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?

I did not in any sense apply the scientific method to my feeling of love.

I am not sure how god got confused with love.

The two statements "I feel love" and "I feel god exists" have very different content.

Excluding hooking wires up to me (which you in fact can do to try and detect love), I am the only real arbiter of that fact "I feel love". If I tell you "I feel love", you more or less have to accept that because I am the only person who can judge that. I am the only real witness to that fact, so you have to take my word for it.

If I say "I feel god exists", I am the only arbiter to that feeling, but not to what's being felt. I am not the only possible witness to that fact.

It's the difference between "I feel love" and "I feel cold". No one can dispute that I feel cold, but people can dispute whether or not it is actually cold (outside).

rebel the observer: So an observation can be the detection of an electron arriving on a screen as measured by a machine.

If the screen wasn't there than the observation is not made and the electron could be in a range of different locations. Once it is, the electron is 'observed' and is found to be in a specific location.

None of this leaves any doubt about the objectivity of the observation.

Schrodingers cat has a lot to answer for in terms of making it appear that somehow a conscious observer is important to any of this....

Presumably you didn't attribute love to an outside supernatural agency of unknown origin?

I was hoping for an example of these "atheist scientists".
Richard Dawkins comes to mind, but the ones I know in my field I wouldn't mention.

As for questioning faith in grants, we would also have to question the entire life history and belief system of said candidates. Were they trained within a certain school of thought, for example?

When people hold deep beliefs about something, very little will sway those beliefs. The belief in the existance of god is a deep belief, the assumption that there cannot possibly be a god is also a deep belief.

If we say that someone is a bad scientist because they accept religion and don't question it then we must also say they are a bad scientist because they reject religion and don't investigate it. By this I mean religion exists. It must exist for a reason. Most people will question it, research it and investigate it. At some point they will arrive at their own personal belief somewhere on the spectrum between fundamentalist and athiest. None of those beliefs are right or wrong because none of those beliefs can be proved. I reject many aspects of religion but I also reject many pseudoscience explanations of it's existence, especially those based on the brain. That's because I studied neuropsychology. As a scientist I can not accept those arguments.

Let's suppose that there is a god and lets assume that god decided to prove him/her/itself to them. How would that happen, what form would they take? Whatever happened there will always be some that will still say hoax, illusion, robot, computer generation....you name it, and it always could very well be one of those, it is very unlikely that anyone would ever be able to prove otherwise, because science does not hold the ability to do this. Even if enough people came up with strong arguments and so called proof there would always be enough doubt for it never to be definite proof. So what would be the actual point in that level of proof? The answer simply is that God cannot be proved or disproved with science.

Religion has nothing to do with science. To say that a research scientist can't be religious is the same as saying they cannot be a fantastic painter. Neither religion nor art falls into the realm of science, the natural world must be tested in controlled experiements, there are some areas of life that cannot be tested in controlled experiments and for those people can only assess the evidence they do have (historical, personal testimony, philisophical and opinions of others) and find their own slot on the belief spectrum. I would expect that every scientist has done this. I work with athiests and I work with religious scientists. None of them are good or bad scientists because they have accepted one view and not another. All of them are good scientists because they have researched belief enough to feel confident in their own resting point.

red I can say 'love exists' and people can measure that there is indeed a combination of electrical impulses and chemical responses that correpsond broadly to said feeling.

I can say 'belief in god exists' and this to can be proved via electrical signals etc. (and can even be induced in atheists if you artificially stimulate the response).

Do what I call 'love' and what I call 'god' actually exist outside of our feeling of them? Not sure there is a meaningful answer to either question.

you don't agree with me that I find no conflict between my faith and my science? Again, how odd that you are claiming to know me so well? Do you think I am lying or deluded?

Rebel We already have highly developed theories of both consciousness and of higher dimensions. Are there unanswered questions at the moment? of course! but given we already have a good start in provable testable outcomes of our models of both consciousness and higher dimensions what will stop us from refining those models until we consider them as complete as our current model of say classical thermodynamics?

Presumably you didn't attribute love to an outside supernatural agency of unknown origin?

This, to me, is the key point here.

Sure, acknowledge the incomprehensibility and wonder of the world. Marvel at the apparent capabilities and limits of the human mind.

Just don't then invent some bloke in the sky with dubious (and oh-so-convenient) views on race and sexuality to fill in the gaps.

You might not see a confllict- or feel you resolved it to your satisfaction- but a conflict exists. By definition.

bert I do not attribute the sensation of love to an outside entity...although I actually wonder if that is the whole God thing in a nutshell.

I look at the world and feel a burst of love and belonging....and attribute that to electricity and chemistry ..... not God. I wake up some days feeling completely loved. Again I attribute it to E and C not G.

I also wake up often knowing the whole universe hates me and would kill me as soon as look at me (I have depression) and I equally attribute the sensation to E and C and not for instance the devil.

But I can't take credit or fault for these determinations...they seem to be inbuilt from before a time I had any idea what a human brain was or the roles of either E or C....so it isn't anything to do with rationality.

Ice, I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I certainly disagree strongly about how good current theories of consciousness are. In my opinion, we're nowhere close to understanding it. And I'm not convinced that scientific methodology (as we know it, at least) can ever provide the answers. But I know there are many different and interesting opinion on this, and won't try to argue you out of yours.

And I'd like you to explain how personal faith can affect research

I know this is going back a bit, but I think you're (*Lweji's) assertion that the only qualatative difference between humans and apes is ability to have religion is a good example of how faith could (note could) influence outlook. You stated it as fact, but it's not and seems to be based on outdated reading. This could be because your faith meant you saw it a certain way.

Ok it's not research but it is a possible example of bias creeping in I think.

rebel fair enough...I think there is a huge way to go on consciousness but the fact you have taken the first steps implies it is a journey that can be taken...

Did my quantum bit clarify things any?

In my view, Ice, we know a few correlates of mental phenomena (e.g., a bit of extra neural activity in certain regions, corresponding to certain tasks/states), and a few possibly neccessary (but not sufficient) conditions for consiousness, but they don't actually get us any closer to what I would consider an explanation. So in that sense, we may be no closer than we have ever been to explaining it.

Thank you for the quantum stuff. I think I probably need to read more about it. In my understanding (from popular science book, admittedly), there are some pretty weird things which our minds are not well suited to grasp. Including the idea that the act of measuring or observing a thing changes it. But I'm not a physicist and will continue to read!

Binkybix

Not sure how that statement implies a bias caused by religion. It's not even my field of research although it's something I have an interest in, as I do in astronomy, for example.
Do you have evidence for religious thought in other animals, as my reading is "outdated"?
Perhaps you could explain better what your problem is.

Personally, it wouldn't surprise me if other animals had the beginning of some religious thought. It is something that has clearly evolved in humans. But, and AFAIK, it's not present.

No time to dig deeper now, but for some reading that summarises findings: earthfriendarts.tripod.com/evolve/religion.pdf
And discussing the theory of mind: www.rug.nl/research/behavioural-ecology-and-self-organization/publications/_pdf/vahesynthese12.pdf

rebel there are many things our minds are unsuited to grasping about physics...like the idea that in a collision between a mini and an articulated lorry the force on impact is same on both....

But that isn't to say you cannot develop your understanding to the point that these things no longer feel counter intuitive.

I find that disconnect when I read your comments...I on longer find it at all odd whatsoever that there are things (photons, electrons etc.) that don't behave like tennis balls or water waves....I don't find it odd that a measurement perturbs a system...in fact quite the opposite...the FIRST question I tend to ask myself when measuring something is how did I perturb the system when I did that.

But I remember very clearly a time when both of these things contradicted my world view in a way that was almost painful to experience.

The human brain is above all else flexible....

Do what I call 'love' and what I call 'god' actually exist outside of our feeling of them? Not sure there is a meaningful answer to either question.

well, we can discuss what we mean by "love" and "god". We can then discuss are these things detectable? can we measure them or anything about them? Once we agree on those things we can talk about whether exist.

there are many things our minds are unsuited to grasping about physics...like the idea that in a collision between a mini and an articulated lorry the force on impact is same on both....

That's newton's third law (of course naming it doesn't guarantee we understand it, but I think we do). sounds well within our grasp.

you don't agree with me that I find no conflict between my faith and my science?

surely you agree that you may not find a conflict, but there in fact is. All sorts of people hold contradictory views (I am sure including me).

the assumption that there cannot possibly be a god is also a deep belief.

no, it's not. As discussed, very few atheists hold this belief. Most atheists hold that belief that there is insufficient (I would say zero) evidence that god (as described by the major religions) exists.

Meaningful statements about the world are falsifiable. That means that the criteria under which the statement is false can be articulated. I don't think a theist can supply this criteria. That is, what observation would convince a theist that god does not exist?

I, on the other hand, can supply the criteria for my beliefs. The statement that I believe (above) is easily falsifiable. Some clear evidence of god will do it. Given that god is an elephant in the room ("he permeates EVERYTHING!") that evidence should be available in abundance. I am very open to god's existence. I just want some evidence.

And until I get it, I will live as if he doesn't exist. like leprachauns. I won't search for the ends of rainbows (is that how the leprachaun myth goes?) until I am convinced that leprachauns exist.

As I said, your said that the only qualatative difference between apes and humans was human's ability to have religion, which I don't think is right. It's feasible you have that outlook because of what you believe. (That's why I qualified the 'could'). I conceded that it wasn't research, but more how an outlook more broadly could be influenced.

Agree they might have the pre-cursor to it, which goes back to the argument as to whether it's qualatative or quantitative.

I said 'outdated' about your reading because that's what you had said yourself!

I don't know if the 'I don't know what your problem is' was meant to be quite as aggressive as it came across to me. If not then apologies for my misinterpretation. I don't have 'a problem' in that sense. It's just part of the discussion.

Ah! Qualitative!! Thanks for the links.

It's something that I used to be vaguely involved with and still do some reading on, but like you only because I find it interesting.

I am very open to god's existence. I just want some evidence. And until I get it, I will live as if he doesn't exist.

Fine. Other people choose to do the opposite and act as if it does exist.

Binkybix
It wasn't meant aggressively. Just trying to get some clarification.
The statement about apes followed a question about free will, and it was meant as there is very little that separates us from other apes, and the distinction is mostly quantitative. What I meant was that afaik there wasn't religious thought in other apes, unlike language/complex communication or theory of mind of some sort. It's not clear for me if you think that they have some form of religious thought, or if they don't have some form of free will or whatever.
And it's not clear to me how you think my faith, or lack of, influenced my understanding of the current (or less current) evidence in relation to what apes are capable of. Do you think because I have faith in god in some form, it led me to think that other apes are closer to us, or, on the contrary, that I mentioned religious thought because I have faith? Do you mean that I have ignored evidence, even though I have seen it?

If anything, I tend to adapt my religious beliefs to the available physical evidence, not the contrary, and, if anything, god has been pushed back to a more and more limited role, but not enough to completely dismiss it or conclude on its non-existence.
Not knowing how other scientists think deep down, I'd imagine that's more the case for the majority than the opposite, and it seems to be the case on those that have posted here.

Fine. Other people choose to do the opposite and act as if it does exist.

the difference, as I pointed out, is that they are not open to evidence that god does not exist. In fact, I claim, they can't even articulate what such evidence would look like.

Other people choose to do the opposite and act as if it does exist

But in the absence of evidence, this is not rational.

As a PP said, all the imaginings of the human mind, dragons and fairies, orbiting teapots and three-headed dogs. We don't believe they exist, despite there being no evidence to disprove their existence.

We don't believe a person is a criminal in the absence of evidence. Calling someone a nasty name in the absence of evidence is a crime.

The very retort "Well, you can't prove he doesn't [exist]" reeks of playground ya boo sucks. It's not a serious proposition in any other aspect of our lives.

"Fine. Other people choose to do the opposite and act as if it does exist."

And those are the sort of people I question whether should be working in science......