Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

[Integral]

What does culture have to do with fundamental beliefs about existence and God? The prevalent culture in the 1940's did not impose pantheism or agnosticism or atheism or deism.

I really have to laugh at this post. So your views are that same as someone born in 1000AD China, or Africa?

Once again we are not talking about the culture of the 1940's but those of 1890, 50yrs makes a lot of difference, 100yrs even more. In my lifetime there have been signifiant changes in spirtual avenues in the US.

 

[Pythagorean]

According to Cristopher Hitchens, Einstein was a deist.

 

[dlgoff]

In my lifetime there have been signifiant changes in spirtual avenues in the US.

You got that right. And I believe that science has had a big effect on this, albeit I don't have any references.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, I'll limit my examples to the differences in the American culture in the 1940s and the 2000s.

1) In 2010 America has a black president and a female secretary of state, while in the 1940s blacks were subject to Jim Crow laws, and women were often limited to housewifery.

2) Prior to the 1940s homosexuality was not a topic of discussion, in the 2000s the recognition same-sex marriage is an activist issue.

3) In the 1940s America was actively engaged in a "Cold War" with the worlds only other superpower -- a war that threatened nuclear devestation.

Well, in the early 40's, WWII was rather hot! After that great conflict was resolved, the US (and western allies) and Russia/USSR (and its allies) entered into the "Cold War" war, and hot proxy wars in smaller nations.

Adding to General_Sax's comments -

Also, in the early 1940's and prior to that period, it was generally expected that women would get married, stay home, and raise a family. However, after women went to work during the war, many became determined to work and be more independent. The popular culture reflected in TV programs and advertisements is very different today than in the 1950s and 1960s.

During the Vietnam War, it became much more commonplace to question the government in the public arena, especially through protesting and disruptive action.

The participation of women and various racial and ethnic groups in government and corporate management is much certainly different today than 60 years ago.

And the knowledge and questions today are different than 60 or 100 years ago.

Perhaps a major problem with discussion of religious topics, and a key reason they are limited at PF, is the inevitable conflict between beliefs or positions of the participants.

 

[Pythagorean]

boy... John Nash and the Cold War really set us back socially. I feel like our spiritual development was quite retarded by that whole mind set.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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 .

 

[Pythagorean]

boy... John Nash and the Cold War really set us back socially. I feel like our spiritual development was quite retarded by that whole mind set.

Actually... this might be something of what Einstein meant. John Nash's "game theory" came in a time when there was a lot of "science without religion". Between the game theory of the Cold War, and the way psychiatry/psychology was done at the time, there wasn't much humanitarianism involved in "sciences" that involved humans at the time.

There's a documentary about this, but I can't remember the name.

edit: It's called "The Trap"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=404227395387111085#

 

[jackmell]

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.

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.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I really have to laugh at this post. So your views are that same as someone born in 1000AD China, or Africa?

My views and that of many other phd's are not much different than that of Aristotle and Plato. So you must be laughing at your own post.

Once again we are not talking about the culture of the 1940's but those of 1890, 50yrs makes a lot of difference, 100yrs even more. In my lifetime there have been signifiant changes in spirtual avenues in the US.

Culture has nothing to do with fundamental beliefs about God and existence. You are not implying Einstein was a retard who couldn't form his own opinion about God and existence and had to follow the trend of his time, are you?

 

[GeorgCantor]

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.

Or maybe he was simply lying that he was not an atheist. Or someone(Spinoza?) bribed him to say he wasn't. How's that?

 

[cesiumfrog]

Einstein was not an atheist. This explains all.

Uh, did we both read the same quote? How about you read the whole article?

[..]Yes, it's an interesting read.[..]

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.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm

When he says "religion", he specifically means merely "the sphere containing the faith that the world is comprehensible/rational". The "faith" that one apple plus one apple always makes two apples. The implicit axioms of scientific philosophy.

Eugene Wigner's "http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html"" described the concept further.

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.

 

[GeorgCantor]

When he says "religion", he specifically means merely "the sphere containing the faith that the world is comprehensible/rational". The "faith" that one apple plus one apple always makes two apples. The implicit axioms of scientific philosophy.

Yes, the hope that the world is comprehensible and rational because he(Einstein) was not an atheist(as he had stated multiple times):


"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."

 

[jackmell]

Uh, did we both read the same quote? How about you read the whole article?

When he says "religion", he specifically means merely "the sphere containing the faith that the world is comprehensible/rational". The "faith" that one apple plus one apple always makes two apples. The implicit axioms of scientific philosophy.

Eugene Wigner's "http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html"" described the concept further.

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.

You said he made that speech at a conference on science and religion. I have serious doubt that the "religion" part of the conference viewed "religion" as "the sphere containing the faith that the world is comprehensible". No, rather I suspect the religion part interpreted religion as a spiritual belief in a supreme being.

 

[Evo]

Yes, the hope that the world is comprehensible and rational because he(Einstein) was not an atheist(as he had stated multiple times):

Who in this thread said he was an atheist? Why do you insist on making these nonsensical, off topic posts?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Who in this thread said he was an atheist?

Why does anyone have to say he was an atheist??

Why do you insist on making these nonsensical, off topic posts?

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).

What offtopic are you talking about? And why does it bother you if Einstein was or wasn't an atheist to the point of getting angry over this?

 

[Evo]

Why does anyone have to say he was an atheist??

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).

What offtopic are you talking about? And why does it bother you if Einstein was or wasn't an atheist to the point of getting angry over this?

Since you've already made 3-4 posts saying he's not an atheist, when no one said he was, why do you keep making these meaningless posts and detracting from the thread?

 

[GeorgCantor]

Since you've already made 3-4 posts saying he's not an atheist, when no one said he was, why do you keep making these meaningless posts and detracting from the thread?

Because, not surprisingly, it answers the OP question.

 

[jackmell]

Because, not surprisingly, it answers the OP question.

I fail to see how that answers the question. The author asked:

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

Now you say the fact that he wasn't an Atheist answers the question which implies to me you mean AE is giving a religious answer but in an earlier post you state: "When he says "religion", he specifically means merely "the sphere containing the faith that the world is comprehensible/rational". "

Just sounds contradictory to me.

 

[Integral]

My views and that of many other phd's are not much different than that of Aristotle and Plato. So you must be laughing at your own post.

Cool, when is your next sacrifice to Athena?

What has having a phd have to do with anything?

Culture has nothing to do with fundamental beliefs about God and existence. You are not implying Einstein was a retard who couldn't form his own opinion about God and existence and had to follow the trend of his time, are you?

Wow? I think it is more like beliefs about god and existence define cultures.
Dare I say Hindi or Buddhism?

Everyone's belief structure is defined in their first 13yrs of life. I say 13 because that is the age of adulthood in many cultures. One can certainly modify those beliefs but the starting point is always the foundation of those changes and to a certain extent defines the changes. The idea of a complete revolt of your fundamental belief structure on a wide spread basis is pretty new. Even so, a revolt against everything you have ever been taught is just a negative vector with your former beliefs as a base point. Revolters often end up just negating principle concepts of their original belief system. Thus their beliefs are still defined by what they were taught as a child.

To relate this to this thread. AE clearly modified his childhood belief system to meld with his scientific mind set. He did not reject god he just modified his concept of god and religion to fit what he had learned. Religions purpose in his life was to provide moral and behavioral guidelines. The quote in the title of this thread makes complete sense. I just wish that someone could find AE's actuall words. I really doubt that AE ever used the word "lame" unless he was talking about a horse.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Everyone's belief structure is defined in their first 13yrs of life. I say 13 because that is the age of adulthood in many cultures.

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.

 

[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'.