CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Finally, a famous quote (that I have never heard before) that backs up my sentiment perfectly! Religion and science go hand in hand. I've always believed that science answers the question "How does it happen?" and religion answers the question "Why does it happen?"
Science without X is lame science. Science seeks to answer questions through rigorous testing, trial and error if you will. This means, if you purposely deny any idea or leave anything out of the test you're not doing it right. Science without art is too, lame science.
Anyhow, Albert wasn't talking about christianity when he said this, or any typical religion of the time, he was speaking on more general terms. He was a scientific pantheist, which is to say, that he didn't believe in a personal god. "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
You say that religion answers the why's, but Einstein also believed that there is no purpose in nature. Purpose (Intent) == Reason == Why. Pantheism revolves around existence and nature, so if a pantheist says that there is no purpose in nature, that means that God (equivalent to nature in pantheism) has no purpose in anything. God just is, as scientists typically believe the universe just is without a purpose or intention.
So what you get from this quote is actually incorrect. I'm not picking on your views, just differentiating between what he probably meant and what you're getting from it.
This is just funny:
"Why do you write to me 'God should punish the English'? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-Letter to Edgar Meyer colleague January 2, 1915 Contributed by Robert Schulmann; also see CPAE Vol. 8 (forthcoming).
Okay, you successfully pointed out that I didn't know the context of this quote, why Einstein said it, or even his personality for that matter. But I feel that the portion that was given should have been up for interpretation. So I may not have understood this part the way he intended for me to interpret it, but I still hold my beliefs. :)
Ya, that sound pretty logical. There's really nothing more annoying these days than a religious Christian who thinks science is "made up" and worthless.
So, if, religion answers the "why", what answers the "who." I mean, I've heard it over and over in other debates that people either say "God," or they actually don't care. But they care about the other questionable factors and somehow have the mindset to ignore the 'who.' I mean, if they're going to think that way, maybe they shouldn't think about it AT all, no what, where, when, why how.
Science itself has become a religion. Is that too made up?
science itself does not answer anything. It cannot answer the basic question.
why are we here?
Where religion fails it does not consider the human intellect and inherent curiosity. But attempts to correct for this with a sense of morality and ultimate responsibility for our actions.
Where Science fails, it too does not consider the human emotion. but attempts to correct for this by applying intellect and reason.
Science is not at all like religion. It is founded on the simple, obvious idea that we can gain knowledge through observation. Religion has no such foundation.
Nobody knows why we're here. Saying we're here because God put us here is just giving an easy answer to a question that can't be answered.
Science doesn't consider human emotion? What do you mean? Science allows us to study and understand emotions.
Science is only the pursuit of the truth without regard to preconceived notions of the truth. If science can't answer the question "why are we here?", perhaps it's because there is no purpose to our being here, and science won't find a reason when there isn't one.
Anybody that completely ignores science as a whole is retarded. And anyone who cherry picks scientific theories that back their opinion or make the life they want to live more convenient, without truly thinking about it are closed minded. But those people will never admit that they do that.
Yes, also, with the fact that Einstein has an IQ of 500, I'm sure that most of the things he has said should be correct, if not to us, but then it's all about reality, though still, what he had mentioned was true. Religion has many interesting topics for Science to discover, without it, there shall be many limits binding an entire chunk away from science, due to the fact that there would be nothing much left for science to proof, plus if Religion kept it's belief without the reason why, and wether or not things are true, then of course, it's blind and ignorant towards any truth within' beliefs.- ;)
But then that might as well be that it's because Einstein was more of a philosopher as well as a scientist, therefore, philosophy was what interested him the most into discovering so many things and getting so famous, though still, although as what I had mentioned, regariding the fact that there shall be many limits binding an entire chunk away from science, there are still many parts of science with MANY interesting things yet for mankind to discover, but then dicoveries without philosophy was not his main priority.- ;)
This is the way I see it. Religion (like it or not) affects our personality. It plays a key role in the development of a person's (or group's) value system. It has a profound effect on what we are curious about. Also what we are passionate about.
I am not inclined to study the context of the quote, but I believe it is unrealistic to discuss science and religion as being mutually excludable.
Religion influences what we study, Science consists of the most useful theories we have developed by applying the scientific method to those studies.
The present state of the human mind should be recorded i history as mutch as goals attained in the period. That or we whould just have abunch of answers and no questions...all beit the remainder = winged vs horned men like it was possible to live forever not just in death! or a giant song sweeping across the universe played perfectly in key....why the hell did you come up with that without knowing about telekinesis and modern day physics? It leads too more intresting and meaningful conversations then the bluntness of reality in the first place....a blinde life is worth living...but do you realy wanna live it?
Yes, Einstein was religious despite his monumental discoveries in physics that being the Theory of Special Relativity and Theory of General Relativity. He tossed back and forth between what his believes were and what he was the research that he achieved.
What is interesting about science is that people have confined themselves to studying because of religion. The contradiction of the two is what makes them both special. Science is interesting because Religion sometimes backs it up and sometimes wrongs it. The two are a great combination, they go together.
Most people try to take a couple of quotes of his out of context to pretend he was a religious man.
I prefer this quote of his:
"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 which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this"
and this one:
""For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.""
Then there's this one referring to the belief that he was religious
"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."
With the science without religion is blind quote, he didn't mean religion in the sense people are trying to pretend like it means. here is a quote which shows his definition of religion:
"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."
The total extent of his spirituality was an admiration for the complexity of the universe. He did not like religions.
although i agree that Einstein did not believe in a personal God and did not follow and religions and was basically an outright Agnostic, you got the quote wrong.
He said that Science without religions was LAME... not blind. He said religion without science was blind.
IDK if you read it wrong or wrote it wrong, but i just want it to be clear.
in fact, in the quote he was not saying that religion was right. He was just saying that religion becomes a sort of feeling that we create for something. A sense of explanation that goes beyond explaining.
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
quote from Einstein.
Also
Im not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.
He says that he is an Agnostic and not an Atheist. Pretty upfront about it as well.
I think the quote you were referring to is the one where he says that other people may call him an atheist. But he was just saying how religious people would probably call him an atheist. I go through the same thing. Religious people all call me an atheist, but i'm not.
I think I have discussed this with you before, but I will try again.
You are either an atheist or a theist. There is no middle ground. Agnosticism is a totally separate issue. To be frank religious people have corrupted the word agnostic and I will explain why. If they define agnostic as a between position it accomplishes a few goals for them
1) They divide people who don't believe in their god
2) If agnostics are in the middle, they think they can still sway them over to their side.
3) It allows them to cast atheists in an extreme light.
Einstein also seems to have been confused about the meaning of the word as well, as he claimed "I do not believe in a personal God." That statement means you are an atheist.
If you just look at the definition of atheist it is "a disbelief in the existence of deities." This says nothing about if you think it is possible. I don't think it is impossible that there is a god. But there is absolutely no evidence otherwise. Therefore I do not believe in god. Therefore I am atheist.
Here is a little quiz to help you determine what you are:
1) Do you believe in a deity or deities?
Yes: You are a theist
No: You are atheist
2) Do you believe it is possible to determine the existence of a deity or deities with certitude?
Yes: You are gnostic
No: You are agnostic
So you can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist. There is no plain agnostic. In reality gnostic atheists don't exist. I have never met someone who doesn't believe in god, but thinks it is possible to prove god does not exist. And I have met a lot of atheists. The reason is where most atheists rejection of god comes from: a lack of empirical evidence. Anyone rational enough to not believe in something that doesn't have sufficient evidence is not going to claim that a lack of evidence proves a lack of existence. That would be totally irrational. Like I said, atheism in it of itself makes no statements about the existence of god. It is merely the lack of a belief in a god or gods.
So everyone's confused except you? I was just quoting what he said since you said "he's not an agnostic, he's atheist" and I provided how he said that he himself is not atheist and is agnostic.
Disbelief in a personal God doesn't make you atheist... a personal God is a God that watches over you and answers your prayers. People who believe in that are religious. Einstein made some hints about the idea of intelligent design, but never said that it was what he believed in. He always questioned things and was amazed by the laws of the Universe. This is why he refused to become atheist. To reject the idea that there may be an intelligent designer or some kind of superior force of energy seemed contradictory to his beliefs.
My answer to your first questions is the agnostic answer:
I don't know.
It's simple. I don't know if there is an intelligent designer or a superior force of energy. It seems possible, but it also seems possible that it was all random occurrences. But I am clearly not intelligent enough to just decide that there is or isn't a "God".
It's not exactly a middle ground, it's basically the acceptance that we are not capable of answering such a question. We admit to be clueless. That is agnosticism.
Atheism and Theism are bold beliefs. People who are bold enough to decide on whether they believe that God exists or not.
No actually most atheists I have met understand the terms.
Atheism is not rejecting the idea that there is a designer or superior energy force. Atheism and theism are the only two possibilities. There is no other option. For some reason you think there are all of these atheists running around who think it is impossible and provable that god doesn't exist. Here is a neat experiment you can try. Attempt to find an atheist who does not believe in a god, and thinks that it is possible to prove and know absolutely that god doesn't exist. Hint: You won't be able to find one.
Atheists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're atheist. Actually, just how theists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're theists.
What makes the agnostic different from those two is that they decide not to bother in believing one or the other because they know they're not smart enough to make such a decision. They believe in progressing in knowledge and not making a decision to believe in some kind of theory that has no means of being proven.
God is still a vague and incalculable ideal. Agnostics realize that we are nowhere even near the understanding of the Universe. They say "a type of God is possible, and so is the absence of one". They don't say "Well, there's no true way of finding out, so i just will not believe in him." The appropriate response of an agnostic who is asked "do you believe that a type of God exists" is " I don't know".
"Atheists believe that they don't need proof. That's why they're atheist. "
No they don't. They do need proof, which is why they don't believe in god.
This is the last attempt I am going to make and then I give up trying to explain this to you.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? My guess is that you will say no. But can you prove that Santa Claus does not exist? No you can't prove it. Sure some parents may be putting the presents under their tress, but you can't know for a fact Santa Claus doesn't exist because you can't prove a negative. But because of a lack of evidence, you don't believe in him. It is possible to not believe and not think it is possible to know for certain at the same time.
Like Penn said in his video theism vs. atheism is not about is there a god? Anyone who claims to know that god exists or doesn't exist is lying. It's an impossible thing to know. Atheism vs. theism is about is there a god in whom you believe. If you asked a Christian if there is a god they believe in, they would say "Yes Jesus Christ." If you asked a Muslim if there is a god they believe in they would say "Yes Allah." But if you asked an atheist or what you think is an agnostic if there is a god they believe in, they would say no.
If the answer to the question is there a god in whom you believe is no, you are an atheist. And I don't know is not an answer to the question. There either is a god you believe in or there isn't. Thinking a god possibly exists is a totally separate issue.
the whole comparison between God and Santa Claus is really upsetting... I thought we went beyond that.
God can be anything. From an intelligent designer to an unnatural, yet natural bundle of energy in the middle of the Universe. I consider these possibilities mainly because Random chance is not acceptable. But, to believe in random chance is to disbelieve in God. I believe neither, for we are merely at stage one of understanding the Universe.
I should have said "atheists don't need to prove that God doesn't exist". Once again, this is a far greater force than just Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. This is something that, when you ignore what religion has says, actually has some leg.
Agnosticism is surpassing that childish debate on whether one should believe in God or not and is just considering the possibilities. Atheists don't consider intelligent design. Atheists say "of course you can't prove that God doesn't exist, but the idea is just silly". They dismiss it completely. Agnostics, on the other hand say "Well, considering that the Big Bang had to occur in perfect conditions or else the Universe would never have formed it's not irrational to say that something might have guided it". That is the difference.
Once again, I can not give an answer on whether i believe that a "God" exists. I am not smart enough... sorry.
Sigh. I see you have never actually talked to an atheist before in your life and all you know are stereotypes. I tried to help you, I even showed you how according to the dictionary you are wrong, but to no avail. I see propaganda has once again won the day. I surrender.
I agree with agnosticism. I am agnostic, but I am atheist as well. I was trying to explain that the two are not mutually exclusive and in fact both are kind of necessary for the other. But I see I can't really get you to see what I am trying to say to never mind.
I don't believe that science without religion is lame. Science for the simple sake of empirically studying the world is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. I see no need to attach religion to it. There are, I will admit, large cosmological questions that science may never answer, but religion to me appears to be just as unqualified and unable to answer these as science has thus far been.
The only problem with your argument (that I want to pick on) is that you assume that religion doesn't already answer every question man needs to know the answer to. Science may very well be off course, or lead humanity off course (in accordance with scripture).
The only reason you disagree is because you disagree with religion? According to scripture, empirical things were created by God, so studying only empirical things is just studying God's creations, and does have an ultimate goal, does it not? If Science is out to explain the unexplained, and religion is supposedly there to spread the word of God, the being that is Himself the explanation... What do you think would happen if Science successfully explained everything (impossible, I know)???
Anyhow, I agree with you, but I don't agree with your argument, per say. Almost every social science (including political science and psychology) deals with religion, so if you dismiss religion because it's not verifiable, you still have to deal with it as a scientist.
I don't think Einstein meant if you're a scientist you should be religious, and if you're religious you should be a scientist too... He just meant that they are inherently intertwined and one without the other it's true to it's nature... to explain.
I don't assume that religion is wrong, I understand it to be wrong based on an empirical analysis of it using scientific methods.
The difference between our viewpoints comes in at the very core of how we view the world. Starting from scratch and building up a structure of knowledge, I assume scientific methods upon which to base evaluations and make decisions about the world. In light of this, I evaluate religion as generally being incorrect.
You, on the other hand, begin with an assumption that God exists, and religion is the path of knowledge. You then attempt to rectify this with science by pressing to two together (usually quite awkwardly), so that you will not be forced to abandon either, while attempting to follow both.
It is this initial choice in viewing the world from which our standpoints diverge.
First off, I would like to make it clear to you, that I am not religious, I do not believe in a personal god, I do not believe the universe was designed by anyone for any reason, I do not believe that people are only moral because of religious beliefs... I am not religious in any sense of the term. So, you're already wrong about my core beliefs starting with faith and then transcending from there, because I have no faith in religious doctrine.
Secondly, the idea of there being a god has never been disproved and likely will never be, using the scientific method, but that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed by the scientific community. If it hasn't been proven, or disproved, it should remain a topic until it can be. It may turn out, eventually, that though god doesn't seem to exist, it does in the minds of millions, maybe billions of people, and it more helpful to them than any scientific finding could be... Religious belief may be an important part of society (and then to social science) that is nearly irreplaceable.
Lastly, I think it's important to see how everything works independently and together. I am not the force binding religion and science together, they are both aspects of human life and by that fact are already bound. Which is not to say that they can't ever be separated, but for now whether you like it or not, each deals with the other and must be accepted until something right can be done about it. You can't just say that because they are different, they shouldn't conceder each other.
2. So what if science can't prove God does not exist? It can't prove that Santa or the Easter Bunny don't either. The lack of any evidence, in my opinion, is enough of a condemnation, at least for the moment, of religion. Why should we pretend to believe in something for which there is no evidence. If you can show me evidence, I'll believe, but until then, I find it expedient to assume non-existence.
3. You keep saying they are connected, but you give no examples. Do you mean that they are both at the core of western civilization and culture? Do you mean that they have historically been used together? Because I will admit both of those, but I see no philosophical significance in these connections other than sociological connections.
2. Atoms weren't proven to exist until this last century, but people believed that they did and have for over 2000, maybe even around 3000 years. Socrates spoke about philosophers that were long dead that believed that the universe was made of irreducibly small particles (of water) and Buddhists thought the same thing even before him. Santa and the Easter bunny do exist, even if it's just as a thought. Existence as a thought is still existence. If you disagree, fight with yourself about that because the idea of a self is a trick of the mind. In actuality your self doesn't exist just as santa doesn't exist.
3. It's more than sociological, it's psychological. I know, I see tons of people who claim to have lived horrible, drug ridden, lives before being "saved"... I know better than to argue with these people, because even though they're religious they seem to be more stable than they used to be, or at least happier with their lives. It's a deeply personal issue that does help a lot of people, and this I think is it's most important utility, something that should be considered in sciences. I know a lot of people who have went through rehab 1 or more times who are still on meth and heroin or something as harmless as weed, but I know more people who have found religion and changed for good, for just a little faith.
I don't know about you, but I think that should be worth sciences time, at least to find out why faith helps more than rehab. I tend to think, very quickly, that religion plays on parts of humanity that aren't as reasonable as maybe, we'd like them to be, but if it works it works. Faith does do good (not saying it doesn't do bad, or even that it doesn't do more bad than good), and that's something that I think science should be interested in.
2. Read Descartes. Not everything he writes I agree with, but there is some interesting stuff in there along that vein.
3. Sure, but all of that is just psychology. So, yes, I agree that psychology can certainly be aided by studying the effects of religion on people, but sciences such as biology and physics ought to be left alone, and not diluted and distorted based on someone's religious beliefs (creationists vs. evolutionists). Basically the effects ought to be taken into consideration in social sciences, but the actual beliefs should not change the scientific studies.
I think we are more or less on the same page, and I don't find anything wrong in what you just said (except your "existance as a thought" thing, but whatever).
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
Ignoring who really said what and how they said it, and what that person's beliefs really were, I'll just get to the actual point of what is being propogated.
Religion makes everything lamer, and only through science is the impotance of our imagination, no matter how wild we believe it to be, shown.
Example:
Religion defined stars as floating beings, or holes in some imaginary bubble. Wow, that's original...
I find religion simplifies everything it touches, from people, to nature, to the cosmos. It labels all things black and white, when really everything is some shade in between. It either villifies or worships. It pretends to know the answers when there are none, and where there are, it claims there is no proof unless it's written in their book - no matter which religion one chooses.
Religion throughout history has worked to separate, in waves it says you are for us or against us, in one point in history crucifying, then when human nature is repelled by such ignorance, it sits on the sidelines, pretending to accept - really though, it only serves to divide and conquer or only conquer. Meanwhile, as scientists are killed for telling the world the sun does not revolve around it, or burned for suggesting it's not mystisism but elements which are the structure of the universe - it is always putting us in our proper place here, tiny, insignificant, and alone.
That we should be ironically what religion has said, that we should be shepards. But not for some invisible absentee landlord, but for ourselves, because we are the only ones who can truly lead us to greener pastures.
Religion was a necessary evil for a base and stupid people who had just realized they existed, and therefore someday would not. But I think of it as training wheels, and if we want to get anywhere, eventually we will have to take them off.
Im getting bored of arguing with people who take quotes from smart people out of context to ratify their dumb superstitions and never read the whole fucking thing. It is the same kind of people who only read the headlines off news and get outraged by them still. But what is there to do
See, I find issue with people who believe that religion and science go with each other like bread and butter. Religion is perfectly fine in my book, and I'm an atheist. I seriously love hearing about peoples belief systems and their positions. But though science isn't a religion, it very well serves the purpose of one. Threw theories and studies we find explanations to why things are what they are. Religion services the same purpose. So I have a hard time wrapping my head around someone explaining the universe two ways and saying they're the same.
Ha, maybe science without ethics is cruel, would be better- but it wouldn't be lame- unstopable-definitely. Science and religion are independant from each other, and they always have been.
Religion be a motovator, but there are suitable motivator counter parts, also this quote is mistranslated, replace "religion" with "devotion" and you have a more accurate quote. And thus my opinion :D
Science and religion have nothing to do with each other. Religion is one form of social organization, whereas science is the organization of learning and knowledge.
