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?

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

You might want to read back, as it was actually said in other words. And true.
We keep finding things (say, animals) that we didn't know existed, and thought were extinct. Not finding them is no evidence that they didn't exist. But finding them is evidence that 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.
And, as said, neither the reverse.

But, you actually said There is significant evidence that he does not.
You haven't put any forward, certainly not significant.

You also can't prove that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow

Because you can't prove that things will happen tomorrow.

But you you can prove that the sun did rise in the East today.

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

Nope. and nothing I have said suggests that I think they should.

And I thought I had said why I would be wary of someone with a faith in God being a research scientist. If they are capable of ignoring the scientific method and critical thinking in one area, how do we know that they will not do the same in others?

If they are capable of ignoring the scientific method and critical thinking in one area

They are not ignoring the scientific method in that area, because it's not something testable using the scientific method.
And you don't know their minds, so you don't know how critical they are of their own faith.
There are atheist scientists that are very dogmatic about their own ideas and tend to refuse to budge even with evidence to the contrary and keep pursuing work to prove their own ideas (or rather, disprove the others). As is often said, scientific revolutions happen as the scientists who supported the opposite views die (or retire). :)

I took the OP's question to be along the lines of 'would you be surprised to find out that a scientist with a doctorate believed in astrology / past lives / white witchcraft'.

Surely religion is part of that same category - whereby something intangible (for want of a better word) which deeply influences a person's view of life has no basis in fact. I don't see the question as coming from a place of bigotry.

"There are atheist scientists that are very dogmatic about their own ideas and tend to refuse to budge even with evidence to the contrary and keep pursuing work to prove their own ideas (or rather, disprove the others)."

Don't understand. Keeping perusing work to prove their own ideas is. Good thing, surely?

"They are not ignoring the scientific method in that area, because it's not something testable using the scientific method. "

Why not?

It's like people who say "oh, we don't use double blind trials, they don't work for [insert pseudoscience of choice]"

Bertrand, I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but there are outcomes in health and well-being which are hard to measure, or where the measurements can be criticised for being very subjective. So, for instance, sometimes the best you can do when evaluating the outcome of a psychological (or other) intervention is essentially to say "do you feel a bit better now? Rate this on a scale of 1-10". Can't really do double-blind with psychological therapies. And studies evaluating, say, which aspect of a particular therapy is the crucial aspect, can be extremely complex and open to criticisms of "pseudoscience".

I understand that there are also areas of quantum physics in which the observer is so much a part of the outcome that standard ideas of objectivity just don't hold up.

The human mind is very limited.

This is exactly why, in my opinion, when we encounter things we don't understand (and perhaps are constitutionally incapable of understanding) we invent humanoid "gods", and convince ourselves that the rich men in the funny hats in the smart buildings can tell us all about their laws, likes and dislikes.

It's like people who say "oh, we don't use double blind trials, they don't work for [insert pseudoscience of choice]"

It depends if you expect results.

If you expect god to perform miracles depending on how much you pray, then you can test it. If in your view of god you don't expect him to perform miracles according to the amount of prayer, then you can't test it.
Essentially, you can test your expectations of god, but not whether god exists.

Anyway, as I said before, if someone's faith is kept to the private sphere then obviously it's none of my business. The minute it ventures into public life it becomes my business.

Bertrand, how can faith not venture into public life? It organises people into coherent, obedient groups in which certain types of critical thinking are discouraged. It'll affect you, and everyone, whether or not someone knocks on your door and tries to recruit you.

How do you define entering public life?

A scientist saying publicly that they believe in god, or follow a certain religion?

And how is that your business?
Are you going to scrutinise their papers?
Should they not be able to receive public funding?

No scientist is going to explain their results by saying that god caused them. Conversely, virtually all scientists can be a little biased by their own pre-conceived ideas, and their own experiences, religious or not.

Lweji- could you have a look at my post of 10.51.36 and respond,please?

Sure:
"There are atheist scientists that are very dogmatic about their own ideas and tend to refuse to budge even with evidence to the contrary and keep pursuing work to prove their own ideas (or rather, disprove the others)."

Don't understand. Keeping perusing work to prove their own ideas is. Good thing, surely?
It's different from testing their own or other's ideas. Pursuing work to prove what they think is right from the start leads to bias. Scientific work is based on trying to disprove theories.

Are you going to respond to my questions?

Ah. I was hoping for an example of these "atheist scientists".

I would most certainly expect a scientist who had publicly declared a belief in a particular faith to have that questioned by grant awarding bodies. I repeat, if someone is prepared to skip proof one area of their lives, there is a chance they will skip it in others.

Hmm, speaking as an athiest scientist with highly sceptical views on organised religion, I think you set far too much store by a cut-and-dried idea of "proof", Bertrand.

Of course the Atheist cannot prove a negative, viz., that god does not exist (and it is doubtful that it is her job to do so, given that she is not the one making a positive claim).

But that is for exactly the same reason she cannot prove that leprechauns, unicorns, minotaurs, mermaids, and fire-breathing dragons do not exist. And if we accept that the lack of evidence for these entities rationally warrants withholding belief, then there should be no special puzzle when applied to god. Of course, this is where 'faith' enters the picture, but again, it is unclear why we should have any more faith in god than we should a fire-breathing dragon (no evidence you say? O.K, let's make it an invisible fire-breathing dragon that is undetectable by present scientific instruments, and on it goes).

You just cannot reason logically with fervent believers: it's as if they are enclosed in some sort of faith forcefield which logic cannot penetrate. That's perfectly fine: just don't pretend such views are rationally warranted. You can't have it all ways.

I would most certainly expect a scientist who had publicly declared a belief in a particular faith to have that questioned by grant awarding bodies. I repeat, if someone is prepared to skip proof one area of their lives, there is a chance they will skip it in others.

here we disagree.

For one thing, we couldn't deal with the ramifications of such a policy. Second, as all atheists have acknowledged, there are brilliant religious scientists.

The big question, to me at least, is how a religious scientist reconciles these two parts of her life. They clearly keep them separate.

rebel "I understand that there are also areas of quantum physics in which the observer is so much a part of the outcome that standard ideas of objectivity just don't hold up."

I am afraid that you understand wrongly on this point. I totally get why the translation of quantum in pop science can leave people with this impression but honestly it isn't true.

You also have not yet explained what phenomena you believe the human mind will never be able to understand (from earlier in the thread) and I would genuinely like to know what kind of thing you mean by that.

I am a scientist and I fell in love. I did not in any sense apply the scientific method to my feeling of love. Not double blind trials, no analysis of any kind really. I just got on an accept my feelings as what they are. Feelings.

I don't see accepting the belief in God one (thought not me) my have as anything different really.

I didn't stop being a scientist just because I didn't look for independent proof of my feelings of love...and I don't think believers in God stop being scientists if they don't subject that feeling to the scientific method either.

IceBeing, I think it depends what level of explanation you want. What constitutes a complete scientific explanation of consciousness? I am not convinced this will be amenable to scientific explanation as we know it.

Please explain how I have misunderstood that the role of the observer is key in quantum physics.

As a religious scientist I keep telling you there is no conflict red, having heard the astrophysicists (and past president of the IOP) Jocelyn Bell Burnell talk about both astrophysics and faith, I can assure you there is no conflict there either. But you keep telling me there is. You seem to be claiming to understand the beliefs of people of faith better than they do themselves.

You don't understand why there is no conflict because you do not appear to have much actual knowledge about be wide variety of beliefs that go under the broad label of "religious"

Back to my earlier question

Does love exist?

If your answer is yes then what evidence do you have ?

Catsrus- you do know that just because you say something not everyone has to agree with you, don't you?

Also, our mind-brains have evolved for specific things, none of which involves understanding the nature of the universe, beyond our extremely restricted part of it. Why would we expect them to understand, for example, possible extra dimensions, when we can't even perceive them?