Itoero

Albert Einstein quote

Recommended Posts

Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

What did hen mean with this?

Was 'religion' rather a metaphor for creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"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."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

 

Nothing about creativity or imagination, so he must not have agreed with what you're trying to do. Childish, primitive weakness doesn't sound at all like creativity, imagination. Some forms of spirituality might fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

What did hen mean with this?

Was 'religion' rather a metaphor for creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness?

If you read the essay from which this quote is taken,  It seems to be equating religion with "curiosity" or the drive to answer questions.  In this, religion was man's first attempt to deal with this curiosity, so there is some connection between the two.  

Science is the tool by which we examine the world around us.  

Thus without the driving curiosity that drove us to invent religions, the tools do don't do us much good, and without the tools to properly attack the questions, curiosity by itself leads to no answers.

The bone I would have to pick with this quote is his even using the word "religion",  Religion is a result of our curiosity, not its source.  You could just replace "religion" with "curiosity" and be closer to the truth.

The other issue here is putting too much stock in the words of someone when speaking outside of their area of expertise. 

There is a quote from a book by Heinlein that goes:

“Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Janus said:

There is a quote from a book by Heinlein that goes:

“Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.”

Yeah, but what does he know about it?

Also, reminds me of this XKCD:

physicists.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

 

Nothing about creativity or imagination, so he must not have agreed with what you're trying to do. Childish, primitive weakness doesn't sound at all like creativity, imagination. Some forms of spirituality might fit.

Note: that quotation refers to his view of the contents of The Bible and not religion per se. Einstein had a sense of religion, as per Spinoza. Neither athiests nor theists can hijack him to support their cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

 

Nothing about creativity or imagination, so he must not have agreed with what you're trying to do

You obviously don't understand the importance of imagination in science. You probably think 'imagination' is only for storytelling. Creativity is the use of imagination and  is the ability to generate new ideas and new connections between ideas, and ways to solve problems in any field or realm of our lives. Especially in mathematics, creativity is essential.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ750778.pdfhttps://phys.org/news/2009-12-creativity-mathematics.html

This is about creativity in science: https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/how-creativity-powers-science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Itoero said:

You obviously don't understand the importance of imagination in science. You probably think 'imagination' is only for storytelling. Creativity is the use of imagination and  is the ability to generate new ideas and new connections between ideas, and ways to solve problems in any field or realm of our lives. Especially in mathematics, creativity is essential.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ750778.pdfhttps://phys.org/news/2009-12-creativity-mathematics.html

This is about creativity in science: https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/how-creativity-powers-science

I wasn't talking about science and imagination at all. My comment was about your conflating imagination and religion. Save your straw for other arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Itoero said:

Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

What did hen mean with this?

Was 'religion' rather a metaphor for creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness?

Why you just don't lookup the quote in the context? I think it is very clear then:

Quote

 

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

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 towards 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.

 

In short: it is the faith that certain basic beliefs must be true when a scientist actually does science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 8:58 PM, Phi for All said:

I wasn't talking about science and imagination at all. My comment was about your conflating imagination and religion. Save your straw for other arguments.

I'm not conflating religion and imagination, I asked what Einstein meant. Why is it so difficult to react to what I actually say?

 

On ‎1‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 7:38 PM, Janus said:

The bone I would have to pick with this quote is his even using the word "religion",  Religion is a result of our curiosity, not its source.  You could just replace "religion" with "curiosity" and be closer to the truth.

I see. Curiosity is a 'fundamental building block'http://www.creativitypost.com/psychology/want_to_innovate_science_says_be_curious of creativity and  creativity leans on imagination.https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/learn/creativity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Itoero said:

I'm not conflating religion and imagination,

Yes, you did.

In your OP,  you suggested it, by asking this question. 

On 1/9/2019 at 5:51 PM, Itoero said:

Was 'religion' rather a metaphor for creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness?

And then, when Phi for All quoted Einstein on religion, you did as if he had said that creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness play no role in science. So in your mind you equated religion with creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness, which Phi for All definitely did not.

Also, I assume you came with this topic because of:

On 1/7/2019 at 9:05 PM, Itoero said:

Spirituality can be the same as 'creativity' and creativity is  very important in all science, including in mathematics….

(In the 'What is religion? And is science spiritual?' thread).

I think I clearly showed what Einstein meant by quoting him in the context he used it: e.g. a scientist must have faith that nature develops according to some regularities, and that we can find these regularities and formulate them as 'laws of nature'. This faith cannot be strictly proven, but if you do not have it, then you lost the motivation to find such laws. Einstein calls this faith 'religion' in this article. But do not confuse it with what Einstein says at other places about religion in the more daily sense (which Phi for All did).

It explains btw why Einstein considered QM as incomplete: it was against his deep felt faith that there must lie a reality under quantum phenomena, so that every event (e.g. the arrival of a photon at a certain point), has a precise cause, and so cannot have random elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Eise said:

Yes, you did.

In your OP,  you suggested it, by asking this question. 

No, I asked if Einstein used religion rather as a metaphor for creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness. Einstein then conflated them….not me.

Janus said he rather meant 'curiosity'   Curiosity is a 'fundamental building block'http://www.creativitypost.com/psychology/want_to_innovate_science_says_be_curious of creativity and  creativity leans on imagination.https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/learn/creativity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Itoero said:

No, I asked if Einstein used religion rather as a metaphor for creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness. Einstein then conflated them….not me.

 

lol of course not. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Itoero said:

No, I asked if Einstein used religion rather as a metaphor for creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness. Einstein then conflated them….not me.

 

Here we go again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eise said:

Also, I assume you came with this topic because of:

No. Spirituality can mean a lot of things...you can use it as synonym for creativity….semantics.

 

1 hour ago, Eise said:

It explains btw why Einstein considered QM as incomplete: it was against his deep felt faith that there must lie a reality under quantum phenomena, so that every event (e.g. the arrival of a photon at a certain point), has a precise cause, and so cannot have random elements.

 You finally say something partly useful. Einstein was very deterministic which is why he thought QM is incomplete, tried to debunk heisenberg uncertainty, created a hidden variable theory but did not publish it, said: "God does not play dice with the universe". His deterministic point of view underlined all his theories...including general relativity.

The holographic principle (which explains the randomness)for example fits with the no-hair theorem.

True determinism/indeterminism can never be 'proven'. The randomness in QM is what science currently 'says' about our reality. Science develops/evolves continuously so it's impossible to know how quantum mechanics will look in maybe 500 years.

Faith implies believing in things without evidence. You can't know what 'experimental' evidence they will find. Faith based models/theories might become 'scientific'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Spirituality can mean a lot of things...you can use it as synonym for creativity….semantics.

This redefining of words is unhelpful. When I read your sentence above, this is how I hear it: "Nose bleed can mean a lot of things... you can use it as a synonym for shoelaces... semantics."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, iNow said:

This redefining of words is unhelpful. 

I completely agree. It's one of the hallmarks of an unreasonable argument. It's lazy, dishonest, confusing, misleading, and unscientific. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Itoero said:

No, I asked if Einstein used religion rather as a metaphor for creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness. Einstein then conflated them….not me.

Really? Show me the passages in the article where Einstein conflates them. 

14 hours ago, Itoero said:

No. Spirituality can mean a lot of things...you can use it as synonym for creativity….semantics.

It is true that 'spirituality' means a lot of different things for a lot of people. But that is also true for e.g. 'energy' (just look in a few New Age books...), or 'power' (or 'theory', or 'scattering', maybe even 'redshift'...).

However, when one is on an intellectual endeavor, like science or philosophy, one must be as precise as possible, using clear definitions. Nothing is gained by intentionally making concepts more vague. That is fine for other language use, like literature and poetry, but not for solving intelligibility problems. But here in the context of the article, it is perfectly clear what Einstein means with 'religion'. It is not curiosity, it is not creativity/spirituality/imagination, it is not traditional religion, it is faith that certain principles hold in nature, so that science is possible.

Quote

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.

Notice that Einstein calls his 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind' an image. So he himself broadens the meaning of 'faith' to encompass 'religion' (but not to curiosity, creativity/spirituality/imagination, or traditional religion). As just an image, one could leave it from the text without disturbing its contents, its argumentation or conclusions.

I have no idea why you again and again try to use concepts in much broader and vaguer sense than they are used in science and philosophy. What do you try to gain by that?

PS Trying to understand 'bon mots' without their context is seldom a good idea when one wants to reach for intellectual clarity. Same holds for e.g. beecee's often cited Russel quotation: 'Science is what we know, and philosophy is what we don't know'. It is a more or less poetic way to convey a message, but at the cost of being precise. To really understand what Russel means, one must read it in context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 5:56 PM, iNow said:

This redefining of words is unhelpful. When I read your sentence above, this is how I hear it: "Nose bleed can mean a lot of things... you can use it as a synonym for shoelaces... semantics."

Have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality#Definition

I don't redefine words. You (and many other people on this forum) assume your ideas/definitions  concerning semantics count for the rest of the world...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Itoero said:

I don't redefine words.

Perhaps here you're simply redefining the word "don't."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Itoero said:

Yes? Didn't I say:

22 hours ago, Eise said:

It is true that 'spirituality' means a lot of different things for a lot of people.

 

10 hours ago, Itoero said:

You (and many other people on this forum) assume your ideas/definitions  concerning semantics count for the rest of the world...

No, not necessarily. I am pretty flexible in giving different meanings to words (Koti already saw1 that a while ago...). Of course, I think one should keep as close as possible to existing meanings in daily life, science, philosophy, or whatever discourse. But what is even more important is that an author should be consistent in a text. When she introduces a new word, or specifies the meaning of an existing word, she should consistently stick to it. 

In this case the text is 'Science and Religion' of Einstein, and therefore you should find out the meaning Einstein gives to the word 'religion' in his 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind'.

So your original questions were:

On 1/9/2019 at 5:51 PM, Itoero said:

Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

What did he mean with this?

Was 'religion' rather a metaphor for creativity/spirituality/imaginativeness?

This is in fact a question of text interpretation. Take the text, and explain what the author means (remember the old school days?). I cited the text, showed the quote in context, and explained what Einstein meant. With that the topic can be closed. (Except somebody thinks I misinterpreted the text). 

But you carefully avoided to react on my previous posting...

23 hours ago, Eise said:

Really? Show me the passages in the article where Einstein conflates them. 

I have no idea why you again and again try to use concepts in much broader and vaguer sense than they are used in science and philosophy. What do you try to gain by that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eise said:

...No, not necessarily. I am pretty flexible in giving different meanings to words (Koti already saw1 that a while ago...). Of course, I think one should keep as close as possible to existing meanings in daily life, science, philosophy, or whatever discourse....

Sir! Reporting for semantics session Sir! :D 

Edited by koti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 6:23 PM, Phi for All said:
On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 5:56 PM, iNow said:

 

I completely agree. It's one of the hallmarks of an unreasonable argument. It's lazy, dishonest, confusing, misleading, and unscientific. 

OMG Many of you people are very inconsequent and unscientific. You acknowledge physics concerns what people say of the universe via experimental evidence. Physics concerns what we say about Nature. Yet many people believe  the 'randomness' in Quantum theory shows the indeterministic nature of the universe.

I once made a thread concerning determinism...all people that replied believed  the randomness in QT shows an indeterministic nature. I remember Eise backed up her opinions with imaginary consensus (all scientists believe in indeterminism) like she does often, yet you people seem to like it.

And yes, I know you  will deny this and pretend I'm the unscientific one...that's what you do. It doesn't matter how much science backs me up....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I once made a thread concerning determinism...all people that replied believed  the randomness in QT shows an indeterministic nature.

As far as I know, quantum theory is (completely?) deterministic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

As far as I know, quantum theory is (completely?) deterministic.

In an sense yes but many people believe the indeterminism in QT shows the indeterministic nature of the universe.

There is a lot indeterministic in QT.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

Edited by Itoero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Itoero said:

In an sense yes but many people believe the indeterminism in QT shows the indeterministic nature of the universe.

If there is any indeterminism in quantum theory then there is indeterminism in the universe.

6 hours ago, Itoero said:

There is a lot indeterministic in QT.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy

Ah. Sorry, I thought you meant quantum theory was non-deterministic

It has indeterminacy, which leads some people to assume it is non-deterministic, but it isn't.

(Incidentally, that Wikipedia article directly contradicts your claim, in another thread, that the HUP is due to the observer effect: " In quantum mechanics, however, indeterminacy is of a much more fundamental nature, having nothing to do with errors or disturbance.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now