This is for my Mythology Final. i will be copying and pasting exactly what my professor is asking of us. Your response must be at minimum two pages long, double-spaced. Moreover, you wont be penalized for writing as much as you want. Feel free to go over. The more you give me, the more Ill give you in return. In general, I am looking for engaging, thought-provoking responses. No superfluous fluff or obvious, clich, humdrum commentary is encouraged. Be captivating. Question: While I was waiting in line at the CVS to buy some deodorant, I was reminded of an Albert Einstein quote that runs as follows: "Science without religions is lame; religion without science is blind" What does this mean to you? Essentially, here we are revisiting an old theme weve explored throughout the course of the term, the dichotomy of science vs. myth. Yet, consider the source of the quote, one of the most prominent and ingenious scientific minds of all time. Make this theme new for me here. Please dont rehash previous work youve turned in for me on this topic. I want to hear something new from you. I want to see that youve grown for our dwelling on this topic for four or so months now. Consider my comments on your Take-Home Midterm about your thoughts on Science in comparison to mythology (if you wrote about that which most of you did). Think about the doc we watched on Big Bang Cosmogony and Darwinian Evolution. Think about the Pale Blue Dot. Think about the microscopic vs. MACROSCOPIC dual point of views shared in Malicks Tree of Life. Reflect big picture on the dichotomy and what it means in lieu of the source of the previous excerpt. Is the dichotomy even necessary? If it helps, the excerpt comes from Einsteins essay Science and religion published in 1954. The theoretical physicist and philosopher of science died in 1955. Here is a fuller passage: 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.

This is for my Mythology Final. i will be copying and pasting exactly what my professor is asking of us.

Your response must be at minimum two pages long, double-spaced. Moreover, you wont be penalized for writing as much as you want. Feel free to go over. The more you give me, the more Ill give you in return. In general, I am looking for engaging, thought-provoking responses. No superfluous fluff or obvious, clich, humdrum commentary is encouraged. Be captivating.

Question:
While I was waiting in line at the CVS to buy some deodorant, I was reminded of an Albert Einstein quote that runs as follows:

"Science without religions is lame; religion without science is blind"

What does this mean to you?

Essentially, here we are revisiting an old theme weve explored throughout the course of the term, the dichotomy of science vs. myth. Yet, consider the source of the quote, one of the most prominent and ingenious scientific minds of all time. Make this theme new for me here. Please dont rehash previous work youve turned in for me on this topic. I want to hear something new from you. I want to see that youve grown for our dwelling on this topic for four or so months now. Consider my comments on your Take-Home Midterm about your thoughts on Science in comparison to mythology (if you wrote about that which most of you did). Think about the doc we watched on Big Bang Cosmogony and Darwinian Evolution. Think about the Pale Blue Dot. Think about the microscopic vs. MACROSCOPIC dual point of views shared in Malicks Tree of Life. Reflect big picture on the dichotomy and what it means in lieu of the source of the previous excerpt. Is the dichotomy even necessary?

If it helps, the excerpt comes from Einsteins essay Science and religion published in 1954. The theoretical physicist and philosopher of science died in 1955. Here is a fuller passage:
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.