| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Grinder" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2005 01:43:38 PM |
| Object: |
Re: A molecular biologist Francis Collins believes in God |
cactus wrote:
You don't get it.
Science and religion deal with non-overlapping fields of understanding
in the minds of all except the fundamentalists.
ZpiralZone wrote:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."—Albert Einstein
Exactly. Here's your quote in context:
| Now, even though the realms of religion and science in
| themselves are clearly marked off from each other,
| nevertheless there exist between the two strong
| reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though
| religion may be that which determines the goal, it has,
| nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest
| sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of
| the goals it has set up. But science can only be
| created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the
| aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source
| of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of
| religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the
| possibility that the regulations valid for the world of
| existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to
| reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist
| without that profound faith. The situation may be
| expressed by an image: science without religion is
| lame, religion without science is blind.
I guess Einstein was a fundamentalist.
You /guess/ badly then. Specifically, this characteristic of religion
that Einstein notes:
| To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility
| that the regulations valid for the world of existence
| are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.
Fundamentalists repeatedly disavow a comprehension of God through purely
rational means. It takes the holy spirit, revelation, to see _The Truth._
Oh yeah, pretty much like what you're saying here:
Some scientists claim that all the workings of the universe can be
explained by rational analysis, leaving no room for divine wisdom. But
many people, including scientists, are not comfortable with that view.
They attempt to comprehend reality by looking to both science and
religion. They feel that science deals with the how of our existence
and of the cosmos around us, while religion deals principally with the
why.
[snipped tired old horseshit confusing abiogenesis and the theory of
evolution.]
.
|
|
| User: "explainer" |
|
| Title: Re: A molecular biologist Francis Collins believes in God |
26 Dec 2005 08:06:54 PM |
|
|
Grinder wrote:
cactus wrote:
You don't get it.
Science and religion deal with non-overlapping fields of understanding
in the minds of all except the fundamentalists.
Grinder, you don't need my help. Your response clearly shows Einstein
at his best. I want to ask one question, which I hope is not off the
subject.
ZpiralZone wrote:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."-Albert Einstein
We now know what Einstein said and how science and religion are
interconnected.
<quote from your post, in context I hope>
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued
with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of
feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion."
The problem I'm having is why the fundamental, literal, creationists
among us miss the second part of the Einstein quote,
"...religion without science is blind."
If they understood the spendor of ToE...
Thanks again for a beautiful post.
All the best, Gordon Hill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A molecular biologist Francis Collins believes in God |
27 Dec 2005 09:06:13 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2005 18:06:54 -0800, "explainer" <gordon@explainer.com>
wrote:
Grinder wrote:
cactus wrote:
You don't get it.
Science and religion deal with non-overlapping fields of understanding
in the minds of all except the fundamentalists.
Grinder, you don't need my help. Your response clearly shows Einstein
at his best. I want to ask one question, which I hope is not off the
subject.
What is it with you liars? You've already been given what Einstein
actually said, in context?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clothaire" |
|
| Title: Re: A molecular biologist Francis Collins believes in God |
27 Dec 2005 10:05:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:06:13 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2005 18:06:54 -0800, "explainer" <gordon@explainer.com>
wrote:
Grinder wrote:
cactus wrote:
You don't get it.
Science and religion deal with non-overlapping fields of understanding
in the minds of all except the fundamentalists.
Grinder, you don't need my help. Your response clearly shows Einstein
at his best. I want to ask one question, which I hope is not off the
subject.
What is it with you liars? You've already been given what Einstein
actually said, in context?
Grinder--Cactus. Self congratulatory statements.
This is an example of the Fallacy of Consensus.
Two people agree and they mistakenly think that they has discovered
reality.
Clothaire
"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain
everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of
everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to
chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window." - Stephen King
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: A molecular biologist Francis Collins believes in God |
27 Dec 2005 10:48:36 PM |
|
|
Clothaire wrote:
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:06:13 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2005 18:06:54 -0800, "explainer" <gordon@explainer.com>
wrote:
Grinder wrote:
cactus wrote:
You don't get it.
Science and religion deal with non-overlapping fields of understanding
in the minds of all except the fundamentalists.
Grinder, you don't need my help. Your response clearly shows Einstein
at his best. I want to ask one question, which I hope is not off the
subject.
What is it with you liars? You've already been given what Einstein
actually said, in context?
Grinder--Cactus. Self congratulatory statements.
This is an example of the Fallacy of Consensus.
Two people agree and they mistakenly think that they has discovered
reality.
I've based no portion of my argument upon consensus opinion. My only
source is a direct reading of Einstein's own words. What is it that you
think is the faulty conclusion?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: A molecular biologist Francis Collins believes in God |
26 Dec 2005 08:41:20 PM |
|
|
explainer wrote:
Grinder wrote:
cactus wrote:
You don't get it.
Science and religion deal with non-overlapping fields of understanding
in the minds of all except the fundamentalists.
Grinder, you don't need my help. Your response clearly shows Einstein
at his best. I want to ask one question, which I hope is not off the
subject.
ZpiralZone wrote:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."-Albert Einstein
We now know what Einstein said and how science and religion are
interconnected.
<quote from your post, in context I hope>
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued
with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of
feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion."
The problem I'm having is why the fundamental, literal, creationists
among us miss the second part of the Einstein quote,
"...religion without science is blind."
If they understood the spendor of ToE...
It's strait from the pulpit -- faith is everything. Any motivation
towards understanding might involve questions, which carries the stink
of doubt. I can't offer any comprehension, just observation.
Thanks again for a beautiful post.
All credit has been forwarded to Albert Einstein. (That is, it has been
converted to heat and dissipated evenly to throught the boundaries of
the universe.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "byron" |
|
| Title: Re: A molecular biologist Francis Collins believes in God |
27 Dec 2005 09:51:15 AM |
|
|
I'm sure that your discussion is very, very interesting and
I'm sure that it is very, very important, but why are you
cross posting it to alt.free.newsservers? What does this
thread have to do with free.newsservers?
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:43:38 GMT, Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com>
wrote:
cactus wrote:
You don't get it.
Science and religion deal with non-overlapping fields of understanding
in the minds of all except the fundamentalists.
ZpiralZone wrote:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."—Albert Einstein
Exactly. Here's your quote in context:
| Now, even though the realms of religion and science in
| themselves are clearly marked off from each other,
| nevertheless there exist between the two strong
| reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though
| religion may be that which determines the goal, it has,
| nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest
| sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of
| the goals it has set up. But science can only be
| created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the
| aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source
| of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of
| religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the
| possibility that the regulations valid for the world of
| existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to
| reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist
| without that profound faith. The situation may be
| expressed by an image: science without religion is
| lame, religion without science is blind.
I guess Einstein was a fundamentalist.
You /guess/ badly then. Specifically, this characteristic of religion
that Einstein notes:
| To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility
| that the regulations valid for the world of existence
| are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.
Fundamentalists repeatedly disavow a comprehension of God through purely
rational means. It takes the holy spirit, revelation, to see _The Truth._
Oh yeah, pretty much like what you're saying here:
Some scientists claim that all the workings of the universe can be
explained by rational analysis, leaving no room for divine wisdom. But
many people, including scientists, are not comfortable with that view.
They attempt to comprehend reality by looking to both science and
religion. They feel that science deals with the how of our existence
and of the cosmos around us, while religion deals principally with the
why.
[snipped tired old horseshit confusing abiogenesis and the theory of
evolution.]
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
