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?

Bumpsadaisie- so there's no point to the story at all?

It would be interesting to see if any in depth science can be talked about without using metaphor red - the article isn't about loose language in science - it's about the absolutely centrality of metaphorical language once you get to the heart of science. Try talking about space without using the phrase "black hole". A metaphor.

Philosophy of science, at its highest level - PhD level and beyond - takes language very seriously, as seriously as Theology and Philosophy do. At this high level of discourse there is a recognition that we are grasping at words to describe things we don't actually fully understand.

Again, for anyone interested in the language of science - Max Black did some really foundational work on the use of metaphor in science - and how essential it was. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Black

Haven't read the whole thread, couldn't get past your opening post.
I think far less of you for thinking like this. I've worked with a few doctors who are practicing Christians. I admire them hugely. Your attitude towards this person sucks, tbh.

There's a big difference between a scientist working in research, for example, and a doctor. People who need to know sciency stuff to do their jobs and people actually doing science. I can easily see how you can be religious and do the first. The second would certainly require a level of compartmentalisation- to say the least.

Bertrand I think a certain amount of compartmentalising is necessary in life. It is what you have to do before complete understanding is gained which can 'join all the dots.

Or you could just dismiss any new information which doesn't neatly fit with the pieces of information you already have. Trouble is that then this new information might be forgotten, so a further piece, which is the missing link, might just be more easily missed and is certainly not sought.

Regarding the allegory of creation in the bible (and yes, through Catholic primary school it was clearly portrayed as allegorical), I have always loved this Isaac Asimov short story:

www.sumware.com/creation.html

no it doesn't Bertrand - or at least only as much as a scientist being in love would have to 'compartmentalize' their love life and their science . Funnily enough I've been in love while doing my empirical research and it didn't make doing science harder. Weird that. .

If you start from the assumption that Science and Religion are in conflict then you are starting from a totally different set of assumptions from someone like me, who is both a scientist and a person of faith. You start from a different set of assumptions than Jocelyn Bell Burnell, you certainly start from a very different set of assumptions than the scientist Paul Davies, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

Bertrand

Hello

Bumpsadaisie- so there's no point to the story at all?

Do you think there is no point if it doesn't convey a comparative assessment of the relative worth of Thomas vs other more "faithful" types? Is that the only way it could/would have a point?

I think there are lots of messages in the story. For example - just the ones I can think of right now ....

It is an acknowledgement that it is hard to be faithful without evidence and that you can still be a Christian if you struggle with this. After all one of the most important figures in the gospels, had exactly this struggle. Its a statement of the inclusivity of the christian message. Christ will tailor himself to your need, if you have the curiosity. Thomas needed to feel the wound, and Jesus was accommodating.

Thomas is a figure who always speaks up and doesn't hide his doubts, even where this is awkward. Before you even get to the "putting fingers in the wound" bit there has been an encounter where Jesus tells the disciples that "they know the way to the place where He is going". The others are silent and it is left to Thomas to say "hang on, we DON"T know where you are going. How can we know the way?" Then of course Jesus says the famous "I am the way, and the truth and the life" and it becomes clear to all of them that he is talking about something very different from how to get from A to B.

As as very "doubting" kind of Christian myself, Thomas, and Jesus' response to him, has always spoken very loudly to me. The story has a very big point!

My vicar has a degree in Physics...

I don't understand what aspect of Roman Catholicism you think interfere with being a good scientist?

Roman Catholics accept evolution, for example, and have many many contributions to science e.g. the man who discovered the laws of genetic inheritance was an Augustinian friar.

Many (RC) Christians believe that studying science is one of the greatest ways to study God as you study his creation.

I'm not Roman Catholic but I don't think it's that stupid.

If you were working on, say, contraceptive devices I would question her, but otherwise I really see no need for conflict between her religious beliefs and her scientific work.

I haven't read the thread. I find these kind of threads generally cover the same points. What always amuses me is that so many people claim that those who are religious are stupid or misinformed and then go on to show an amazing misunderstanding of both the history and very concept of science. The history of science in based in the history of religion. This is easy to research. Try investigating the Enlightenment period as an example. There are very few religious positions/denominations that are logically incompatible with science. It basically comes down to your views on (and definitions of) causation.
Religion is not illogical. Science is based on the empirical position. This means that the basic concept of science is that we should make impartial observations about the world. One might use reason to then interpret these observations but this should then be tested using evidence, which means further observations. God is an immaterial being and as such does not fit the empirical model, this does not disprove God but rather is an area that science cannot explain.
Religion is built on logic and observation. If you study theology you will see that it is based in reason and logic. Try looking at some general theology. Much of it is very accessible, try reading some.
I work in academia and I know a lot of doctorate level scientists, theologians and philosophers. Many are religious, many are not. None are stupid.

YABU and frankly wrong. The more I learn of the universe through science the more of the beauty of God's creation I find in it.

I have a vague idea that the study of physics started from Philosophy ( not sure why I think this but it's an honest belief) and from people trying to make sense of the world. Bit like religion.
catsrus thanks for the link interesting! My first degree was in English literature hence my interest in language and my second in social policy ( so why I am interested in ideologies).

redstarwberry no, stars don't have Uric acid - thats how come it's a metaphor!!! You do know what a metaphor is, don't you?

Oh and sarfEast1cated me too ! Lovely to debate such an interesting and important topic

Blessed, there's a tiny touch of irony in saying you've not bothered reading the thread but telling everyone to go off and research, don't you think?

Catsrus- thank you for the book suggestions. However, I know you're not alone in your views- I just don't agree with either them or you. Just because somebody has written a book doesn't mean I have to agree with them!

The head of philosophy at the university where I studied was one of the funniest, most intelligent, eccentric, respected, widely-read, knowledgeable people I have ever met, and also a devout Christian.

TBH the fact that highly intelligent, academic, respected people like him can also be religious, is something that stops me from being an atheist and forces me to be agnostic and keep considering it all.

I agree on the surface it seems odd that scientists and philosophers with doctorates also manage to be religious...but doesn't it make you question your own aetheist beliefs a bit, not just their religious ones? It certainly has that effect on me.

OP, UABU, but you are in good company, esp in MN.

Please dDo not equate religion with either fundamentalism or creationism.

It can incorporate either or both or neither.

Surely if a person is good at a particular science subject it just means that they are good at a particular science subject.

It doesn't mean they know any better than the rest of us whether god exists or not. Science proves nothing when it comes to religion.

My Grandpa was in the first ever cohort to graduate as a Metallurgist. He became a well respected scientist and a commited Christian. To him, the more he discovered about how metals worked, the more he was in awe of a creator God. There was never a contradiction.

Well, I work in evolution and I am catholic.

It depends on what you, OP, mean by deep religious beliefs.

People who need to know sciency stuff to do their jobs and people actually doing science. I can easily see how you can be religious and do the first. The second would certainly require a level of compartmentalisation- to say the least.

Doing science is about uncovering nature, applying the scientific method and relying on what can be observed, detected, measured.
We simply don't know what led to the origin of the universe, and what, if anything, is behind it. All we can do is uncover how it works and its history.

Oh, boy! I love these sort of threads!

Of course YANBU, OP! It's a question I've often asked myself.

(Haven't RTFT, yet - but I will!)

Of course it is possible to hold two opposing views at the same time - but when one is rational and the other irrational, you have to wonder about the person holding those views. If they are prepared to take something on faith, how much questioning really does go on in that person's mind?

After all, if you're prepared to suspend disbelief in one area, it must surely be easier (subconsciously, perhaps), to suspend it in other areas.

No doubt some people are more able to compartmentalise than others.

Common misconception.

Religious people can easily have many doubts. It's just that they can also search beyond what we can perceive with our limited mammalian senses.

it's about the absolutely centrality of metaphorical language once you get to the heart of science.

that's not what the article is about. it's about the usefulness of metaphors and language in communicating science, and possibly understanding it. It makes absolutely no claims about its centrality, certainly not the absolutely central role of metaphorical language once you get to the heart of science.

in any case, I don't dispute the role of metaphorical language in science. however, more on point, what does this have to do with your god? What is your god a metaphor for? what phenomenon do you think is made more clear by your metaphor?

the minute I use a word like "exists" you jump on it as though I was talking about a table

what, then, are you talking about? if what you are talking about exists wholly in your personal experience, I don't know what interest or usefulness it has to others. if, on the other hand, it has relevance outside of your personal experience, explain what that is.

keep in mind you have made concrete claims about your god. they weren't experiential claims, but they were claims about the nature of something you claim is real. you said It has being, it is personal and it is real. if that's just using language to articulate your feelings to you, that language also has meaning to others and that's not how I interpret it.

now I think I could quite easily have said something very similar about my experience of being in love. I have certainly met a person, entered a room, and been "hit" (metaphor alert!) by something very real. Attraction, dislike, fear .... all sorts of experiences that might be hard to articulate but are none the less real.

of course not being able to articulate something doesn't make it less real. Before humans had language we had emotions.

Love has real world markers: if you claim to be in love, there is usually evidence for it (high pulse, sweat, willingness to sacrifice etc). depending on how you define love (electro chemical impulses in the brain that can be detected, emotions that manifest themselves in common ways in people), there is evidence for it.