Want this question answered?
Sumit vashishtha
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
well, why don't you take a minute and think about it. Science is constantly proving religion wrong and it gives science an underlying purpose to keep moving forward with its work in every category while religion is constantly revising its interpretations of an apparently flawless book. While at the same time religion needs science because it does actually explain how some of the "miracles" could have occured if the people in the stories were the thinking kind of people who could predict wind patterns and sun locations. In short, they need each other I have a slightly different take on this subject. With regards to the first half of the statement, "science without religion is lame", I equate the statement to mean that science would be uninspiring and dull without religion. I infer this interpretation because of another of his quotes, "We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality." The second part of of the statement, "religion without science is blind", may be paraphrased as theories or attitudes held by people or organizations can go off in the wrong direction if not subjected to a structured and systematic study. Just my 2 cents.
It is the science of Reflection and Meditation. A closely related science, which not only looks at them but also seeks to understand their processes and predict them, is called the science of "Meteorology".
Religion staes what it knows as the truth and sifts facts to confirm its position (discarding contradictory evidence). Science observes the real world and attempts to find the explanation by testing theories that eventually may explain the observations - there are no right or wrong choices on data validity.
Science and religion are entirely unrelated.
He thought they were religion and science were integrally related.
Sacajawea's religion was tribal religion (what ever her tribe believed in.)
Religion is not a science.
That is a hard question because everything has to do with science but if there is one thing that is not related to any of those things it would be batman.
Dyslexia is not related to Religion-- --Dyslexia is good for religions that demand blind faith of the followers. The modern science has become a big thread to many old religions of blind faith.
The Gods and Goddess aren't actually related to each other. The Egyptians just believed they were because of stories and religion.
The Age of Enlightenment, which was during the 18th century when science started to change people's views and what they believed in.
R. C. Wallace has written: 'Science and religion' -- subject(s): Religion and science 'Religion, science and the modern world' -- subject(s): Religion and science
Science is related to science. In-fact biology is science.
Boyle viewed religion as essential to a well-ordered society and believed that science and religion could coexist harmoniously. He supported the idea that studying the natural world could lead to a deeper understanding and appreciation of God's creation. Boyle's work in both science and theology reflected his belief in the compatibility of faith and reason.
The Romans believed in their religion because they were human and like everyone else in the world. All groups throughout history and prehistory had (and still have) their own religion and believed in their religions. You cannot have a religion if you do not believe in it.