Albert Einstein On God

Albert Einstein – Nobel Laureate In Physics

Nobel Prize: Albert Einstein (1879–1955) was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions to Quantum Theory and for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect. Einstein is one of the founders of modern physics; he is the author of the Theory of Relativity. According to the world media (Reuters, December 2000) Einstein is “the personality of the second millennium.”

Nationality: German; later Swiss and American citizen

Education: Ph.D. in physics, University of Zurich, Switzerland, 1905

Occupation: Patent Examiner in the Swiss Patent Office, Bern, 1902-1908; Professor of Physics at the Universities of Zurich, Prague, Bern, and Princeton, NJ.

♦♦♦

1.  “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” (Einstein, as cited in Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, London, Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1973, 33).

2.  “We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn’t know what it is.

That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a Universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” (Einstein, as cited in Denis Brian, Einstein: A Life, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1996, 186).

3.  “If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus Christ taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity. It is the duty of every man of good will to strive steadfastly in his own little world to make this teaching of pure humanity a living force, so far as he can.” (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, New York, Bonanza Books, 1954, 184-185).

4.  “After all, haven’t the differences between Jew and Christian been overexaggerated by fanatics on both sides? We both are living under God’s approval, and nurture almost identical spiritual capacities. Jew or Gentile, bond or free, all are God’s own.” (Einstein, as cited in H.G. Garbedian, Albert Einstein: Maker of Universes, New York, Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1939, 267).

5.  “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” (Einstein 1936, as cited in Dukas and Hoffmann, Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Princeton University Press, 1979, 33).

6.  “The deeper one penetrates into nature’s secrets, the greater becomes one’s respect for God.” (Einstein, as cited in Brian 1996, 119).

7.  “The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior Reasoning Power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible Universe, forms my idea of God.” (Einstein, as cited in Libby Anfinsen 1995).

8.  “My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior Spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.” (Einstein 1936, as cited in Dukas and Hoffmann 1979, 66).

9.  “The more I study science the more I believe in God.” (Einstein, as cited in Holt 1997).

10.  Max Jammer (Professor Emeritus of Physics and author of the biographical book Einstein and Religion, 2002) claims that Einstein’s well-known dictum, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” can serve as an epitome and quintessence of Einstein’s religious philosophy. (Jammer 2002; Einstein 1967, 30).

11.  “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.” (Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, New Jersey, Littlefield, Adams and Co., 1967, 27).

12.  “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, as cited in Clark 1973, 400; and Jammer 2002, 97).

13.  Concerning the fanatical atheists Einstein pointed out:

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against the traditional ‘opium for the people’ – cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.” (Einstein, as cited in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology, Princeton University Press, 2002, 97).

14.  “True religion is real living – living with all one’s soul, with all one’s goodness and righteousness” (Einstein, as cited in Garbedian 1939, 267).

15.  “Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order.

… This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior Mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.” (Einstein 1973, 255).

16.  “Strenuous intellectual work and the study of God’s Nature are the angels that will lead me through all the troubles of this life with consolation, strength, and uncompromising rigor.” (Einstein, as cited in Calaprice 2000, ch. 1).

17.  Einstein’s attitude towards Jesus Christ was expressed in an interview, which the great scientist gave to the American magazine The Saturday Evening Post (26 October 1929):

“- To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?

– As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.

Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?

– Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.

You accept the historical Jesus?

– Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” (Einstein, as cited in Viereck 1929; see also Einstein, as cited in the German magazine Geisteskampf der Gegenwart, Guetersloh, 1930, S. 235).

Credit: Nobelists.net

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “Albert Einstein On God

  1. The problem is not really time (I’ll have more of that for the next couple weeks), but that I think I’ve answered your questions and you continue to ask them as if I haven’t, without explaining why I have not…

    • The problem is not really time… I’ll have more of that for the next couple weeks is not an excuse:

      Pausing the question again, no more excuses: Or maneuver will do.

      One: Defend how Objective Moral Values and Duties(Evil, Good, Purpose, meaning) can be explain scientific?(If not philosophical)

      Is the world with objective purpose and meaning, are there evil, good, just, objective moral values and duties without GOD?

      Two: You have not answer/explain how your reasoning has not commit False Dilemma.

      Three: Defend how you have not commit a False Dilemma, in those comments.

      If you do not have time for the next couple weeks, then come next couple of weeks and set forth your case.

      • I caught you!! I said I WOULD have time for the next couple weeks, héhéhé…you didn’t only read me, but copied and pasted what I said and still didn’t realize what I was saying, perhaps because you weren’t reading carefully, as you might not have read my previous comments carefully…I HAVE time, I just don’t want to spend it repeating myself because you want to pretend I haven’t explained myself (still without explaining why I haven’t)…

      • The problem is not really time (I’ll have more of that for the next couple weeks)

        You caught me, I do read your comments Hehe, and I am sorry that I got a wrong meaning you will have more of TIME(that) for the next couple weeks, in a sense you do not have time now but you will have more of in next couple of weeks.

        You caught me and I have no excuse. Super, you have time, then why not set your case:

        I want you to set your case because I can not find where you answered them on your comments. Thus I asked if you could collect them together in one comment.

        Then show how it has answer:

        One: Defend how Objective Moral Values and Duties(Evil, Good, Purpose, meaning) can be explain scientific?(If not philosophical)

        Is the world with objective purpose and meaning, are there evil, good, just, objective moral values and duties without GOD?

        Two: You have not answer/explain how your reasoning has not commit False Dilemma.

        Three: Defend how you have not commit a False Dilemma, in those comments.

        If you do not have time for the next couple weeks, then come next couple of weeks and set forth your case.

        Use this modal(If wishes) to fit in your comments and help us see how you have answer it.

        Argue for your position:

        – What premise do you agree or disagree?
        – What are your arguments for agreeing or disagree?(give more than appeal to authorities, give their arguments and why you agree with them)
        – Which part the author is misinformed?
        – How is he misinformed?
        – Which area has the author try to answer, and which has he failed? How?

        If you have answered, repeating your answer is not much to ask, is it?

  2. “Is the world with objective purpose and meaning, are there evil objective moral values and duties without GOD?”
    “Defend how Objective Moral Values and Duties(Evil, Good, Purpose) can be explain scientific?(If not philosophical)”

    Well…I don’t really know, but I can always tell you what I’d bet…I think the world is blind…follows certain rules, but is blind…you often quote Dawkins, I agree with his “pitiless indifference”-thing, if he is speaking about the universe…I don’t know if there’s any good and evil floating out there (that’d be weird), but we can always, as humans, establish them independently of society’s biases, of a given period of region, with knowledge (not sure naked philosophy would help terribly there)…for instance, if you don’t want people to kill you or harm you in any way, to torture you, if you think it’s inherently wrong for that to be done, then, assuming that no one is different from you, that nothing makes you superior to anyone else (which would be supported by scientific evidence, against the beliefs of the kings (Divine right), religions such as Hinduism (untouchables and such)…you can see what conclusions can be reached when you don’t use science as an aid to this philosophy) then you have to accept that it is wrong to do those things to others…for if you don’t, you have to accept that in the worlds of other folks it isn’t wrong to harm you, which would contradict your assumption (yes, philosophy, we always need some of it)…slavery wouldn’t have been considered ok (of course, I’m sure some (most) were just looking after their interests), in the start, I think, if some hadn’t preached that blacks had no soul (not sure about that, heard someone saying that; there’s another story about Noah’s son…)…nowadays, the whole concept of the soul is (or, I guess, should be) obsolete…look at racism, a scientifically unjustified attitude…if one had established and accepted that scientific evidence doesn’t point to any differences between the “races”, folks would not have been racist (héhé, I guess some would have anyways)…we need science in this regard, not religion or solely naked philosophy…but at the end of the day, morality is something in our minds, I think…given our way of thinking, our consciousness, our ability to be harmed, there is good and evil; without us (or other conscious creatures), there wouldn’t be any…I’m going to read Sam Harris’ book, might give me more ideas on the subject…

    • It is not the case that science used as an aid to this philosophy but quote the opposite 🙂 You touch the morality in your above comment, but you have not defend it than working around it.

      From the Major premise of Moral Argument

      1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.(Major Premise)
      2 Objective moral values and duties exist(Minor Premise)
      3. Therefore God exist(Conclusion)

      Defend how God does not exist and objective moral value and duties do exist?

      It is not the case that philosophy, we always need some of it. We need it all time.

      Still you have not answer my questions: Thus I will pause them again:

      One: Defend how Objective Moral Values and Duties(Evil, Good, Purpose, meaning) can be explain scientific?(If not philosophical)

      Is the world with objective purpose and meaning, are there evil, good, just, objective moral values and duties without GOD?

      Two: You have not answer/explain how your reasoning has not commit False Dilemma.

      Three: Defend how you have not commit a False Dilemma, in those comments.

      • Héhéhé…where do you get the first clause of your moral argument? Why does God have to exist? Maybe purpose, I would understand saying that there is need for God in order to have purpose, but why does there have to be a God for morality? You have not justified that…

        Always needing some of something (as I said) is always needing that thing…is needing it all the time, as you’re saying…just not as much as some would have liked, I guess, to use it in lieu of science, of evidence…to trust our intuitions against what can be seen…that’s why I said “some”…

        I don’t have time to repeat myself about the other things…

      • The Major premise is being justified, click on the argument and read. If you still need more clarification I will love to help. Point where, what why do you object?

        Quote:

        I don’t have time to repeat myself about the other things…

        Unquote

        Not having time is not an excuse, for you do have time which you are using by commenting each posts.

        Before you go on commenting(which I admire) why don’t you set forth your case:

        Thus I will pause the question again, this way we do not trace to knew things:

        One: Defend how Objective Moral Values and Duties(Evil, Good, Purpose, meaning) can be explain scientific?(If not philosophical)

        Is the world with objective purpose and meaning, are there evil, good, just, objective moral values and duties without GOD?

        Two: You have not answer/explain how your reasoning has not commit False Dilemma.

        Three: Defend how you have not commit a False Dilemma, in those comments.

        No more escaping my questions 🙂 If possible 🙂

  3. Héhéhé…have to say I’m getting tired…you’re just repeating what you said before…I just explained why, when speaking to you, I did think there were only 2 options…you either except what the evidence demonstrates or you believe God woke up one morning and decided to make the first ant, the first gorilla, the first man, the first elephant, the first dinosaur (wonder why), the first sheep…there’s no evidence for that and there’s massive evidence for evolution…there are of course things in between without using Adam and Eve, but I really thought you believed in something like that, which is arguably the same thing…what else does Intelligent Design mean? Don’t you believe that? Please, don’t pretend you didn’t read this and copy and paste the same thing, please…

    Why are morals relevant here? Why did you suddenly bring it up and require me to talk about it? I can always do that…

    • Quote

      “you don’t see any meaning, purpose, so you assume there isn’t any”

      Unqoute

      No purpose, no meaning if atheism is true. Just because we do not see any meaning or purpose we out not to assume there is not any, but if atheist is true there is no meaning, no purpose. How can an by accident, blind chance(Randomly) and long time give raise of meaning and purpose?

      Quote

      there’s no evidence for that and there’s massive evidence for evolution

      Unquote

      More empty appeal

      Argue for your evidences, which scholars affirms this evidences, how and why? which deny this evidences how and why?

      I repeat the questions because you do not answer them but avoid them then claim you have answer them.

      Thus here is your chance, to collect all you have comments and summaries in your next comment: Show how you have answered the following questions:

      One: Defend how Objective Moral Values and Duties(Evil, Good, Purpose, meaning) can be explain scientific?(If not philosophical)

      Is the world with objective purpose and meaning, are there evil, good, just, objective moral values and duties without GOD?

      Two: You have not answer/explain how your reasoning has not commit False Dilemma.

      Three: Defend how you have not commit a False Dilemma, in those comments.

      After you answered, then I will answer your questions to which you paused to avoid my questions.

      • Oh, ok…I didn’t remember saying that, I’ve been answering to so many posts of yours in between…I answered the morality-thing below…I didn’t see you had already answered…it’s a subject of great interest…

        Maybe you’re right that we shouldn’t assume purpose isn’t there, but what about NOT assuming it IS there? I think that’s what I should have said…and when you see nonsense happening in nature, then you are perhaps to invited to go a step further and say it PROBABLY ISN’T there (at least for us humans)…tsunamis wiping out people, hurricanes, asteroids crashing and wiping out species…the seeming accident of our existences…

  4. I thought you believed that at some point in time God decided to create the first bird, the first dog, the first man…what’s the big difference between that and the 6-day story?…In my point of view, my remark was not a diversion…according to you (as I perceive it, correct me if I’m wrong), we didn’t come from a common ancestor, we just appeared on Earth at some point by the will of a deity…that idea has already been proven wrong, it’s tantamount to believing the Earth is flat, the only difference is the number of people who adhere to such a belief and make it look less…well…let’s say “archaic”…

    • But hehe, that is a red herring

      One: Defend how Objective Moral Values and Duties(Evil, Good, Purpose) can be explain scientific?(If not philosophical)

      Two: You have not answer/explain how your reasoning has not commit False Dilemma.

      • Héhéhé…you keep saying that…I just explained the connection between believing the Earth is flat and denying evolution…connection means relevance…why is it still a red herring? I’m not the one who isn’t explaining myself here…

        I don’t remember ever mentioning objective moral values…

        I have already explained why talking about a false dilemma is irrelevant here, that you wouldn’t be talking about that if we were speaking about a flat Earth…you believe in God, don’t accept (“accept” is the word, not “believe”) evolution, speak of design…there has to be a moment where the thing is designed, I guess…what other option is there for you between evolution and creationism if you believe those things?…I did think you were a 6-day Creationist when I spoke of the two options…

      • I point to the false dilemma, and it is relevant(Logic is always relevant)

        False Dilemmas:

        1. Choose 6 days(literary 24 hours) creationism or evolution(Macro-one)?(left choices How about non of the above, example Intelligent Design)

        If they are more than two candidate and you only present as if there only two( that is call a false dilemma)

        2. Either science and religion can not co-exist or if they can then one is the master of the other(left a choice,that they can(and have) co-exist)

        You have not answer the following:

        One: Defend how Objective Moral Values and Duties(Evil, Good, Purpose) can be explain scientific?(If not philosophical)

        Is the world with objective purpose and meaning, are there evil objective moral values and duties without GOD?

        Two: You have not answer/explain how your reasoning has not commit False Dilemma.

        Defend how you have not commit a False Dilemma

  5. I think a good way to decide if there’s conflict between religion and science is to examine if they claim different things. Religion claims (or claimed, depending on the one you follow) that we were created in 6 days (many of the religious have now realized that that is out of date) and that God has a special plan for us humans, thinks we’re better than other creatures (evolution tends to show otherwise, as does the accident of our existences)…I think that’s conflict…you can see some reacting to it by their opposition to the theory of evolution, their hostility to (more “naked”, this time) theories such as that Stephen Hawking advanced the other day…I don’t know what else to say…one made claims thousands of years ago which have never been validated, can not really establish its truths, while the other looks for the truth…a immovable stone in the middle of the road vs a removable rug…a recipe for disaster…

    I think religion can co-exist with science only if it treats the latter as it’s master…updating itself to accommodate with new scientific findings…

    • What you claim to be science above is philosophical-scientism presuppositions(Jonathan definition).

      Can you argue how this does not commit a False Dilemma?

      1. Choose 6 days(literary 24 hours) creationism or evolution(Macro-one)?(left choice How about non of the above)

      2. Either science and religion can not co-exist or if they can then one is the master of the other(left a choice,that they can(have) co-exist)

      One does not have to be Theist/Atheist to reject or accept Evolution.

      Christianity and materialistic philosophical science(which is often umbrella-ed as Science) are in conflict.

      The universe without evil, good, objective values(atheism) with the universe universe with evil, good and objective value(Christianity)

      The universe which all is material and natural to a universe were not all is material and natural.

      But we have to be careful, because these above is not science but materialist philosophy.

      Why because real science is impotent in answering these questions.

      “My colleges and I want to separate the real science from the materialist philosophy.” ? Phillip E. Johnson

      Book to read by Atheist Physics Philosopher:

      Bradley Monton’s Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design is published by Broadview Press in July 2009

      • Would you talk about choosing whether to believe the world is flat or spherical? It’s been scientifically established that the world is round, we had better accept it…you speak of evolution vs creationism as if they are equally supported by evidence, as if believing in one or the other is a matter of faith…there is no IN BETWEEN…what’s in between believing the world is flat or spherical? Of course you can always make up shapes (squares, rectangles, trapezoids) but there is only one reasonable way to see things nowadays…

        You will see that I have not experienced evolution first hand, I’d answer that you haven’t experienced the world to be round first hand either, it’s actually counter-intuitive…you’ve been told so and you probably accept it…

        Of course science and religion can co-exist, it just depends on what you mean by “religion” (it’s ambiguous, as Einstein’s use of the word “God” that still has thousands mistaken)…again, the only way they can live together in a happy family is if religion submits to science…accepts it as its personal savior, héhé…Einstein actually said something like that, I think, since this article quotes him…the scientists who have been able to be religious and scientists at the same time didn’t discard their science to accommodate with their religious beliefs (I think I read about Lord Kelvin or someone accepting evolution early after it was discovered, which impressed me)…

        Those things you cite aren’t any philosophy, they’re simply discarding of philosophy (religion, etc)…you don’t see any meaning, purpose, so you assume there isn’t any…if you don’t wear a coat, you’re not wearing a “non-coat”…it’s like walking outside your house and not seeing any clouds, so you say there aren’t clouds, though there might very well be…if millions (billions) believe there are clouds without a shred of evidence, that doesn’t change anything, your declaration isn’t transformed into philosophy…

      • Quote

        Would you talk about choosing whether to believe the world is flat or spherical?… you speak of evolution vs creationism as if they are equally supported by evidence

        Unquote( this is Red herring)

        Red herring:
        Within an argument some irrelevant issue is raised which diverts attention from the main subject. The function of the red herring is sometimes to help express a strong, biased opinion. The red herring (the irrelevant issue) serves to increase the force of the argument in a very misleading manner.

        I have not speak of Evolution(Macro-one) and creationism(6 days 24 hours) equally supported by evidence, in fact I denied both, and show the False Dilemma by presenting another possibilities.

        One: Defend how Objective Moral Values and Duties(Evil, Good, Purpose) can be explain scientific?(If not philosophical)

        Two: You have not answer/explain how your reasoning has not commit False Dilemma.

        Note: Intelligent Design is not neocreationism.

  6. Oh my God…come on, héhéhé…Einstein’s not the right person to enlist in defense of faith…his definition of God was, as someone put it, 180 degrees opposite of that of a Christian…the very idea of a personal God was to him extremely childish, the idea of a soul “devoid of meaning”…why don’t you quote his other (not so convenient) statements about God (or even quote him completely)?

    “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

    I agree with him about “fanatical atheists”, I’ve met a couple online who wouldn’t listen to a Christian speak without hurling insults…but Einstein himself criticized religion on occasion…he talked about the “incalculable harm to human progress” (I think that’s somewhat how he worded it) that would follow blind faith…he spoke of abandoning the doctrine of a personal God to better religion…he declared that the only religion which would “cope with the advances of science” or something was Buddhism…again, I don’t think he’s the best guy to enlist…

    “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

    Why didn’t you quote that one?

    Again, he did talk about a structure to the universe, a reason, an intelligence behind it, and to the delight of theists used the word “God” extensively; he didn’t not think It could love us, care for us, answer our prayers thought that idea was ridiculous…he talked of being humble about it, accepting that it was too complicated for the human mind…

    “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.”

    • Indeed Einstein did not believe in personal Christian God, but indeed he believed in a god 🙂

      Plus even if he could not conceived of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, If this God exist, and Christians are correct then he’s claim is nullified.(IF)

      Albert is in the list because he believe in a God 🙂 and this is Scientist comment On God list 🙂 thank you for the add up 🙂

      • I was under the impression that he was quoted to support the idea that religion and science could co-exist…to demonstrate that great scientific minds think/thought so (or better, believed in God themselves)…of course his claims would be nullified if we proved Christians right (as the claims of anyone would be nullified if we proved their opposition right)…I’m just trying to correct what I see as a careful selection of his quotes (as is often done with the Bible, héhé) to give the wrong impression…of course, quoting Einstein or anyone else is not the best way to make one’s point about an issue…

      • Hehe, You assumed already that Religion(Christianity) and Science can not co-exist. I think your impression is right since the great thinkers as appear in this site believe in personal God(Christian God) or a god(like A Einstein).

        Some philosophical-scientism presuppositions( naturalism) can not co-exist with Christianity.(I would like to narrow Religion to one I believe to be true Christianity, since either all are wrong, or one is right but not all can be true)

        Thus if you have reason to believe Science can not co-exist with Christianity, please give your reasoning. It would do everyone best if you not only through in objections, but defend them with reasons (Logic) and evidences.

        The no co-existence of science and religion is a false assumption since we have a great number of Christian scientists. Not just in present but also past in the modern science History.

        The argument that science and religion are in battle (either follow science or religion, but can not have the two because they can not co-exist) commits a logical fallacy know as False Dilemma.

        This wrong reasoning result when:

        Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that are worth considering in the context. Example: “Every person is either my enemy or my friend. If he/she is my enemy I should hate him/her. If he/she is my friend I should love him/her. So I should either love him/her or hate him/her.” Obviously, the conclusion is too extreme because most people are neither your enemy nor your friend.

        If it is true that Christian(which I used here interchangly with religion) can not co-exist with science, please present your case in a logical, evidentical manner. Thus if you are to present a contradition, or other theories, give out logical reasoning, and your evidences.

        Set forth you case…

Comments are closed.