Butthurt.

OK... I am so happy that I just received these comments. I just pissed someone. That means I am still effective. 

Facebook Apologists.

There seems to be a shortage of good Christian apologists in any Facebook group. I think you have to be a member of that forum... er... Realm of Thought, something like that to encounter those theists that can really defend their stand. What we have here are the entertainers. Something like a crossbreed between a clown and a mime. 

Now, remember that most Born-Again Christians are... well, I'm not saying all since we have good apologists from the Christian Fundamentalists side like William Lane Craig, McDowell and Geisler and we also have authors like D'Sousa and Strobel. But unfortunately,  most of our Born-Again Christian friends here in groups seem to be too lazy even reading good Christian apologetic books. Some just  loves to copy-pasta YouTube links and Bible verses without even reading the links or thinking what a polemic might say in his article/YouTube video. The worst are those who are madly in love with their church founder. 

But, as they say, we can at least just try to learn something with their boring copy-pasta posts and their annoying drivels. There can be gold inside garbage sometimes. 

Dinosaurs in the Bible? You got to be kidding me?

“If you can’t beat them, join them”. I think that what's on the mind of these Bible apologists when they say that you can find some references about dinosaurs in the pages of their “holy book”.

First when paleontologists discover the existence of dinosaur fossils, Christians retorted by saying that these bones were placed by Satan to deceive us to believe that dinosaur exist. Well, so far so good. When people didn’t buy this cockeyed explanation, some Christian sect made stories that say God created the dinosaur together with human beings, and what best reference they can show other than what was written in their “Holy Bible”.

The Behemoth

According to Christians, the Book of Job is the evidence that dinosaurs can be found in the Bible… Hmmm let us see.

Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him . Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. (Job 40:15-24 KJV)

Isn't that great or what. Lo and behold, Job is talking about a sauropod, a Brachiosaurus. Yeah, right…

A sauropod fossil

Most Christians believe that the Behemoth in the Book of Job is a dinosaur. Many Young Earth Creationists propose that the Behemoth is a sauropod. But why are these guys’ compares the Behemoth to a dinosaur? It can mean anything? Well, let us see.  According to these Christians, Job 40:15-24 is definitely talking about a dinosaur.

1. he eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly – So the Behemoth eats grass! Yep, and a dinosaur eat grass.

But so does a hippo and an elephant. Dinosaurs don’t eat grass like an ox. They were wholly incapable of chewing their food at all. Their jaws can only move up and down like the jaws of a crocodile, not in a circular pattern like the jaws of a cow. They ate vegetation by grasping the food with the teeth, and pulled away with the head, thereby "raking" the leaves in the mouth. In order to "chew" the food they swallowed, they had to swallow stones (called "gastroliths") that traveled through the necks and into the gizzard area. There, the stones help to grind their food by mashing plant matter into a digestible pulp with the help of special muscles found inside of the gizzards. Oh, and did I forgot to tell you that sauropods were tree-browsers.

 2. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

 Well… since a behemoth “has a tail that is exactly like a cedar tree” it must be a dinosaur. Good grief! Guys, can you read this verse again. It doesn’t say that a behemoth’s tail is like a cedar tree, it says that its tail move like a cedar. That means that it does not necessarily pointing towards the size of the tail, it only speaks about the motion pattern. It’s just saying that the behemoth’s tail moved like the branches of a cedar tree in the wind.

 In the New International Version (NIV), the verses in question are translated as the following:

"What strength he has in his loins; what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar, the sinews of his thighs are close-knit..."

This version could indicate that the animal moved parts of the loin-region, such as the phallus, around aggressively, whether in heat or not. Following the symbolism of strong, well-functioning phalli being a metaphor for masculine courage, the verses continue to demonstrate the behavior and dependence on God of the creature, indicating the humility of a creature that would appear to have no need for humility.

 3. He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him .

That means anyone, approaching the creature, must arm himself with raw firepower; any weapon needed to kill this vicious monstrosity, including a sword. We are not talking about a creature dated back between 70 and 65 million years ago. We’re talking about some modern African animal, like a hippopotamus, a highly dangerous animal that has been said to kill humans more than any other dangerous animal in Africa.

4. Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

The rest of the passage refers to Behemoth being a large amphibious mammal. Sauropods, on the other hand would not enjoy being stuck, bogged down, and up to their armpits in mud, mire, and water all the time and, in other cases, be drowned in their own tissue while standing in deep water.

Hippopotamus

The writer of Job is not talking about dinosaurs here. The New Living Translation says that it's a hippopotamus. In the original Hebrew, the word behemoth is of Egyptian origin. According to the Easton Bible Dictionary, "Some have supposed this to be an Egyptian word meaning a "water-ox." The Revised Version has here in the margin "hippopotamus," which is probably the correct rendering of the word. The hippopotamus is truly a wild animal that "eateth grass like an ox," can never be tamed, and makes his home in the swamps, lakes, and rivers of Africa. They were once common in the Middle East, especially in Egypt, but were not seen anymore in that area due to them being hunted down for their ivory teeth, meat, and hide by humans.

The Leviathan

Another dinosaur “wannabee” in the Bible is the Leviathan.

The word "Leviathan" appears six times in the Bible:

1. Isaiah 27:1: "In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

2. Psalms 74:14: "Thou didst crush the heads of the Leviathan, thou didst give him for food to the creatures of the desert." NIV

3. Psalms 104:25,26: "O Lord, how manifold thy works, in wisdom you have created them all. So is this great and wide sea... there go the ships and the Leviathan which you have created to play therein" (AV);

4. Book of Job 3:8 "May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan "; (NIV )

5. Book of Job 40: 24-32, 41:1-24: "Can you draw out a Leviathan with a hook or press down its tongue with a cord? Canst thou put a hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a bridle ring? Will he make many supplications to thee? Will he speak soft words to thee? Will he make a covenant with thee? To take him for thy servant forever? Will thou play with him as with a bird? Or wilt thou bind him for thy girls? Will the tradesmen heap up payment for him?... Lay thy hand upon him, thou will no more think of fighting. Behold the hope of him is in vain, shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?...Who can open the doors of his face? His teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is near to the another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his [sneezing] a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth....His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone....He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble....He maketh the deep to boil like a pot....he is a king over all the children of pride."

According to Duane Gish, the Leviathan is a dinosaur, some sort of a Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus, or a plesiosaur such as Koronosaurus. Yet how he forgotten that the Leviathan appears also in the Ugaritic texts, where it is described as a twisting serpent. In Canaanite mythology and literature, it is a monster called Lotan, 'the fleeing serpent, the coiling serpent with the seven heads'. It was eventually killed by Baal. The Leviathan is also the Ugaritic god of evil.

Koronosaurus

In Psalms 74:14 it also says that the Leviathan has many heads (14Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.)

Also, let us not forget the following descriptions:

A.) Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

B.) Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

C.) His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth

Gosh! These descriptions sound like more of one of those Kaiju from a Japanese 1960’s monster show… like those Godzilla movies. Dinosaurs don’t have such abilities. The gentle Parasaurolophus or Corythosaurus doesn’t shoot fire from their mouth. Also, there were no sailing ships of the time when sea reptiles known as pliosaurs ruled the seas.

Let me point out… the Bible is neither modern nor scientific. It was written in a poetical, ancient and mythological manner. So I hope Christian fundies should use their brain often and should try to distinguish facts from fables.

Until next time,

John the Atheist

On Purpose and Meaning.

A lot of atheist sites have been elucidating the subject concerning the meaning and purpose of life. There are even these atheist sites that employ short stories just to send the message. Yet still believers assume that non-believers think there is no meaning and purpose in life.

God believers imagine that living in this planet includes a definite purpose and meaning. According to Christian believers, we are created by God because of a certain specific cosmic purpose. They pose that if humans were just created by random chance, then we don’t have any purpose. Rick Warren, the author of "A Driven Purpose Life", even believes that God has given ethics because life has a  purpose and meaning. He asked his readers, why should you even think of being good if you only have a short life here on planet Earth? William Lane Craig also thinks that atheists imagine human life is just an insignificant moment before the perpetual grave. Another Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, claims that wonder, truth, love and security are essential components to have a meaning in life and only Christian theism can satisfy these conditions.

It is rather strange to these Christian apologists think that belief in God automatically gives someone a sense of meaning and purpose. It seems a Christian believes that any person who doesn’t believe in his God have no purpose in living. I often wonder, so there is a god who created some rules to be obeyed, and if you don’t comply with them you roast in hell for all eternity… Does that constitute meaning and purpose in life? Is there really a meaning in life if you are living in a fool’s paradise? Do frightening and agonizing people with all kinds of imaginary fears and guilt-feelings promote a purpose in life?

According to Rick Warren, “Measured against eternity our time on earth is just a blink of an eye, but the consequences of it will last forever.” Is seems Mr. Warren is suggesting that a Christian believer’s life is about fear of God. Warren even stressed that we are rewarded for our faithfulness to God on Earth, and that every time you respond correctly to some adversary in your life, God notices and makes plans to reward you in eternity. Then that gives the impression as if Christians are motivated in life by the rewards of heaven and the avoidance of hell. If Rick Warren is correct, then your purpose in life is about deciding whether you obey God and get your rewards or disobey him and pay the price! Then every reason and importance of life rests in the will of God. To the question, "Why should I do x?" believers will answer, "Because it is the will of God." If we continue to ask, "Why should I obey the will of god?" they will answer, "Because he will reward or punish you accordingly, either in this life or in an afterlife." Then the power of this supernatural being has thus served as a standard. A believer resides his life, not because he desires life’s fundamental consequence, but because he fears its sanction—in this case, the wrath of god. Surely this seems to be a very shallow point and significance to life.

So ok… ok, I have already talked about how believers assume that they have a certain meaning and purpose in life. How about non-believers? Do non-believers also have a sense of meaning and purpose in life? God believers assume that humans have a so-called grand “cosmic meaning and purpose” in making life livable yet have overlook that we can still make some kind of meaning and purpose in life even in a smaller personal meaning. Just look at Mr. Zacharias’ claim. Do you think that wonder, truth, love and security are exclusive to God-belief? Hey! I can feel awe at the universe when I look at the stars in a clear night yet I don’t believe in a god. I can go trekking in Montalban, Rizal with my friends and marvel at the natural beauty of the mountains, the hills, the river, the, trees, the rocks and every living beings in the forest, yet I don’t believe in the existence of Jesus Christ – nor did I go there to be a pilgrim of that “Estampang Bato” – a big rock that is being venerated by delusional worshipers in Montalban. As a human being I am touched by the arts – the ultimate expression of creativity, and feel wonder and love even if I don’t consider the possibility that Allah exist. Woah! I can even relate to mysticism, even if I don’t believe that Krishna is a real thing! I am touched by literature, even those who were written by god-believers. Hehehe, reading poems written by Pablo Neruda can even give you a sense of meaning than reading all those apologetic literatures being put up for sale in those Christian bookshops and Bible House. Mr. Rick Warren, Mr. Ravi Zacharias and other Christian believers should note that the potential of humanity, the power of reason, the comfort of another's love, the pursuit of knowledge and truth, the beauty and joy of human experience, and the nearly unlimited power of the human will to endure almost any hardship or solve almost any problem can give someone’s life a meaning and purpose even if the person doesn’t believe the delusion of a god-belief.

Atheists can enjoy life even if they don’t believe in a so-called cosmic purpose. Just think about it, believers imagine that all his action on this planet is guided by God, just like what a certain song said, “God is watching us in a distance…” So my life doesn’t include a certain voyeur in the clouds… Big deal! That doesn’t make my life dreary. I can enjoy life just like any typical God-believer, minus that big fat man in the sky. The difference between me and the believer is that I don’t deceive myself in so-called “supernatural cosmic meaning and purpose.” The universe doesn’t care. Nature doesn’t give a damn. It doesn’t need you or me or anyone else on this planet. The universe will keep on moving even without you. All the planets in this solar system will keep on rotating and revolving even if you were not born. Meaning and purpose is a human idea, it’s how you justify your existence. However, it doesn’t require an assured God-belief in order to work. Bear in mind that every person in this planet have the goal of surviving – of staying alive and being happy for yourself and other people. That already signifies a purpose. You don’t need a so-called cosmic purpose to be happy. To live in a so-called divine purpose is to live in an illusion. Are you living life because somebody assured you that a supernatural God in heaven is gazing at you – and you are existing because of trepidation of retribution or the gains of remuneration… is that your purpose in life?

Can you only sense a meaning in life if you believe in immortality… a life after death… as what these Christian apologists want us to consider? So you can’t have a meaning in life because life is so short, huh? Yes, as an atheist, I don’t believe in eternal life after death. Sure, we’re all going to become fertilizer to our neighbor’s lawn someday. That may be shocking. But do you think I need to take a placebo just to experience a meaning in my life? Then what will be the difference between a junkie and a god-believer? Drug addicts take drugs to escape the realities of life. Are we going to believe in God to flee from the realities of death? Why not draw a different yet positive outlook. Since we know that life is short, we should try hard to experience all the meaning we can within that short range. You have a limited number of days, hours, and minutes… so you should do your utmost to fill each of those days, hours, and minutes with meaning. Fill them with learning and try gaining wisdom - with concern for the poor, with love for friends and family, with doing a job well, with fighting against evil and obscurantism.

The shortness of life is not really a hindrance. The mere fact that my consciousness exist, that I can talk with people I sometimes hardly knew, that I have a loving family and supportive friends, that I can write my thoughts on my blog, that I can share my ideas and philosophies to others, that I am born with the ability to solve problems are enough to give the universe a meaning and my life a purpose. Let us remember that the minute a person's value his life, it becomes meaningful. When a person shares this meaning to other people, it then has a purpose… and you don’t need to believe in a god to accomplish that.

Until next time.

Scientific Foreknowledge of the Bible… Weh? (Part 1)

I thought religion is not affected by science Mr Mickhey Pasco?

Anyway, the claim that the Bible has this foreknowledge on scientific discoveries is not new. The reason for this, well… it makes the claim of divine authorship credible. But, these are really all about interpretations. Christians (and their apologists) will twist and turn any scripture to make it scientific as possible.

Now here are Mickhey Pasco’s claims and the facts regarding these claims.

1. The Earth is a sphere.

The claim here is that Isaiah 40:22 says that the Earth is a sphere.  

WRONG

Did Isaiah say the Earth was a Sphere? 

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”

Oh! It just says “circle of the Earth.” 

Christians insist that the “circle” here means a sphere.  This is, of course, nonsense because the word sphere derives from the ancient Greek word for a globe, ball or spherical shape and the word hadn't reached the English language by the time the KJV was written. The original Hebrew of Isaiah 40:22 uses חוּג, which translates as "circle.” (chug; SEE: Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22) not a sphere or spherical. The Hebrew word chug used here cannot be translated as a sphere (which is rendered by a different word), but must again be interpreted as a solid vault overarching the earth.

Sphere is דּוּדּוּר used for the 3d circular things, but the word can also be used for describing the object one plays soccer or basketball . Ut was used in Isaiah 22:18.

2. Innumerable Stars.

Mr. Pasco concluded that Jeremiah 33:22 says that the stars are innumerable. He also claims that science only believes that there are 1100 stars.

FACTS: The ancient Summerian already believed that the stars are innumerable. They have already made a catalogue of the stars since 1200 BCE. Already have this pre-dated Jeremiah’s claim for 570 years.

3. Air has weight.

Claim: Job 28:25 predicted that air has weight.

Fact: Job 28:25 says "To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure." This is poetic. According to the Pulpit Commentary,  Job 28:25 means “God by his wisdom gives to winds their exactly fitting degree of force and violence, so that they perform the work in the world which they were intended to perform, and which would not be performed, were they either of a less or of a greater intensity.” 

That doesn't sound scientific. 

4. Each Stars are different

Claim: 1 Corinthians 15:41 

“The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.”

Facts: The Sun is a star and the verse doesn't say stars are different from each other. Also,  splendor is not synonymous with size and intensity. Since splendor is not scientifically measurable, that statement by the bible is unprovable.

5. Light moves

Claim: Job 38:19-20

Job 38:19-20New International Version (NIV)19 “What is the way to the abode of light?    And where does darkness reside?20 Can you take them to their places?    Do you know the paths to their dwellings?

Facts: Notice Mr. Pasco conveniently forget to mention that light is also mentioned as dwelling, or staying in one place. Also, he ignores the fact that the Bible treats darkness like it actually exists, when really it's the absence of light. Also, it's Job, which, once again, is a very poetic part of the Bible.

6. Earth free floats in space (classic!)

Claim: Job 26:7

New International Version (NIV)

7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;

    he suspends the earth over nothing.

Facts: Earth is not suspended in nothing. Gravity is not nothing.  

7. Wind blows in a cyclone

Claim: Ecclesiastes 1:6

The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course.

Facts: Ecclesiastes 1:6 is a pretty much poetics. First of all, Ecclesiastes is all about how nothing matters and nothing changes. So it poetically refers to the wind as not really changing no matter what it does, or where it blows. 

Sanitized

According from an anonymous commenter, Isaiah 40:22...

Isaiah 40:22 The Message (MSG) 21-24 Have you not been paying attention? Have you not been listening? Haven’t you heard these stories all your life? Don’t you understand the foundation of all things? God sits high above the round ball of earth. The people look like mere ants."

Weh?

Ok, so he quote from The Message. According to the Wiki: The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language was created by Eugene H. Peterson and published in segments from 1993 to 2002. It is an idiomatic translation of the original languages of the Bible.

And the problem?

Well, it seems Mr. Paterson just included his own interpretation to the scriptures. Here's a good example:

Mr. Paterson has the habit of paraphrasing the Bible to make it sound... er, acceptable to modern standard. In short, he's trying to sanitized it.  Here are other examples:

So what happened to wives must "subject themselves to their husbands?"

Nice...

So that is how to put the dust inside the carpet. 

From the "Good Book."

Bible verses for today. Enjoy.

 "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." - Ezekiel 23:20

 You engaged in prostitution with the Egyptians, your neighbors with large genitals, and aroused my anger with your increasing promiscuity. - Ezekiel 16:26

Science and Religion

It is said that evil prosper when good men do nothing. So, if I will just let this uh.... Statement of ignorance prevail, I think I will be as guilty as the OP for proclaiming inanity here on Facebook.

Anyway, let’s take a good look on what this Christian is saying.

According to Milkhey Pasco, “ Science can't stand alone without religion but religion doesn't care about science.” I don’t have any idea if this Mr. Pasco knows what he’s saying. Was the post intended to irritate rational people? Well, I am not irritated… surprised, maybe but irritated? Do he really believed what he posted? Maybe?

Do science needs religion? 
Mr. Pasco never gave us any good example of how scientific studies are dependent with religion. In fact, there are even clashes with religion. The Dalai Lama XIV (which fortunately not a Christian) even nailed this issue in the lid when he said, “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” But it seems Mr. Pasco is ignorant on the matter.

Ken Ham, founding president and CEO of Answers in Genesis have expressed his idea of what science is all about. For these Bible literalists and Evangelical Christians, science must follow what the Bible declares. It must base its finding on what the Bible teaches. But how can science follow religion as what Mr. Pasco was trying to imply? Science is based on a trial-error method, not on absolute authority and revelation.

Religion doesn’t care about science?

It seems history will prove Mr. Pasco wrong. For many years, religion was affected by what science discovered. From a heliocentric solar system, up to biological evolution and even on the issue of vaccination, bio-ethics (stem-cell research, cloning), artificial birth control, the religious community reacts, even violently.

“Science is completely incapable of proving such as a proslogion.”

To most, science is not about proving the existence of a god. It is not a scientific problem. Others have already used science to prove the god hypothesis and as scientist Victor J. Stenger had already said, by using science, we will discover that there is no evidence for the existence of a deity and that God's existence, while not impossible, is improbable.

Theories and “unsolved mysteries.”

Theories are not about “unsolved mysteries.” Theories are working models in a scientific sense and “unsolved mysteries? Well, as my favorite character Dr. Gilbert Arthur "Gil" Grissom of CSI have said, there are no mysteries, just questions waiting for an answer.

“Albert Einstein said science without religion was lame…”

Mr. Pasco has taken this statement of an intelligent man out of context. Let’s see what Einstein really said… (Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.)

“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.”

*****

Noticed that Einstein said religion deals only with evaluations of human thought and action. He’s not talking about God or the Christian Bible, but of barring selfish actions and instead aspiring to improve the world for the greater good. That’s what religion was for Einstein. Science without a goal for implovement is lame and the greater good [which is religion] without science is blind.

So before we copy-paste a quote, see to it that we really know our facts first.

Well, that’s all folks.
Thank you for reading.