NationStates Jolt Archive

you can have religion if you want,
as well as you have a right to not be near it.
whateva...



"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941) ch. 13

as well as you have a right to not be near it. I agree. No one's being forced to live in the Vatican. :)

I think Einstein was right.

Science shows us the 'what.'
Our minds interpret the 'how.'
Religion gives us the 'why.'

Einstein was sadly greatly handicapped by his religious beliefs :rolleyes:
He refused to accept some results of his theory of relativity because he didn't think God would allow it that way.
Without his foolish religious beliefs, he would've been able to assess things much better.

Einstein was sadly greatly handicapped by his religious beliefs :rolleyes:
He refused to accept some results of his theory of relativity because he didn't think God would allow it that way.
Without his foolish religious beliefs, he would've been able to assess things much better.

Einstein was an agnostic - he did not believe in a personal God or organised religion, but he did think it wise to not be overly arrogant and assume humility.

Goddistan']I think Einstein was right.

Science shows us the 'what.'
Our minds interpret the 'how.'
Religion gives us the 'why.'

Not quite

Science shows us the 'what.'
Our minds interpret the 'how.'
Religion makes up the 'why.'

There that's better. Fixed it for ya or for Einstien for that matter

Does Einstein explain why science without religion is lame?

While I wait I will put up some favorite Einstien quotes:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."

"If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales."

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

"It's not that I'm so smart , it's just that I stay with problems longer ."

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."

"I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."

"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."

"So long as they don't get violent, I want to let everyone say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me."

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

"Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind."

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

"It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living, by its purely physical effect on the human temperament, would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind."

I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."
I like that one. (Copy/pastes it.)

Einstein was sadly greatly handicapped by his religious beliefs :rolleyes:
He refused to accept some results of his theory of relativity because he didn't think God would allow it that way.
Without his foolish religious beliefs, he would've been able to assess things much better. That's news to me. I always assumed that people didn't like all of relativity because it means a reshuffle of the technogabble on science fiction programmes when warp speed is initiated.

"Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." There's a Muslim prayer that says something very similar, I think. Couldn't find it if you wanted me to, though. :)

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

This is a big part of what I like best about certain Eastern religions/panentheism. I find that Einstein's ideas about religion are fairly close to my own. Unlike a lot of people around here (apparently), I don't see any conflict between science and religion. I see a lot of people hanging on to particular religious beliefs, of course, that cause them to see science as something opposed to the idea of divinity, rather than seeing it as something that can explain what divinity really is, how it exists in the world, as it were. A bit like what went on during the Enlightenment, for example.

It's too bad that people would rather cling to old books then actually seize the chance to really know, and these silly notions that divinity is somehow resident in a place called heaven instead of simply an old word for the underlying basis of our reality. The thing is, I suppose, it's easy to memorize quotes and stories, and not so easy to learn the tools necessary to discard ignorance.

I'd have loved to have talked about these ideas with Einstein, you know? I'm sure he would have blown my doors off intellectually, but I'd have been quite happy to discuss a little and smile like an idiot a lot. :)

I think the 'religion' thing could be read as 'ethics' or 'morals'.

For example the Germans or Japanese (or even in the US circa 1900)
conducting experiments on people without their consent.
Or giving someone mind altering drugs against their consent as well.

or the US as well as the USSR gov'ts testing biological or chemical
weapons on their own cities.

....crimes against humanity.



the other might be a little more self-explanatory

I think the 'religion' thing could be read as 'ethics' or 'morals'.

For example the Germans or Japanese (or even in the US circa 1900)
conducting experiments on people without their consent.
Or giving someone mind altering drugs against their consent as well.

The CIA did that too I think - MKULTRA


or the US as well as the USSR gov'ts testing biological or chemical
weapons on their own cities.


When did this happen in the US?

Goddistan']I think Einstein was right.

Science shows us the 'what.'
Our minds interpret the 'how.'
Religion gives us the 'why.'

Um no...

Science explains the 'why', its basically the same thing as the 'how'.

Religion just takes advatage of natural things and claims 'god' causes them(the why) and uses god as an exscuse to explain why things happen.

Does Einstein explain why science without religion is lame?

From my perspective, I think you could replace religion in that quote with "heart" or "conscience." Basically meaning, don't be all brain without humanity. But I'm much stupider than Einstein.

Um no...

Science explains the 'why', its basically the same thing as the 'how'. Good luck in scientifically explaining the purpose of existence, the reasons for being, the destiny (if any) of humanity and the searching for an objective moral law.
Religion just takes advatage of natural things and claims 'god' causes them(the why) and uses god as an exscuse to explain why things happen. Hmm, if this were true, you'd think religion would be dead by now, wouldn't you? *waits for someone to say that only stupid people are religious*

Who says there is an objective moral law?

Who says there is an objective moral law? Exactly my point. There is no scientific way to find out.

Good luck in scientifically explaining the purpose of existence, the reasons for being, the destiny (if any) of humanity and the searching for an objective moral law.

Who says there has to be a purpose other than to spread our genetic material? Did you ever think that mabey were just here for no damn good reason? Most likely by accident?



Hmm, if this were true, you'd think religion would be dead by now, wouldn't you? *waits for someone to say that only stupid people are religious*

You havent been in a public high school lately have you? I had a very interesting discussion in our foriegn language class today concerning things such as intelligent design, god, alians, and human nature. Its the god part I thought was really going well, at least three quarters of my class was questioning (to some exstent) the existance of a god. No kidding.
Religion is well on its way to being dead, wouldn't you say?

Exactly my point. There is no scientific way to find out.

Are you saying that there is a way to explain moral laws by using a method besides science? Say religion?

Who says there has to be a purpose other than to spread our genetic material? Did you ever think that mabey were just here for no damn good reason? Most likely by accident? Good luck proving that, as well as all the opposing examples I dredged up.

You havent been in a public high school lately have you? I had a very interesting discussion in our foriegn language class today concerning things such as intelligent design, god, alians, and human nature. Its the god part I thought was really going well, at least three quarters of my class was questioning (to some exstent) the existance of a god. No kidding.
Religion is well on its way to being dead, wouldn't you say? Not really. People have been saying that since... well, Nietzsche was saying it, for one thing. Also, there is no correlation between intelligence and belief - something you'd expect if more educated people were driven to reject religion by their studies. The most intelligent guy in my year is a devout Roman Catholic.

Are you saying that there is a way to explain moral laws by using a method besides science? Say religion? Philosophy is a wonderful thing.

From my perspective, I think you could replace religion in that quote with "heart" or "conscience." Basically meaning, don't be all brain without humanity. But I'm much stupider than Einstein.
I think Einstein was thinking of spirituality, not in the sense of a supernatural spirit, but in the sense of an emotional appreciation and awe at the nature and magnitude of the universe, and of our extremely humble place in it. He could perhaps be described as a pantheist, i.e. the universe is god. He explicitly rejected belief in a personal god, a god with its own personality, awareness and sense of purpose.

I agree. No one's being forced to live in the Vatican. :)
The Pope is.

Who says there has to be a purpose other than to spread our genetic material? Did you ever think that mabey were just here for no damn good reason? Most likely by accident?

How could everything in this universe, animals, planets, us be created by accident? i believe that there is no way we, as a species, would have been this intelligent if we just walked out of the ocean. i think we would still be living in caves. but thanks to God we're not.

I think Einstein was thinking of spirituality, not in the sense of a supernatural spirit, but in the sense of an emotional appreciation and awe at the nature and magnitude of the universe, and of our extremely humble place in it. He could perhaps be described as a pantheist, i.e. the universe is god. He explicitly rejected belief in a personal god, a god with its own personality, awareness and sense of purpose.


In that respect, how do you connect it with science though? DM made a very good point and I could see how that would be tied in but if you think of it this way it seems like it wouldn't effect the science one way or another. I dunno if I am being clear in what I mean.

Not really. People have been saying that since... well, Nietzsche was saying it, for one thing.
And events tend to support Nietzsche, although not as quickly as he might have expected. At the time he was writing, the number of non-religious people in the World was negligable (a fraction of 1%). Now it's about 15%. It's a very slow process, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Also, there is no correlation between intelligence and belief - something you'd expect if more educated people were driven to reject religion by their studies. The most intelligent guy in my year is a devout Roman Catholic.
There is a pretty clear correlation between non-belief and level of education. It's not 100% (so you will find very intelligent and highly-educated religious people), but the higher up the educational ladder you go, the greater the proportion of non-believers you'll find.

I think Einstein was thinking of spirituality, not in the sense of a supernatural spirit, but in the sense of an emotional appreciation and awe at the nature and magnitude of the universe, and of our extremely humble place in it. He could perhaps be described as a pantheist, i.e. the universe is god. He explicitly rejected belief in a personal god, a god with its own personality, awareness and sense of purpose.

I think the term might be panentheist. Not important, really. I tend to agree with that take on things. I experience that sense of awe and wonder on a daily basis. I consider it a privilege of being human and a particular privilege of what I do academically (in biology) and artistically when I have the time for both. Life, the universe, and everything, requires no deistic intervention at all to be infinitely incredible.

I think the term might be panentheist.
Panentheism is the belief that the universe is a part of God, but that God is more than the just the universe. Pantheism equates God with the universe, no more, no less, which I think was Einstein's position.

Some quotes from Einstein make you wonder what he really thought about God though: http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

especially - "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

Einstein was an agnostic - he did not believe in a personal God or organised religion, but he did think it wise to not be overly arrogant and assume humility.
Einstein said "God does not play dice with the Universe" in response to quantum theory, and he inserted the cosmological constant into relativity to create a steady-state universe. The first certainly indicates a belief in God...

Good luck proving that, as well as all the opposing examples I dredged up.


Honestly I can't prove my beliefs. And you can't disprove my belifes. Noone knows the truth for now. That is, of course, if you don't believe that everything was made by god...

There was one thing that really helped convince me that there was no god. Math. Math is wonderfull and can be used to explain pretty much anything, Inlcuding the origins to this universe.

I wont claim to be a quantum physicist, but when I had M-theory and String-Theory explain to me, I was convinced that there definatly could have been a different explaination to the begginings of our universe besides 'god did it'.


M theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory)
String theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory)


Not really. People have been saying that since... well, Nietzsche was saying it, for one thing.

So? He was right, sayings that are correct tend to stick around.

Also, there is no correlation between intelligence and belief - something you'd expect if more educated people were driven to reject religion by their studies.

The most intelligent guy in my year is a devout Roman Catholic.


If there is no correlation between intellegence and tendancies toward religion, why state the fact that the most intelligent guy in your grade is a devout Roman? I never said that smarter people didn't belive in a 'god'.


And plus, its not like the average kid is a physicist. How would they know that theorys exist that can explain the origans of the universe. I don't see scientist barging into schools holding up their knowlege(which is quite unfortinate that they don't I think), and most of the kids who attend high school don't watch scientific documentarys. They're most likely to believe what their head of church says(if they attend one).

Now I'm not saying that someone didn't use these mathematics to creat the universe, but that likelyhood that there was a consciousness that did is just as likely as we not being here.


_EDIT_____

Forgot about you...

How could everything in this universe, animals, planets, us be created by accident? i believe that there is no way we, as a species, would have been this intelligent if we just walked out of the ocean. i think we would still be living in caves. but thanks to God we're not.

The 'accident' I'm speaking of is life.

Life is a wonderfull thing but it appears(to our best knowlege) that the only life exists on Earth. How many other places in the universe have life?


Do you understand how LONG 4.3 BILLION YEARS is!? That is a long ass time for things to happen. Self duplcation strands of DNA competed and the most successfull prospered. The most successfull gradually developed through the times into the organisms that are around today.

Now as for us being as smart as we were, Ill make up a highly likely scenerio:

time: 1 million years ago
Place: Somwhere in Africa
Animal: Ancestors of Humans

Two Apes are chuggin along and the stubble across a poisonious snake.
The first ape has inborn fear of snake, his companion does not.

The first ape backs away out of the range of the snake. The second Ape thinks "mabey its a friendly snake. Why is it coiled like that?" Seconds later the ape recieved a deadly bite and died a couple hours later, it able to pass on the DNA that would have caused it decendants to show no fear of snakes.

The first ape on the other hand, goes back to the herd and mates. Passing on its DNA that gave it a fear of snakes.
So now the more evolved apes of today are born with 'inborn smarts' "Stay away from striped snakes, they bite".

My point is that natural selection was at the work from the beggining of life on Earth. Organisms who were the most successfull while living passed on their genes and their young carried on the proccess of N. Selection. This is how animals and plants were able to walk out of the sea, OVER 4.3 BILLION YEARS, and evolve into what there is today.


i believe that there is no way we, as a species, would have been this intelligent if we just walked out of the ocean. i think we would still be living in caves. but thanks to God we're not.

So your saying that our ancestors always lived in caves?

Last time I checked, the choice to live in caves and not in the open required intelligence. That intelligence had to have been developed from somewhere. Ever seen a turkey drown in a cave while it was raining? How about outside the cave in the open(in a normal rain, not a huge downpoor)? Sometimes the ones outside in the open drown from the rain. Stupid animals really..

In a couple thousand years(hopefully for the turkeys sake) the decendants of the turkeys of today who didn't drown in the rain will not be looking up into the sky trying to fgure out what is hitting it. They will have an inborn trait not to open they're mouth and look up for long periods of time trying to figure out what is hitting it in the head. Evolution in action(not really as this is assuming and I can't travel into the future to prove my point).



I hope that through all this explaining I havent left a point hanging. O well.

The Pope is [forced to live in the Vatican].
He could move to Avignon...

Nietzsche:
"God is dead."

God:
"Nietzsche is dead."

I think that what Einstein had as a scientist, and what many seem to lack nowadays, is humility. It's this humility, probably stemming from his religiosity, whatever form it took, that acted as a moral compass for his work. There is no contradiction between science and religion, necessarily.

If science asks: "CAN we do this?", then it takes an ethical belief system, relgious or philosophical to ask the question: "SHOULD we do this?".

Humility tells Man that there are certain paths which may best be left untravelled.