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?

[Divine Insight]

I personally think Einstein blew it on that particular quote. For one thing he most likely meant "spirituality" than "religion". And even in that sense he was probably speaking more toward a genuine curiously and even appreciation, or love of nature than speaking toward any sort of blind dogmatic beliefs.

In that sense I can understand what he meant. Science without compassion and appreciation of nature is indeed lame. It basically becomes "blind technology" where the goal is take advantage of scientific knowledge (potentially in a greedy fashion) rather than to embrace it as a better understanding of the world in which we live, and/or use it for altruistic and humanitarian purposes.

For example, science without compassion equates to building nuclear bombs.

Science with compassion is more likely to build a nuclear power plant.

So replace "religion" with "compassion" in Einstein's quote and I think it makes a lot more sense in terms of what he was actually trying to get at.

His use of the term "religion" in that quote was probably his second greatest blunder in his entire career.

[H.sapiens]

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?

Complete and utter horse pucky. How many times must science prove religion wrong? Has religion ever proved science wrong?

[JP Cusick]

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?

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."

It puzzled me that after Einstein died they cut out his brain to see why he was so brilliant, and instead of having a larger brain it turned out to be a bit smaller than normal, and so in their logic perhaps a smaller brain could be a smarter brain = such fools.

No one took his words literally that science without religion is lame.

Religion without science being blind needs no comment.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 4 by JP Cusick]

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.

What? No homo sapien has ever lived anywhere near the ridiculous ages given in the old testament. No matter how you date biblical events, everyone referenced there was an anatomically modern homo sapien. The oldest confirmed human being was Jeanne Calment at 122 years and 164 days. No human has ever lived to be hundreds of years old at any point in human history. It is not physically possible.

But you are also not consistent. If time was measured in 19 year increments is that equivalent to "1 year", making Noah's age at death 950/19 = 50? That would certainly make more sense, but if that is the case then shortening the human life span down to 120 years is suddenly talking in normal years (ie. 12 months) or else you'd have a life span of only 6.3 years. I've seen people claim that the long ages claimed in the bible were due to considering one month to be one year, or some other attempt to explain these ridiculous and impossible ages.

The truth is that these old stories of such long life times are pure allegory and myth. There is no way to rationalize them against what we know of human physiology, and the people described are simply mythical people who never actually existed (or else their ages were greatly exaggerated in the tales).

And the bible being the source of general relativity! Not sure what to say about that one. There is certainly not a shred of evidence to support such a statement. Your equating the various ways to state the age of a person with the theory of relativity is not even close to what that theory entails. Apples and oranges to say the least.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 4 by JP Cusick]

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.

Einstein was Jewish. Sure, this doesn't prevent him from reading the Bible, but why do you say he would have used that particular volume and not his own culture's holy writings?

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.

Wow. Talk about getting it completely and utterly WRONG. I only have a high school level education and even I know more about relativity than you.
Here's one thing I learned about it. The ToR (I forget whether it's the general or special) says that there is no absolute frame of reference.
Since there is no absolute frame of reference...where does God come into play?

[JP Cusick]

What? No homo sapien has ever lived anywhere near the ridiculous ages given in the old testament. No matter how you date biblical events, everyone referenced there was an anatomically modern homo sapien. The oldest confirmed human being was Jeanne Calment at 122 years and 164 days. No human has ever lived to be hundreds of years old at any point in human history. It is not physically possible.

But you are also not consistent. If time was measured in 19 year increments is that equivalent to "1 year", making Noah's age at death 950/19 = 50? That would certainly make more sense, but if that is the case then shortening the human life span down to 120 years is suddenly talking in normal years (ie. 12 months) or else you'd have a life span of only 6.3 years. I've seen people claim that the long ages claimed in the bible were due to considering one month to be one year, or some other attempt to explain these ridiculous and impossible ages.

The truth is that these old stories of such long life times are pure allegory and myth. There is no way to rationalize them against what we know of human physiology, and the people described are simply mythical people who never actually existed (or else their ages were greatly exaggerated in the tales).

And the bible being the source of general relativity! Not sure what to say about that one. There is certainly not a shred of evidence to support such a statement. Your equating the various ways to state the age of a person with the theory of relativity is not even close to what that theory entails. Apples and oranges to say the least.

In this case it does not matter whether the Bible accounts are accurate or true, because all that matters is that Einstein put the pieces together to then formulate the theory of relativity.

Einstein used other sources too, as like the speed of light was already known and available.

The point is that Einstein himself tells us that he used religion to understand his science, as he said it plain in this:
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if anyone wants to become as smart as Einstein then they need to study religion and apply that to science.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 7 by JP Cusick]

I'm just curious JP. The non believers on the forum have found your understanding of science to be essentially, well, shall we say a good deal less than comprehensive. By your own admission your religious beliefs are unorthodox at best, and actually heretical at worst. Exactly what choir is it that you believe you are preaching to?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 6 by rikuoamero]

then the Bible tells that God shortened the human life span down to 120 years,

But does nothing to stop Noah living to 500+ years AFTER this declaration...

[McCulloch]

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.

Would this be the same Einstein who on January 3, 1954 sent the following reply, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends…. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

I would really like to know why your belief in Einstein's reliance on the Bible is described as a firm belief.