"Einstein summarizes this coexistence by writing that “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” (49). Einstein's idea of religion is iconoclastic because it focuses solely on the feelings of mystery and human concerns and eliminates divine interaction."

"So, by analogy, Einstein is implying that, in the absence of religion, scientific knowledge has no capacity to provide meaning to human existence, where as without scientific knowledge, religion has no real understanding of the world in which it dwells."

These are quotations from the internet. If fascinates me. Being this is Einstein, one of the greatest intellects that existed in the past.

"He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever." In other interviews, he has stated that he thinks there is a "lawgiver" who sets the laws of the universe."



All of this seems to be in full conflict like there is some sort of battle between science and religion and not any specific religion but all religions.

I was wondering what other people think of this?

 

All of this seems to be in full contrast like there is some sort of battle between science and religion and not any specific religion but all religions.

The main battle I see is when religious dogma contradicts science (such as the age of the earth or when humans first appeared, or that humans coexisted with dinosaurs).

 

The main battle I see is when religious dogma contradicts science (such as the age of the earth or when humans first appeared, or that humans coexisted with dinosaurs).

What makes religion dogmatic?

 

What makes religion dogmatic?

You'll have to ask the religions.
It would seem to be the nature of religion, since they generally demand belief without proof.
Edit: And most religions claim they are they only one "true" religion.

 

Way to go!

 

MOD NOTE: Tread very lightly in this thread -- even indirect discussions of religion tend to get heated very quickly. As long as the discussion remains abstract and civil, it will be allowed to continue.

 

MOD NOTE: Tread very lightly in this thread -- even indirect discussions of religion tend to get heated very quickly. As long as the discussion remains abstract and civil, it will be allowed to continue.

Good advice, I am only trying to have an objective discussion.

 

Be very careful about quoting Einstein based on what you find on the Internet -- he has all kinds of stuff attributed to him, much of which is either completely made up or was actually stated by someone else.

Having said that, humans have a huge ability to compartmentalize in very inconsistent ways. Religion, science, ethics, politics, and family seem to be common topics that result in this compartmentalization (and it would be easy to add quite a few other items to that list).

 

You'll have to ask the religions.
It would seem to be the nature of religion, since they generally demand belief without proof.

Hmmm, IMHO Science does the same thing. We don't have the slightest clue how the first cell that came into existence happened and yet science stated it did (is that not dogmatic?). There was a pool of mud and the first most complex machine (the cell) suddenly came into existence with over 250 genes. That seems like an impossibility, that seems rather dogmatic to me.

 

and yet science stated it did (is that not dogmatic?).

As far as all I have read and watched, Science generally states a theory and then sets out to disprove it. !
Which is not what a Dogma does !

 

Abiogenesis is not settled science.

 

Abiogenesis

 

To summarize a passage in the bible, God does nothing for everyone, because all he had to do was create man in his image.

 

As far as all I have read and watched, Science generally states a theory and then sets out to disprove it. !
Which is not what a Dogma does !

No attempt was made to 'disprove' how life began. And yet it is considered a scientific theory. Is that not the very definition of dogmatic?

 

We don't have the slightest clue how the first cell that came into existence happened and yet science stated it did (is that not dogmatic?)

No.
It's obvious it came into existence.
Science does not yet know (or state) how.
Dogma is saying it was done by some supreme being.

No attempt was made to 'disprove' how life began. And yet it is considered a scientific theory. Is that not the very definition of dogmatic?

Don't understand.
'Disprove' what?
What scientific theory?

 

It's all about faith (what you believe but can't prove). The genesis of the 'religion of String theory, M-theory, multiverses,etc... and the Beauty of math instead of scientific evidence shows what happens when 'faith' collides with science.
Lame is perfectly fine for me if it means not believing in magic.

 

Good advice, I am only trying to have an objective discussion.

And the discussion has gone too far. This thread will be closing soon, 3... 2...

 

All religion does is re-enforce Human Tribalism, which will probably be with man until his final demise.
We have no greater example than what is occurring in the middle east today.

 

And the discussion has gone too far. This thread will be closing soon, 3... 2...

I see no problem with the discussion so far.
Why do you?

 

I consider religion to be just another force like science that influences human behaviors. They should stay in mainly in their own circles of influence and try to minimize force overlap in the vast majority of circumstances.