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?

Having freedom of speech does not mean that people can't make judgements about you based on what you choose to use that freedom to disclose.

I would most certainly be.....surprised.... by someone who is a serious research scientist who accepts as truth something which, when looked at with any sort of scientific rigour, is as provably false as anything can be.

I would not feel the same about someone who uses science as part of their job- a doctor or nurse, for example.

I would most certainly be.....surprised.... by someone who is a serious research scientist who accepts as truth something which, when looked at with any sort of scientific rigour, is as provably false as anything can be.
You can't actually prove that God doesn't exist. Although it depends on the definition of God.
You can't prove that exists either.

Did you spot where I said "as provably false as anything can be"?

Regardless of mentioning probability, your post implies it is false.
But it has approximately the same probability that it's not false, because it's not falsifiable.
And I suppose many believers choose to go with the possibility that it may well be true.
More or less in the same way that we don't know if there are habited worlds elsewhere, we can't prove that there aren't, but many still assume that there are.

One of the questions that will probaly never be answered and I mentioned earlier (nobody replied to that) is what was there before the big bang. What actually caused it.

I can't keep labouring the point that faith has nothing to do with truth. If there was proof there was a God it would not be a faith.

Once you have got over your surprise perhaps you can broaden your outlook to accept that everyone is entitled to their opinion- even scientists.

Imagine a world where their was absolute proof that God existed and we all had to do as we were told or face dire consequences! It would also mean that there was no freedom of thought. Not a world I want.

"Regardless of mentioning probability, your post implies it is false.
But it has approximately the same probability that it's not false, because it's not falsifiable."

That's not how it works. There is no evidence that God exists. There is significant evidence that he does not. Therefore, until evidence emerges to suggest that he does exist, the noes, as they say, have it.

Mehitabel, I understand the concept of faith. What I do not accept is that is OK for a serious scientist who actually works in science, rather than using science in their work, to say "there is no evidence for this but I believe it to be true, so it is". I would be very wary- if they can apply that to God, how do I knew they will not apply it to other things?

There is significant evidence that he does not.

What is that?

You can prove something exists, but not that it doesn't exist, actually.

Oh, I don't know- his complete failure to do any of the things he said he would do. Absolutely no physical evidence at all...........

I can't think of any evidence that God doesn't exist.
And why is it always 'he' as if a human?
I am sure that many see an old man with beard who should step in and sort everyone out in an authoritarian way.
No evidence either way. No proof either way. What I can't understand is why we should require it.

You mean that people said he would? Not the same thing...

"You can prove something exists, but not that it doesn't exist, actually."

I agree.

So what did 'he' say he would do? And who did 'he' say it to? What evidence do we have that it was reliable?

his complete failure to do any of the things he said he would do.

And what things are those?

Unfortunately I have to go out but I hope to get a list of all these things 'he' apparently promised to do- I wasn't aware that 'he' made any.

"He" is merely a linguistic convention. Happy to use any other pronoun you like. "She" always strikes me as smartarse, "it" as offensive. But not my God- I'll use whatever language you prefer.

And of course proof is not required so long as faith remains a private matter. Once it steps into the public sphere- and that includes in the mind of a scientist doing research which I am either paying for or which migh affect me- then there is a different conversation to be had.

I agree with the OP. I'd wonder how she handled the "critical thinking" dichotomy between her faith and her research.

I assumed it was a private matter for OP's scientist - OP just didn't think she was entitled to private beliefs that she didn't approve of because OP is 'right' for everyone!

But why are you still surprised that scientists can believe in a deity and still be brilliant scientists Bert?

I have seen you on many threads where this is discussed. Evidence for theist scientists is easily found on the Internet and other posters have kindly produced this evidence on this and previous threads.

So why your continued surprise? Do you not read those posts or do you instantly "forget" them as they do not tally with a belief that you have?

I suspect that there won't be a list of things God said 'he' would do.

Yes of course people produce examples of theist scientists. Of course I know they exist. .

When I say there is no evidence for God's existence. I mean exactly that. There is anecdote and personal testimony. But no actual evidence that can be verified.

You can't actually prove that God doesn't exist

I don't know how this has come to be an accepted trope.

Think of the ramifications...

Bertrand I'm betting someone trots out 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' within 10 posts....

Once it steps into the public sphere- and that includes in the mind of a scientist doing research which I am either paying for or which might affect me- then there is a different conversation to be had.

Curiously, there is nothing in grant application forms or report forms asking about personal religious beliefs. If your science is good and the results are solid, personal faith is nobody's business.

And I'd like you to explain how personal faith can affect research.
Other than, say, a scientist refusing to work on human embryos - there are many other areas of research -, a scientist ignoring geological strata and dating methods - but then it won't be recognised by the scientific community working in the field.

Should biology/natural science teachers also be banned from teaching if they are religious?

You also can't prove that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, that if I let go of my mug it will deposit hot coffee in my lap or that corks float in water. Technically all you can say is that they did last time . But I know which side my bet's on!