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]

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."

Do you think that if you repeat it enough times, it will become true?

That is the subject and the topic of this thread.

To repeat the subject matter and to emphasize the topic is simply trying to keep the thread on track.

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

In comment number 4, ... You have NOTHING from Einstein ever saying that his inspiration for relativity was Biblical.

My point in comment #4 is the evidence as from the Bible.

Einstein told us the principle = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." and based on that principle the basis of the science is to be found in the religious text.

I followed the principle - but I do not follow Einstein.

When we want the evidence then we go to the source = the religion - the Bible = as I did in my comment #4.

AGAIN, relativity disproves a God in at least one way by showing there is no absolute frame of reference.

Link here to the Absolute Frame of Reference.

That means that the viewer being human has no absolute frame of reference.

This was my point about people on the Moon, in that the same person from earth is thereby viewing the Moon as slow motion based solely on the viewer being the out of place astronauts.

It disproves nothing about the Creator God.

This is like arguing with a child, as the child sings this song =
Singing: ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = I'm not going to believe it = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = and you can't make me = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = nannee nannie nan nan = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮

Or like you where you plug your fingers in your ears and do not address certain on the point criticism.

Okay - that is clever - yours is funny too.

There does come a time when enough is enough, because there is no justification for me to continue a so called discussion when other people are just criticizing.

[Justin108]

Do you think that if you repeat it enough times, it will become true?

That is the subject and the topic of this thread.

To repeat the subject matter and to emphasize the topic is simply trying to keep the thread on track.

Ok but see... you can't just keep repeating it. You also need to support it. And before you respond with "go look at post 4", I'm going to tell you to look at post 12.


I'll ask again: is saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" the same as saying "I got my Theory of Relativity from the Bible"?

[Bust Nak]

My understanding is that we are to discuss the topic, and that was proven (an answer was given to the OP) early in this thread by me in my comment #4...

Lets just say the standard of what qualify as proof is much higher than what was provided, given the context here is science.

Einstein used one of the messages from the Bible (from the Old Testament) for his view of science in his Theory of Relativity and so the thread topic is already proven and answered.

This is also in itself another proof of the validity of God and of the Bible because the religious basis is what made the science accurate.

Others here just keep denying and denying after I already gave my proof in vivid detail, and so their failure to see or to understand is just not my concern.

Have you considered that what you thought was proven in vivid detail, wasn't up to scratch? At best the Bible inspired Einstein, taking what you stated for granted. How exactly would that prove "science without religion is lame" let alone prove God?

I really see others as being childish when they keep up their denials that no one can prove it to them when the proof is already in their face and eyes.

This is like arguing with a child, as the child sings this song =
Singing: ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = I'm not going to believe it = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = and you can't make me = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮ = nannee nannie nan nan = ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ ♭ ♮

And we are saying the same thing back to you in reverse.

[JP Cusick]

My understanding is that we are to discuss the topic, and that was proven (an answer was given to the OP) early in this thread by me in my comment #4...

... given the context here is science.

No, no, no = the context here is not science - the context here is both science and religion.

You (and others) keep excluding the religion, and as the topic of this thread = that makes you as blind and/or as lame.

Have you considered that what you thought was proven in vivid detail, wasn't up to scratch? At best the Bible inspired Einstein, taking what you stated for granted. How exactly would that prove "science without religion is lame" let alone prove God?

You are taking it too far.

All science is not dead without religion, because Einstein built physics on the premises of religion and so every part of science thereafter is already built on that religious foundation.

And even lame or blind science can still function.

It is the same as any person or scientist who fails to comprehend the reality of God then they can still do lots of things in science because it is just a handicap.

People who really want to see more and to do more then they would be wise to learn the true principle from Einstein:

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

[Bust Nak]

No, no, no = the context here is not science - the context here is both science and religion.

You (and others) keep excluding the religion, and as the topic of this thread = that makes you as blind and/or as lame.

Science and religion. i.e. you have to use science and not just religion. We are not excluding the religion, we are asking you not to exclude science.

You are taking it too far.

All science is not dead without religion, because Einstein built physics on the premises of religion and so every part of science thereafter is already built on that religious foundation.

Maybe he did built his theory on the premises of religion, that in itself is a questionable claim, but physics isn't built on anything other than empirical evidence and logic.

And even lame or blind science can still function.

It is the same as any person or scientist who fails to comprehend the reality of God then they can still do lots of things in science because it is just a handicap.

People who really want to see more and to do more then they would be wise to learn the true principle from Einstein:

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

What advantage does a theist have over an atheist when it comes to science?

[Kenisaw]

I firmly believe that Einstein himself used the Bible to get his own basic ideas and really he is saying just that in that quote.

The theory of relativity comes straight out of the old Testament as it tells of people living hundreds of years, then the Bible tells that God shortened the human life span down to 120 years, and it tells that a day for God is 1000 years, and the old method of measuring time was the Moon cycle of 19 years, so all of this told Einstein that time was relative and he expanded from there.

This is his own principle:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Some things probably inspired Einstein.

In his 1846 story "The Stars and World History," Felix Eberty speculated on what might happen if humans could travel faster than the speed of light. Jimena Canales wrote in The New Yorker that Einstein "recalled devouring Bernstein's work, in particular, 'with breathless attention,' and it may have inspired one of the conjectures that led to his special theory of relativity".

Albert Michelson, who had graduated from the Naval Academy only five years earlier in 1873, set up a revolving mirror at one end of the sea wall and a stationary mirror 500 feet away, along with a heliostat, a lens and a tuning fork. He used the distance between the mirrors and the revolving mirror's speed to calculate the velocity of the stream of light at 186,508 miles per second. The experiment and later ones "led the physicists into new paths and through experimental work paved the way for the development of the theory of relativity," Einstein told Michelson at a dinner at the California Institute of Technology in 1931.

So there are stories about sources of inspiration for Einstein. None of those stories, however, employ your speculative claim involving Bible passages. You can believe it if you want, but it's pure conjecture and nothing more...

[JP Cusick]

Science and religion. i.e. you have to use science and not just religion. We are not excluding the religion, we are asking you not to exclude science.

Maybe he did built his theory on the premises of religion, that in itself is a questionable claim, but physics isn't built on anything other than empirical evidence and logic.

I am just saying that Einstein got his original inspiration for the Theory of Relativity from the scriptures, but he did not tell anyone his source, so yes it was presented as a secular scientific theory, and from there onward it progressed into science as Atheistic.

Whether it is sincere or not - Atheism is compatible with Judaism - which is why many Jewish people can claim to be Atheist when they can keep their religion at the same time.

Carol Sagan tried to die and be buried to be remembered as an Atheist but he still remains a Jewish person forever. Notable is Sagan's book and 1997 movie "Contact" showed at the end a mystical world of a paradise on earth as it is in Heaven. That is the fundamental ideal of Judaism, and it is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and it is the message of the Holy Qur'an too, so Sagan nailed it.

That is not criticizing Judaism because it is a flexible religion, and I myself embrace secular science while I still remain a Theist and a Christian.

What advantage does a theist have over an atheist when it comes to science?

Because then the Atheist would know too as does the Theist that the entire universe and beyond has a real purpose and meaning. This is a BIG advantage.

As like another famous saying from Einstein = " God does not play dice with the universe. "

And I do see it as important to concede that Einstein did not ever mean any major religion as he meant a science type of God, being a God of truth and of reality, and in that I agree with him again.

[Bust Nak]

I am just saying that Einstein got his original inspiration for the Theory of Relativity from the scriptures, but he did not tell anyone his source, so yes it was presented as a secular scientific theory, and from there onward it progressed into science as Atheistic.

Well, secular.

Whether it is sincere or not - Atheism is compatible with Judaism - which is why many Jewish people can claim to be Atheist when they can keep their religion at the same time...

This is a but of a red herring, what does this have to do with what we are talking about?

Because then the Atheist would know too as does the Theist that the entire universe and beyond has a real purpose and meaning. This is a BIG advantage.

What you see as purpose and meaning we atheist see as order, so we are on even ground there.

As like another famous saying from Einstein = " God does not play dice with the universe. "

And that lead him towards the incorrect conclusion, it's an disadvantage in this case.

And I do see it as important to concede that Einstein did not ever mean any major religion as he meant a science type of God, being a God of truth and of reality, and in that I agree with him again.

Okay.

[KenRU]

Science and religion. i.e. you have to use science and not just religion. We are not excluding the religion, we are asking you not to exclude science.

Maybe he did built his theory on the premises of religion, that in itself is a questionable claim, but physics isn't built on anything other than empirical evidence and logic.

I am just saying that Einstein got his original inspiration for the Theory of Relativity from the scriptures, but he did not tell anyone his source,

If he didn’t tell anyone his source, um, then how do you know what it is?

so yes it was presented as a secular scientific theory, and from there onward it progressed into science as Atheistic.

I wonder why … “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, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman.

Oh wait, now we don’t have to wonder why.

What advantage does a theist have over an atheist when it comes to science?

Because then the Atheist would know too as does the Theist that the entire universe and beyond has a real purpose and meaning. This is a BIG advantage.

If the universe and beyond did have some “meaning� (as you say), then maybe you’d be right. But since you can’t prove this, then it MAY be an advantage. Just as the fact that since you can’t fathom a universe without meaning, it then becomes a BIG advantage for the non-believer. It works both ways. If you can assert this advantage, so can a non-believer. Fair is fair.

As like another famous saying from Einstein = " God does not play dice with the universe. "

Good thing we have that quote from him that explains to YOU and I exactly what he means when he talks about god … a non-personal one. How does that factor into your argument?

And I do see it as important to concede that Einstein did not ever mean any major religion as he meant a science type of God, being a God of truth and of reality, and in that I agree with him again.

If you concede that Einstein did not mean he believed in a personal and interactive god, and you concede that he did not espouse the truths of any one religion, then (speaking just for myself) I have no idea why you keep posting quotes of his.

They do not service your argument. They contradict it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 57 by JP Cusick]

I am just saying that Einstein got his original inspiration for the Theory of Relativity from the scriptures, but he did not tell anyone his source, so yes it was presented as a secular scientific theory, and from there onward it progressed into science as Atheistic.

Einstein did write about some of his inspirations during his later years, and specifically mentioned Ernst Mach (of mach number fame) and especially David Hume:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/HumeMach.pdf

http://www.hopos2014.ugent.be/node/350

From the second link above;

In the 14th of December, 1915, Einstein wrote a letter to Schlick where he declared that it was “Mach, and, even more, Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I studied with passion and admiration shortly before discovering the [special] theory of relativity. Very possibly, I wouldn't have come to the solution without those philosophical studies.�

I've never seen any statements attributed to Einstein himself where he claims that he got any inspiration for Relativity from a holy book.