(Réforme, 2008, 3276: 14)

Faith and Rationality

The theme of original sin that appears on paintings by Cabanel or Greshner shows an ashamed Eve and a guilty Adam being driven out of Eden by an incensed Heavenly Father. The theme has been taken up by countless illustrators who, like Michelangelo on the Sistine Chapel ceiling or Masaccio, Natoire, or Benjamin West, show the angel Gabriel sending forth the guilty couple. The oldest representations are relatively inexpressive, but beginning in the Renaissance almost all of them portray the same look of shame. Adam and Eve are ashamed because they are guilty. This representation flows from Augustine’s notion of original sin and contains, to our eyes, a basic misinterpretation. Adam and Eve did leave Eden but not ashamedly. They left proudly, contrary to the images and the tradition passed down in the catechisms and contrary to the very notion of original sin. Indeed, the Snake did no more than tell an obvious truth and state what should seem self-evident. Eating the fruit is only a parable. The fruit symbolizes the stage when early humans gained access to rationality and became able to tell good from evil, in contrast to the preceding animal stage. They became truly God-like, though on a smaller scale. The faculty of reason, as in scientific reasoning, relies on shareable evidence. God, however, cannot be accessed by our senses and thus eludes reason. This interpretation is roughly presented in the writings of Hugues de St-Victor, as well as those of Luther:

The two human beings fall from faith into unbelief; their sin is that they do not believe in the Word of God. Here we note a remarkable difference from the theological tradition inherited from St. Augustine. For Luther the first humans did not sin out of desire but out of disbelief. This amounts to refusing to listen to God and his commandment.1

Or in the following:

Adam ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil which represents our own nature of intelligence and reasoning that is used without God being involved. Satan convinced Adam by telling him that he did not need the word of God.2

Rational thinking (and the resulting doctrine of rationalism) is specific to humans. Animals are bereft of conscience in the moral sense, as we understand it. Of course, higher vertebrates have a mental space and can think,3 but this space lacks the moral dimension of good and evil. The mental property symbolized by the fruit is inherent to our species. Humans are therefore Adams and Eves who left with their heads held high and proud of their newfound equality with God. The Snake had not lied. They had acquired logical reasoning.

The fruit enables us to tell good from evil. It symbolizes the emergent property of this new conscience and access to rationality. Such a property is incompatible with naïve faith.4 Jesus said as much when speaking of the “Kingdom that is not of this world.” He was simply asserting the incommensurability of faith and rationality.

Such an incompatibility enables us to explain one of the mysteries of the Gospels—the tendency to play down or even conceal events.5 This tendency comes up repeatedly in the Gospels: Jesus forbids all publicity after his healings6 and after the Transfiguration.7 One may infer that humans sin in their relationship with God by wanting to be perceptive,8 rational,9 or even just logical like the Pharisees.10 The Kingdom is for those who trust like little children.11 The message is as discreet as a grain of mustard seed or leaven.12 The Resurrection itself takes place discreetly in the presence of tiny groups. His disciples themselves have trouble recognizing Jesus on the road to Emmaus.13

The goal of such discretion is to avoid rational evidence—the sharing of verifiable facts—that would lead to a triumphalism that Jesus wished to avoid.14 If His message had been rational, He would have made the evidence for it shareable. Instead, we had to see without seeing and hear without hearing,15 with our hearts and not with our faculty of reason.

The rationality that Adam and Eve acquired compelled them to leave the Garden of Eden— another image of the incompatibility of faith and reason. But they left, as it were, of their own accord. Here again the Snake had not lied to them. Indeed, they would henceforth live as veritable gods in the world that God had given them, but now far from Him. For what good is faith? This is the very attitude of atheistic rationalists. One can and even should be awestruck by the profound inspired wisdom of those who wrote Genesis without the mental crutch of current scientific knowledge. In itself, such lucidity is inspiring. But science provides other reasons for feeling awe.

There is also the mental process of science, which consists of sharing gradually uncovered evidence and building a rational edifice. Science too can lead to wonderment. With Teilhard de Chardin, we can agree that after the infinitely large universe and the infinitely small world of subatomic particles, humans are the third infinity of nature, the infinitely complex. Measured in metres, the infinitely large universe can be estimated at around 1025-30 and the infinitely small world of subatomic particles at around 10-15-20. Can we quantify the third infinite, the infinitely complex? Biology can provide a criterion: the complexity of the brain. In the human brain, this complexity reaches the astronomical numbers of the other two— the infinitely large and the infinitely small. We can count the number of synaptic vesicles to get a rough idea of the number of bits of information in the nervous system. There are at least 1017 of them in a human brain. Such a number boggles the imagination. Its sheer magnitude can be grasped through the following comparison. There are more synaptic vesicles in each human brain than there have been seconds since the "big bang"—the beginning of the universe. And keep in mind that each synaptic vesicle contains billions of atoms.

We now return to the incommensurability of faith and reason. With such numbers, science provides an excellent source of wonderment and furnishes a good, though not reasonable,16 reason for rediscovering the faith of Eden, for such complexity can result only from a great design. With these astronomical numbers, Science, the major paradigm of rationality, paradoxically gives us a good reason for returning to the Faith.

Québec City, April 2008

Michel Cabanac & Marie-Claude Bonniot-Cabanac

1 Man is a Microcosmos: Adam and Eve in Luther's Lectures on Genesis (1535-1545) Theo M.M.A.C. Bell

2 http://www.isob-bible.org/growdiefrench/growdiefrench.01.pdf

3 Cf. The threshold of consciousness in the zoological kingdom, The FASEB journal, 2000, 14:A48 -A48

4 http://www.info-bible.org/credo/2.4.2.htm

5 except for the crucifixion, as aptly explained by René Girard: Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde, Grasset, Paris 1978

6 Matt 17:9, 19:14, Mark 3:12, 5:43, Luke 4:41, 8:55,

7 Mark 9:9,

8 John 9:41

9 Luke 8:16,

10 Mark 8:11-12.

11 Matt 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 10:21.

12 Luke 13:18-21.

13 Luke 24:16.

14 John 6:15.

15 Luke 8:10.

16 As a counterexample, one could point to the infinite complexity of non-linear phenomena that are based on simple laws of physics. Note by Rémi A. Cabanac.

I believe that the opposition between science and religion that is currently manifesting will turn into convergence in another stage of knowledge. From this perspective, between the three proposed axes, I would choose the first one: Religion is included in all parts of science.

There is no doubt that the followers of the similarities experienced by specialists today in the various means of publishing and the media read and visual notes that he has been exposed directly or indirectly to this subject, and they continue to find this suspicion rushing despite the many writings and studies that clarify the issue of religion and not conflict with experimental science and even And the call to him, and that the prosperity of experimental science in the era of Islam has reached the height of its development and the Western world was still languishing in the ages of darkness in religious science and physical science together !!

The subject was presented with multiple titles, such as: “The conflict between science and religion” or “The contradiction of science with religion”… It is surprising that some members of Islam have fought in this subject: Some of them are in the process of believing this claim and explicitly said: “Science opposes Religion ”, and some of them say: There is no relationship between science and religion .. To the last of their words.

The point in common is the starting point: to explain consciousness, unknown things, qualia, but the methods are different. Religion is based in system 1 of Khaneman and science should (but it is not the real case) rely on the action of system 2 of Khaneman. Today both are similar, a business microworld full of human actions with all the cognitive bias, traditions, power fights, or blind points...

I choose the second item suggesting that religion enters into certain parts of science. But I consider "religion" in its broadest sense here and include in it the spirituality of the researchers that we might call their "intuitional beliefs". Here is an interesting article covering the subject of your question:

Priyan Dias, Science & Christian Belief, (2010),Vol 22, No. 1, 43-55. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~chquay/Dias-science-et-religion.pdf

It has been a subject of study since classical antiquity, where philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others interpreted it. Views vary according to geographical regions, cultures and historical epoch. Some describe the relationship as a kind of conflict. Both religion and science are complex social and cultural endeavors that vary across cultures and change over time. Most scientific and technical innovations were achieved prior to the scientific revolution by societies regulated by religious traditions.

I'd say that they are pretty much opposites. I do not detect much science in what we call religion, at all - but a lot of oppression instead. In light of new information, they bury the truth through the use of a whip - or even worse tools.

And here is another way to express that, from the talented Ricky Gervais:

https://inktank.fi/the-10-smartest-ricky-gervais-tweets-about-religion/

They are strongly related.

Science collides with ethical questions, which can only be answered by science beyond experience. All these questions about the origin and purpose of life and the ethics of different experiences can be solved only through cooperation and integration between science and religion. This cooperation lies in the clergy's knowledge and acceptance of scientific facts, as well as the knowledge of science on the foundations of faith and acceptance.

Here's one opinion that I share:

By default of the definition of science, which is limited to the evidence on the basis of senses. The phenomena not understood by scientists termed as non-sense, further divided the above phenomenon termed as super-natural while the below senses termed non-sense. Further, as science expanded to explain the unexplained, it was accepted to be included into scientific world and took an exit from the super-natural or superstitious.

Secondly, natural sciences are just the behavior of the creation ordained by the creator which it follows (e.g. fire is meant to burn and when it does not burn things, it is un-natural, non-scientific ans super-natural as in the case of a miracle ).

It's not true. What we do not yet know is called "not yet understood, but we're working on it". That's a much better description of what scientists do. I have never heard a scholar in physics talk about "super-natural" - if they did the dean of that school would pull them by their ears, and throw them out on the street.

What you're saying is simply humbug.

Historically religion preceded science. religion and science are related in that both of them have perspectives on cosmic reality. religion and science are different languages that ultimately express the same reality or at least present complementary accounts of reality.

It is better to go ahead with science keeping Religion at it's own sacred place.

Science give proof to religion

Mohd: it most certainly not; you must have skipped physics class altogether.

Michael Patriksson please give proof to your write and you cannot force others to your believe

In point of view of shia, resources of religion produce science. This resources are revelation, (Quran) and hadith, wisdom and experience.

Science is a system of measurable and determinable knowledge, while religion is a system of beliefs and practices. The system are comparable in that both attempt to understand what is determined to be reality or truth. The former relies on natural measurement, while the latter will consider that which could be dubbed supernatural. They two systems differ in scope and source. That being said, they are not pitted against each other, nor necessarily contradict each other. For example, both of them provide a study of mankind. Science looks primarily to the biological aspects of anthropology, while religion focuses on the morality of the same. Each adds to the larger field.

I think if we want to have an exact answer regarding the relationship between religion and science, we should first determine and explain which religion? And what is the religion?

Michael Patriksson There is no thing as supernatural in science. But does accept some unexplained phenomenon which are later proved on scientific basis. In-fact even today there are things in mata physics or anti body which still do not qualify as scientific evidence but are only theories yet to provide evidence.

I come from a Catholic background.

To my mind science (reason) and religion (faith) need each other. For a human being to reach one's own potentiality in grasping the concept of God, both faith and reason need to be exercised hand in hand.

Faith alone may allow a human being to believe in God but it may not limit the person to grow in the understanding of it. On the other hand, reason on its own without faith eliminates the notion of God in and of itself.

When both science and religion are considered for the progress and for the good of the human being, I do believe that both faculties are used at their full positive potential.

This view is supported fully by the Catholic Church,

" Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves." ( Pope John Paul II, Fides et Ratio, 1998)

I do hope my response is relevant to and satisfies your question.

A simple answer I learned decades ago: Science asks how, religion asks why.

Paraphrasing John Lennon: "God is a concept by which we measure far too much."

In Fortran 66 (or IV), God was REAL! :-)

This depend on how we define religion. In the Western intellectual tradition, religion was difficult to be defined. Islam (as Western classify it as religion); was different from the Western conception of religion. Also the Islamic revelation was not same with 'revelation' in Judaeo-Christian tradition.

The revelation in Islam, was provided to construct the metaphysical framework for philosophy of science. Based on this view, Islam can produce the 'Islamic Science': a science which adopted and developed using the Islamic framework. This case occurs in Islamic intellectual tradition.

In western, we also call there was a Western Science.

Muhammad Taqiyuddin . Need to identify difference between Islamic Science and Western Science.

This difference, occur in 'metaphysical belief' (if we use Lakatos' perspective). Or we call 'Sacred Science' in the honour of Hosein Nasr; or 'Ru'yatul Islam lil Wujud' (Islamic Worldivew) in al-Attas' account.

here the references:

Hossein Nasr, Sacred Science

al-Attas, Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam (at 'Philosophy of Islamic Sciene)

Your description is more than fuzzy. Can you provide a concrete example in physics or mathematics in which established islamic "science" differs from the corresponding Western version?

In a letter to Gutkind, Albert Einstein wrote that "God, for me, is nothing but an expression of human weakness; the Bible - a collection of honest stories that however are rather childish".

That's my view, too.

Religion and science have different ways of approaching reality, and have different purposes in serving the society. They can be complementaries to each other.

Not all social problems can be solved by scientific development. Religion plays a irreplaceable role in certain area of a society.

Science is not about truth, it is about building models:

https://www.wired.com/story/science-isnt-about-the-truth-its-about-building-models/

For its believers, science is another kind of religion, and it is not a superior over any other religions.

All scientific theories are based on some axioms, and these axioms are not falsifiable.

Michael Patriksson sir, may be you must read about algebra and al-Khwarizm history. both are muslim scientist contribution in mathematic. Also i recommend you to read al-Karaji, al-Thusi, and so on. You may like to see this work by Paul Lettinck, Sabra, George Sarton, also Hossein Nasr and al-Attas.

thanks for your opinion. hope we can collaborate in search for history of western mathematics with reference of muslim contribution

In which part of physics is there a difference between "muslim science", "Christian science", and, for that matter, "atheist science," if I may ask?

I am indeed very well aware of al-Khwarizmi.

thanks for your best reply prof Michael Patriksson; with my bad english, i should say that these 'genre' of science, can be traced back on their philosophical basis. Not on physical aspect. We can't see physical different between 'islamic number' or 'christian number' or western version of it; but it may occur in semantical concept. SMN al-Attas may become best reference for understand it.

Islamic science, may be have same or similar physical aspect; because its begin and develop from same scientific methods. We cant proof 'islamic science' physically; except in social science: the foundation of ethics which become the basic for Islamic vision about environmental science: become God's vicegerent in this world; to keep this world sustain and survive.

If here i give an example: the concept of 'reality'; which in western phylosophy only refer as rational and empirical existence. But, in Islam, there are spiritual reality which called barzakh. There semantical concept was derived from al-Qur'an as God's revelation.

thanks for this best discussion

science is derived from Quran

Ligen Yu "Religion plays a(n) irreplaceable role in certain area of a society." You are quite right. But not always a positive role; killing in the name of any god is unacceptable, wherever we may find it. And it is obvious that there could never be an islamic science that is different from the established one [you know - the one that one can get a Nobel prize for, by enriching it?], unless it is bogus: the only science there is, is that you find in physics journals and books from this and the late previous century - and if yours differ from those then they are pseudoscientific - by definition.

I do remember from very bad days when people spoke of "Jewish physics". It was, of course, the most advanced science we had ever seen. We all know that there is an array of physics theory that has been tested and simply works; if your physics differs from it, then it is a false theory.

Hi fellows!

The difference:

Science is better characterized by its method. The scientific method allows changes in world view based on evidences and experimentation. The results of science is reproducible, anyone can repeat and obtain the same results.

In revelated religions (Abrahamic) there is no methodology. It was revelated and its done. Admits no changes based on evidences.

The relathionship:

Some religions (xamanic, pagan) appeared as a try to estabilish a relationship with the unknow or create some explanition for our basic questions. These religions are the seeds of science. For example, the greek philosophy emerged from the ludic thinking practiced by greek religion.

Hugs and kisses :)

Jacó

JJ Mattos BRAVO !

MC

La ciencia y la religión se encuentran allí donde el misterio de lo humano y el de la realidad cósmica llevan a una sola conclusión: el silencio, la contemplación donde el saber se acaba

Dear Prof Michael Patriksson ,

Thank you very much for correcting my grammatical error. Really appreciate it.

Sentimentally, I would like to agree with you that "killing in the name of any god (or even in the name of justice) is unacceptable," Yet, practically, it is simply impossible to execute such idea.

In math, 1 plus 1 must be 2, and in physics, if we apply a force to an object, it will accelerate. If we have other answers to the above questions, they are wrong.

But social sciences are not so simple. There are a lot of important but contradictory issues. For example the pair of human rights (freedom) and justice. In dealing with them, there is no right or wrong. It is all about how to balance them.

Few months ago, when I was searching for references for my paper on research integrity and ethics, I came across Durkheim's theory of "Crime is Normal"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kpulawandsociety.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/durkheim-crime-is-normal/amp/

My first reaction to this theory is, then why should we be bothered by research integrity and ethical misconducts? They are not crimes at all!

But that is social sciences, full of paradoxes. We need to tangle with research integrity and ethics, and also accept that crime is normal.

"Islamic science" is not my idea, so I will not comment on this.

Einstein also wrote this: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

Einstein is right when he mentioned “Human Weakness” in his writing. We as human being all have our weakness, physically or mentally. Because of this weakness, we seek out for security, and it is nothing wrong for doing this. Some people find their solution in science; others find that religion provides more comfort to them. The writing of Einstein is just showing that he would not like other people to relate him to any religion, but he was not in any mean antireligion.

As an agnostic, I am not a believer of any religion. Yet I like the saying in the Bible: “And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”

Both science and religion are complex social and cultural endeavors that vary across cultures and have changed over time

If religion is just for refreshment! and God do not want to help and guide human in all situations including science, so what is the difference between the role of God and another things in the world? what is the difference between me and prophets?

Exactly, Zahra - we are on our own. No master. No God. The "prophets" told lies - or at least they fabricated as they went along, telling their stories. It's really as simple as that - at least for the majority of people on this planet. Which by the way is not flat. :-)

Whenever I see or hear the term "Jewish physics" I unlock my revolver - figuratively speaking.

It's pretty good to not have a "God" - it means that we need to take care of each other. If we had one, we would use it as a scape-goat - every day!

The limit of science makes people run into religion but Science and religion is both evidence based faith. Can i use science to proof that my wife loves me, the answer is NO because i need concrete facts.The relationship between science and religion is that they are all created by man to give answers to rising bizarre questions people mostly ask in the society. The famous physicist of the 20th centuries said “Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind” meaning we need both to make progress in the world. Thank you

Mr. Patriksson

we are on our own and there is no God !!! I do not think so. and I think your response is :

Emotionally, not intellectually.

If there is no God, so, the speech of Mr. Patriksson is true And we haven't lost anything. but,( Let's give it a 1% chance ) if there is God and Prophets did not tell lie, what has happen for people who did not believe ?

Well, it does not matter - the existence of God is still not established - and will never be. And Zahra - your response is also emotional, rather than rational. That's the nature of this game. No proof, either way.

probability is not an emotional matter! in every situation

We consider the probability and its consequences. I think if there is God so, the role of God and speech of his prophets will be important

Even in science

And if not?

To the notion of emotional response, isn't human an emotional being? Can one separate human with all emotions?

Please, take a look to this site, in english:

http://inters.org/interdisciplinary-encyclopedia

---

Maybe could be helpful: John Polkinghorne's "Science and Theology Parallelisms" (http://inters.org/science-theology), or Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti's "Natural Sciences, in the Work of Theologians" (http://inters.org/natural-sciences) and "Book of Nature, Origin and Development of the Metaphor" (http://inters.org/book-of-nature). See also Robert J. Russell's "Dialogue, Science and Theology" (http://inters.org/dialogue-science-theology).

Every day I'd rather read or listen to Christopher Hitchens' work than any of the sordid and sub-par fairy-tales from the bible, and their apologists. At least his is based on science.

Christopher Hitchens was right: religion poisons everything.

As a Muslim, I believe that my religion encourage me to do honest research and try to present useful science to the humans.

As we say in the noble Quran " my lord increase my level of my knowledge".

العلاقة بين الدين والعلم علاقة طردية، شرط أن يكون الدين صادق وصحيح، أما إذا كان الدين يتعارض مع العلم فإننا أمام خيارين:

الاول ان يكون الدين فيه تحريف

الثاني أن يكون العلم فيه خطأ

It's evident from practice that we can live without God(s), but not without science. Even the hunter-gatherers had som primitive form of science principles - such that the consistency of gravity, the change of seasons, the cycles of the moon, etcetera. None of that - nor anything else, for that matter - need any God for it to work.

It is evident from practice that we can live with God Allah S.W.T but living without a God considering that complex science came from no where and work by its own after the same science found its own physical constants to work like if science itself has a brain, is pure insanity and goes against scientific method itself.

Saying universe came from no where is like saying Volvo cars came from no where.

I can never understand those who claim that the mystery of the origin of the universe can be explained in terms of the mysterious action of a mysterious being. Rather than dispelling a mystery, that just adds to the mystery. You can have your faith but don't pretend it has an explanatory advantage.

Exactly, Karl: No-one is saying that we come from nowhere - the reason for the Big Bang cannot be explained very well, as we cannot pull back the clock to go back before it - but there is no other scientific explanation to how we can be here now than the Big Bang, and the Billions of years of expansion, formation of galaxies, solar systems, etcetera, and the life that evolved on Earth, and quite possibly at other places. Live with it - and with all the questions that remains.

Dear Prof Dr.Saeed Gheni Noori

It depends on what religion you want!

Islam is the most perfect religion and it answers all the questions.

No religion has an answer to the existential question wherefrom we come. I embrace science - the rest is hearsay and myths.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

Good question

They complement each other.

It's no surprise that more and more people want church and state separated altogether. There are many reasons. The US Congress made Jan. 16 Religious Freedom Day — a designation reaffirmed by every president since, based on the anniversary of the 1786 passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson. This act inspired and shaped the guarantees of religious liberty eventually found in the First Amendment. Among them - of course - is that we are free to not be exposed to anything even remotely similar to any religious manifestation.

Thomas Jefferson did it right. There shall be no religion in my back yard.

Prof Dr.Saeed Gheni Noori- Thank you for your question. I am not sure that Albert Einstein was "a philosopher", nor that he said this quote. What evidence do you have that this was said by Einstein?

I do not think that those are trying to make this link are using an effective strategy or they are making a sound argument for four main reasons.

1. Science is continuously changing, what we believed is true 30 or 100 years ago turned not to be the full truth or wrong. There are thousands of example in medicine I can bring here, while religion is static, statements are not changing in parallel to science. Therefore, that link is not correct.

2. I can see the arguments of such link are many times based on one single word or a statement. Languages can have several meanings and many times, meanings changes (as language develops); therefor, we are comparing interpretations of words versus science (a process of details, events, contribution factors to explain phenomena). Such a link is based on illusion or one-sided argument rather than equally balanced concepts.

3. The philosophy of science is about explaining natural phenomena, while religion is not primarily about science; they are about religious matter. If you are trying to say but still there is a window to reveal such connection, you are really opening doors to critics to show problems and unscientific statements. Will you agree to take such a challenge. In science, we believe there is no text above critical analysis, and we base our approaches on doubt until we get solid evidence. Therefore making such a link means you are into such a challenge.

4.My last point is if the religions had such links why these links were not brought forward before the scientific discoveries. Why did earlier interpretations not mention such links? Why do people interested in this area wait until scientific discoveries happen, then they claim there is a link. The opposite should be the way if there are actual links.

Michael Patriksson I appreciate your response, but I think you do not need to be critical to a specific religion. Be neutral in your crucial reaction so that no member feels offended. I think we need to be objective in our analysis with careful wording of our responses. If we success to go with this, I think we are adding values to our scholarly evaluation and critic. Thank you.

i think, that religion contribute an ethics for scientific discovery; i mean here the ethics of invention. this argument, sometime can prove that some science can't be neutral.

Such in Islam, there was a Fiqh and Ushul Fiqh; both are the science for 'developing' and 'formulating' Islamic Law which based on Prophetic Tradition.

Due to be auctioned this week in London after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, the document leaves no doubt that the theoretical physicist was no supporter of religious beliefs, which he regarded as "childish superstitions".

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "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."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Indeed, it is one person's take on religion. It doesn't make a difference here nor there. But I am his friend in this.

Samy: indeed, all religions are irrelevant; instead we shall have inside us a humane moral codex. That's enough.

I think the most effective model is humanity, but how to understand humanity? I think religion is a tool of illumination to the linear paths towards the optimal objective/goals in all deals and acts. On the other hand science is a tool of numerical findings, visualising findings, testings, observations as practical. However., there are too many things for which science as a gradual maturity via human's understanding may not be sufficient to answer too many answers. In such scenarios religions may have answers. The difference is that, for religion it is not necessary that its every claim may be observable, visible, measurable or detectable via scientific scales/metrics or brain/eyes/taste/smell/touch.

"Praying doesn't help. Taking action might."

If we all needed a deity to lean on, we would be doomed from day one. Why? First of all, no-one has ever encountered one, and brought back a solid proof of this contact. Also, no religious text can be taken at face value - we're talking about folklore, not historicity; the texts should be thought of as propaganda for the deity that you happen to be fascinated with, nothing more. Can someone tell me, for example, what "Christian science" is, in contrast to real science?

Recently I read that in the archeological explorations after the Sinai war in 1967, there were no signs of any Israelites having been trapped in Egypt. Isn't that slightly odd?

Religion is based on convictions like a myth while science is evidence-based and logical. Religion for instance disobeys scienc. for instance, Jesus walking on water, changing water into wine and Jonah being swallowed by a fish.

For plenty of people, this is the truth - literally! It's sad.

Both might be different paths to arrive at the same truth

لا فرق بينهما

الدين مجموعة قوانين تنظم حياة الناس

والعلم مجموعة قوانين تخدم الانسان في مجالات الحياة المتعددة

"Whole numbers were made by good God, the rest were invented by people." Leopold Kronecker

"God has marked a path for each of us in the world that we must follow. All you have to do is read what he wrote for you." Paulo Coelho

"Instead of complaining that God is hidden, give thanks to him for revealing so much of himself." Blaise Pascal

"Science made us gods before we even proved worthy to be human." Edmond Rostand

"Flowers are the messengers of God from another, perfect world..." - Zenta Maurina

"We should be careful not to make a god out of intellect. He has, of course, powerful muscles, but lacks personality." Albert Einstein

To get to know the exact answer to the question, we have to know which kind of and of which kind? True science and real relationship with truthful religion will, hence, be clearer more and more if they are real, and not merely names. With all respect and lo've to all beliefs!

Being human is the best example of scientific endeavor of God.

It has been suggested by Issac Asimov in his short story "The Last Question" that Gods are the beings from the previous birth cycle of the Universe. Over billions of years they got to know everything about the Universe and during the end of the Universe they found a way to reverse entropy and create a new Universe which is the present one. And they started the big bang by saying "Let there be light ..."

https://templatetraining.princeton.edu/sites/training/files/the_last_question_-_issac_asimov.pdf

What a load of codswallop!

Religion is the principle of all sceince