Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

[drizzle]

… Perhaps he meant science without [guidance] would only form a maimed knowledge! [how would it be used once earned]. I think the second part of his statement is clear. But I must say I’m quite surprised to know he had said that.



IMO, Einstein knows how to link, not many can do that. One need to know how Einstein thinks to get his exact meaning, and I don’t believe this has anything to do with his background as much as it has to do with his mind...

 

[Integral]

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

If what you were saying was true, then the military would have a very hard time training young men to be killers.

The younger they start the better killers they make. Ever heard of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary" ? I thought I explained where that number came from in the next sentence. 13 is a very common age of adulthood. Hard to believe considering our 13yr olds.

Edit:
I am not content with the answer I gave above.

There does not exist a culture which does not encourage killing in defense of that belief system. So there is no conflict.

 

[ChrisTheFeral]

At face value, I agree. However I suspect he said it just to adapt to the social climate he lived in at the time. That is why I believe all the comments about how society was in the early part of the 20th century are relevant to interpret his first comment, "science is lame without religion". I think he said it simply to "fit in". Imagine what would have happened, early 20th century, if he said, "science does not need religion". I think he would have be much less accepted by the community.

I think that could be possible, however, in context he was specifically talking about religion and science, I think that's why he specifically said religion.

Keep in mind the context: Einstein made that speech to a conference on science and religion. Anyone reciting that half-sentence as an argument-from-authority for religious belief in a man-shaped deity should go back and read the entireity of the article it came from.

Yep, I know I took it out of context there, I thought I stated that? :P

It's obvious that the question in the opening post is resolved as soon as you realize this little fact( that he was not an atheist).

Sorry, but simply because you say he wasn't an atheist does NOT answer the meaning of the quote. Things aren't as black and white as that.

Because, not surprisingly, it answers the OP question.

It didn't, sorry.

 

[mheslep]

I have not been able to put any meaning to A. Einstein's words that would turn it into a statement I could agree with. I do think that science requires direction and purpose that comes from outside of itself. For instance, we require that science be ethical. But I don't agree that it means religion must supply these things. As for the needs of religion, it is an accident of history that the Bible includes explanations of worldly phenomena. A religion narrowly focused on one's personal relationship with the spiritual could have a clear vision of its direction and purpose with no need of science .

Another way to go is the oft used science answers 'how' or 'what', spirituality answers the 'why'. Taken that way, Einstein's comment makes some sense. A view point of the world focused exclusively on how things work with absolutely no interest in the why probably earns the label 'lame'. The opposite focus also probably earns the label 'blind'.