Forums → WEPR → Science without philosophy is lame, philosophy without science is blind

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

An often misused quote by the famous scientist to try and support compatibility with religion and science. This is really more of a statement on Stephen Jay Gould's version of Non-overlapping magisteria, where "science helps us understand the physical structure of the universe, while religion deals with human values, morals, and meanings."

For full context of Einstein's quote,
"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."

Though I may have to still disagree on the use of the term "religion" here. I think a better word to use would instead be &quothilosophy". We do use philosophy to explore values, morals and meanings. We also use it to explore things to view them from different perspectives other than our own. While philosophy is great at asking questions, it often fails at providing answers; something that science does quite well. As such I think it would be more appropriate and provide a clearer context to say, "Science without philosophy is lame, philosophy without science is blind."

Your thoughts?