Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[JP Cusick]

Give me an example and then explain how the inclusion of religion ended up being advantageous

I did give a specific example of huge importance in my comment #4.

The Theory of Relativity has its roots in the Bible book of Genesis, and in fact the book of Genesis is the most compelling of all the books in the entire Bible.

Einstein was smart to include God in his science, but being smart is not really the same as being a genius.

Thereby it is empirical evidence.

But the fact that there are so many successful atheist scientists out there basically disproves your "principle" outright. Their science is utterly devoid of any religion and their scientific findings are anything but "lame".

There is absolutely no evidence that science needs religion.

The Atheist scientist are handicapped (or lame) by failing to see (being blind) the reality of the Creator God.

And on top of that they fail to use the Bible as they were told by Einstein in his famous principle:

HERE = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

When any scientist misses the biggest reality of them all (the reality of God) then that is as severe as one can get.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 31 by JP Cusick]

The Atheist scientist are handicapped (or lame) by failing to see (being blind) the reality of the Creator God.

If this is true, then atheist scientists should be unsuccessful in their work. Remind me again how it is we got to the Moon and back?

The Theory of Relativity has its roots in the Bible book of Genesis,

No it doesn't. The only reason you think that is because you are aware of a conflict between a literal interpretation of Genesis (Earth being created in six 24 hour days) and what science has revealed to us over the years (Earth being 4 billion years old), and so people like you came up with "A day is a thousand years to God".
As I have said (and as you have refused to comment on) relativity destroys any concept of an absolute frame of reference.

And on top of that they fail to use the Bible as they were told by Einstein in his famous principle:

HERE = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Where in this quote is Einstein TELLING anyone to use the Bible? I've already metaphorically smacked your hand over this before JP; why would Einstein mean the Bible when as you admitted in an earlier comment he would have been more than likely meaning his own Jewish scriptures?
Remember, the Bible is the Old and New Testament (plus Apocrypha if Catholic).

The word religion does NOT automatically mean the Bible, or Christianity in particular.

When any scientist misses the biggest reality of them all (the reality of God) then that is as severe as one can get.

In which case, we should expect to see atheist scientists failing in their works...except that doesn't happen. It's almost like science is able to work irrespective of one's belief in a god or gods.

[Justin108]

Give me an example and then explain how the inclusion of religion ended up being advantageous

I did give a specific example of huge importance in my comment #4.

The Theory of Relativity has its roots in the Bible book of Genesis, and in fact the book of Genesis is the most compelling of all the books in the entire Bible.

The problem with this example is that it is entirely your opinion that Einstein got his theory of relativity from Genesis. Despite your insistence, there is absolutely no confirmation that Einstein got the idea for the Theory of Relativity from Genesis. I already pointed this out in post 12, but of course you just ignored me.

The Atheist scientist are handicapped (or lame) by failing to see (being blind) the reality of the Creator God.

What we have here is circular logic. You begin with the presupposition that God exists and so any science that does not agree with this conclusion, you just dismiss as "lame". In order to make this argument, however, you must first prove the existence of God. Can you prove the existence of God?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 30 by Justin108]

Ok let's do a body count. On this topic alone, we have
- Myself
- McCulloch
- rikuoamero
- Divine Insight
- H.sapiens
- DrNoGods
- Tired of the Nonsense

...all agreeing that your position is nonsense

Not just nonsense in that is wrong, mistaken, incorrect, (as in someone doing a test in class might say that the capital of Britain is Manchester. That can be excused as them simply not knowing better, getting a simple little factoid wrong).
Its nonsense in that none of what JP is saying here makes any sense whatsoever, in that what he's saying is SO OBVIOUSLY wrong that I'm wondering why he put finger to keyboard and said it anyway.

We have JP declaring to have an understanding of gravity, time and relativity, then declaring that gravity makes it seem like people on the moon are moving slowly. Except no. As I earlier explained, you would need higher gravity when compared to Earth for that to be the case, and the moon's gravitational pull is weaker.
We have JP declaring that what Einstein means with the quote he keeps saying over and over is that science without the Bible "is lame"...except that Einstein, being a Jew, would not have had an especially great love for the Bible.

[JP Cusick]

If this is true, then atheist scientists should be unsuccessful in their work. Remind me again how it is we got to the Moon and back?

Going to the Moon is really far more a matter of engineering and not much of science or physics.

Plus science is still today built upon the the teaching of God as given through Einstein, so they do have a big boost of a revelation to build upon.

... people like you came up with "A day is a thousand years to God".

Old (elder) testament - thousand years as per day = Psalm 90:4

New (newer) testament - thousand years as per day = 2 Peter 3:8

So this was written long ago before anyone ever dreamed up the Theory of Relativity.

Where in this quote is Einstein TELLING anyone to use the Bible? I've already metaphorically smacked your hand over this before JP; why would Einstein mean the Bible when as you admitted in an earlier comment he would have been more than likely meaning his own Jewish scriptures?
Remember, the Bible is the Old and New Testament (plus Apocrypha if Catholic).

The word religion does NOT automatically mean the Bible, or Christianity in particular.

I do believe that Einstein was anti Christian, but the Jewish religion will still use an English translation of their scriptures.

In the famous dictum Einstein said "religion" as "science without religion" so he did not specify the Bible, but the book of Genesis is in the Bible.

I realize that Einstein was an immoral jerk but he did not exclude the scriptures of the old testament as a part of religion.

In which case, we should expect to see atheist scientists failing in their works...except that doesn't happen. It's almost like science is able to work irrespective of one's belief in a god or gods.

Einstein gave science a huge boost by giving the doctrine of Relativity from the scriptures.

The Atheist scientist are unknowingly standing on the back of Divine revelation.



--------------------------------------------

In order to make this argument, however, you must first prove the existence of God. Can you prove the existence of God?

The reality of God can not be proven to people who refuse to see and refuse to understand, so if you want the real proof of God then you have to do your own homework and prove it for your self.

It really is not my concern that you do not see and you can not comprehend because that is your defect and has nothing to do with me.

I do not seek to convert you nor to convince anyone, because it is just your loss and my advantage.

I have told you the reality and the truth = so you can take it or leave it.

[Justin108]

In order to make this argument, however, you must first prove the existence of God. Can you prove the existence of God?

The reality of God can not be proven to people who refuse to see and refuse to understand

The reality of atheism can not be proven to people who refuse to see and refuse to understand. See how that "argument" goes both ways?

so if you want the real proof of God then you have to do your own homework and prove it for your self.

Not really. You're the one making the claim that God exists. The burden of proof is on you.

It really is not my concern that you do not see and you can not comprehend because that is your defect and has nothing to do with me.

It really is not my concern that you do not see and you can not comprehend the fact that there is no god because that is your defect and has nothing to do with me. Again, that "argument" goes both ways.

I do not seek to convert you nor to convince anyone, because it is just your loss and my advantage.

Ah yes. Another theist who frequents a debate site without the intent to debate. If your intention is to preach rather than debate, why are you here? I'm sure there are several other websites dedicated to preaching.

I have told you the reality and the truth = so you can take it or leave it.

You have claimed truth without any support other than fallacious appeals, circular logic and presupposition.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 35 by JP Cusick]

Going to the Moon is really far more a matter of engineering and not much of science or physics.

I am continually amazed by just how often one can say things that are just completely wrong.

You say engineering as if it has nothing to do with science, and then ignore the fact that moon landings require a heck of a lot of physics. You need to calculate trajectory, when and where to turn on engines and for how long...the list goes on.

Plus science is still today built upon the the teaching of God as given through Einstein, so they do have a big boost of a revelation to build upon.

Which is why when I stepped into a science classroom, there was talk of God interspersed throughout...oh wait...NO THERE WASN'T.

So this was written long ago before anyone ever dreamed up the Theory of Relativity.

Explain how though if one is using 1000:1 as a ratio, that it somehow matches up with what science does tell us about the age of the Earth: 4.5 billion years or thereabouts?

I do believe that Einstein was anti Christian,

Nope, he went to a Catholic school in his younger days and recalled the lessons he had there fondly.

but the Jewish religion will still use an English translation of their scriptures.

Are you saying that someone studying the Jewish religion would use the Christian Bible?

In the famous dictum Einstein said "religion" as "science without religion" so he did not specify the Bible, but the book of Genesis is in the Bible.

This goes against what you said in earlier comments where you took pains to specifically use the name Bible.

You are now caught in a lie.

I realize that Einstein was an immoral jerk

Woah woah woah. Where is this coming from? So far you've done nothing but sing his praises, so this is coming out of left field...

but he did not exclude the scriptures of the old testament as a part of religion.

The problem is that when YOU, as in J P Cusick, said that Einstein was telling scientists to use the Bible, the word Bible refers to the Old and New Testaments (including Apocrypha if Catholic). Apparently, you can't keep your terminology straight.
You want to point to Einstein as being an authority on both science and religion, but he was quite clearly Jewish and not Christian...so you're painting yourself into a contradiction.

Einstein gave science a huge boost by giving the doctrine of Relativity from the scriptures.

Doesn't matter how many times you say this, you don't give us anything at all to work with.

I do not seek to convert you nor to convince anyone, because it is just your loss and my advantage.

Keep saying this and it is likely the mods will ban you from the site. There are rules against preaching.

[KenRU]

In the famous dictum Einstein said "religion" as "science without religion" so he did not specify the Bible, but the book of Genesis is in the Bible.

Well, if you are concerned with what Einstein did say, then you should know that he did not believe in a personal god, which means he did not believe in REVELATION. He did not believe in the truth that the bible or the Torah revealed god.

In his own words: "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, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

Bold added for emphasis. He does not believe in a personal god. So, any revelations in a holy book would not be believed either.

Einstein is not using the word Religion (in your quote) as you are. The only way to reconcile the two is to assume he is using the word Religion in a more secular manner.

[H.sapiens]

...

Plus in this case my opinion aligns with Albert Einstein..

Actually, that's false (like most of what you post) thanks for the good example of quote mining.

Einstein’s Famous Quote About Science and Religion Didn’t Mean What You Were Taught
The scientist actually offers no solace to believers
BY JERRY A. COYNE

[JP Cusick]

The reality of God can not be proven to people who refuse to see and refuse to understand

The reality of atheism can not be proven to people who refuse to see and refuse to understand. See how that "argument" goes both ways?

It does not work in reverse because Atheism is a negative, while the reality of God is a positive.

A person can not refuse to see what is not there = no God of Atheism.
A person can refuse to see what is there = the reality of God.

That maxim only goes the one (1) way for those who refuse to see and refuse to understand.

Not really. You're the one making the claim that God exists. The burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on each individual and it is not my place to prove God to you.

No one proved God to me as I did my own research and my own study and my own experiments as in I did my own homework and I discovered the reality of God for myself. Other people wrote books and gave assistance to me but I had to seek them out as they never came to me.

Even if I do show you proof (as has already been done many times) then it is still up to your self to see for your self and to understand for your self.

No one can do the work for you.

It really is not my concern that you do not see and you can not comprehend because that is your defect and has nothing to do with me.

It really is not my concern that you do not see and you can not comprehend the fact that there is no god because that is your defect and has nothing to do with me. Again, that "argument" goes both ways.

It does not cut both ways.

Because = what I said is true and accurate.

HERE = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


-----------------------------------------

In the famous dictum Einstein said "religion" as "science without religion" so he did not specify the Bible, but the book of Genesis is in the Bible.

Well, if you are concerned with what Einstein did say, then you should know that he did not believe in a personal god, which means he did not believe in REVELATION. He did not believe in the truth that the bible or the Torah revealed god.

I do not like Einstein as a person because he was a spineless immoral jerk, but he was still smart enough to use religion to enhance science and he gets credit for what was right.

He got that one (1) sentence right, and that is a principle to follow if we too want to see better and to know better.