

Damn, Sling, you came THAT close!

"That's not poetry.
That's not even doggerel."

:D

H'ethetheth
8th February 2011, 05:45 AM
3 and -3 are not arbitrary numbers, 5 and 2 are. I decided for the numerical option rather than for the general way involving letters.

For a>b:
a - b = d
b - a = -d

If Science=a and Religion=b and Lame=d, then -d = -Lame and not Blind, as Herr Professor claimed.

Your idea of purely verbal representation being always sufficiently defined so there is never a problem is ridiculous. That's why logic substitutes statements with letters so they could enter special methods, such as the first order logic, to arrive at a provable conclusion.


It's not a case of any dichotomy, but a case of my rather free interpretation of the meaning of the quote. (See pope, binoculars, laser, homing device.) It's a simple stretch but not a dichotomy.You should have gone with sets. Then take a look at what science is and what the overlap is with religion.

As Laplace said: "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la", and neither did Einstein.
So basically science without religion is science, and religion without science is religion.

slingblade
8th February 2011, 08:02 AM
Damn, Sling, you came THAT close!

"That's not poetry.
That's not even doggerel."

:D

Damn it! :(

sphenisc
8th February 2011, 09:04 AM
It's not wise to take on the symbol (or even god) of 20th century science, but there may be an exemption.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
~ Albert Einstein ~

It's seems to be outright foolish to argue with Herr Professor in his own game, but that's what needs to be done, coz something doesn't jibe in the quote.



What's wrong is that he misspoke or is misquoted, what he meant to say was

Science without religion is blind. Religion without science is lame.

tsig
8th February 2011, 09:20 AM
science without religion is lame
said einsteiN who is Man of Fame
religion without science is blind
and what else was on His Mind?

Sorry dude but you've just lost your poetic license.

epix
8th February 2011, 02:33 PM
What's wrong is that he misspoke or is misquoted, what he meant to say was

Science without religion is blind. Religion without science is lame.
Can you post a link to the version of the quote that you think is the correct one? I don't think Einstein was blind to the fact some science had been done even in lamely fashion, but most of the religion had been reading the same book all over again for two millennia or so not seeing anything else.

Foster Zygote
8th February 2011, 03:13 PM
Epix, are you capable of cogently expressing any sort of point regarding the OP?

sphenisc
8th February 2011, 03:36 PM
Can you post a link to the version of the quote that you think is the correct one? I don't think Einstein was blind to the fact some science had been done even in lamely fashion, but most of the religion had been reading the same book all over again for two millennia or so not seeing anything else.

I could link to the OP but I don't see the point since you posted it. :confused:

Mister Earl
8th February 2011, 04:04 PM
Science without religion is science. Religion without science is religion.
There's nothing scientific about religion and there's nothing religious about science.
... this whole premise is "wronger than wrong". The wrongness of Epix's statement has regressed so deeply in the wrong scale that I can only think if it as the square root of negative one. If I were to write a short program for a computer to churn out millions of random wrong statements, I could let it run for years without ever achieving that level of wrongness. That level of wrongness cannot occur in nature. I can only assume that level of wrongness was... unintelligently designed.

epix
8th February 2011, 04:47 PM
Science without religion is science. Religion without science is religion.
There's nothing scientific about religion and there's nothing religious about science.
... this whole premise is "wronger than wrong". The wrongness of Epix's statement has regressed so deeply in the wrong scale that I can only think if it as the square root of negative one. If I were to write a short program for a computer to churn out millions of random wrong statements, I could let it run for years without ever achieving that level of wrongness. That level of wrongness cannot occur in nature. I can only assume that level of wrongness was... unintelligently designed.
What was my statement? That science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind?

You can even comprehend the basic rule, which requires quoting the statement whose merit is being questioned.

What is the "level of wrongness?" Do you mean that you can quantify wrongness? Like Wrongness = 5? How about Righteousness = 2?

gottoseeittobelieveit
:rolleyes:

Dave Rogers
9th February 2011, 02:19 AM
What is the "level of wrongness?" Do you mean that you can quantify wrongness? Like Wrongness = 5? How about Righteousness = 2?

I thought you'd already deduced that Science = 5 and Religion = 2.

Dave

Gawdzilla
9th February 2011, 03:36 AM
I thought you'd already deduced that Science = 5 and Religion = 2.

Dave

Religion is definitely a number 2. :D

epix
9th February 2011, 12:45 PM
I thought you'd already deduced that Science = 5 and Religion = 2.

Dave
I couldn't deduce anything, coz one of your brethren "proved" that the numerical assignment was a pure arbitrary choice. So we can safely conclude that the life of atheism depends on the subscribers of that idea who contradict each other whenever they say something. LOL.

The numerical assignment wasn't arbitrary, coz religion and science mix as well as water and oil. Since I know that you won't be able to figure out the comparison -- and as an atheist, you can't ask God for assistance (not because God doesn't exist, it's because God couldn't parse you request) -- I try to explain it to you.

Science and religion are opposites with respect to the acquisition of knowledge; they are like Yes and No. But Yes and No can be assigned to Science and Religion according to the circumstances such as this question:

Q: Can science forward Man's understanding of his origin?

A: Science = Yes

Q: Can religion forward Man's understanding of his origin?

A: Religion = No

By a convention used by computer scientists, Yes=1 and No=0. That transforms the word assignment to a numerical assignment:

Science = 1
Religion = 0

(TraneWreck came very close when he wrote that Religion=0 and Science could be any number.) :cool::cool:

Even though science and religion seems to be pretty different, Einstein united them in his quote. And so:

IF Science=1 AND Religion=0 THEN ScienceReligion=10

Now when you want to uniquely separate Science from Religion, meaning to pull ScienceReligion from each other not to arrive back at 1 and 0 again, you need to use prime factors, coz there is only one:

ScienceReligion = 10 = 5 x 2 = Science x Religion => Science=5, Religion=2

So, the choice couldn't be arbitrary. Or could be? How about

ScienceReligion = 10 = 2 x 5?

Why would Science=5 and not Science=2?

Can you mind climb above 70 IQ and figure out the reason why Science=5 and not Science=2?

Stop reading the Bible all the time looking for contradictions and do some figuring, Dave . . .

joobz
9th February 2011, 12:51 PM
I couldn't deduce anything, coz one of your brethren "proved" that the numerical assignment was a pure arbitrary choice. So we can safely conclude that the life of atheism depends on the subscribers of that idea who contradict each other whenever they say something. LOL.
I don't understand this.

The numerical assignment wasn't arbitrary, coz religion and science mix as well as water and oil.
I think you need to learn the definition of numerical and arbitrary. Because your first part of the sentence doesn't make any logical sense to the second part of the sentence.

Since I know that you won't be able to figure out the comparison -- and as an atheist, you can't ask God for assistance (not because God doesn't exist, it's because God couldn't parse you request) -- I try to explain it to you.
Are you saying that I need to hear voices in my head in order to understand you?

Foster Zygote
9th February 2011, 01:06 PM
Can you mind climb above 70 IQ and figure out the reason why Science=5 and not Science=2?

Can you put down the bong for a while?

Foster Zygote
9th February 2011, 01:07 PM
I don't understand this.

It's easy: 1+0=10

epix
9th February 2011, 01:21 PM
I don't understand this.
You're not expected to.


I think you need to learn the definition of numerical and arbitrary. Because your first part of the sentence doesn't make any logical sense to the second part of the sentence.
You need to learn to read the whole posts to get familiar with the context before making comments. The text that followed explained the meaning of the couple of sentences. Look again and see that there are numbers there, which are not arbitrary. In other words, there is only one prime factor of 10 and that's 5x2. So the numbers 5 and 2 cannot be arbitrary with respect to 10 and its prime factorization.


Are you saying that I need to hear voices in my head in order to understand you?
No. All you need to do is to get familiar with the meaning of the word "context" and apply it.

joobz
9th February 2011, 01:25 PM
You're not expected to.
Then why write?
If you write incomprehensible nonsense, it is only to your detriment, not mine.


You need to learn to read the whole posts to get familiar with the context before making comments.
Don't need to.
If the lead in argument is nonsense, nothing that follows will change that.

Dave Rogers
9th February 2011, 01:40 PM
Stop reading the Bible all the time looking for contradictions and do some figuring, Dave . . .

Why would I need to go as far as the Bible, when you're providing an unending supply?

Dave

Foster Zygote
9th February 2011, 01:44 PM
Epix, could you please solve the following equation?

1+0=?

epix
9th February 2011, 01:44 PM
It's easy: 1+0=10
Aha. Here's your problem. The difference between union and addition no comprende.

I'll start a thread that you'll feel entirely comfortable with. Let me see...

Title: Religion Sucks.
Body: Religion sucks. Anyone agree?

Since '+' means positive and '-' negative, you get your chance to use the symbol '+' without embarrasing yourself.

Foster Zygote
9th February 2011, 01:49 PM
Aha. Here's your problem. The difference between union and addition no comprende.

I'll start a thread that you'll feel entirely comfortable with. Let me see...

Title: Religion Sucks.
Body: Religion sucks. Anyone agrees?

Since '+' means positive and '-' negative, you get your chance to use the symbol '+' without embarrasing yourself.

I get it. If I have 5 priests and 5 imams, then I have 55 priestimams. That's perfectly logical.

KingMerv00
9th February 2011, 02:00 PM
I get it. If I have 5 priests and 5 imams, then I have 55 priestimams. That's perfectly logical.

If sciencereligion = 10, does religionscience = 01?

Foster Zygote
9th February 2011, 02:01 PM
If sciencereligion = 10, does religionscience = 01?

And does religionscience jump dry creek beds in an old Dodge Charger?

epix
9th February 2011, 03:13 PM
I get it. If I have 5 priests and 5 imams, then I have 55 priestimams. That's perfectly logical.
You don't have to stress your inability to differentiate between union and addition. I already understood your problem:
If I have 1 Old Testament and 1 New Testament, then I have 11 Old TestamentsNew Testaments.


Numbers assigned to words or letters don't always mean quantities, such as in this related case.

http://blogs.sourceallies.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/xor-table.png


(Old_Testament) U (New_Testament) = Old_TestamentNew_Testament = The Bible.

(Science) U (Religion) = ScienceReligion => Eistein's quote => If you separate - not subtract - religion from science, then science is lame...

Einstein said "science without religion" where "without" refers to a separation. But a separation is a dissolved union.

KingMerv00
9th February 2011, 03:16 PM
epix, do you believe in numerology?

joobz
9th February 2011, 03:19 PM
Aha. Here's your problem. The difference between union and addition no comprende.
Yes, it is clear you don't comprende.
Not only have you gotten algebra wrong, you are now getting set theory wrong. Why not add a differential to your argument and create a trifecta of mathematical wrongness?


BTW,
You are free to CALL the union of X and Y, XY.
But XY would be a whole new variable one that isn't equal to X*Y.
if you set X = 1 and Y = 0, then XY would be {1,0}, not 10.

epix
9th February 2011, 03:24 PM
If sciencereligion = 10, does religionscience = 01?
It does. But you need to consider the former case, not just because Einstein organized it that way, otherwise in case you decide to assign non-arbitrary numerical assignments to Science and Religion after the separation other than 1 and 0 then you'll run into a difficulty.

Mister Agenda
9th February 2011, 03:30 PM
Aha. Here's your problem. The difference between union and addition no comprende.

I'll start a thread that you'll feel entirely comfortable with. Let me see...

Title: Religion Sucks.
Body: Religion sucks. Anyone agree?

Since '+' means positive and '-' negative, you get your chance to use the symbol '+' without embarrasing yourself.

Unitarianism + Universalism = Religion that doesn't suck.:D

Dinwar
9th February 2011, 03:36 PM
I don't understand this.
Allow me to translate: I said that because epix pulled the numbers he substituted into his equation out of thin air they were arbitrary. Epix is now using that to demonstrate that I'm an idiot, using incomprehensible gibberish.

Epix still hasn't explained why we're supposed to take a poetic turn of phrase as a mathematical equation, beyond a link and "But Einstein is a scientist!!!!!" :rolleyes:

You need to learn to read the whole posts to get familiar with the context before making comments. The text that followed explained the meaning of the couple of sentences. Look again and see that there are numbers there, which are not arbitrary. In other words, there is only one prime factor of 10 and that's 5x2. So the numbers 5 and 2 cannot be arbitrary with respect to 10 and its prime factorization.
Follow your own advice, epix. I stated that EVERYTHING ELSE in your equation was arbitrary. The 3 and -3 aren't--once you make the wildly random assumption that science=5 and religion=2 and "without" in a poetic phrase means minus and that science and religion can be subtracted from one another linearly and that "is" means "=" rather than any other mathematical sign, sure, 3 and -3 aren't arbitrary. But the distinction is trivial, considering they're the non-arbitrary result of arbitrary assumptions.

tsig
9th February 2011, 03:55 PM
Aha. Here's your problem. The difference between union and addition no comprende.

I'll start a thread that you'll feel entirely comfortable with. Let me see...

Title: Religion Sucks.
Body: Religion sucks. Anyone agree?

Since '+' means positive and '-' negative, you get your chance to use the symbol '+' without embarrasing yourself.

Let's see +++++++++ no not embarrassed at all. In fact I mooned nobody in making this post.

tsig
9th February 2011, 03:57 PM
I couldn't deduce anything, coz one of your brethren "proved" that the numerical assignment was a pure arbitrary choice. So we can safely conclude that the life of atheism depends on the subscribers of that idea who contradict each other whenever they say something. LOL.

The numerical assignment wasn't arbitrary, coz religion and science mix as well as water and oil. Since I know that you won't be able to figure out the comparison -- and as an atheist, you can't ask God for assistance (not because God doesn't exist, it's because God couldn't parse you request) -- I try to explain it to you.

Science and religion are opposites with respect to the acquisition of knowledge; they are like Yes and No. But Yes and No can be assigned to Science and Religion according to the circumstances such as this question:

Q: Can science forward Man's understanding of his origin?

A: Science = Yes

Q: Can religion forward Man's understanding of his origin?

A: Religion = No

By a convention used by computer scientists, Yes=1 and No=0. That transforms the word assignment to a numerical assignment:

Science = 1
Religion = 0

(TraneWreck came very close when he wrote that Religion=0 and Science could be any number.) :cool::cool:

Even though science and religion seems to be pretty different, Einstein united them in his quote. And so:

IF Science=1 AND Religion=0 THEN ScienceReligion=10

Now when you want to uniquely separate Science from Religion, meaning to pull ScienceReligion from each other not to arrive back at 1 and 0 again, you need to use prime factors, coz there is only one:

ScienceReligion = 10 = 5 x 2 = Science x Religion => Science=5, Religion=2

So, the choice couldn't be arbitrary. Or could be? How about

ScienceReligion = 10 = 2 x 5?

Why would Science=5 and not Science=2?

Can you mind climb above 70 IQ and figure out the reason why Science=5 and not Science=2?

Stop reading the Bible all the time looking for contradictions and do some figuring, Dave . . .

Five will get you ten that only the ETCorn Gods understand this.

Dinwar
9th February 2011, 04:00 PM
Q: Can science forward Man's understanding of his origin?

A: Science = Yes

Q: Can religion forward Man's understanding of his origin?

A: Religion = No

By a convention used by computer scientists, Yes=1 and No=0. That transforms the word assignment to a numerical assignment:

Science = 1
Religion = 0

(TraneWreck came very close when he wrote that Religion=0 and Science could be any number.)

Even though science and religion seems to be pretty different, Einstein united them in his quote. And so:

IF Science=1 AND Religion=0 THEN ScienceReligion=10

Now when you want to uniquely separate Science from Religion, meaning to pull ScienceReligion from each other not to arrive back at 1 and 0 again, you need to use prime factors, coz there is only one:

ScienceReligion = 10 = 5 x 2 = Science x Religion => Science=5, Religion=2
So, the choice couldn't be arbitrary. Or could be? How about

ScienceReligion = 10 = 2 x 5?
I had skipped over this part. Epix, you need to stay in the same numbering system for the whole equation. In the highlighted part you switch from binary to base 10, which is not allowed (I'm going to leave aside for the moment the fact that you butchered the binary math; this issue is more pressing). So this is entirely incorrect.

epix
9th February 2011, 04:06 PM
Yes, it is clear you don't comprende.
Not only have you gotten algebra wrong, you are now getting set theory wrong. Why not add a differential to your argument and create a trifecta of mathematical wrongness?
I never mentioned the words "set theory" to begin with. That's why I couldn't mess up any "algebra."

if you set X = 1 and Y = 0, then XY would be {1,0}, not 10.

That would be true only when you force the set theory into the works. You shouldn't learn and repeat bad habits from the creationists.

Btw, you should be careful mentioning the set theory around here. That's a big no-no for the atheists -- it's like quoting Genesis as the source of the truth.

joobz
9th February 2011, 04:20 PM
I never mentioned the words "set theory" to begin with. That's why I couldn't mess up any "algebra."
so your making up your own rules?

great.
kumquat pickle 98.

i just disproved your OP.

bozman
9th February 2011, 04:25 PM
Can science progress without religion? I'm not sure how the OP is defining "progress," but since when does science ever include religion at all?

epix
9th February 2011, 04:57 PM
I had skipped over this part. Epix, you need to stay in the same numbering system for the whole equation. In the highlighted part you switch from binary to base 10, which is not allowed (I'm going to leave aside for the moment the fact that you butchered the binary math; this issue is more pressing). So this is entirely incorrect.
No it is not, but I give you credit for the line you highlighted:

ScienceReligion = 10 = 5 x 2 = Science x Religion => Science=5, Religion=2

The above would be a big mistake when actual quantities were considered -- quantities indigenous to ScienceReligion as a physical or well-defined abstract/mathematical existing entity. In that case, the mistake would be similar to

10 = 1 + 1

without specifying that

10(bin.) = 1(dec.) + 1(dec.)

The reality is entirely different. The task was just to find non-arbitrary numerical assignment other than 1 and 0 to Science and Religion.

I mentioned an example before where the union of Old Testament and New Testament is called Bible, which seems to be very arbitrary choice due to the dissimilarity with the names of the parts. Following the example,

ScienceReligion = Ten.

The question is: Why not Eleven, or Nine? It seems that Ten, like Bible, is an arbitrary assignment. But it actually isn't, even apart from the colloquial

10 => 1(Yes), 0(No) => "Say YES to science and NO to religion."

Once again. The task was to find a non-arbitrary choice of assignment for Science and Religion after ScienceReligion=10(Ten); the task was not to make a mathematical transformation to learn more about the properties of existing compound ScienceReligion if the elements were to be split other way than they were joined. That's because ScienceReligion was just a product of Einstein's thought -- a pure imagination.

I think Dave will never find why Science=5 and not Science=2. I guess it's because the atheists are people abandoned by God. No tutoring.

gambling_cruiser
10th February 2011, 05:27 AM
Does your doctor know that you don't take your prescriptions?

Mahaha
10th February 2011, 07:01 AM
Guys, are you really discussing this "math" with epix? There is literally a million nutjobs like him all over the internet, why argue with them? Let them believe what they will.

There's a lot of people, on the other hand, that don't believe to have all the knowledge in the world at a click's distance... they are worth discussing with.

The question in the OP is one thing, the math gibberish is... it's just lame.
Get a life, epix.

timhau
10th February 2011, 07:06 AM
Guys, are you really discussing this "math" with epix? There is literally a million nutjobs like him all over the internet, why argue with them?

Because

a) he's here, and
b) he's funny.

Dave Rogers
10th February 2011, 07:31 AM
Because I find it fascinating to see how many new ways words and numbers can be arranged so as to convey no meaning whatsoever.

Dave

Dinwar
10th February 2011, 03:26 PM
The reality is entirely different. The task was just to find non-arbitrary numerical assignment other than 1 and 0 to Science and Religion.
Oh, I get it--you arbitrarily define "science" as 1, "religion" as 0, and arbitrarily suspend the rules of math so instead of xy=(x)(y) xy=x+y, then arbitrarily switch numbering systems, to arive at a non-arbitrary set of numbers to substitute BACK IN for "science" and "religion".

This is either the most insane way of avoiding arbitrary assignments of numbers I've ever seen, or a post-hoc attempt to save credibility. Either way, you fail.

Once again. The task was to find a non-arbitrary choice of assignment for Science and Religion after ScienceReligion=10(Ten); the task was not to make a mathematical transformation to learn more about the properties of existing compound ScienceReligion if the elements were to be split other way than they were joined. That's because ScienceReligion was just a product of Einstein's thought -- a pure imagination.

I think Dave will never find why Science=5 and not Science=2. I guess it's because the atheists are people abandoned by God. No tutoring. No, it's because your entire numerology is, as is common in all numerological schemes, irrational.

KingMerv00
10th February 2011, 03:55 PM
Let's see...

Religion = 0
Science = 1
Yes = 1
No = 0

YesNo = ScienceReligion

YesNo - ScienceReligion = 0

YesNo - ScienceReligion = No

10 - 10 = No

0 = No

No = No

Ergo, I have proven that "No means no."

timhau
11th February 2011, 02:54 PM
0 = No


Oh no.

temporalillusion
11th February 2011, 03:45 PM
That's not what she said?

epix
13th February 2011, 01:25 AM
No, it's because your entire numerology is, as is common in all numerological schemes, irrational.
There is nothing irrational in the prime factorization of integer 10: there is only one choice and that's 10 = 2 x 5.

The Arecibo Message was a binary string of 1679 characters long represented by low and high frequency. It was organized in 23 x 73 rectangular format, coz both numbers are the only prime factors, and the possible recipient was expected to notice that and assemble the string into the 23 x 73 rectangle. By doing so, non-random pattern of binary opposites appears. It looks like the M13 globular cluster is inhibited by a close-minded atheists, coz SETI hasn't been replied to. Duh. No comprende in decoding. LOL.

epix
13th February 2011, 03:38 AM
Let's see...

Religion = 0
Science = 1
Yes = 1
No = 0

YesNo = ScienceReligion

YesNo - ScienceReligion = 0

YesNo - ScienceReligion = No

10 - 10 = No

0 = No

No = No

Ergo, I have proven that "No means no."
Why would the subject discriminate against the addition to complement the subtraction, especially if he has the YES and NO opposites going?

In this case it's not just ignorance, but almost a necessity. If you write down the positive Yes complement

10 + 10

then what happens?

:confused:

Nothing -- but only if you are not an atheists. See, the symbol for addition '+' is not just "plus" but also . . .

http://www.cross-pendants-online.com/pics/57/lifetime-jewelry/14k-yellow-gold-greek-cross-pendant-with-engraving.LT-R41035Y.1.300.jpg

Greek cross?

That's right. One of the Christian crosses. The atheists have very adverse reaction to seeing crosses; they shy away from them and so they rather subtract and avoid addition whenever possible.

Do they sleep in coffins too?

noreligion
13th February 2011, 05:06 AM
Do they sleep in coffins too?

Yes, we are vampires and resistance is futile.

Mahaha
13th February 2011, 07:15 AM
Why would the subject discriminate against the addition to complement the subtraction, especially if he has the YES and NO opposites going?

In this case it's not just ignorance, but almost a necessity. If you write down the positive Yes complement

10 + 10

then what happens?

:confused:

Nothing -- but only if you are not an atheists. See, the symbol for addition '+' is not just "plus" but also . . .

http://www.cross-pendants-online.com/pics/57/lifetime-jewelry/14k-yellow-gold-greek-cross-pendant-with-engraving.LT-R41035Y.1.300.jpg

Greek cross?

That's right. One of the Christian crosses. The atheists have very adverse reaction to seeing crosses; they shy away from them and so they rather subtract and avoid addition whenever possible.

Do they sleep in coffins too?

Man, I wonder what you're like in real life...

Dinwar
13th February 2011, 10:01 AM
There is nothing irrational in the prime factorization of integer 10: there is only one choice and that's 10 = 2 x 5.True. However, it IS irrational to say the following:

Science=1
Region=0
ScienceReligion=10

A rational statement (or at least one following the standards of math) would be that ScienceReligion=(Science)(Religion)=0. Terms next to one another are multiplied. I could even see ScienceReligion=Science+Religion=1, if I assume you simply had a typo and dropped the +. ScienceReligion=10 makes no sense. It makes even LESS sense to switch from that to factoring the 10 (it's not a ten, it's a one with a zero beside it, which isn't a number and therefore cannot be factored).

And, as always: You're treating a poetic turn of phrase as if it were a mathematical equation, which is just plain wrong.

Using one rational step doesn't make your whole argument rational. ALL the steps need to be rational.

The Arecibo Message was a binary string of 1679 characters long represented by low and high frequency. It was organized in 23 x 73 rectangular format, coz both numbers are the only prime factors, and the possible recipient was expected to notice that and assemble the string into the 23 x 73 rectangle. By doing so, non-random pattern of binary opposites appears. It looks like the M13 globular cluster is inhibited by a close-minded atheists, coz SETI hasn't been replied to. Duh. No comprende in decoding. LOL. Randomly spouting out irrelevant "data" doesn't make your arguments rational either. :rolleyes:

epix
13th February 2011, 09:56 PM
True. However, it IS irrational to say the following:

Science=1
Region=0
ScienceReligion=10

A rational statement (or at least one following the standards of math) would be that ScienceReligion=(Science)(Religion)=0. Terms next to one another are multiplied. I could even see ScienceReligion=Science+Religion=1, if I assume you simply had a typo and dropped the +. ScienceReligion=10 makes no sense.
Why do you force the implied multiplication into a union of two items? You can assign other characters to both terms, such as in the purely descriptive case

Science = S
Religion = R

and unite them as SR with no multiplication implied, as opposed to

Carbon = C
Oxygen = O
CarbonOxygen = CO => Carbon Monoxide

where the "x" in the word "monoxide" does imply multiplication, but unlike you, the chemists can reason and so no multiplication of elements inside compounds is attempted.

Your comment regarding the Arecibo Message would make Ezekiel pale with envy. LOL.

joobz
13th February 2011, 10:08 PM
Why do you force the implied multiplication into a union of two items? You can assign other characters to both terms, such as in the purely descriptive case

Science = S
Religion = R

and unite them as SR with no multiplication implied, as opposed to

Carbon = C
Oxygen = O
CarbonOxygen = CO => Carbon Monoxide

where the "x" in the word "monoxide" does imply multiplication, but unlike you, the chemists can reason and so no multiplication of elements inside compounds is attempted.

Your comment regarding the Arecibo Message would make Ezekiel pale with envy. LOL.
Why do you use subjects and verbs?

You can just, Pickle 12 apple fruit left.
Nammy Nammy. fiddle 12#$@

TubbaBlubba
13th February 2011, 10:45 PM
I think I've been able to dissect the formula for epix's posts. I'm going to start posting according to it, I think.

1. Conclusion I made before I started
2. Words I don't know what they mean
3. New meanings I just made up for the words in 2.
4. Assertion that this somehow proves the conclusion in 1.

timhau
14th February 2011, 12:19 AM
I think I've been able to dissect the formula for epix's posts. I'm going to start posting according to it, I think.

1. Conclusion I made before I started
2. Words I don't know what they mean
3. New meanings I just made up for the words in 2.
4. Assertion that this somehow proves the conclusion in 1.

Don't forget

3a. Assignment of random numerical values to those words.

epix
14th February 2011, 01:58 AM
Why do you use subjects and verbs?
Neither "science" nor "carbon monoxide" are verbs.

You can just, Pickle 12 apple fruit left.
Nammy Nammy. fiddle 12#$@

That's what you are accustomed when reading the Bible all the time looking for a proof that God doesn't exist, but there is really a certain order in classifications:
http://www.can-do.com/uci/lessons98/I-periodic-color.gif

For example, the union H2SO4 actually means something.

Dave Rogers
14th February 2011, 02:29 AM
For example, the union H2SO4 actually means something.

According to epix notation, though, SO4H2 would be something completely different.

Dave

joobz
14th February 2011, 04:58 AM
Neither "science" nor "carbon monoxide" are verbs.
Exactly.

That's what you are accustomed when reading the Bible all the time looking for a proof that God doesn't exist, but there is really a certain order in classifications:
http://www.can-do.com/uci/lessons98/I-periodic-color.gif

For example, the union H2SO4 actually means something.
Yes, that means something because there is a self-consistent set of rules that are followed. You are making it up as you go with no consistency in the rules you use.
AS such, you are merely parroting the form, but lack the substance.

ETA:
That is why your entire math argument is gibberish.

KingMerv00
14th February 2011, 09:08 AM
Why would the subject discriminate against the addition to complement the subtraction, especially if he has the YES and NO opposites going?

In this case it's not just ignorance, but almost a necessity. If you write down the positive Yes complement

10 + 10

then what happens?

:confused:

Nothing -- but only if you are not an atheists. See, the symbol for addition '+' is not just "plus" but also . . .

http://www.cross-pendants-online.com/pics/57/lifetime-jewelry/14k-yellow-gold-greek-cross-pendant-with-engraving.LT-R41035Y.1.300.jpg

Greek cross?

That's right. One of the Christian crosses. The atheists have very adverse reaction to seeing crosses; they shy away from them and so they rather subtract and avoid addition whenever possible.

Do they sleep in coffins too?

It was a joke. :boggled:

Dinwar
14th February 2011, 10:50 AM
Look, epix, either follow the rules of math or don't use it. If you're going to put two terms next to each other, such as xy=z, you're saying (x)(y)=z, not x+y=z. The only case where xy=x+y is where x=y=0.

Carbon = C
Oxygen = O
CarbonOxygen = CO => Carbon Monoxide

where the "x" in the word "monoxide" does imply multiplication, but unlike you, the chemists can reason and so no multiplication of elements inside compounds is attempted.

If you hadn't tried to factor the result of your equation I'd agree--a chemical equation isn't math (though again the way you write it is not standard at all). No one argues that you can factor the result of a chemical reaction. But you're trying to write a mathematical proof, ignoring the standards and rules of math.

sphenisc
14th February 2011, 10:57 AM
nm

Dr. Keith
14th February 2011, 12:01 PM
nm

This.

KingMerv00
14th February 2011, 12:45 PM
This.

Pretty much.

I've decided epix is a poor troll or a high functioning schizophrenic. Either way, discussion is pointless.

joobz
14th February 2011, 12:58 PM
Pretty much.

I've decided epix is a poor troll or a high functioning schizophrenic. Either way, discussion is pointless.
if you say
Epix = poor troll
E(Pix) = Poo(Rtroll)
Then,
E(Pi) + E(x) = Poo(Rt) + Poo(Roll)
E(Pi) - Poo(Roll) = Poo(Rt) - E(x)
PooE(Pi/Roll) = PooE(Rt/x)
Take both sides to the EooP
and you have
Pi/Roll = Rt/x
xPi = RTRoll
assuming an ideal gas
xPi = PVRoll
xi = VRoll
x is a variable that can be anything so
Rolli=VRoll
and therefore
i=V
This is true for all values of V, including the word Value.
So value and ialue are VdantVcal.

KingMerv00
14th February 2011, 01:45 PM
if you say
Epix = poor troll
E(Pix) = Poo(Rtroll)
Then,
E(Pi) + E(x) = Poo(Rt) + Poo(Roll)
E(Pi) - Poo(Roll) = Poo(Rt) - E(x)
PooE(Pi/Roll) = PooE(Rt/x)
Take both sides to the EooP
and you have
Pi/Roll = Rt/x
xPi = RTRoll
assuming an ideal gas
xPi = PVRoll
xi = VRoll
x is a variable that can be anything so
Rolli=VRoll
and therefore
i=V
This is true for all values of V, including the word Value.
So value and ialue are VdantVcal.

Hee hee. You said "Poo Roll".

Sorry, this thread has melted my brain.

Robin
16th February 2011, 09:05 AM
Anyway, he seems to have made a logical mistake by subtracting opposites.
No, you made a logical mistake by assuming that "without" necessarily implies subtraction.

If I say "A dog without a collar" it does not imply that I am subtracting a collar from a dog or that the collar is part of the dog.

Here is a better rendition of it:

S & ~ R -> L(S)
R & ~ S -> B(R)

Einstein was, apart from being a brilliant physicist was an outstanding contributor to the philosophy of science.

He had made his point more precisely in the preceding paragraphs and was simply summing it up using a metaphor.

So if you want to know what he meant you ought to have read the entire paragraph.

Silly Green Monkey
17th February 2011, 09:26 AM
Do they sleep in coffins too?

Yes, we are vampires and resistance is futile.

Coffins are pretty much the ideal for sleeping unless you thrash around a lot. Can't fall out easily like you can slide off a bed, your covers can't be stolen, and there's a lot of protection against light waking you before you're ready.

KingMerv00
17th February 2011, 04:13 PM
Coffins are pretty much the ideal for sleeping unless you thrash around a lot. Can't fall out easily like you can slide off a bed, your covers can't be stolen, and there's a lot of protection against light waking you before you're ready.

Suffocation?

Cainkane1
17th February 2011, 04:16 PM
Science has progressed despite religion, hence science can do great without religion.