Strange title - I can almost hear the sharp intake of breath from one or two members.
I hope Davidium won't mind if I use his sermon that he quoted in a thread for U.U; the link being http://dynamicdeism.org/tpst/viewtopic.php?p=202#202;
His topic is "The Religion of Science: The Religious Thought of Albert Einstein "; I read the sermon, and enjoyed it greatly, but there were a few points I thought could well do with 'an airing' in the debate section. I may as well reproduce the whole sermon as cut & snip the parts I would like to offer as debate.
The Religion of Science
The Religion of Science:
The Religious Thought of Albert Einstein
Sunday, October 18th, 2005
Since the advent of the modern scientific movement over the last two centuries, one of the most common conclusions has been that religion and science are inherently opposed. And in some ways, this does seem obvious, for they each have presented what seem to be wildly varying views of the universe. Both traditional religion and science seek to provide answers to questions, yet come to different answers from different methods. Often, the conclusions they reach are diametrically opposed.
The conflict between the two has raged for over a century. From the condemnation of Darwin and the Scopes monkey trial to todays efforts to put warning labels on High School Science texts, the us vs. them view of science and religion seeps into many aspects of our lives. From evangelical Christian ministers who claim that Hurricanes are punishments from God for societal sin, to scientific advancements being used for immoral purposes (such as nuclear weapons) the division of Science and Religion has caused great harm both to individuals, and to society as a whole.
Into this debate was thrust a man of superior intellect, a laughing soul, and a deep and abiding connection to the universe. His name was Albert Einstein. And while we have all heard of scientific achievements such as the Theory of Relativity (which I barely understand) and his work in comprehending nuclear fission and fusion (which I dont understand at all), what I have found most profound about his lifes work were his attempts to heal the division between science and religion, carried out in newspaper and magazine articles, lectures, private letters, and personal conversations throughout his life.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind Albert said in lecture given in New York in 1941. Einstein believed that Science could determine facts about the universe, but could not offer any social guidance or values. He decried such efforts as social Darwinism as immoral and unjust. At the same time, religion could speak to how we would like things to be in our world, but without science to point out how things were, you would never be able to find a path to that better kind of a world.
Albert believed, and believed deeply, that the rift between science and the inherent religious impulse within humankind was very harmful to the development of both science and religion. He often spoke of how the most effective scientists were moved by deep religious feeling in their explorations of the natural laws. He also believed that when religion ignored science, it ignored one of the primary sources of religious experience, the grand nature of the universe.
Einstein said
"What I see in nature is a grand design that we can comprehend and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility...."
and
"The content of scientific theory itself offers no moral foundation for the personal conduct of life."
In each of these statements, Albert gives us the inherent reason why science and religion need one another, and cannot be kept apart. Without the wonder of exploring the universe, Religion remains stagnant in regressive traditions. Without an understanding of the religious impulse, Science can fall into the dangerous realm of using discoveries for immoral and unethical ends.
This was a deeply personal issue for Albert late in his life, as he reacted in horror to the atomic explosions in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He viewed that as a failure of both science and religion, as well as a personal failure. Near the end of his life he admitted to a close friend
"I made one mistake in my life... When I signed that letter to President Roosevelt advocating that the bomb should be built."
He allowed his desire to see scientific advancement to outrun his own religious moral sense. He would not do it again. In fact, his reaction to the use of the atomic bomb led him to one of my most favorite Einstein quotes . I am a militant pacifist I will fight for peace!
And yet, was the religion that Albert Einstein spoke of the religious impulse that he felt was needed to compliment and moderate the scientific impulse was it to be found in the traditional revelatory religions of his day? And of our day?
Like many Scientists, Albert had a progressive view of knowledge that knowledge built upon prior knowledge, leading humankind to a greater and greater understanding of themselves and of the universe we inhabit. He also viewed religion as a progression towards a more perfect understanding of the questions that Science cannot answer questions about purpose and values, ethics and morality.
Albert put forth that religious thought had begun for humankind as a reaction to the fear that was inherent in primitive humanity. In a world of cause and effect, where our early ancestors could see the effects of nature, but not understand the causes, humanity developed a set of personal Gods that corresponded to many of these things they did not understand. These Gods could be appealed to for protection, could be enlisted against ones enemies, and could be used as a salve for the fears that were at the heart of existence in an incomprehensible universe.
Over time, as our ancestors began to understand their universe a bit more clearly, the need for a salve against fear of nature lessened and some people began to move towards religious traditions that were based more upon enforcing morality and less on assuaging fear of the natural world. For as our species ability to be destructive increased, our ancestors became more fearful about what other humans might do, and less fearful about the dangers of nature.
Einstein believed that religious traditions that enforced moral codes based upon the stick and carrot of eternal damnation and heavenly reward came into being as a check upon our increasing destructive ability as a species. Any look at history, however, from the middle Roman Empire to the terror attacks of 9/11 and beyond will show that such religions of morality have been of only limited effectiveness in preventing the evil we humans choose to visit upon each other.
I hope Davidium won't mind if I use his sermon that he quoted in a thread for U.U; the link being http://dynamicdeism.org/tpst/viewtopic.php?p=202#202;
His topic is "The Religion of Science: The Religious Thought of Albert Einstein "; I read the sermon, and enjoyed it greatly, but there were a few points I thought could well do with 'an airing' in the debate section. I may as well reproduce the whole sermon as cut & snip the parts I would like to offer as debate.
The Religion of Science
The Religion of Science:
The Religious Thought of Albert Einstein
Sunday, October 18th, 2005
Since the advent of the modern scientific movement over the last two centuries, one of the most common conclusions has been that religion and science are inherently opposed. And in some ways, this does seem obvious, for they each have presented what seem to be wildly varying views of the universe. Both traditional religion and science seek to provide answers to questions, yet come to different answers from different methods. Often, the conclusions they reach are diametrically opposed.
The conflict between the two has raged for over a century. From the condemnation of Darwin and the Scopes monkey trial to todays efforts to put warning labels on High School Science texts, the us vs. them view of science and religion seeps into many aspects of our lives. From evangelical Christian ministers who claim that Hurricanes are punishments from God for societal sin, to scientific advancements being used for immoral purposes (such as nuclear weapons) the division of Science and Religion has caused great harm both to individuals, and to society as a whole.
Into this debate was thrust a man of superior intellect, a laughing soul, and a deep and abiding connection to the universe. His name was Albert Einstein. And while we have all heard of scientific achievements such as the Theory of Relativity (which I barely understand) and his work in comprehending nuclear fission and fusion (which I dont understand at all), what I have found most profound about his lifes work were his attempts to heal the division between science and religion, carried out in newspaper and magazine articles, lectures, private letters, and personal conversations throughout his life.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind Albert said in lecture given in New York in 1941. Einstein believed that Science could determine facts about the universe, but could not offer any social guidance or values. He decried such efforts as social Darwinism as immoral and unjust. At the same time, religion could speak to how we would like things to be in our world, but without science to point out how things were, you would never be able to find a path to that better kind of a world.
Albert believed, and believed deeply, that the rift between science and the inherent religious impulse within humankind was very harmful to the development of both science and religion. He often spoke of how the most effective scientists were moved by deep religious feeling in their explorations of the natural laws. He also believed that when religion ignored science, it ignored one of the primary sources of religious experience, the grand nature of the universe.
Einstein said
"What I see in nature is a grand design that we can comprehend and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility...."
and
"The content of scientific theory itself offers no moral foundation for the personal conduct of life."
In each of these statements, Albert gives us the inherent reason why science and religion need one another, and cannot be kept apart. Without the wonder of exploring the universe, Religion remains stagnant in regressive traditions. Without an understanding of the religious impulse, Science can fall into the dangerous realm of using discoveries for immoral and unethical ends.
This was a deeply personal issue for Albert late in his life, as he reacted in horror to the atomic explosions in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He viewed that as a failure of both science and religion, as well as a personal failure. Near the end of his life he admitted to a close friend
"I made one mistake in my life... When I signed that letter to President Roosevelt advocating that the bomb should be built."
He allowed his desire to see scientific advancement to outrun his own religious moral sense. He would not do it again. In fact, his reaction to the use of the atomic bomb led him to one of my most favorite Einstein quotes . I am a militant pacifist I will fight for peace!
And yet, was the religion that Albert Einstein spoke of the religious impulse that he felt was needed to compliment and moderate the scientific impulse was it to be found in the traditional revelatory religions of his day? And of our day?
Like many Scientists, Albert had a progressive view of knowledge that knowledge built upon prior knowledge, leading humankind to a greater and greater understanding of themselves and of the universe we inhabit. He also viewed religion as a progression towards a more perfect understanding of the questions that Science cannot answer questions about purpose and values, ethics and morality.
Albert put forth that religious thought had begun for humankind as a reaction to the fear that was inherent in primitive humanity. In a world of cause and effect, where our early ancestors could see the effects of nature, but not understand the causes, humanity developed a set of personal Gods that corresponded to many of these things they did not understand. These Gods could be appealed to for protection, could be enlisted against ones enemies, and could be used as a salve for the fears that were at the heart of existence in an incomprehensible universe.
Over time, as our ancestors began to understand their universe a bit more clearly, the need for a salve against fear of nature lessened and some people began to move towards religious traditions that were based more upon enforcing morality and less on assuaging fear of the natural world. For as our species ability to be destructive increased, our ancestors became more fearful about what other humans might do, and less fearful about the dangers of nature.
Einstein believed that religious traditions that enforced moral codes based upon the stick and carrot of eternal damnation and heavenly reward came into being as a check upon our increasing destructive ability as a species. Any look at history, however, from the middle Roman Empire to the terror attacks of 9/11 and beyond will show that such religions of morality have been of only limited effectiveness in preventing the evil we humans choose to visit upon each other.
