Park Life

To steal is to feel the presence of God!

Aldershot.

You bugger! I don't question Einstein much tbf...Although I have issue with the 'speed of light constant'...But haven't we all?

Solo.

It was all about her arse wasn't it?

One episode of the 'Jam and Jerusalem' confirms your suspiscions Gemma.

Mein Gott!!

Guilt edged fit for Morrissey then Out of order.

More from the crazy Jew: "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. (Albert Einstein, 1941)" All the quotes are here: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einst...on-theology.htm

Context is very important with Einstein though. He was not a believer in any organized religion or a personal God, that is the crux of the present discussion. Your right, from what I know his interest was more in the mystical....As I posted earlier, my beliefs are more to do with spirituality and mysticism (summat I think Pat was touching on) than some organised religion thing. But the quandry is that dig deep enough and you will find most religions are mystical and unexplainable at their core...Catholacism probably has as much to do with black magic and ritual as it has to do with Christianity..

Spot on. Do they mention "discovering themselves". Fucking sackable offence imo. Let's put it this way the bods I picked are still there....

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”. Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him. and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum He also said, "In the future a good science will be indistinguishable from poetry"....Stick that in yer emperical pipe and smoke it! Did he? Source please! Here's one on mysticism: "The most beautiful and most profound 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 wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)" I'll dig the poetry one out for you as well....I quite like this one probably one of my fave's and pertaining to this debate... I only asked because it didn't come out of a Google and I know you are prone to making stuff up. No worries fella...Here's another.... In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. (Albert Einstein, 1930)"

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”. Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him. and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum He also said, "In the future a good science will be indistinguishable from poetry"....Stick that in yer emperical pipe and smoke it! Did he? Source please! Here's one on mysticism: "The most beautiful and most profound 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 wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)" I'll dig the poetry one out for you as well....I quite like this one probably one of my fave's and pertaining to this debate...

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”. Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him. and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum He also said, "In the future a good science will be indistinguishable from poetry"....Stick that in yer emperical pipe and smoke it!

We have a winner! If I was honest I always found the underdog more interesting..... *Parky caught throwing people who had taken 'a year out to travel' in the bin*.

Getting away with it...allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll my life.... Kwality. cause you like neil tennant He's from up here man! Geordie-nation-tastic Electronic were good if a little too refined in the production.

Silly really as Morrissey would win easily.

How is science, the process of evaluating empirical knowledge, arrogant? Believing the Universe exists solely for the benefit of human beings on the other hand.......... Both science and religion rely on faith, with science you are putting your faith in the scientists interpretation just as much as the religious put their faith in the interpretation of their preachers I'm staggered you actually believe that. Is putting faith in a medicine your doctor gives you the same as putting faith in life after death on the say so of a priest? It isn't for me, if I really wanted to I could look up the evidence from clinical trials and the like that the drug works. The only element of faith I require is that the papers weren't written fraudulently - very unlikely with modern medicine with constant audits and peer reviewed papers. It's not the same thing at all. This is what I mean by the arrogance of Science, by the way. The incredulous cries of '... but how can you believe that?!?!?! Are you STUPID or something?! Listen, we're right, everyone else is wrong. END OF.' (this isn't to say that Science isn't right about somet things. Just that it's not right about everything.) You've mentioned this before. The faith I have in science is evident by the technology I am using to communicate this to you. That doesn't really require much faith, does it? Please give an example where science is wrong about something if you can btw, I'm all ears. No one is claiming it has all the answers, possibly there are some things we as humans do not have the capability of observing or understanding. I just don't believe organised religion has any worthwhile ideas on the mysteries of the Universe. I look out of my window and see the sky, some trees, birds. I look down at the hands I am using to facilitate this wonderful technology. Do you see where I'm going with this? The whole science/religion is right/wrong thing is my other point. I find it difficult to believe all of Science, just as I find it hard to believe all of Religion. As for the whole 'SHOW ME ONE TIME WHEN SCIENCE HAS BEEN WRONG!!!!' argument- it's wrong all the time! it's just that they only publish the stuff they know is probably right. There are conflicting theories even within Science, so quite how it could be correct all the time is beyond me. I don't see your first point, please spell it out to me. I am now fairly certain you don't understand the scientific process. Of course science is constantly progressing, occasionally there are radical paradigm shifts even where our entire understanding is overturned. That's a good, positive thing as far as I can see. What I meant was give an example where the whole premise of science has been proven to be wrong in some way. Can you do that? My first point is that all of these things are tangible proof of something above and beyond science worth having faith in. As for proving Science wrong, that'd be like me saying 'prove the whole premise of religion wrong.' Religious types would argue for proving Science wrong, Science's proponents would do the reverse. The whole concept of right/wrong is fuzzy, which is half my point. It's all about our perception of it. Again, I'm struggling to get to grips with what you mean by science, I don't think there can ever be meaningful comparisons between science and religion, and it's not a battle to prove one is right over the other. Going back to my original point, last night I was just contemplating how vast and wonderful the Universe is, and how [organised] religion really can't do it justice or attempt to explain it, and how they actually belittle it by putting man at the centre and creating a human like all omnipotent and omniscient God. That's all. And that sounded a bit gay. I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do. Personally I think the wonder of the universe is that it is beyond explanation.

One good film followed by a load of crap. It was excellent and very thought provoking a nice mix of fairytale, hope and the chance for redemption.

The first two words on my CV I have them in quotation marks between my first and second name. If the interviewer mentions them I shoot him with two index finger pistols and tell him "Those are my middle names" As one would surely.

Agreed my dear.

How is science, the process of evaluating empirical knowledge, arrogant? Believing the Universe exists solely for the benefit of human beings on the other hand.......... Both science and religion rely on faith, with science you are putting your faith in the scientists interpretation just as much as the religious put their faith in the interpretation of their preachers Yes. And they regularly change their position as new things are discovered, but that is part of the process. Science is open to change, yes. Religion isn't in general. Agreed. I think religion has a 'bad rap' and deservedly so....But if we replace 'that word' with spirituality..It moves a little closer to Science. I agree with Pat and you in this context, but I can see that my 'spirituality' has nothing to do with organised religion if you like. Spirituality is a never ending search with no guarantees as in some ways is Science.....Not sure if I've said this right.

Excellent. That is all any of us can really hope to do.

How is science, the process of evaluating empirical knowledge, arrogant? Believing the Universe exists solely for the benefit of human beings on the other hand.......... Both science and religion rely on faith, with science you are putting your faith in the scientists interpretation just as much as the religious put their faith in the interpretation of their preachers Yes. And they regularly change their position as new things are discovered, but that is part of the process.

I was referring mainly to christianity but also the other Abrahamic religions as these are the most dominant religions on the planet. Mind, I thought most religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism) are based around mankind. What I'm really referring to is a belief in a "personal" God. I just don't see how this tallies with the evidence. Is it arrogant of me to point this out? I suspect the short time we have been around science has only discovered a few grains of sand and not the beach.