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?

*But religion just cannot be 'true'. (There are so many different ones and so many different interpretations for a start!) So where do you draw the line? Is only your religion not deluded? What about ALL other (crazy) beliefs?

We can only sort out what is true from what is not true by using reason and proof. But religion has no reason/proof, and the idea of "a god" is very unreasonable IMO. *

There is very little that has "proof". Only evidence that backs up a theory.

We don't know what colour dinosaurs were, or what noises they made. we use extrapolation from todays animals. There's no proof that they weren't all yellow with pink spots.

IMO a a scientist there is lots of stuff that has no reason/proof- so there is room to believe in a creator, if you should choose to.

I also find your suggestion that anyone who believes in anything without total proof is suffering from mental illness quite insulting.

Bert, she said nothing of the sort. She simply stated which people in her town were the ones to offer support to the needy. You do not know that that is not the truth so stop twisting what people say to what suits your agenda.

Oh, right. Just a random comment about her own town. Nothing to do with the general debate we're having. That's fine then. A bit odd just to chuck a completely irrelevant statement into anconversation, but so long as she's not suggesting religious people are more likely than non religious people to have charitable impulses anywhere but in her particular town she's welcome to as many non sequiturs as she fancies.

Seems that religious people who are kind and helpful are somehow 'OK' and are definitely not misguided, but other religious people who are more extreme, (eg kill/harrass others in the name of their faith), are 'wrong'/need to be stopped?

While some beliefs/religious practices are nicer/more acceptable than others, some are hideous, and as all religions can't be simultaneously true, which religion is one true religion then? (And what if it isn't yours/the one which is nice to others?)

Can't you see the lack of logic with this Abraid2?

The theory that "there is no god" makes far more sense. (And makes us all equals.)

You can say that someone's ones brain works differently, even abnormally (where normal is defined purely by the majority in numbers) but it is a massive step from their to saying different = defective or treatable.

In the case of belief versus atheism, the atheists are currently abnormal...although our numbers are growing. We already constitute a larger group than homosexuals (in the UK at least, in the USA homosexuals outnumber atheists still), and nobody is talking (any more) about treating homosexuality.

You might think the religious people who help the needy would ask their benevolent invisible friend to help them too. Unless he's too busy hating Gay people or something.

How absolutely lovely that Bertrand Russell himself has turned up to join in a philosophical debate on Mumsnet

While some beliefs/religious practices are nicer/more acceptable than others, some are hideous, and as all religions can't be simultaneously true, which religion is one true religion then? (And what if it isn't yours/the one which is nice to others?)

Well since, I believe, being a Christian is not about self preservation, I suppose I'd suffer but no more than if I was forced to live life as person with 'hideous', as you put it, beliefs.

capsium I would say that belief or lack thereof should be treated if it is causing harm to either the individual or to others through provoking abnormal behaviour.

So an atheist who has interpreted their atheism to mean they have to kill believers...should be treated to prevent the behaviour.

A believer doing similar should also be treated.

I worry about the harm done not by belief in god but by organised religion - which is a whole separate issue.

If you take a child to church every week for a decade (as I was) and tell them every week that it is wicked not to believe in god (which is what the bible says in oh so many ways) when they are mentally incapable of belief then I would suggest that damage is being done to that child. I actually feel there should be an age limit on the exposure of children to issues of belief and religion to give them time to find their own way in a non-judgemental environment...this if fraught with difficulty though.

I wouldn't see a problem with someone being a Catholic and a scientist. Having been brought up as one (but escaped!) and knowing quite a few -imo the religion is very cultural, the bible is a vague reference, a general guide that no one takes too seriously, even within this the people I know tend to pick and choose the bits they want to follow, you are not encouraged to question anything, it's described as soothing and comforting - a bit like meditating.

I think the standards of 'truth' in science and in society are very different, though science has done a good job of trying to convince everybody that it can offer a straight road to truth in every field! (I am not disrespecting science here - I think it has achieved amazing things in its own domain. I just don't think it's domain stretches to cover everything everywhere. Examples of places it might not colonise: ideological/political commitments that don't come down to 'fact', religious/spiritual feelings).

Tell me about some wars and murders done in the name of atheism.
Well, communism is an atheist ideology and a fair few communists have gone to war over the years in an effort to spread their credo. Admittedly they haven't done it in the name of atheism as such, but atheism is part of the sort of communism expounded by Marx etc.

I'm not saying that all atheists are bastards (far from it: I live with one). I am saying that godless ideologies can be just as murderous as ones which use religious belief as an excuse to kill people. Most atheists, like most religious people, are not included to use murder to get their own way.

Communism is an ideology that includes atheism. It is not an atheist ideology.

capsium, I think the answer is that we should try to educate them?

IceBeing regarding doubt, Jesus is compassionate. He showed Thomas His wounds and let him put his hands inside them.

Whether you are incapable (totally) of all belief, I do not know what that looks like. Everyone I have encountered holds some belief about something (not all religious).

The fixed genetic link (rather than epigenetic, i.e. metastable and affected by environment and responses to it) to religious belief has not been conclusively found has it? I know you have mentioned some research in previous posts but it seemed to me your surety over being incapable of belief implies a belief itself. Something to ponder upon anyway...

What other things might people believe in if not religion?

Not goading, genuinely interested, as someone who doesn't believe in a god.

I know atheists who believe in all sorts of rubbish-telepathy, aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, homeopathy, reiki.........

All atheism is is a absence of belief in God. It does not necessarily bring with it reason, or the ability to think..........

"IceBeing regarding doubt, Jesus is compassionate. He showed Thomas His wounds and let him put his hands inside them."

He also made it very clear that it would have been better if Thomas had believed as the others did without asking for proof.

bertrandrussell in current day China, Memebers of the Communist Party must be atheists.

Solzhenitsyn said:
" But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened' "

As a God/s are not subject to rational proof, then I suppose agnosticism makes more logical sense than positive belief in none, one or many.

science is based on methods which make heavy use of evidence.

religion just doesn't.

Bertrand yes, because there is not always time in life for proof or we might not know enough to properly appreciate the proof there is. Sometimes you just have to trust.

totally agree OP. I don't get it either

IMO a a scientist there is lots of stuff that has no reason/proof- so there is room to believe in a creator, if you should choose to.

for example? what is a commonly held scientific belief that has no reason or proof? Is there one that scientists are willing live by?

For a good scientist, the depth of their conviction in an idea should be commensurate with the amount of evidence for it. For things with little evidence, one should have little conviction. Likewise for things with strong evidence.

Religion is completely no that. There is no evidence for any of it, yet people are willing to literally bet their lives on it.

totally agree OP. I don't get it either

one must not forget that there are a lot of very good scientists who are religious. I assume they simply compartmentalize their religious thoughts. They clearly must apply different standards of evidence for scientific conviction and religious ones.