Religion without Science is Blind

Mohammed Gill:

You have been acidly trying to make a case for bringing science and relifion closer to each other but due to inherent flaws in the argument, it is not gelling. I see two major flaws in the foundations of this thesis.

1. Einstein was a great scientist but his words can not be taken as approval seal of sciences. He kew about photoelectric effect and relativity to maximum details at that time but he did not have knowledge to speak authoritatively on religion, god or raising chickens. Science is more like Hindu religion with no heirarchy, nobody on the top endowed with authority to speak on science behalf. We have previously discussed the belief of Einstein and it appears he separated religion from the question of existence of god. It is not incumbent upon scientific community to defend his views about god, religion or raising chickens. Any discussion of religion and science must include broad knowledge of laws of nature in physical and biological sciences instead of relying on Einstein, Ayala and few other scientists.

2. The discussion of science and religion is a separate topic than science and existence of god. While Einstein`s words are relevent to religion, they are irrelevent to god. The presence of supermost force as god has been in steap decline for more than two centuries now whereas religion declines are much slower. God needs scientific proof whereas religions can be proven by social and spiritual needs. God`s domain has been shrinking whereas domain of science is on the rise. A loser has little say to a winner in any form of negotiation except surrendering.

Many people sick of orhganized religions and ritualism have turned to deists - believing in god without practicing but many more have become agnostics - doubtful of belief in god. The shrinking domain of god has pushed deists to seek god more and more within human mind than outside with gurus like Deepak Chopra on the forefront. Removing god from the vast universe into human mind limited to earth is nothing short of unconditional surrender after major defeat at the hands of science.

Now the problem with theistic religion is to survice with much less god than before. The Judeo-Christian-Islam are strongly tied to god and it poses serious dilemma for them to accept lesser god in the presence of non-theistic Buddhism and semi-theistic Hinduism, Taoisma and other eastern folk religions. The gibberish nature of revelations made concept of god failing even without science. To call them allegorical is nothing more than defending with sand wall. A god was no god when he chose indirect communication instead of direct communication to each individual - given his powers - or in simple understandable languages with useful information.

The failure of concept of god is at the heart of science versus religion debate in the west. Otherwise, religion as set of morals popularly known as secular humanism has no problem with science.

Now what does, ``Science without religion is lame`` mean in practical terms? It is a bogus and useless statement. A person doing science in a lab is not doing lame things than the person doing same thing facing on next table Mecca and regularly praying in between. Science will work according to the natural laws without religion. A titration between acid and base at high school level is not lame in atheist China and meaningful in religious Pakistan. They are same. Here comes the priciple of microscopic reversibility. If individual components/ sub-experimetns of a larger experiment do not need relgion, the whole subject does not need it. Only a mulla can take pleasure in calling it lame because nothing else he can do or say to challenge it.

``Deliberating on spirituality and religion, Einstein (1) asserted, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

It is hard to understand this assertion in its literal sense but from a broad viewpoint it suggests that religion and science are not whole (complete) without each other.``(M Gill)

``It is hard to understand this assertion.`` -- and I agree with you 100% -- Einstein`s assertion was sheer nonsense -- neither need the other -- yet both obstruct each others visions... ethics is needed in science -- ethics does not necessarily mean religion...

good article

``Deliberating on spirituality and religion, Einstein (1) asserted, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

It is hard to understand this assertion in its literal sense but from a broad viewpoint it suggests that religion and science are not whole (complete) without each other.``(M Gill)

``It is hard to understand this assertion.`` -- and I agree with you 100% -- Einstein`s assertion was sheer nonsense -- neither need the other -- yet both obstruct each others visions... ethics is needed in science -- ethics does not necessarily mean religion...

good article

A thoughtful article, as we have come to expect from you Gill sahib. Einstein`s concept of religion is clearly very different from the mullah`s concept (or the secular desi sophisticate for that matter), and you point towards the difference when you say how he did not associate with any religion in particular. The mullah (or the average desi sophisticate`s) concept of religion is basically superstition. God is not impressed by the number of times you repeat his name, or if you fling yourself into the ganges, or you dress up as pope. These are all superstitions, not religions.
Thus seen, science and religion are two sides of the same coin, the one that is known, the other that is unknown. And the more that is known, the greater our awareness of how much is unknown. We may one day know infinitely much, and that day we will realize that we know infinitely little.

I am sorry Mr SameerJB but I dont agree with your first point. Have you really read Einstein`s Theory of Relativity? If you have read than it must be some scientific perspective. The relevance of time and space to our existance is something like relavance of rose petals to insects. We all see insects coming and getting attracted by flower but only few of us know that the flower petals are a way to attract the insects to become carrier for theri reproduction. So is case for Einstein`s TOR. I would recommend you to read some stuff from Stephan Hawkings that will broaden your horizon. `A Brief History of Time` is recommended.

Plus science cant exist without religious beliefs. So cant religion be understood without science. The stand juxtapose to each other and complement each other. Try reading Karen Armstrong`s great classic ``The Hisotry of God``.

These two books are `not finality` but these will surely resolve a lot of questions in minds.

tehmed 32 # 2

(Thus seen, science and religion are two sides of the same coin, the one that is known, the other that is unknown. And the more that is known, the greater our awareness of how much is unknown. We may one day know infinitely much, and that day we will realize that we know infinitely little)

Completely agree & very well put.

(incidently, whenever I think of that Pathan driver`s interpretation of Gay March, I can not help bursting into a laughter)

sameerjb,

Agreed... I too will like some one to please explain this statement : `Science without religion is lame`

-YLH

Congratulations, Gill. This the subject near to my heart. I will get to you.

Allama Iqbal said the same thing but slightly differently:

achcha hay keh dil ke saath rahe passban-e-aqal
magr kabhi usko tanha bhi choR day.

#7, Mantolives:
`Science without religion is lame`

There is nothing to explain. It is a meaningless statement. Amply PROOVED by last two hundred years` achievements of Science.

You know your information right. Thanks

[ethics is needed in science -- ethics does not necessarily mean religion...]

I agree with you nasah #3. Moreover science does not need religion to define such ethics, they are common sense, humanism and mostly adopted voluntarily by the science. There are more than a million scientists in the world. Most of them do not succumb to criminally producing mind altering narcotics, which are real easy to make and world could be flooded with drugs within days, despite the huge financial gain in doing it. The scientific ethics are better than even catholic priest regarding sex and light year ahead of muslim clergy.

malyk:

I disagree with turning Einstein into the first and last prophet of relationship between science and religion. He never wrote a single paper about it except few politiclly correct statements of his time. Stephen Hawkins is totally non-commital to any organized religion and ritualism and does not accept existence of god. Since his interests do not lie in disproving it, he usually does not say it like many famed chemists and biologists that god does not exist. As I said in the previous post: if the finer details of various compnonents of science such as atomic physics, chemistry and biology do not need god or religion to unsdersatand them, the sum total of all these components (science) does not need them either.

``Science without religion is lame`` - Einstein.

Let us try and build upon the literal interpretation of ``lame``ness, be a little loose in interpeting the word ``religion``, and see where it leads us in the context of scintific pursuit, which is essentially a quest for the comprehension of the universe.

Lameness results in impeded progress, if not stagnancy. Perhaps Einstein`s statement implies that an absence of faith in a ``superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe``, would obstruct and limit such a quest. Such a belief would be essential for generations of scientists to sustain that quest.

``If you don`t know where you are going, any road will take you there`` (source unknown).

In other words, a direction is essential to make progress. Nor can you sustain the effort to progress in any given direction, if you do not have faith in the direction you are trying to follow.

An unwavering faith in there being a explainable rationale behind it all, which the scientists share, provides a direction to their quest and allows them to make concrete progress. That faith is why they have been making continuous additions to our storehouse of knowledge. It is that faith which has caused scientists to carry on research; propose, reject, and build upon theories over millenia; and has resulted in making a sustained, net progress on behalf of humanity.

The concept of ``Singularity`` that Hawking`s book mentions would not have been arrived at without such an implicit, shared belief guiding scientific effortacross history; nor could the possibility of a unifying theory be imaginable in the absence of such a faith. In a way, the concept of the Singularity by extension, logially points to the possibility of the unifying theory, an indirect endorsement of the faith in a supreme rationality that Einstein mentions.

Perhaps Einstein was not making an original statement here, he may have been merely acknowledging that the community of scientists is bonded by a certain kind of faith.

But perhaps he also meant that it is not enough to pursue the ``what`` and the ``how`` of the Universe as scientists limit themselves to, but also the ``why`` of it, as the theologicians seem to focus on. To truely comprehend the Universe, it is important to know the what and the how, as well as the why: i.e. to make science and theology compliment each other.

A parting thought. Different religions speak about the concept of ``Ultimate Truth``, the Hindu mythology speaks about the ``Brahma-Dnyana`` so jealously guarded from the mortals by the Gods. Would they be speaking about the complete comprehension of the Universe that Einstein is asking for?

- E

Gill:
****``It is hard to understand this assertion in its literal sense but from a broad viewpoint it suggests that religion and science are not whole (complete) without each other. ``****
Einstein lived at times when it was still not safe to come out openly against the traditional centers of power in religion, hence he had to bring the weekness of science also. This is the source of your problems. Christian and other religious Churches would have issued FATWA aginst him. You are free to elicit from his statement that the belief in theoretical divinity was needed to have faith in human mind. This so because the religious conceptions also reposed in human brain. The conception of God and Science both share brain , not any other organ of human body.

****``When religion is viewed in this broad sense, it can be said that religion without science is blind because progressive scientific developments can broaden the religious perspective and make it more relevant to humankind. ``****
If by blind you mean that one is unable to sense the direction of benefit, then religion is blind for all except its owners and for them it is indeed a very successful tool for material benefit and power over other humans obligated to follow their diktats.

****``Nevertheless, these kinds of conflicts can be resolved if it is accepted that portions of the revealed scriptures are embodied in allegorical language which need not be read and understood literally. ``****
Yes, I agree that is a good compromise for gradual deemphasis of the irrational in human thinking. But do not forget God and its radiance, religion, serve a very useful purpose of escaping the personal responsibilities for one`s own knowing or unknowing failures. This leads to easing of life. Definitely, if you can shift the burdens of failures on amorphous conceptions like God`s Will, Luck, and past life actions the life becomes easier to accept.

****``But this doesn’t mean that describing his beloved as a rose is not telling the world a lot about what he thinks about her, and what she is like, and what love is like,” (6). ``****
This is simple the use of accepted conceptions. Nobody`s beloved is a rose, but by using the word rose we invoke an imagery of shapeliness, fragrance and thorns and every beloved invokes those imageries. So the wisdom lies in not putting too much importance on the analogy.

****``It appears that the western world has reached a kind of rapprochement between religion and science. ``****
I agree with you but a very important precondition for this low population density of European countries. We already find that as the world is getting overloaded with human mass the individuals - particularly inconvenient ones to the powers of the society - will become easily dispensable. In that condition use of religion to kill off humans is a good tool. That overloading always existed in Asia and Africa.

****``Such a resolution was proposed early in the history of Islam by the first Arab philosopher al-Kindi (801-873 CE). His idea of allegorical interpretation was further worked upon by al-Farabi (870-950 CE) and formalized by Ibn Rushd (1128-1198 CE). Ibn Rushd’s proposed method was called the doctrine of double truth. ``****
I look forward to more information on these subjects from you.

****``Islam seems to have become static. `` ``No attempt was allowed to resolve such conflicts through reinterpretation of the scriptural text. The inevitable result was that nobody undertook to develop the rational and physical sciences. ``****
The first need is to revise Q`uran. One can always use the pretext of corruption by the later interpretters. Secondly, like all other major religions of the World Islam has to publically denounce - thus far followed - violent streak. It is common knowledge that use of sword in teaching and expansion of Islam is not only practically allowed but scripturally declared to be essential. When this fanatical-terroristic tendency is abandoned by Muslims Science will automatically develop.

****``It is the need of modern times to resolve the conflicting issues peacefully through appropriate interpretation of the allegorical scriptures. That is the only way that religion can use science and rational thought positively for its own revitalization. ``****
I cannot agree more.

Science and religion are not two faces of the same coin. Religion was an attempt by older man to make sense of happenings around him. Depending on the founder, different religions took on different personalities or `interpretations`. Science on the other hand is not dependent on revelation rather on inspiration, insight and dedication. Having faith in a singularity is not the same thing as having faith in Gabriel.

Much seems to be made about what Einstein thought of religion or who Stephen Hawking`s favorite saint is? I wonder how many take sartorial or speech lessons from either.

later
-sac

Mohammed Gill,

Both religion and science as defined by the western world will remain incompatible. Religion claims to know it, while science claims to seeek it. Never the twain shall meet.
Its a classic case of open vs. closed system in such societies.
Where religion has developed with the same motivation as that of science, there is a harmonious synergy between the two.
Einstein along with heisenberg, schroedinger, bohr etc. leaned heavily towards eastern thoughts after unravelling major theories of their own. They often quoted from upanishads, avatamska sutra and taoist literature to explain the same scintific phenomenon they helped explain using their theories. Not that these books were authored by people who claimed to be God, but by those who considered seeking and knowing truth originally as the highest ideal. Quite the same ideal as a scientists`. Would you agree?

When einstein mentioned about science being lame without religion he probably was talking about what nasah has mentioned ``ethics is needed in science -- ethics does not necessarily mean religion``.
Remember, his theory was the basis for atomic bomb which took the lives of thousands. I`m sure he realized that his knowledge of science needed to be used ethically.

Oh and your statement “Science can no more answer the question of how we ought to live than religion can decree the age of the earth`` needs a little correction. If you consider hinduism a religion, then Bhagvad puran, in its very first chapter calculates the age of universe as approximately 13.86 billion years. You could confirm this in carl sagan`s book ``Cosmos``.

Adios