Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to be surprised that a scientist with a doctorate is religious

775 replies

Margaritapracataz · 22/09/2015 07:45

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?

OP posts:
Lweji · 24/09/2015 17:37

Mathematically yes, but our brain is not likely to be able to imagine it.

Anyway, I'd place a bet on homeopathy as something we'll never be able to explain. Grin

BertrandRussell · 24/09/2015 17:41

I can explain homeopathy, easy peasy.

And I really don't see why we won't be able to imagine different dimensions.

Lweji · 24/09/2015 18:53

Really? Like in one word?

BertrandRussell · 24/09/2015 18:57

I'll need 2.
Water. Sugar.

Lweji · 24/09/2015 19:10

Surely not. Grin

Jux · 24/09/2015 19:17

Huge amounts of sci-fi - and I mean sci-fi not fantasy - imagines other dimension, aliens which are completely different from ourselves and not even carbon based, and multi/dimensions etc etc etc.

I don't see why any of this should ge ungraspable by us.

(Homeopathy described in one word - placebo.)

duality · 24/09/2015 19:32

I studied Physics, believe in God, and would not fill a gap in Physics understanding by invoking God. I have an insatiable curiosity and "God did it" has never been a good enough answer for me.

DioneTheDiabolist · 24/09/2015 19:52

Do you believe that you are a bigot OP?

The evidence suggests that you are.

BertrandRussell · 24/09/2015 20:00

"Do you believe that you are a bigot OP?

The evidence suggests that you are."

No it doesn't.

redstrawberry10 · 24/09/2015 20:19

I studied Physics, believe in God, and would not fill a gap in Physics understanding by invoking God. I have an insatiable curiosity and "God did it" has never been a good enough answer for me.

what, then, does god do with all his time?

duality · 24/09/2015 20:51

what, then, does god do with all his time?

I have no idea, but if you wish to have a conversation on it I could wildly speculate.

Boobz · 24/09/2015 21:34

A PP said "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. "

But why is Scientology any more ridiculous than Christianity? They're both religions which can't be proved (by the very nature...) - why is Christianity less silly? Just because it's older?

BertrandRussell · 24/09/2015 21:43

God transcends time. "For a thousands years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past and as a watch in the night"

DioneTheDiabolist · 24/09/2015 22:08

The evidence does indeed point to the OP's bigotry Bertrand. But it is no surprise to me that you can't see it.Wink

Breadandwine · 24/09/2015 23:25

The evidence does indeed point to the OP's bigotry Bertrand.

That comment of yours, Dione, tells us more about you than it does about the OP or Bertrand. There is no bigotry in wondering if someone can be completely objective when they subscribe "deeply" to something with no basis in reality.

I'm only surprised you find that difficult to understand.

Bumbledumb · 24/09/2015 23:26

Having a religious faith does not mean a person believes any of those stories are supposed to be history!

There are a lot of people who view the resurrection of Christ as history, when there is hardly any evidence to show that he existed at all.

DioneTheDiabolist · 25/09/2015 00:33

Bread, the OP is not wondering about the objectivity of this woman's work. The OP thinks less of this woman solely because of her faith.

That is evidence of bigotry.

IceBeing · 25/09/2015 00:45

There was a strong implication in the OP that she would think less of someone for a genetically derived variation that person likely has little choice over.

That is certainly bigotry.

It is exactly the same as someone saying is it okay to think less of someone because they just told me they are gay....or because of their skin colour.

IceBeing · 25/09/2015 00:47

Lweji and Betrand: I think you need three words...water, sugar and humans

water and sugar by themselves do not make homeopathy...that requires human...ahem...ingenuity and....er ...creative thinking.

Lweji · 25/09/2015 03:51

What are you saying, Ice?

buffyajp · 25/09/2015 06:53

No surprise that the usual suspects seem to think bigotry is exclusive to religious people only. They then have the audacity to try and claim some sort of superior intellectual high ground. Thinking less of someone purely based on their faith IS bigoted and prejudiced whether you like that fact or not.

Mehitabel6 · 25/09/2015 07:14

It is certainly a narrow minded view.

Mehitabel6 · 25/09/2015 07:16

I love the fact that we all have freedom of thought and don't have to conform- even scientists.

Mehitabel6 · 25/09/2015 07:18

Even better that she had freedom of speech to articulate her thoughts- sad that it then gets judged in a narrow minded way as - 'I think less of you because you don't happen to conform to what I expect'.

catsrus · 25/09/2015 07:28

Yes bumble - I know some people accept mythical stories as history - I've been in enough threads on MN about people freaking out that their MIL told the DC that Father Christmas was not real to know that this exists both inside and outside religion.

What I am challenging is the logic of the assertion that if someone has a religious faith then they must believe mythical stories. I have a religious faith and I accept mythical stories as - well mythical stories. Some of them still useful, meaningful, powerful - as all stories can be.

Interestingly the assertion that I must believe mythical stories are history or attempts at science is always made by people who are arguing against religious belief.

Some people with a religious faith have an uncritical view of their traditions texts and stories. The only scientists (university level) I personally have come across who take this view are Engineers (I have a theory about that one, it's interesting - they tend to be the climate change deniers too)

Some people with a religious faith have a modern (nay even post modern) view of their traditions' text and stories. I am in this camp, as are the leading scientists I cited earlier like Jocelyn Bell Burnell and Paul Davies. We accept the literary critical approach to scriptures that was started in the 19th century and is, today, part of the mature and thriving academic discipline of theology and religious studies. We take seriously the work done by philosophers of religion, psychologists of religion and sociologists of religion. We find this work intellectually interesting because an academic and intellectual investigation of religious beliefs and practices is no threat to our own faith. My faith is rooted in my own experience, not in someone else's as told through those stories. Sometimes the language of those stories resonate with my own experience and I want to use it / borrow it - which is why traditions do continue. But they also grow and change.

Anyway - up early because I'm away for a long weekend and need to pack. not sure I'll have Internet access either so I'm sure this thread will be long gone by Tuesday.

Yes OP YABVU to think less of your colleague because you are being prejudiced - you are literally pre-judging her based on YOUR understanding of religion, not hers. You don't know hers.