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?

Therefore, believing in 'god' is fine with me... in a private/non-intrusive way .... right up to the point where people start to 'explain' things to others as "god did it", (rather than looking for a rational/scientific answer), or "god exists" (without any testable proof), and/or they start to make up arbitary rules like "god wants me, (and you), to do this/that and god doesn't allow us to do this/that", and/or "everyone must respect my belief and practices as this is my religion". Because this it the point where is starts to be annoying/illogical.

Well I would agree with that as long as you are also happy to replace 'god' with 'science' and you are happy not to go on and on at others how science can explain everything and if science hasn't 'proved' it then it either doesn't exist or it is wrong.

What you are talking about is basic respect for other people's ideas. And I believe that goes both ways.

it's hard to detect sarcasm
Indeed. Although the wink might have pointed to the tone....

especially when the point has been made by many
Indeed. ^ This, for example. Sarcasm? Weary? Impatient? Who knows....

Perhaps I feel like I'm more engaged in the conversation than I actually am...

This tangent is odd, an not particularly edifying (for me, at least).

But KevinAndMe, surely there are always going to be some ideas which cannot be respected ... even by you? (And critical reasoning/proof is what counts re what can be respected ... and what can't be?) We can't just go round respecting anyone's belief regardless of how crazy and harmful it might be?

What you are talking about is basic respect for other people's ideas

Not really. It's a basic respect for the right of other people to have/believe in those ideas. Not respect for the ideas themselves.

This tangent is odd, an not particularly edifying (for me, at least).

not me either.

I wasn't being sarcastic. many people think those two claim to know.

But there's a bigger point. Most people think that atheist means, under your definitions, gnostic atheist, where I have never met such a person (though know many atheists). Thus, without any adjectives, I would assume that an atheist doesn't claim certainty.

Well, your belief is utterly incompatible with pretty much every branch of natural science. Does that make the belief stupid? I think so. I don't know whether you are stupid or not.
---- __

Not every branch, only the evolutionary science part, which by the way isn't true science because:

1. It wasn't observed (none of us were there)

1. It can't be repeated

1. Depending on what you believe about the stability of parent-daughter argument, depends on what numbers you crunch to date anything

strawberry I agree!

OP - YABVU indeed.

Let's hope you or your family never need an MRI scan.

The scientist who invented the MRI was a creationist.

Whoever would have though!

SBGA

Evolution, astronomy, geology, meteorology, physics....

Fundamentallt incompatible with creationism.

Rice that part of your comment was very much about the fact you don't want people to shove their beliefs down your throat.
Which totally understandable.

However, you also need to accept that other people have different ideas that constantly having to fight to say 'you know science doesn't have all the answers', because well ...it just doesn't, is just as tiring.

Your post also start by putting god at the same level than an imaginary friend, therefore telling people that they are just children who are still believing in Christmas Father, ie they aren't adults and clearly don't know what the heck they are talking about. That they are stupid in the same naive way that a child can be.

In effect, it is very dismissive and clearly you think that people who believe in God are just stupid.

It's very easy to then say that 'well but look when these beliefs are dangerous, you can't just accept them'.
Well no. But why should these beliefs only be religious ones? Are you sure that some 'scientific' beliefs haven't been as dangerous in the past? Are you sure that science is never wrong? And are you equally sure that all religious beliefs are dangerous and will never have any positive impact?

As as been said before, you can't prove something doesn't exist. If you can't prove God doesn't exist, then you HAVE TO accept that some people will believe in God. Just as yyou have to accept that some people believe that Gid doesn't exist. End of.

As it is just as clear that some beliefs (based on science or not) can be dangerous too, let's treat them as they are and stop making massive assumptions about religion and putting them in full opposition with science.

Science and religion don't have to in opposition.
As far as I am concernbed, religion is a guide for living my life. It's a compass. It starts where science stops. Because it certainly isn't the role of science to talk about moral. It isn't its role to talk about death. It's not its role to talk about relationship with people and behaviours etc... Actually there is a lot of things that it has no relation with because science is there to gives us a start of explaination for the physical world around us. That's it. Nothing less but nothing more either.

There is no actual evidence for god whatever any believer says.

There isn't, which is why they are believers. You need to believe, you cannot "know". Even if some religious people do say they know.

And if there really was one, what sort of a god is he to play with us the way he does?" (Not a nice one!)
Only if you think that god is manipulating events.

The humans of the world who wish to believe in a higher being, obviously cannot even unite/agree on which 'god' to believe in, and even those who believe in the same god, cannot agree on what he wants from us and how to make him happy. So there will always be multi-opinions/arguments. (And a LOT of room for doubt?!)

Assuming there is a higher being that is god, and that is beyond our comprehension, we can understand or perceive it in different ways. This is moulded by our personal experiences, culture, and also our biology with its limitations. Every single person has their own experience or idea of god (or lack of)

For a rational person, does this not tend to point to the conclusion that it is all imagined/made up/invented by man as a 'crutch'? (As no-one can prove anything?) And that 'god' only exists in each person's imagination? (Like the feeling of love for someone we might have? Just a sort of chemical thing going on and not a universal truth?)

Could be, but then why would we have developed a mechanism to "invent" god?
Although the idea of a god, or gods, may stem from our need to control things. That we can address that god and have a result in our benefit. (thinking out loud)

Even if there was a 'god', why or why would we need to 'worship' him/her or have certain customs which can change dramatically over time as we learn things and see the error of our previous ways? (That's the bit I really fail to understand.)
Religions, the way I see it, and their traditions, rituals and customs, are basically ways of bringing together communities in a common ground and guide people in their quest to understand or be closer to god. Unfortunately, and due to human nature and as many social constructs, it can also divide people. :(
Worship is about practice and learning. As I see it, it's not that different from meditation, but certainly forces us to stop our normal lives and reach out for that something else, but also to make us think about our own lives, how we relate to each other, about our choices.

"All the suffering in this world is supposed to be the work of the devil, we're told."

The Catholics I know would say that much of the suffering is caused through human sin, wars, hunger, etc, rather than the devil.

But that's the point, Abraid! An all-seeing, all-powerful, loving god would be able to prevent all this suffering - instead he sits back and…what? Sympathises? Yawns? (There's so much of it!) Laughs?

Maybe it's the only way he gets his kicks.

The whole notion is preposterous!

If you can't prove God doesn't exist, then you HAVE TO accept that some people will believe in God

I think this is what the OP is referring to when she posits that religious scientists are a puzzle.

The idea that you can believe in something without any evidence either for or against its existence is fundamentally unscientific (I'm sure scientists indulge on occasion - I certainly have pet theories that I think would be ace, if only I could generate the data). The idea that a scientist could easily assimilate the concept of proving or disproving a negative, or shift the burden of proof in such a way, is anathema to me.

It's a very unscientific way of thinking, therefore it's odd when a scientist does it.

Because it certainly isn't the role of science to talk about moral. It isn't its role to talk about death. It's not its role to talk about relationship with people and behaviours

"Morality" is a concept, and means different things to different people. I think "morality" is simply a human term for "mutually-beneficial behaviour" which is certainly explicable in scientific terms. Basic biology can tell you about death. Basic biology, evolutionary biology, neurobiology and psychology can tell you about behaviour. How do you not think these things can be analysed scientifically?

Maybe it's the only way he gets his kicks.

That is a very human view of god. If he (she? :) ) exists, then it certainly doesn't work in the same way that we do.

(BTW, I'm not saying scientific investigation can currently explain all aspects of all behaviours etc, I'm questioning why you think these things are outside of scientific investigation).

Could be, but then why would we have developed a mechanism to "invent" god?

I think the general answer here is that god is concept that emerges from a biological setup that confers a survival advantage to those who listen to authority (either a senior or a group).

I think "morality" is simply a human term for "mutually-beneficial behaviour" which is certainly explicable in scientific terms.

Not entirely.

If anything, religious moral may act to preserve societies and groups, which, in nature hasn't really been proven.
Christian morality at its core has a lot that is not necessarily mutually beneficial.

I think the general answer here is that god is concept that emerges from a biological setup that confers a survival advantage to those who listen to authority (either a senior or a group).

Religion yes, the concept of god not so much.

Religion yes, the concept of god not so much

How can you have one without the other?

If we are hardwired (or even softwired/societally cultured/etc) to accept authority (because it confers a survival advantage), an authority figure is an obvious concept.

How can you have one without the other?
For clarity: this was a flippant point and not related to the following sentence. Religion, by my definition, requires a god. Any other application of the word "religion" e.g. to football teams, is a misuse (IMO).

You can have a concept of god without religion, as many people will tell you that don't follow a specific religion.

And that concept of god doesn't necessarily have to be authoritarian, although it may well be perceived as such by many. I see (you could say I imagine it) it more as a supportive entity.

Authority / support / wisdom are all qualities that can be gained from older and wiser members of a family tribe.

It's very easy to imagine how seeking out that support could carry over to a (man-made) concept of divine presence.

You can have a concept of god without religion

Yep, agreed. Sorry, I was thinking of the opposite premise, religion without god.

"Because it certainly isn't the role of science to talk about moral. It isn't its role to talk about death. It's not its role to talk about relationship with people and behaviours"

Why on earth not?

Why on earth not?

It's almost protectionist.