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?

The point of the Thomas story is that it is better to believe without proof. Jesus said something like "Because you have seen, you believe. Blessed are those that have not seen and yet believe". Somewhere in John. I'm sure you know the verse.

I find the veneration of blind faith deeply troubling. In any context.

because there is not always time in life for proof or we might not know enough to properly appreciate the proof there is.

no, there isn't always time for full proof. But how about a little? For the most profound questions and conclusions?

if we can't appreciate the "proof", then it isn't there ("proof" in quotes because "evidence" is a better word).

OFGS - they are not conflicting views at all. I have a PhD in a science subject, work as a lecturer in a university and have a religious belief. As do many many scientists. The understanding of religion that is being knocked on this thread is about the level of understanding of a 4 yr old. It's an understanding of religion I grew out of in my childhood. .

Do you think less of Jocelyn Bell Burnell? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyn_Bell_Burnell

She discovered pulsars, was inspired to be a scientist by the physics teacher at her Quaker school. She is a very involved Quaker with a deep religious belief. One of the most inspiring science teachers I had was an eccentric I rish nun, Sr Mary Joseph, who taught me chemistry. NEVER in my entire childhood at a catholic school was it ever suggested to me that there was a conflict between the evolutionary theory we were learning in biology and any kind of religious faith.

If she is a scientist with a PhD it's entirely probably she doesn't hold the religious beliefs of a 4yr old.

Say some more catsrus. Or are you just going to fling insults about randomly?

No, capsium, the definition of 'delusion = disturbed behaviour, religion = not' isn't going to wash for me I fear.

Firstly, many Christians would say your religion should certainly disturb your behaviour, otherwise what's the point? - see abraid above

Secondly, if you say behaviour that is disturbed in a way to be harmful to oneself/others... Don't make me wheel out all the examples of religion causing behaviour that is harmful to others. Let alone all the stuff like self-flagellation that's only harmful to the devotee.

Tricky, isn't it?

For me, I would say Scientology is walking the line where I can no longer say 'Yeah, I totally respect your religious beliefs' and keep a straight face. I have no sensible evidence for that, it's just a gut instinct.

If she is a scientist with a PhD it's entirely probably she doesn't hold the religious beliefs of a 4yr old.

So, how does she (or you) reconcile the two things? Please explain. That is, do you not apply different standards of evidence for supporting statements in the two areas?

I personally don't understand any sane adult believing in "God", but as long as they don't harp on about it, I allow them their foible.

For anyone who is interested, my own faith is informed by the work of the mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead (who along with Bertrand Russell wrote the post-Newtonian version of Principia Mathematica in the early 20th C). Whitehead developed a philosophy which was then taken up by Charles Hartshorne - Process Philosophy. The intent was to develop a metaphysics that took Einstein seriously and make sense in the light of modern physics.

Process theology - which developed from that - tends towards panentheism. Some theologians have developed a christocentric version of this, my own views are not Christian (though rooted in the christian tradition of my childhood) but are theistic, in the panentheistic sense of that. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism.

I don't believe in an old man on a cloud handing out judgments and sending thunderstorms either. Not sure I ever did. But I do have a religious faith and a strong spirituality. As a scientist I find this makes the best sense of my own experience of the world.

Charles Hartshorne is one of my heros - his philosophy / theology books had great titles. My favourite is "Omnipotence and other theological mistakes"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hartshorne

I have recently come round to your way of thinking, IceBeing, about people not actually being able to choose whether they are religious or not, because I read 'The Believing Brain' by Michael Shermer and he made a very good argument for that case.

I had to take the book back to the library so don't have the numbers to hand , but it looks like there's a huge genetic component to belief - and this is from studies on separated twins, so not as simple as parental teaching.

But then we're left with the question you were kind of asking above; if there is a god, why did he set you and me up with the genes and environment to make it incredibly unlikely we'd ever believe in Him? Seems a bit harsh I was condemned to hell in utero...

but are theistic, in the panentheistic sense of that.

I read the first bit of the wiki page you posted.

what's the evidence for the main statement of the belief

which posits that the divine – whether as a single God, number of gods, or other form of "cosmic animating force"[2] – interpenetrates every part of the universe and extends, timelessly (and, presumably, spacelessly) beyond it. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical,[3] panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both

I will say, however, this sounds like a rather loose belief. While I don't really buy it one bit, I have some sympathy for it in the sense that it requires little conviction (from my 2 mins of reading).

Bertrand faith is not blind, if it were, that would be better labelled ignorance.

Faith comes, for me, with my eyes open. I know when I am applying my faith, it doesn't come with complete absence of knowledge rather than with a full appreciation human knowledge of this world is incomplete.

But then we're left with the question you were kind of asking above; if there is a god, why did he set you and me up with the genes and environment to make it incredibly unlikely we'd ever believe in Him? Seems a bit harsh I was condemned to hell in utero...

My understanding is that you are not condemned in utero (dreadful thought). Even though people can be prone towards certain thought patterns, brain physiology is metastable (through epigenetic gene presentation). It changes due to our environment and our responses to it.

The Bible in Romans 10:17 says,

"17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (KJV)

I can easily understand how hearing Christ preached can work on our subconscious....

Hang on, catsrus, the main problem atheists have with religion is when it interferes in our lives, telling us who we can marry, what we can teach, when we can die, whether we can have abortions, what schools we can go to.
You might describe that as 'the level of understanding of a 4yo', I couldn't possibly comment; but it is the one we are faced with in our day to day lives (OK, some of those are US problems).

It's all very well saying your pantheistic, non-interventionist god isn't on our backs about this sort of stuff, but the gods of other people are, and there are more of them, and they are in positions of power.

So, yes, I would say your personal philosophy seems to be exactly the sort that would appeal to an intelligent scientist with a propensity to believe (see my post above) - the geneticist who doesn't believe in evolution because, God! - I can't really get behind her so much..

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what religious language does. Religious language is an attempt to articulate what many people experience - i.e. that there is a 'something' which exists (whatever that means) that is, in some way, a conscious unifying force. Even that language can be torn apart - as can all religious language, because it doesn't make sense to everyone. What is clear is that throughout human history there has been an attempt to talk about a human experience of "the divine". That attempt to talk about it has always been in the language of the time, using the words and concepts that made sense to the people of the time.

Some of those words and concepts continue to make sense for some people ("God is love" seems to have lasted well for many people) others are too rooted in their historical context and new words begin to make sense.

No religious language can ever convince anyone who has not had a religious experience that god exists - All that religious language can do is to try to articulate what some people experience in words that make sense to them. When groups of people say "oh yes, that's just how it feels / seems to me too" then you get religious communities formed.

It's perfectly possible to be an intelligent, articulate, highly educated, human being who finds that some historical religious language is still useful to describe a contemporary experience which they have had. Other bits of historical religious language are likewise rejected because they no longer "speak" to us.

Science deals with experimental data, facts and measurements. Religion deals with human experience of the world. Science wants to know HOW things happen?- religion asks WHY?

Complementary perspectives - not conflicting - for many of us.

The vicar at my old church has a doctorate in marine biology.

I loved his sermons.

I personally don't understand any sane adult believing in "God", but as long as they don't harp on about it, I allow them their foible.

Bloody hell. By this thread, I'm not only stupid, I'm insane and foibled.

This is hate speech. I find this beyond offensive and rejecting, my faith is much as part of me as my colour, my race, my culture and my sexuality, it is a part of what makes me me. The fact that makes me beneath contempt in your opinion.... thanks for that.

A geneticist who does not believe in evolution because of 'god' would not, in my view, be a very good scientist. I think in America you have some deep problems - I have always thought it because you don't have religious education in schools there is not the healthy scepticism and questioning we have in the UK. In the US science and religion are set up against each other. Bonkers .

All I am arguing is that it is perfectly possible to be a rational and GOOD scientist and still hold a religious faith. It's just NOT the faith of a 4 yr old. I don't think any adult should be stuck in the belief set of a 4 yr old. Just because a lot are (particularly, in my experience, in the USA) don't assume that all people who say they have a faith are!

I'm a scientist. I believe that God is the creator. I also believe in Evolution.
YABU to think less of her because she has faith.

"This is hate speech"

No it isn't. Don't be silly.

Disparaging and intimidating. Check.

And religion is protected under the Equality Act incidentally.

"Bloody hell. By this thread, I'm not only stupid, I'm insane and foibled.

This is hate speech. I find this beyond offensive and rejecting, my faith is much as part of me as my colour, my race, my culture and my sexuality, it is a part of what makes me me. The fact that makes me beneath contempt in your opinion.... thanks for that."

its nothing like hate speech, calm down.

you have no control over your skin colour, sexuality etc but being religious is a choice you make and therefore people can freely question your choice. The football team i support is part of me but that doesnt mean supporters of other clubs cant question it

The problem is that it is the "4 year old's belief system" tha is the type of faith that generally impacts on the lives of others.

Bertrand - but you could say that hateful understandings of other things (including science and technology - think of the Nazis) can also be tools to have a negative impact on the lives of others. It's by no means exclusively religion.