Can Science Progress Without Religion?

[epix]

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]

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]

Don't forget - Relativity is "only a theory," after all.

Like evolution. Just a guess.

[dlorde]

Einstein's view of religion wasn't entirely orthodox. In the same letter that quote came from, he wrote:

Quote:

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]

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]

Originally Posted by epix

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]

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]

Originally Posted by epix

It's not wise to take on...

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

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by Sledge

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]

Originally Posted by dlorde

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Irony

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by dlorde

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]

I've always interpreted that quote asEinstein saying that that both religion and science were necessary for humanity to progress.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Sledge

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]

Originally Posted by epix

He actually capitalized the word "God."

So what?

[epix]

Originally Posted by TraneWreck

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)

They got plenty of oil, so what's the problem?

[Lowpro]

Wait this argument is really about the validity of this axiom and then acting as if it has a case?

That's silly.

[epix]

Originally Posted by Sledge

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.

Quote:

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 doesn’t 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]

Originally Posted by Irony

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]

Originally Posted by epix

... 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]

Originally Posted by dlorde

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]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

So what?

Well, if you quote a text, you shouldn't alter it by vomiting your emotions into it.

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by epix

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.

[epix]

Originally Posted by Fnord

There. I fixed it for you.

There is the other word that starts with 'F' as well that describes your artwork much better.

[sadhatter]

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]

Originally Posted by epix

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]

Originally Posted by epix

Well, if you quote a text, you shouldn't alter it by vomiting your emotions into it.

Take it up with Gabriel Gache or his editor.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

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]

Originally Posted by epix

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]

Originally Posted by epix

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]

Originally Posted by dlorde

Meh. That's what I get for copy/pasting from Softpedia.

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:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by epix

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]

Originally Posted by epix

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]

Originally Posted by phantomb

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Beth

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]

Originally Posted by Fnord

This thread was clustered from its inception.

Do you know any other word that starts with F? no?
Sorry, I shouldn't cluster.

[Dinwar]

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

This 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).

Quote:

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]

Quote:

"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]

Originally Posted by epix

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?