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?

What science has gathered so far in relation to biology and behaviour can be very cruel, and certainly at odds with our most developed societies. Altruism, yes, but only in relation to our relatives, or if there is a trade off. Each sex trying to gain as much reproductive advantage regardless of the other. Abandoning offspring, or not, depending on their capacity for survival and you can dump them on the other parent. Violence perfectly acceptable to establish dominance.

"Science, know thy place"

To the OP, your title and approach is a wholly uneducated and narrow-minded one.
Religion and Science often cross paths.
I am a very religious person. My faith gives me stability and grounds me in life.
But science gives me logic and reason and insight into our being.
Science feeds my mind and religion feeds my soul. Together they create something very beautiful for me.

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.

belief and faith are different, as I understand it. faith requires no evidence. Belief can and usually does require some evidence (though not necessarily).

One question is does the strength of a believers belief commensurate with the available evidence?

the existence of 'human rights' is a myth that most atheists are happy to 'believe' in....

and in fact I also believe in it...but I really don't know why.

What science has gathered so far in relation to biology and behaviour can be very cruel, and certainly at odds with our most developed societies.

science doesn't advocate anything of the things you described as highly moral acts (i.e. abandoning unfit children), it explains why it was done. Evolutionist, as far as I know, don't think society should be run by natural selection, just that's the best explanation of how we got here.

the existence of 'human rights' is a myth that most atheists are happy to 'believe' in

I suspect this is going to get semantic....

I believe that a system of rights which is generally agreed by those people subject to such rights to be fair and just is fine. I believe the system is a good thing.

I'm not sure I fundamentally believe in the rights themselves. I think the rights are a human construct, not a fundamental property of being. I don't see how they are a matter for belief.

I'm not even sure I know what I mean myself....if anyone can clarify my thoughts, much appreciated!

I think the "rights" are based on biological/sociological imperatives, mind. I'm not suggesting a codified system based on made up shit.

Because that would make it.....nah, I'll leave it.

Belief is one of those words that can be interpreted in different ways. Just checked and one of two dictionaries mentions acceptance without proof.
But, regardless, that believing is different from knowing, even if when examining whatever evidence. Whether belief is exactly the same as faith I think it depends on who uses the words.

One question is does the strength of a believers belief commensurate with the available evidence?
It doesn't have to.
But it depends on what people believe or have faith in. If in a God that created everything in 6 days or 6000 years, then there is very little evidence for that happening and that is at odds with scientific thinking.
If in a God that essentially performs miracles, it depends on whether you believe the testimonies and prefer that option in the absence of any concrete evidence. And it does raise questions of why he acts in certain ways but not others.
If in an entity that permeates the universe, but in fact has little effect on how it works (by choice or its nature), then there is no evidence either way other than your own perceptions and ideas.

science doesn't advocate anything of the things you described as highly moral acts (i.e. abandoning unfit children), it explains why it was done.

Exactly, it doesn't advocate, nor it should. Which is why morals is a different thing. And science can explain but shouldn't guide.

I think the "rights" are based on biological/sociological imperatives

Many rights go somewhat against our biological nature.

Why protect the weakest and ensure everyone has the same opportunities and is given a good chance of survival? Why not ensure that only those that can survive? Why not get rid of the disabled or the very frail? Why have dangerous criminals in jail and not simply kill them?

What construct of our minds have made us abandon our most basic biological drives?

Exactly, it doesn't advocate, nor it should. Which is why morals is a different thing. And science can explain but shouldn't guide.

just because science doesn't advocate for natural selection as our moral guide, doesn't mean that science is incapable of doing so. it just doesn't.

If in an entity that permeates the universe, but in fact has little effect on how it works (by choice or its nature), then there is no evidence either way other than your own perceptions and ideas.

so how useful is this basic god?

I fully agree. If you think god is "just out there" and that's all you can say about it you really have no disagreement from me, and I assume if that's all you believe about god (as it's really not rational do believe in something more by your account), then this god, nor belief in it, can inform anything about morals.

What I am saying, is that while a basic god as you have described can be talked about, I don't know how much use it is.

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

So Buddhism isn't a religion? Most dictionaries would disagree with you.

Just to throw another spanner into the works, there are plenty of people who consider themselves part of the christian religion but who are not theological realists (there is REAL god) , they are theological idealists (there is a real IDEA of god) - i.e. would probably be described as atheist under some definitions being used on here (a good example would be the Sea of Faith movement in the CofE about 20+ yrs ago).

As someone who subscribes to the metaphysics of Process Thought, I am, like the mathematicial Alfred North Whitehead, and the philosopher Charles Hartshorne, a realistic idealist.

I do believe that there is reality out there, but we only have access to it through our senses. We interpret our experiences through the lens of our culture and upbringing. We choose to use the language we are most familiar with to describe what we experience.

Up until the age of 18 I totally rejected any notions of god. The language used made no sense to me. At 18 I had an experience which religious language seemed to fit. I began to use that language to explain my experience. At first I used the language of my childhood religious upbringing, which was within the christian tradition. As I grew older and began to do my own study and research, I found other language to use that I think better describes my ongoing experiences. I would no longer call myself a christian but I am most definitely a believer. I do believe that there is something (even that is the wrong word, general though it is) which I want to call god. But I don't believe that all the language I try to use to talk about this 'god' is failing to adequately describe what I experience.

back to language. Simple as that really. certainly didn't interfere with any empirical studies I did for my PhD!

Ironically - some of the philosophers of science I quoted in my literature review were drawing on the same philosophical traditions as philosophers of religion. All are investigating meaning and language. That's why it's perfectly possible to be an academic scientist and a person with a faith.

doesn't mean that science is incapable of doing so. it just doesn't.

How can science be our moral guide? Any suggestions?

Science could be a 'moral' guide if you take 'moral' to mean 'maximise the probability for the continued dominance of the human species'.

It could tell us what behaviours help and hinder the human race.

The problem I see with this is that universally equality for all human beings is probably a general goal most people believe we should aspire to...but it isn't necessarily the best strategy from a survival perspective.

That is what I meant be the idea of 'human rights' being a myth we all randomly subscribe to with no evidence to back its intrinsic rightness....in a way that is not so dissimilar to believing in powers greater than ourselves with no evidence to back the intrinsic correctness of the notion.

so how useful is this basic god?

A good question. Does god have to have a purpose? Does it have to be useful at an individual level? Or species level?

I don't question bad things that happen because I don't expect any god to save me/us from them.
Can I feel a connection with other human beings that goes beyond what I would expected biologically? Yes. Is that because of god or something about our human nature that I can't explain? Who knows. I'd rather think of it as god. Possibly. :)

back to language.

it seems strange to me to say that you have certain concrete beliefs, but your main barrier with these beliefs is articulating them sufficiently using current language. There are certainly philosophers that think that without language it is impossible to have beliefs.

In any case, it's easy to see why beliefs similar to yours don't interfere with doing science. They sound vague enough to be malleable. Certainly, even the most bible thumping christians can be good scientists by asking god to wait at the lab door.

Whitehead's mathematical contemporary and co-author, Russell, was of course on the other side of this. His clear exposition in "why I am not a christian" is as good as any thing out there.

I think it is undeniable that the concept of God has helped the human race get where it is. But I think it is very much questionable whether it will continue to help now that humans are no longer living in isolated communities that could easily not encounter or know about the deeply held beliefs of others.

God wasn't a big reason for war until relatively recently (coupla 1000 years) and it is getting ever easier to come into contact with people who think you are immoral or less than human because of your beliefs or lack thereof.

So God was net useful...but is God net useful now?

A good question. Does god have to have a purpose? Does it have to be useful at an individual level? Or species level?

of course god doesn't have to have a purpose. In fact, I think this is a big problem for theists. you have to have faith that god (the creator) is the same as god (the good). It's possible that god created the universe and is a malicious, vindictive sadist who likes watching children suffer.

In any case, there is a difference between god having a purpose and the concept of god having a purpose.

catrus what is a realistic idealist? and why are you one?

I think if a god exists, as per the definition of the major religions ie omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent etc, then it/he/she would be clearly evident. Take the Shoreham air crash - a loving god could easily have plucked the pilot out of the aircraft and gently placed him at the nearest bus stop,with the correct change - and then made the wayward aircraft simply disappear before hitting the ground. Onlookers would have exalted "wow - thanks god! " and everyone would have gone about their day, and maybe been a little keener to read the divine books. Either god couldn't help or wouldn't help, which means he/she/it isn't really a god (as defined by major religions).

A realistic idealist is defined in the next paragraph red i.e.

I do believe that there is reality out there, but we only have access to it through our senses. We interpret our experiences through the lens of our culture and upbringing. We choose to use the language we are most familiar with to describe what we experience.

I am metaphysically consistent in that I am a realistic idealist about everything, including god . This is quite a good article on how Whitehead and Hartshorne's philosophy underpins process theism plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

a loving god could easily have plucked the pilot out of the aircraft and gently placed him at the nearest bus stop, with the correct change

Yes but then we wouldn't have free will. If a loving God wants us to have free will that puts limits on God's ability to interfere with his/her creation.

That's the Epicurean paradox in a nutshell there, BartholinsSister. The thing is, if God went round plucking pilots out of planes and into bus stops like pliable Playmobil characters, where would that leave the free will of that particular pilot/air traffic crew/random onlookers who would then be forced to believe in the big magic man in the sky? God doesn't desire people to worship him because they have no other choice, but because they choose to. If they had hard evidence such as this, where would their choice be? And who is to say that by placing the man in the bus stop it wouldn't cause a huge pile up as drivers watching the drama plough into the bus, and then someone in one of the cars who is a doctor couldn't get to a very sick patient who then died, all in a butterfly effect kind of string of events. It's more complex than God controlling things so that there is no suffering.

Regarding the Epicurean paradox, I would question what evil is, where it originates. If we have such absolutes as good and evil, why? If there is nothing behind these ideas, surely there are no absolutes, which leads us back to the question of human rights and why we intrinsically believe that they should be in existence and upheld. Is altruism simply a mechanism we have developed for survival, or is it based in something beyond that? It's not the best expression of survival of the fittest, really - how does keeping a weak, elderly person alive - and cared for - continue the species? I know there's an argument for how keeping the population at its happiest can in itself be a natural part of evolutionary process and stimulate survival, but where does this happiness come from? Why is protecting the weakest - the unproductive - important to us?

I find all this fascinating - I do come from a Christian standpoint but greatly appreciate questioning why I believe what I do.

I think the problem about evil and suffering and God has been debated for centuries and I think that one of the Christian /philosophical arguments is that goodness can only come out of suffering: and that without it no one would need to be brave or noble or kind for example. But for me that doesn't answer all the questions eg bad things like train crashes, murders and earthquakes. What good can come out of the rape of a child? Etc. but it's a starting point for discussion. Still not sure what I believe but I don't think I can rule out the existence of God.