4 ms·
Ecklund's claims are greatly exaggerated, if not blatantly false. See http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/05/20/scientists-and-religion/ http://sciencebl
by akirn 14y ago
Ecklund's claims are greatly exaggerated, if not blatantly false. See http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/05/20/scientists-and-religion/ http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/05/20/scientists-... for the debunking and http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2010/06/sciencereligion-compatibility-yet-again.html http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2010/06/sciencereligion... for a more detailed examination of the compatibility of science and religion. Or go straight to the source and try to find an angle that supports your original statement, 'cause I can't: http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8594/ecklund2.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8594/ecklund2.jpg.
- cobrausn 14y agoI never stated the viability of the entire thing, just that many scientists do consider themselves religious, regardless of compatibility. I personally don't think they are completely compatible unless you are looking at your religion as more of a cultural identity than a book of 'truths', or if you are Buddhist (http://tricycleblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/einsteins-quotes-on-buddhism/ http://tricycleblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/einsteins-quote...).