Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

[ChrisTheFeral]

"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

 

[Danger]

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.

 

[ChrisTheFeral]

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.

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know if it's legit, but I do have that one on a calendar 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.

 

[Danger]

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

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.

 

[ChrisTheFeral]

I don't know if it's legit, but I do have that one on a calendar 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[GeorgCantor]

Einstein was not an atheist. This explains all.

 

[ChrisTheFeral]

Einstein was not an atheist. This explains all.

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.

 

[jackmell]

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.

 

[GeorgCantor]

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.

"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)

 

[Insanity]

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.

 

[ChrisTheFeral]

"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)

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.

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.

Ah good, thanks for confirming that :), it looked official to me.

 

[mugaliens]

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.

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.

 

[ChrisTheFeral]

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.

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.

 

[arunma]

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.

 

[mugaliens]

...but the questions that inspired religion that inspire science...

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.

But it's important, I think, to ask the sorts of questions that religion poses for us.

Yes, it is!

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.

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!"

 

[GeorgCantor]

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.

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)

 

[Evo]

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

“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.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

 

[ChrisTheFeral]

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.

In what sense?

 

[Insanity]

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.

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."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

That does not speak to matters of spirituality generally. He only denies the concept of a personal God and law-giver.

 

[Integral]

What one has to keep in mind when reading a quote like this is that it is a window into a different culture. The culture AE grew up in is very different then ours. One needs to be very careful about applying such quotes to the modern world.

 

[Insanity]

What one has to keep in mind when reading a quote like this is that it is a window into a different culture. The culture AE grew up in is very different then ours. One needs to be very careful about applying such quotes to the modern world.

How is the culture today different from the culture of the 1940s?

 

[Evo]

How is the culture today different from the culture of the 1940s?

You don't know? There are too many differences, in the Wetsern World, to list here. You might want to look for some books about it, or even look on the internet if you are not familiar.

 

[dx]

Einstein's religiosity is I think not different from his supreme intelligence, which leads to "a far-reaching emancipation from the schackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man."

"Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength."

Science without this kind of feeling is "uninspired empiricism".

 

[GeorgCantor]

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.

 

[Integral]

How is the culture today different from the culture of the 1940s?

AE did not grow to maturity in the 1940's. He was born in the 1880's so was mature and pretty set in his beliefs by the turn of the 20th century. The culture you grow up in has EVERYTHING to do with your views of spirituality. In 19th century Europe (AE's world)there was a much narrower range of accepted views then what we now experience.

 

[Insanity]

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.

My thought as well.

You don't know? There are too many differences, in the Wetsern World, to list here. You might want to look for some books about it, or even look on the internet if you are not familiar.

People worked to earned incomes to provide for their family, as people do today.
The Nation was at war, as it has been recently.
The National debt was high then, as it is recently.
National unemployment was high then, if not higher, then recently.

What specific differences separate the culture of then from today?
This is what I was looking for.

 

[General_Sax]

People worked to earned incomes to provide for their family, as people do today.
The Nation was at war, as it has been recently.
The National debt was high then, as it is recently.
National unemployment was high then, if not higher, then recently.

What specific differences separate the culture of then from today?
This is what I was looking for.

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.

 

[Integral]

So you think you can get inside the mind of a 19th century German Jew and have a good understanding of his spirituality and world view? If you are Jewish you have a much better chance then most.

In our world today we must view this quote as interesting but not remarkable or unexpected from someone from the 19th century Jewish culture.

 

[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.