"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" "Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" GO Letter describing Einstein's religious beliefs up for auction May 14, 2008 07:52 GMT · By Gabriel Gache · Share: This is what Albert Einstein wrote in his letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, in response to his receiving the book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt". The letter was written on January 3, 1954, in German, and explains Einstein's personal beliefs regarding religion and the Jewish people; it was put on sale one year later and remained into a personal collection ever since. Now the letter is again on auction in London and has a starting price of 8,000 sterling pounds. The letter states pretty clearly that Einstein was by no means a religious person - in fact, the great physicist saw religion as no more than a "childish superstition". "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this", Einstein wrote.

Einstein was Jewish, which is why the people of Israel asked him once to become Israel's second president. Also, Einstein felt uncomfortable with the idea that the Jews are God's favored People. "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", said Einstein. Although, neither Einstein nor his parents were religious people, he did in fact attend the Catholic primary school. But at the age of 12 he was already questioning the truth of the stories written in the Bible. "The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression", Einstein wrote. Einstein may have not believed in God, but he felt that faith was a must. This is probably why he never gave a second thought to studying the quantum theory and its random nature.

He once said that "God does not throw dice", meaning that quantum theory randomness is out of the question for him. This belief in faith is probably also why his position towards religion was often misinterpreted. "Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion", said John Brook from the Oxford University, leading expert on Albert Einstein. Einstein was often associated with atheism because of his views on conventional religion, but he never liked being called an atheist. Albert Einstein: Religion and Science Religion and Science Religion and Science: Irreconcilable? The Christian Register, June, 1948 Religion and Science Return to Top The following article by Albert Einstein appeared in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It has been reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pp 36 - 40.

It also appears in Einstein's book The World as I See It, Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28. Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend.

Thus one tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear. This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste make common cause in their own interests. The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love, and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God.

This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or moral conception of God. The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples' lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all religions are a varying blend of both types, with this differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion of morality predominates. Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level.

But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this. The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it.

Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another. How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion.

A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death. It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue.

What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people. Science and Religion Return to Top This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49. The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939.

It was published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941. 1. During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively. One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature.

It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way. For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values.

The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence.

They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind. There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class, let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as it is said in religious language? Indeed, even the divinization of humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of that ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any other way.

If one looks at the substance rather than at the form, then one can take these words as expressing also the fundamental democratic position. The true democrat can worship his nation as little as can the man who is religious, in our sense of the term. What, then, in all this, is the function of education and of the school? They should help the young person to grow up in such a spirit that these fundamental principles should be to him as the air which he breathes. Teaching alone cannot do that. If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger, In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most precious traditions. A realization of how great is the danger is spreading, however, among thinking people, and there is much search for means with which to meet the danger--means in the field of national and international politics, of legislation, or organization in general. Such efforts are, no doubt, greatly needed.

Yet the ancients knew something- which we seem to have forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds. II. Return to Top It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration.

At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect.

If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. 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 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. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer.

The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God.

It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development. To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us.

One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature. We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself. The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events.

To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.

(This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge. If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements. It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence.

By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission. Religion and Science: Irreconcilable? Return to Top A response to a greeting sent by the Liberal Ministers' Club of New York City. Published in The Christian Register, June, 1948. Published in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1954.

Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by "science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion." As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach.

As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals. It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.

When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to differ as basically from each other as the proponents of the "relativistic" or conventional theory wish us to believe. And this is by no means surprising. For the moral attitudes of a people that is supported by religion need always aim at preserving and promoting the sanity and vitality of the community and its individuals, since otherwise this community is bound to perish. A people that were to honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would be unable, indeed, to subsist for very long. When confronted with a specific case, however, it is no easy task to determine clearly what is desirable and what should be eschewed, just as we find it difficult to decide what exactly it is that makes good painting or good music. It is something that may be felt intuitively more easily than rationally comprehended. Likewise, the great moral teachers of humanity were, in a way, artistic geniuses in the art of living.

In addition to the most elementary precepts directly motivated by the preservation of life and the sparing of unnecessary suffering, there are others to which, although they are apparently not quite commensurable to the basic precepts, we nevertheless attach considerable imporcance. Should truth, for instance, be sought unconditionally even where its attainment and its accessibility to all would entail heavy sacrifices in toil and happiness? There are many such questions which, from a rational vantage point, cannot easily be answered or cannot be answered at all. Yet, I do not think that the so-called "relativistic" viewpoint is correct, not even when dealing with the more subtle moral decisions. When considering the actual living conditions of presentday civilized humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious commands, one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful disappointment at what one sees. For while religion prescribes brotherly love in the relations among the individuals and groups, the actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an orchestra. Everywhere, in economic as well as in political life, the guiding principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of one's fellow. men.

This competitive spirit prevails even in school and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation, conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive and thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear of rejection. There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is necessarily inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such views that are the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby that religious teachings are utopian ideals and unsuited to afford guidance in human affairs. The study of the social patterns in certain so-called primitive cultures, however, seems to have made it sufficiently evident that such a defeatist view is wholly unwarranted. Whoever is concerned with this problem, a crucial one in the study of religion as such, is advised to read the description of the Pueblo Indians in Ruth Benedict's book, Patterns of Culture. Under the hardest living conditions, this tribe has apparently accomplished the difficult task of delivering its people from the scourge of competitive spirit and of fostering in it a temperate, cooperative conduct of life, free of external pressure and without any curtailment of happiness.

The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they wouid hardly have been capable of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his greatest achievements. When Science and Religion Collide or Why Einstein Wasn't an Atheist | Mother Jones When Science and Religion Collide or Why Einstein Wasn't an Atheist When Science and Religion Collide or Why Einstein Wasn't an Atheist Scientists talk about why they believe in God. Email Image: Istvan Banyai How has religion held up under the scrutiny of modern science?

Not well, according to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who believes the only reason religion is still with us at all is not because it has inherent worth but because it's as catching and incurable as any virus (see " Religion Is a Virus "). Others beg to differ. In his day, Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." More recently, a Nature survey of American scientists found about 40 percent of them to be religious. How do these scientists reconcile their understanding of the physical world -- of evolution, for example -- with their religious beliefs? To explore these and other questions, the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences sponsored interviews with more than 30 top scientists from a variety of fields. Here are a few of their responses: Francisco J. Ayala, a professor of genetics and evolutionary biology at the University of California at Irvine, was ordained a Catholic priest at just about the time he began studying genetics. Since then, his career has been primarily occupied by science. Ayala says he is a materialist insofar as he holds that "nothing in the natural world is left out" of science's powers of description.

But, he adds, in the same way that a complete physical description of Picasso's Guernica would not begin to convey what the painting says about man's inhumanity, a scientific description of the world does not begin to explain life's meaning. "In terms of fulfilling the human spirit, there is a lot to be said about the world, whether it is the physical world or the living world, that is completely outside the realm of science," Ayala says. "Science and religion are dealing with different dimensions of reality, different levels of experience. Anybody who thinks that everything in the world can be explained in a reductionistic, materialistic way is just naive." Applying the criteria of scientific truth to religious claims is to make what philosophers call a categorical mistake, says Ayala. "In a sonnet Shakespeare may refer to his beloved as a rose. A scientist could say, 'This guy is an idiot. A woman is not a rose.' Of course the idiot would be the one who made that comment. Shakespeare knows she is not a rose! But that 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." Kenneth S.

Kendler, a professor of psychiatry and human genetics at the Medical College of Virginia, also struggles not to mix up his religion (Judaism) and his science. Like knowledge and wisdom, he says, they have different foundations. "The two don't use similar methods, don't have similar goals, and in some substantial ways don't conform to one another," he says. "Maybe the best way to put it is to say that they complement one another. They really don't conflict, but they don't entirely exist on the same plane. Knowledge is something that is ultimately testable -- wisdom comes in many varieties." Arno Penzias, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1978 for his part in the discovery of the background radiation that constituted the first material evidence for the big-bang theory, does not look for direct evidence of God's existence in the world. To the contrary: "If God created the universe," says Penzias, who is Jewish, "he would have done it elegantly. The absence of any imprint of intervention upon creation is what we would expect from a truly all-powerful Creator. You don't need somebody diddling around like Frank Morgan in The Wizard of Oz to keep the universe going.

Instead, what you have is half a page of mathematics that describes everything. In some sense, the power of the creation lies in its underlying simplicity." But for Carl Feit, an Orthodox Jew and professor of biology at Yeshiva University, science is itself a spiritual practice. Invoking Maimonides, the 12th-century Jewish philosopher, physician, scientist, and rabbi, Feit says that "the best way to develop a love and appreciation for God is by studying the works of his hand. There are certain blessings that a religious Jew makes every day. Some of them have to do with the fact that the sun rises and sets regularly, that all of the stars travel in their right orbits, and that all of our physiological functions work appropriately. With my knowledge of human physiology, I have a very different, and I think enhanced, appreciation when I make that blessing in the morning." Brian Cantwell Smith, a renegade computer scientist and philosopher who recently left Stanford for Indiana University, agrees that religion and science are not entirely separable.

Smith (who says he "probably" doesn't believe in God) quotes his father, theologian Wilfred Cantwell Smith, who told him that to be religious is "to find the world significant." The younger Smith explains: "It is not an etymological accident that 'significance,' in English, means 'importance.' From what I can tell from having studied intentional systems, 'truth' and other values cannot, in fact, be wholly pulled apart." The problem, he says, is that while science has always taken truth seriously, it has traditionally left values of beauty and goodness pretty much untouched. However, Smith sees the current work being done in mathematics, computer science, philosophy, and cognitive science as increasingly shedding light on the relationships between beauty, goodness, and truth in a way that may lead to a reintegration of these three values, thanks to a rigorous "study of significance." Smith says: "One of my most basic metaphysical commitments is that truth, beauty, and goodness are not completely separable. Just as the physicists claim that gravity, charge, mass, etc., weren't separate in the first moments of the universe, I don't think God made the world with truth, beauty, and goodness fully separated out, either.

In fact, I think the idea that they are independent is our idea -- and not necessarily the greatest idea, at that. You can see this in modern software design. Whether programs work well, whether they're beautiful, and whether they're right in practice -- these things aren't all that separable." According to Lindon J. Eaves, a professor of human genetics and psychiatry at the Medical College of Virginia and an Anglican priest, "There's a large degree of identity between the love of God and the love of truth. And the same kind of rules and passions that we bring to the issue of loving God, the scientist embodies in his passion for truth. "What keeps the scientist working long hours into the night?" asks Eaves. "Well, maybe there's a truth out there that will be beautiful when we find it." Carl Feit concurs. "I think that fundamentally the impetus for the two quests is the same," says Feit. "Religion and science are two ways of looking at the world, and each helps guide our search for understanding. Profoundly religious people are asking the same questions as profound scientists: Who are we? And what are we? What's the purpose? What's the end? Where did we come from?

And where are we going? We have this need, this desire, this drive, to understand ourselves and the world that we live in." Gordy Slack is the associate editor of California Wild, a natural history magazine. Get the scoop, straight from Mother Jones. Einstein: Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind - Catholic Answers Forums Einstein: Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind Lost password? Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web. Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity. To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to: Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers Participate in all forum discussions Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today ! Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline .

Join Date: October 26, 2010 Posts: 589 Einstein: Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind Any comments on itï¿½s accuracy? I realize that fact and faith often appear to have little in common, but does that mean they have nothing in common? cho pilo Join Date: December 8, 2008 Posts: 102 Re: Einstein: Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind If you think they have nothing in common, check out this list: Contra negantem principia non est disputandum akasseb Join Date: June 2, 2011 Posts: 4,274 Religion: Catholic Re: Einstein: Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind Fact and faith have little in common? Maybe from the perspective of those who reject the factual accuracy of things knowable only through faith. For those with divine faith, things known by that faith are known to be objectively true with as much or sometimes more certainty than things knowable through natural means, like reason or the senses.

Moving beyond "fact and faith" to "religion and science" and to the Einstein quote you gave, I guess the idea could be subject to both good and bad interpretations. A bad interpretation (though it may indeed be what Einstein meant) would be that faith is incapable of bringing a person to true knowledge, while science on its own is incapable of motivating people to live their lives and to strive to learn and invent and accomplish. One thus would need science to inform one's views of reality, but also something a little irrational or at least arational to go on living in a creative and optimistic way. A good interpretation would be that faith and reason (and among the things reason can bring us to, empirical science) enrich each other rather than being in any kind of true conflict. Faith confirms the philosophical assumptions empirical science is based on, like the value of human reason and the basic reliability of the senses, and provides a check against some serious errors one may mistakenly fall into through errant science (modern empirical science is a young field after all and deals mostly in probabilities, and anyone with a knowledge of history knows wrong ideas have had periods of popularity).

Reason meanwhile helps us better understand ideas we already hold by faith, through things like theology, archeology, biology, etc. __________________ But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness." I will rather boast most gladly of my weakness, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. (2 Corinthians 12:9) Aelred Minor Re: Einstein: Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind Quote: Originally Posted by Aelred Minor Fact and faith have little in common? Maybe from the perspective of those who reject the factual accuracy of things knowable only through faith. For those with divine faith, things known by that faith are known to be objectively true with as much or sometimes more certainty than things knowable through natural means, like reason or the senses. Moving beyond "fact and faith" to "religion and science" and to the Einstein quote you gave, I guess the idea could be subject to both good and bad interpretations.

A bad interpretation (though it may indeed be what Einstein meant) would be that faith is incapable of bringing a person to true knowledge, while science on its own is incapable of motivating people to live their lives and to strive to learn and invent and accomplish. One thus would need science to inform one's views of reality, but also something a little irrational or at least arational to go on living in a creative and optimistic way. A good interpretation would be that faith and reason (and among the things reason can bring us to, empirical science) enrich each other rather than being in any kind of true conflict. Faith confirms the philosophical assumptions empirical science is based on, like the value of human reason and the basic reliability of the senses, and provides a check against some serious errors one may mistakenly fall into through errant science (modern empirical science is a young field after all and deals mostly in probabilities, and anyone with a knowledge of history knows wrong ideas have had periods of popularity). Reason meanwhile helps us better understand ideas we already hold by faith, through things like theology, archeology, biology, etc. Precisely! It is science without religion that is blind because it is restricted to physical processes and does not take persons into account...

tonyrey Religion: The only religion whose founder's tomb is empty Re: Einstein: Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind Quote: Originally Posted by cho pilo [...] I realize that fact and faith often appear to have little in common, but does that mean they have nothing in common? If by fact you mean a particular atomic logical assertion, well then the question is somewhat equivocating in an apples-to-oranges way. But if you mean the practice of reason, then they certainly have something in common, they are both fundamental human endeavors. If there is an implied question as to whether they are contradictory, the answer is, no, they are not, if they are properly understood. You may wish to read Fides et Ratio, (found here ). "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." Indeed without both mankind is direly incapacitated. Faith without reason gives us 9/11 and its ilk. Reason without faith gives us Auschwitz and its ilk. I personally prefer the original wording of the quote, But either way points to a deep truth which is so often denied nowadays, to one's peril.

__________________ In nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who oppose him. - Tolkien Without Truth, Charity degenerates into sentimentality - Benedict XVI If I [speak Truth] without Charity, I am a clanging bell or crashing cymbal - St. Paul manygift1spirit Re: Einstein: Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind Quote: Originally Posted by cho pilo Any comments on itï¿½s accuracy? I realize that fact and faith often appear to have little in common, but does that mean they have nothing in common? It's from part II of the second article at - 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 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. __________________ Faith, hope, love - Are the sum of perfection on earth; love alone is the sum of perfection in heaven. Wesley's Notes on 1 Cor 13:13 inocente Religion: Atheist Re: Einstein: Science with out religion is lame, Religion without science is blind When Einstein said this, he wasnï¿½t making two separate and equal comments.

He was making a comparison. The first part, whilst implying that the scientific world is perhaps better off with some religious concept of why weï¿½re going through the process in the first place (although Al thought religious beliefs ï¿½childish superstitionsï¿½), he is simply setting up religion for the punch line. Just insert a ï¿½whereasï¿½ between the two phrases and you get a better understanding of what he was trying to say. If science without religion can be compared to having a bad leg, then religion without science is total blindness. Can we have a show of hands here whoï¿½d prefer to have a bad leg against being blind? Bradski Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. | Uncertainty, Possibility, Reality, Mystery Uncertainty, Possibility, Reality, Mystery Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. February 13, 2007 — greim145 That’s a quote from Albert Einstein. Here’s a thoughtful essay about Einstein and his religious views .

From the essay: “Although Einstein was not always consistent in what he said about God, there is a consistent theme running through his thoughts on religion—a theme that he called “cosmic religion”. He used this term to reflect the awe he felt when confronted with the universe and our ability to begin, at least, to comprehend it.” Like this: 17 Responses to “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Your Mom February 16, 2007 at 9:52 pm Faith is… …not a leap in the dark nor a mystical experience nor an indefinable encounter with someone, but trust in One who has explained Himself in a Person–CHRIST, in a historical record–THE BIBLE. “Be on your guard: stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong.” I Corinthians 16:13 February 17, 2007 at 8:47 pm It’s a quote from a little book we received from Al and Glady Platt, Bobbie Friesen’s parents, for Christmas. It has been meaningful to them because they have taken care of their 50 year old handicapped daughter for all these years.

Their family is beautiful to watch–no bitterness–just love. It’s called FAITH IS…. by Pamela Reeve, a lady I heard at a women’s retreat at Pine Cove years ago during our Dallas days. Interesting to receive this now. It is very meaningful to me, and I hope it will be to you as well. Here’s another one: Faith is… …reliance on the certainty that God has a purpose for my life when everything seems meaningless. “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.” ~James 1: 2, 3 My favourite part- –quote Although Einstein was not always consistent in what he said about God, there is a consistent theme running through his thoughts on religion – a theme that he called “cosmic religion”. He used this term to reflect the awe he felt when confronted with the universe and our ability to begin, at least, to comprehend it. Writing in 1930, he saw hints of this cosmic religion in the Psalms and the Hebrew prophets, and more clearly in Buddhism.

This cosmic religion, he wrote, “knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it”. –end quote Thanks. Yes, Einstein often finds himself the unwitting subject of appeals to authority by Christian apologists — end quote He also was the the unwitting subject of appeals from the atheist community, which he abhored. “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” (Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 425) Appeals to Einstein can only be taken so far that it is reasonable to believe there is a God. This is where the “authority” ends: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. The deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” (The Universe and Einstein, p.

109) Oh, if more scientists were like him in both, able to grasp the obvious, and humility! Einstein demonstrates that reason is limited (to wit he had in great excess). Reason is only able to take a person so far in getting to know God… and that for a God outside time-and-space to be known *personally* must reveal Himself. Debateable perhaps, I believe Einstein made some effort, but some could say some organized religion got in the way? The God Einstein was looking for has done that very thing, made Himself known in the man Jesus Christ – whom calls us to come and get to know him. February 19, 2007 at 4:28 pm The appeals to [anyone] can only be taken so far in that it is reasonable to believe that there is a God. The appeal to authority approach can only work when dealing with someone who actually reckons authority to the one being quoted. I believe that it is entirely possible to use the appeal of authority pertaining to material issues like science, math, business models, etc…but all authority is lost in the light of the spiritual.

At best the only authority on spiritual matters can be the individual who has experienced his own experience…and even then they are only an expert on their perceptions that they had. God has seemingly “personally” made himself known to many people in many ways at many times…and yet many of the experiences differ from each other. Some have been in the “person of Jesus Christ” some have been in an LSD induced vision, some have been through sensory deprivation. Many have had not experience at all, though they have sought it with all of their energy. Organized religion could have gotten in the way for Einstein, but then again I don’t know of a single religious system that is not organized on some level. Organization has the potential to lead to corruption. Isolation has the potential to lead to insanity. The God that Einstein was looking for may have made himself known in the man Jesus Christ but even his own followers seem to have confusion as to who/what Jesus Christ is. It is kind of like a show that I saw recently about psychic communication. The “spirit” supposedly has a higher frequency than humans do.

So in order for communication to occur, the humans have to raise theirs and the spirit has to lower theirs in order to meet on level ground…but there can supposedly then be a lot that is lost in the transition. Is God trying to lower his frequency and we are not raising ours which causes these disconnects in understanding? In order to get to know Jesus better does he need an invitation to come over for tea and cookies? We certainly need humility in light of all of the variations of experience. Science without religion is certainly lame. I happen to be able to see the fractions of complexity even within my own mind and sphere of the world that I live in and [personally] must believe that something far bigger was behind it all than just chance. But then again, for a being that would be outside of both time and space, perhaps it is most blasphemous to try and explain such an entity with feeble words or ideas. Perhaps it is blasphemous to believe that such one would even stoop to communicate in such plain terms that we use. There should be a certain sense of awe. Perhaps it could at least be a respectful fear of the unknown. But also religion without science is blind as well. Doesn’t the Bible mention unicorns?

Doesn’t it say that the sun rises and sets? Doesn’t it say that mud could be used as a topical ointment for a blind man? Obviously there is also evidence of the miraculous as well as the need to interpret metaphor…but just look at the development in technology in the last 50-100 years. So many advances that really put the last century almost back in a cave. Fiction is born from the absence of answers. February 19, 2007 at 11:26 pm The Bible is filled with mysteries, with marvels and wonders that modern science still cannot explain. This ancient, sacred text invites each of us not to “solve” the mysteries it depicts, but rather to ponder them. The Bible challenges us to explore whether life is more than merely what we can see and feel, measure and quantify. We are faced with these questions every day. Few of us have not experienced our own moments of mystery, those circumstances that seem to whisper that there is more to life than meets the eye. The mysteries and stories, parables and events, prophecies and people that make up the Bible were gathered together to lead us on a search for God.

And that search is intended to lead us into a relationship with God that will affect us authentically and profoundly. If we leave the mysteries of the Bible on the page where we’ve found them, we miss the point. These pages invite us to reach beyond ourselves and our world as we know it, to find a much deeper vision of reality. They invite us to acknowledge the possibility of a God who reaches back. If the Bible teaches us anything, it is that he will. Job 11: 7-9 says: “Can you understand the mysteries surrounding God All-Powerful? They are higher than the heavens and deeper than the grave. So what can you do when you know so little, and these mysteries outreach the earth and the ocean?” God has seemingly “personally” made himself known to many people in many ways at many times…and yet many of the experiences differ from each other. Some have been in the “person of Jesus Christ” some have been in an LSD induced vision, some have been through sensory deprivation. Many have had not experience at all, though they have sought it with all of their energy. — end quote (rp) Good choice of the word “seemingly”. Who is Jesus?

There is only one correct answer. (John 14:6 / John 8:58) — quote (rp) Doesn’t the Bible mention unicorns? — end quote (rp) Only in the King James. (Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7) The Hebrew word is “re’em” which is correctly translated as “wild ox”. — quote (rp) Doesn’t it say that the sun rises and sets? — end quote (rp) You should call your local weather station and tell them to stop calling it “sunrise” and “sunset” or “sundown” — quote (rp) Doesn’t it say that mud could be used as a topical ointment for a blind man? — end quote (rp) Only in the hands of God on Earth. — quote (rp) So many advances that really put the last century almost back in a cave.

— end quote (rp) Gosh, how did they build the pyramids or stonehenge, or etc. etc. etc… There are things done in the past that make our heads spin too ya know. — quote (rp) Fiction is born from the absence of answers. — end quote (rp) February 20, 2007 at 11:51 am OK Thor (which I’m curious what that is short for) this is starting to get personal with some of the jabs that you’re putting out there and I wanted to keep this objective. I also didn’t intend for us to take up the most space on this blog parrying back and forth. So I’ll respond quickly to your last statements and then we can move on to let this be about the original blogger’s intents and purposes. About your response to the Jesus issue- Again, depending on who you ask [even among Christians] you will get varying answers on who Jesus is- even according to the verses that you provided About language- 1. The Unicorn- From Strong’s: probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.

[07214; variant of 07213] 2. Sunrise and Sunset- Obviously these terms have evolved into what is now our everyday speech because it now has the meaning that we have assigned to it with our current understanding; but no, no one is going to call the TV station or newspaper and tell them to stop using those terms because of their current meaning and association. BUT, you have to remember that not too long ago scientist were threatened to be killed by the Catholic Church because while they read the Bible literally in their day to say that the sun revolves around the earth, they would not put up with the scientists that found otherwise. About Science- 1. Mud for sight- This is believable if you take a literal reading of the Gospels, which I know that you do. 2. Pyramids and Stonehenge- Of course those were gigantic feats for them back then. Of course they were capable of figuring out ways of engineering the magnificent. Those things were possible…and it would be amazing if anyone could ever officially validate the speculation of what truly happened at Atlantis if it ever existed.

But now look at how today we can reattach limbs, we have computers that can control robots in a way that we wouldn’t need people to rebuild Stonehenge or the Pyramids; we can start a dead heart beating again with shots of adrenaline…etc. So in many ways, life today is much more superior in technology than it was in previous decades/centuries/millenia. About Fiction- What an over-generalization to say that fiction is born from ignoring facts. So is that usually the case with various aborigines who have not had contact with primitives? How can they ignore a fact that they might not know? Or what about a child who doesn’t know the answer to a question so they make up their own? Do they willingly ignore facts? No. The point is that there are many beliefs throughout the world that have become known now as myths or legends that sustained various cultures for centuries; not because they ignored some facts, but because they simply didn’t have any scientific answers. That does not mean that science is the pinnacle of knowledge but it does mean that they just did the best they could with what little knowledge they had.

What about the ancient Hebrews who had earlier forms of Kabbalah who believed that you could find out if you had demons watching you by sprinkling the ashes of a burnt rooster around your bed at night and looking for little tracks in the ash in the morning. Did they believe that because the were ignoring facts? I doubt it; no scriptures had yet been written to address that issue so they did the best they guessed how. Or what about the practice that led barbers to start “bleeding” people to cure various blood diseases? Did they do that because they ignored facts? No, the medical field had not yet discovered better ways of dealing with issues like that. I could go on…but for the sake of space I will just stop there. Please don’t think that I’m out to destroy everything that you have to say. This is good dialog, however, I must say that I am usually anticipating what you will say in response to my statements because you remind me a lot of…well….me about 5 years ago. Since then, I have come to agree with Einstein’s proposition that perhaps there is no such thing as free will. There seem to be predetermined paths for people to follow as they traverse through life that are often inescapable.

It is not my intent to put you or your particular brand of Christianity down. If you’ve been going at it for 22 years then perhaps that is indeed your path, and who am I to tell you [or anyone] that you can’t pursue a certain thing. What I do know, being an expert on my own experience [or even just perceived experience] is that no matter how hard I have tried to fight or counter it, I am no longer drawn to the same “Orthodox Evangelical” brand of Christianity that I once was. Now, a Calvinist would say that I was then never really “saved” to begin with…but that is just their side of the argument. My point is that I don’t want this to become a personal thing and I’ve probably taken up more space on this blog than is necessary…so although I have not yet been reprimanded, I’m going to cut back a bit in my posting. But I wanted to convey that it wasn’t because I was conceding to your arguments, but rather because I’ve already been down that road and given all of the answers that you are giving back to me…but they just don’t work for me any longer.

So with all respect, let’s from now on, try and keep our comments focused only on the questions at hand as proposed by the author of the blog. That means me too, keeping myself in check. OK Thor (which I’m curious what that is short for) — end quote (rp) It is not short for anything (I am asked that alot) — quote (rp) Again, depending on who you ask [even among Christians] you will get varying answers on who Jesus is- even according to the verses that you provided — end quote (rp) Fair enough. Sure, there are many holding the label of Christian and teaching a “so-called Jesus”. For example, the Mormons call themselves Christian and some of their core doctrines are from the pit of hell – including who they say Jesus is. So I agree we need to be very clear and careful of who we call “Christian” (this can be quite complex since we can not see the human heart). In saying this, EVERYONE who is a Christian (as I understand it) agrees on who Jesus is. You see, this is plain in the Bible, and is one of the key essentials in true Christian faith.

Jesus asks everyone: “who do you say that I am?” (Matthew 16:15) The fact it is a question means there is a right answer, and a wrong answer. For those who get the right answer, enter Heaven. For those who do not, well (Jesus said): “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'” (Matthew 7:21-23) “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:50) “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me.

He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.” (John 14:21) So you see, knowing the correct Jesus is quite important. — quote (rp) 2. Sunrise and Sunset- — end quote (rp) On #1, I have plenty of Hebrew references, from books to professors to friends. Only saying that the Bible does not affirm mythos (mythology) as you seemed to suggest. On #2, the Bible does use the common language of the authors, which neither impacts its inerrancy nor truthfulness. Helpful site: — quote (rp) 1. Mud for sight- This is believable if you take a literal reading of the Gospels, which I know that you do. — end quote (rp) Correct – Yes I do. The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are a completely reliable historical record of what happened, what was said, etc. In this case, Jesus took mud made from his spittle, and placed it on a man’s eyes, and he could see. (John 9) I do not see any problem with it.

In the hands of any other man, it is mud. In the hands of Jesus – it was medicinal. Did Jesus rise from the dead? Science says that type of thing can’t happen (especially if you consider the type of death Jesus suffered). Dead people do not rise from the dead (empirically speaking). But it did happen. So since Science says it can not happen, are we to conclude it did not happen? Suffice to say (in context w/r to your 2/19 4:28pm post) there is no need to interpret as metaphor what is easily explained as literal. — quote (rp) What an over-generalization to say that fiction is born from ignoring facts. — end quote (rp) This is what I say : “absence of answers” AND “ignoring facts” .. ( I did use an “and” ) BOTH can produce fiction. Did not intend to say that “only ignoring facts” if that is how you took it. — quote (rp) Please don’t think that I’m out to destroy everything that you have to say. — end quote (rp) Not at all.

Didn’t enter my mind as even a possibility — quote (rp) But I wanted to convey that it wasn’t because I was conceding to your arguments, but rather because I’ve already been down that road and given all of the answers that you are giving back to me…but they just don’t work for me any longer. — end quote (rp) I’m not sure what you held to before. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrew 13:8) Truth does not change.. but we do. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Sales and Marketing Integration - Symmetrics Group Article by: David Roche (Customer Marketing Manager, Central Garden and Pet) These famous words from Albert Einstein speak to the importance of different disciplines not only tolerating each other, but working together to maximize their respective contributions. The same can be said for Sales and Marketing. There is an almost universal conflict between Sales teams and Marketing organizations across Corporate America. Here are some common perceptions from Sales: “The Tower and the Trenches” – Marketing is in the tower, and we’re in the trenches. They just don’t get it.

Management has a clear vision, but it has not trickled down yet (lost in translation) – we don’t know how to articulate our vision or strategy to our customers. Field staff feels disconnected from corporate decision making processes. HQ is not listening to our needs and doesn’t understand what we’re dealing with. The organization needs more closely aligned goals and direction. The specifics will vary somewhat by organization, but the themes will be very consistent. In order to address these issues, there are specific actions that can be taken. My experience is that a Customer Marketing team is the most effective way to tackle some of these issues and ensure a better integration between the Sales and Marketing functions. However, these actions can be taken in any organization: 1. Better understand needs, wants, and issues with key constituents: Company 2. Set up interviews with the following groups: • Senior Management o What are the business drivers, current performance, resource deployment? o What are the 1, 2 and 5 year business plans? How are you tracking against objectives? • Brand (Voice of the Consumer) o What is the brand equity? How is current brand health? Penetration, strategies, competition? o Product sku’s? Turn rates? o What are consumer needs and occasions?

Functional and emotional benefits? • Sales (Voice of the Customer) o What is the importance of the category to the customer? o How does the customer sell the category? What problems does the customer have with the category? o What is the customer’s strategy with the consumer? Once you have collected answers to these important questions, you can take the most important step – get the parties in the same room and talking about how they’re going to collectively meet the organization’s challenges. With most conflicts (whether they’re personal or organizational) better understanding is the most effective way to find common ground. Facilitating an exchange between Sales and Marketing where each is heard is a great first step toward achieving better integration. Defining clear action items and ensuring follow up after the meeting is also critical to maintaining trust and enhancing effectiveness between Sales and Marketing. If there is no follow-up after an exchange, the credibility of each group will be tarnished and the teams will quickly revert back to their earlier positions of frustration and mistrust. As Vince Lombardi said, “Winning is not a sometime thing, it’s an all time thing. You don’t win once in a while, you don’t do things right once in a while, you do them right all the time.

Winning is habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.” And so it is with Sales and Marketing integration. It’s an everyday thing. Share this

Question: Who first said or wrote"Science without religion is lame.Religion without science is blind"?
Answer: ALBERT EINSTEIN