Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Somewhat strawman-ish. Religion, in the classical sense, has it's place; it can and has been utilised for positive and negative ends, and may or may not be a motivation for peoples' innovation and ingenuity in the sciences."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 fail to see how this above is thoroughly lacking in context. The latter quote perhaps, however.
The meaning of the word religion in its common usage, and the meaning underlying Einstein's usage of it are two relatively different things, which you did not particularly distinguish in your first post.
I did use the term "religionistic" (not "religious"😉. But perhaps that wasn't clear enough. Thus:
Religionism is ego-serving and self-contradicting. It is "religion" as commonly grasped, especially when referring to all the bias, suffering, death and destruction people have wrought in "God's" name throughout history. This is "religion" as rejected by Einstein and most (all?) great scientists and honest thinkers. At the very least, it is a horrid aberration of Humanity's noblest aspirations.
Religion is truth-serving and ultimately self-transcending. It is the sense of the numinous, of the ultimate mystery that is reality (Einstein's "cosmic" feeling...though even Einstein felt that the universe was ultimately knowable, which is why he didn't like quantum mechanics: "God does not play dice..." to toss off another of his quotes). It includes the realization that there is more to the world than meets the eye or mind, that reality includes nonempirical elements, at the very least "mind" (not the neurochemical correlates, but the subjective experience of consciousness), and possibly, Possibly, something "higher."
Whether one includes a personal God in this or not, it doesn't matter. Religion (as used here) dictates, above all else, a prime directive of respect and compassion for one another, regardless of faith, creed or religionistic upbringing. Science Alone (ie, empirical science) says nothing about that; all it knows is numbers.
Alliance
I'm not quite sure what you're asking/saying, but I hope what I said above might make my position more clear. Also, with regard to examining "how science relates to God in the context of religion," it is my feeling the scientific method can be used to investigate "God" as long as one is fair about it. That is, the tools used and the data collected should reflect the domain being studied. If "God" is regarded as a transempirical entity, then the insistence on using empirical science becomes an exercise in Scientism, which like Religionism, is ultimately ego-serving and self-contradicting.