Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

  1. Aug 25, 2010 #1
    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    Hi, there

    I just wanted to know what Einstein actually meant with this quote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

    Did he mean it in the sense that religion is an attempt to explain why we're here and how we came to be, etc. and without science, we wouldn't find the answers... we would be blind and did he mean that science without religion in the sense that science without the attempt to explain why we're here and how we came to be is lame?

    Is this what he meant or something else?


    -Chris
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 26, 2010 #2

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    Nobody knows what he meant, if that was, indeed, a legitimate quote.
    Only the quoted person can ever explain what was intended by the statement, and it's too late to ask Albert.
     
  4. Aug 26, 2010 #3
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    Fair enough.

    I just found this, however, and I'm going to read through it.
    http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm
     
  5. Aug 26, 2010 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    I don't know if it's legit, but I do have that one on a calender of E quotes.

    I always took it mean that religion [or spirituality] nourishes the soul or spirit, but science is needed for objective reasoning. One is no good without the other.
     
  6. Aug 26, 2010 #5

    Danger

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    I'm a bit too inebriated to fully appreciate that article right now, but I'll definitely read it in full tomorrow. The opening was great.
     
  7. Aug 26, 2010 #6
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    Do have a read of that link I posted. If I read it correctly (though I'm a bit tired at the moment), my first interpretation was correct. The pages looks as if it's taken from something Einstein has written, but I'm not entirely sure if it is something he's written. I'll research a bit more when I'm awake.

    Haha. Yes, it's an interesting read. I'm a bit tired, but from what I read, I think what he's saying is what my first interpretation was.



    http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2010
  8. Aug 26, 2010 #7
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    Einstein was not an atheist. This explains all.
     
  9. Aug 26, 2010 #8
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    I'm pretty sure he believed in the God that is nature, the laws of physics etc. I may be incorrect though, I can't remember what you call that. However, he did not believe in the personal God.
     
  10. Aug 26, 2010 #9
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    My understanding he had his doubts about religion but too afraid to fess up to it because of how he would have been treated back then if he professed it.
     
  11. Aug 26, 2010 #10
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"


    "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist."

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein



    He was probably only a weak pantheist, as i have never seen a quote by him where he asserts flat out that nature and god are one and the same.


    From the above wiki link:

    Spinoza's ideas of God are often characterized as being pantheistic.


    Anyway, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" is an understandble statement considering that he asserts:

    I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)
     
  12. Aug 26, 2010 #11
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    The quote is in fact from his Science and Religion article for which the link was posted in this thread. It is indeed an Einstein quote.
     
  13. Aug 26, 2010 #12
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    Yep, that's the one. However, I think you're misunderstanding the quote when he says "I want to know his thoughts" - unless I'm misunderstanding you. He definitely did not believe in a personal God that intervened in the world. Again though, I might be misunderstanding you xP.



    Ah good, thanks for confirming that :), it looked official to me.
     
  14. Aug 26, 2010 #13
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    Oh, come on! This thought line is a bit of a cop-out, as Einstein both wrote and spoke about both these subjects on numerous occasions. So what if he's dead? So are 100% of those who wrote the books of the Bible, the Koran, and all the other religious texts of the world. We have a "fairly" good idea of what they think, so...

    Admittedly, Einstein was never a religious author. Nevertheless, his writings, while not "extensive," do indeed clearly delineate his beliefs on this subject.

    The discussion thus far is good, as it pulls in his contributions on both subjects fairly well, so please, let the discussion continue.
     
  15. Aug 26, 2010 #14
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    I completely agree with you. Although, I'm sure many religious people would disagree when you say that "We have a "fairly" good idea of what they think, so..." because there are over 30,000 different Christian denominations... then again, I doubt there'd be many Christians who would know this because it'd be almost silly to be a Christian if the belief isn't a set belief. I think Jacque Fresco said it perfectly, "A church divided is no church at all." I'm just rambling on now, so I'm going to stop :P.

    I understand why Einstein specifically said science without *religion* is lame and *religion* without science is blind, as it was the topic which he was talking about. However, if you put aside the fact that he simply wrote this as it was the topic, I disagree with him because it's not religion that inspires science, per se, but the questions that inspired religion that inspire science. I mean, the ultimate questions, "why are we here?", "how did we come to be?" didn't just come from religion, they came to contribute to the creating of religion itself.

    Just my thoughts though. Obviously I agree with him in the way he wrote it.
     
  16. Aug 26, 2010 #15
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    I don't know if the quote is actually from Einstein (I've heard somewhere that it isn't), but I tend to agree with it. There are a lot of people out there who say that you must believe in some specific religion, and sadly this turns many people in science off to the whole idea. But it's important, I think, to ask the sorts of questions that religion poses for us. Questions about the nature and purpose of our existence make no sense in a scientific context, but this doesn't make them unimportant. These are questions that theists and atheists alike can address, and without them science is little more than glorified engineering.
     
  17. Aug 26, 2010 #16
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    Aha, and I would argue those are arguments continue today, not only in a small modicum of scientists, but ultimately, if the vast majority of them.

    Yes, it is!

    Hmm... My ultimate question would elicit answers from both GUT proponents as well as those would like to incorporate gravity into the mix. Put bluntly, we're still missing the Higgs.

    Personally, I don't think it's one and the same. I think gravity is quite something else!

    Yeah, what do I know - I'm just an "armchair scientist."

    Bah, humbug. Or as my Dad would say, observing the bird feeder, "Bah, hummingbug!"
     
  18. Aug 26, 2010 #17
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"



    Well i can confirm your opinion that Einstein was atheistic towards official religions. But he was not a atheist nonetheless. Spinoza's God that he admired and pantheism in general is a sort of saying that existence is of divine nature and everything that manifests as existing, including me and you, is just thoughts in the mind of God. This is a perfectly valid way of reasoning(it could be wrong, of course, like anything else that we think we know).



    Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)




    "In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)


    "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos." (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2010
  19. Aug 26, 2010 #18

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    Albert Einstein himself said he was Agnostic, so let's stop trying to interpret what he said since he left no doubt.

     
  20. Aug 26, 2010 #19
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    In what sense?
     
  21. Aug 26, 2010 #20
    Re: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

    It is; Einstein, Albert., 1940, Science and Religion, Nature, vol 146, pg 605.

    The entire sentence is "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind
  1. The Religion of Science (Replies: 97)

  2. Is Science a Religion? (Replies: 27)

  3. Is Science a religion? (Replies: 49)

  4. Religion vs science (Replies: 1)

  5. Religion in science (Replies: 2)

Loading...