to be surprised that a scientist with a doctorate is religious

[Margaritapracataz]

I assumed she was joking, but no she's a very intelligent woman (double first) but she has deeply religious beliefs.

Aibu to think this is a bit strange and to think less of her professionally?

" And that's why I don't like religion. It tells you what's right and what to think "

oh right , I see, just like atheists then

I think Sallyingforth wasn't disputing the big bang theory itself but where the singularity came from in the first place.

Anyway just because someone might like the ritual of going to church, the smell of incense, the hymns, the stained glass windows...doesnt mean they believe in a great creator surely?

"It seems to me that believing the universe created itself out of nothing with a bang, is just as big a leap of faith as accepting that it was created by a God."

No it isn't. The Big Bang is the theory that currently best fits the available evidence. Should more evidence emerge that better supports a different theory then the new theory will replace the Big Bang. That's how science differs from religion. Science is open minded and prepared to change.

YABU. I'm deeply religious and I'm not thick.

Great site that capsium.....just wondering who you are now

IceBeing I'm a biologist, so the closest I get to unobservable phenomena is when I can't afford to buy the reagent I need to test the system .

I'm no expert on physics but my understanding is that string theory is a framework through which we can try to understand the universe, rather it being a true scientific theory, if you see what I mean? So looking at stuff from a new angle, rather than describing a phenomenon. Thus, I'm not sure string theory is testable, per se.

maybe the real difference is if you make predictions that could be observed but can't currently

The Higgs particle would fit this scenario. Take a defined gap in our knowledge, understand what entity would fill that gap, then pursue a means to look for that entity. Prior to the recent emerging evidence, I have seen "belief" in the Higgs particle described as religious, possibly with some justification. That description doesn't quite fit for me though - I think we always knew how to find it (or find whatever filled that gap) i.e. we had the methodological knowledge, we just didn't have the technical capacity. So for me, the existence of the Higgs particle never strayed from the "realm of science".

Sorry but
the theory that BEST fit the evidence is a there they hadn't been fully proven.
What it says is that, at the moment, it looks like that's what happened.
Interestingly enough, I'm pretty sure that's risky a lot if what was considered as the 'best evidence' by Hokins and al us now seen as not the 'best theory'.

But in anyway, it's not done hi g that has proven and is irrefutable and as such should be taken for what it is. Our best guess. Not the thruth.

I think Sallyingforth wasn't disputing the big bang theory itself but where the singularity came from in the first place

A cosmological argument.

If the singularity came from god, where did god come from?

Kevin That is rather like teaching grandma to suck eggs.

Bertrand religious faith is not fixed. People can grow in their understanding and interpretation of religious texts, tradition and personal experiences too. The Christian Faith involves being open minded, it is a necessity, otherwise a person can fall into pride, which opposes faith as pride emphasises self, is self seeking.

Our best guess. Not the thruth

Although actually, this is pushing it. We are not quite "guessing". The theory of evolution is not a "guess", it's a rational position supported by absolutely mountains of evidence.

whatsthatcomingoverthehill ...I love it too but have just been lurking for a while....I've not picked up the courage to actually post yet! They all seem to know a lot (ironically in terms of this thread).

"I'm deeply religious and I'm not thick."

I also suspect you're not a scientist, though, if you think that statement proves anything

A cosmological argument.
If the singularity came from god, where did god come from?

And equally if the singularity came from itself, where did itself come from?

I see no difference there. Each is a matter of belief in something unknown, and at the present time unknowable.

The difference is saying 'I don't currently know' against 'it came from god'.

There are also few religious people whose sole belief about God is that he created the singularity that cane before the Big Bang.

Did anyone actually look up whether intelligence and religiosity correlate, by the way?

And equally if the singularity came from itself, where did itself come from?

The singularity is the First Cause.

Evoking a god simply shifts the First Cause back a stage. The only reason to evoke a god is because, sot he basis of this argument goes, everything that happens must have a cause.

Except the god you evoke.

It makes no sense. There is no logic in rejecting the singularity as the First Cause yet maintaining that god must be the First Cause (and therefore have no cause).

Yes it does correlate. Negatively :)

IMO, being of a religious 'disposition' does NOT necessarily mean a person is stupid or unable to achieve anything in life eg be a good scientist/doctor/engineer or whatever.

And I would agree with Icebeing that being susceptible to religious feelings could be in part genetically coded and/or associated with our individual brain chemistry. So not as easy for some us to discard all religious notions.

If being religious makes some people more amibitous and/or more stable/more motivated/happier, then their beliefs might help them in their career, rather than hinder them? In other words, for them there might be an overall positive effect? But that would very much depend on what religious views they held!

However, I would still think less of people who 'believe' in something which I consider to be irrational, and I would tend to think think they could probably do even better/achieve even more without such 'beliefs'. (Assuming they were strong enough to kick away the 'crutch'.)

John Nash managed to work on his Nobel prize winning "Game Theory" while suffering from schizofrenia, but surely this doesn't mean he wouldn't have been able to achieve more without having schizofrenia? (The illness was more of a handicap I would assume?)

And so it is that religious people can be clever/do science, but maybe they could do even better without any religious limits to cloud their judgement?

Stephen Fry, (who is very clever), is open about his mental illness ... and about being an atheist! He probably considers his being bi-polar/a manic depressive to be part of who he is, and that his intelligence/personality is in some way inseparable from his brain disorder. So he might choose to keep it rather than to become someone else. But I think he would admit that during past psychotic episodes he was not thinking correctly ie he was deluded?

So I think that religion is similar to a psychotic delusion ... just milder and much longer lasting? (And encouraged by others with the same beliefs.) And while not totally debilitiating/negative, and sometimes an integral part of who the person is, being religious doesn't mean the person is not deluded, or that their beliefs are not totally imagined?

I know a cosmologist (and university lecturer) who is a Christian and long-term Bible student. He thinks the description in the Bible of how the world came into being reflects, in layman's terms, what actually happened.

So to answer the OP, open your mind!

boul they do but I don't think it is easy to remove the confounding factors like upbringing and life events.

I mean average intelligence is different by race too but that is usually thought to be down to socioeconomic effects rather than genetic.

In western societies, higher average IQs and higher educational attainment negatively correlate with levels of religiosity.

At the population level, the cleverer people are, the more atheist they are.

There are several potential explanations, from the idea that clever people simply don't accept unsubstantiated claims, to the premise that clever people = clever society = high welfare provision = less need to rely on god to save you from poverty etc.

Anyway just because someone might like the ritual of going to church, the smell of incense, the hymns, the stained glass windows...doesnt mean they believe in a great creator surely?

yy. I think the greatest contribution of "religion" these days is a sense of community. Church is where little old ladies go to meet their friends, people do the flowers, clean the pews, get together for choir. The priest is the person you can rely on to come if you're sick, bereaved, or just lonely. God apart, I think it's invaluable for those things. Children learn about others, parables, the good samaritan etc.

I happen to like the peace of churches, and often go when visiting new cities, just to sit and gather myself.

Atheists don't proselytise, they don't fight wars or exterminate people in the name of atheism either...* They just believe in one God less than most people, and think it might be nice if everyone just got along without murdering each other over which God is better. We don't tell people what to think.

• before anyone starts with the 'oh but (insert dictator here) was an atheist' stuff, yes, areligious dictators have existed by they weren't killing in the name of atheism. Hitler (go me! Godwin award!) was a veggie and a water colourist, but he wasn't killing in the name of bean burgers and Aqua washes.