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?

Thanks Lweji I've just looked at articles but too big for me to read now! I will though.

I don't think that other apes have religious thoughts, but have also seen recent arguments (sorry, cardinal sin, can't remember where) that the difference between the ape theory of mind and the human one is so huge as to be essentially qualitative. I understand it's still hotly debated.

So when you stated that religious thought is the only quali difference it seemed as though you accepted that possibly because it fits in with your own view of the world. Because my understanding is that it's not that clear cut. Theory of mind was just an example.

Apols if I misunderstood you though!

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

So no-one whose ever fallen in love then? Because that's hardly the most rational thing we do. And no woman who has had a baby in the middle of her PhD because she was so much in love with her dp that she couldn't wait.

No-one should be working in science who doesn't live their entire lives according to your idea of rational then? What a limited view of how to live a human life. Most of the other scientists I work with, fortunately, live much richer lives than that. Lives enriched by experiences that they would not want to subject to the scientific method because it would not be appropriate to do so. Lives enriched by music, art, love and yes, for some of them a religious faith.

But Ice, all these things are by definition the things that we are able to put into words, and our minds can stretch to accommodate. I think it highly, highly likely that there are a lot of things which are simply beyond us. Why would there not be?

I think it highly, highly likely that there are a lot of things which are simply beyond us.

then why make concrete claims about them?

Yep red am with you there. See previous posts

Music, art and love differ from religious faith because as far as I am aware, nobody attributes them to the agency of an external supernatural being, or requires belief in such a being.

Why do believers often trot out the line about a supernatural entity controlling the universe being "outside of science". Surely it would be clearly evident? Especially if this supernatural entity loves us and is omnipotent. We'd see it in action all the time surely?

Disappointed (but not surprised) to get home and not find a list of things that God said 'he' was going to do.

For sake of argument, my belief that a higher power exists doesn't impact any of my opinions about science or how I do science, nor does it really affect how I choose to live my life.

I can't see why it should, duality - perhaps people are confusing it with organised religion.

redstrawberry10: "then why make concrete claims about them?"

That's exactly my objection too. (Well, one of my objections.) Religious people like to attack atheists for being definite about God's non-existence, saying, "How can you possibly know?" And yet, they are not only definite about the fact that God exists, but about a whole load of preposterous other stuff relating, variously, to the existence of original sin, God being born in human form to a virgin, God telling people they can't eat pork, God sending a message down to humans on invisible gold tablets (that's the Mormons, by the way).

And then they get really angry when you laugh at them.

Another confusion with organised religion.

Maybe I missed it but we were not told that it was anything to do with organised religion.

Why do believers often trot out the line about a supernatural entity controlling the universe being "outside of science". Surely it would be clearly evident? Especially if this supernatural entity loves us and is omnipotent. We'd see it in action all the time surely?

True, when and for the believers that it controls the universe.

Some people do claim that it is in action, perhaps not all the time, but in the form of miracles or visions. Personally, I'm not convinced by miracles, as I suspect there are often physical causes in action or just a random effect, but to be officially considered a miracle it is investigated if there are other physical explanations. I suppose it depends on whether people are convinced by those so called miracles or not. By that reasoning, the evidence is there. I don't personally know of anything I'd call a miracle and remain sceptical in that respect.

If she's so intelligent, I'd question why you're willing to dismiss her thoughts so quickly.

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

And yet, I have not seen it questioned by anyone actually doing science... We only scrutinise each other's science on its merits, not on the person's belief system.
Possibly also because most scientists consider the possibility of something that hasn't yet been demonstrated as worthy of investigation.
We start by theorising that something is true and then try to find evidence to the contrary. So, a scientist shouldn't discount the idea of a god unless there was clear evidence to the contrary.

BTW, the same for unicorns, even if that sounds fanciful to you. :)

And as much as I was amused by the idea that this reasoning is playground worthy, I'm afraid that's how science works.

"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.

Are you sure "they" are not open? I'm sure some people aren't, as some other people aren't open to the the idea that god exists. Again, both ways, with lots of people along the middle.
And not sure what you mean by the last sentence. "They" are not open to evidence that god doesn't exist and the same people should articulate what is the evidence for the non existence of god? Surely, it's those who don't believe that should articulate such evidence, or rather the predictions that could be tested?

For the sake of argument, as I see god as something that includes and is beyond our universe, I'd probably need to observe the universe from the outside. Possibly impossible. If I was going to test the idea of "salvation", I'd need to die to see what happens after it happens. Not easy.

On the other hand, if I believed that the amount of prayer mattered for a miracle to occur, then I could test it by praying and observing the result.
But again, this is a test on what god may be like, or how it may act, but not on its existence necessarily.

"They" are not open to evidence that god doesn't exist and the same people should articulate what is the evidence for the non existence of god?

the point about scientific statements is that they are falsifiable (this idea has some critics, but hey). the idea is that what distinguishes scientific hypotheses from unscientific ones is that scientific statements are falsifiable. that doesn't mean that they are false; it means that one can articulate the observations or ideas that would be evidence for the statement to be false. For example, the statement "all children like chocolate" is falsifiable (forget whether or not the statement is true) because the conditions under which the statement is false is clear (i.e. you need to find a child who doesn't like chocolate).

We are stuck by not being able to think outside our human experience.
Although we know that 'he' is just the traditional way some people seem stuck in seeing God as a being and one who should have the same aims as the person talking and one who should listen to a prayer and grant it, if it seems wholly reasonable to the person giving the prayer- hence always describing God as 'imaginary friend'.
Earlier in this thread 'he' is accused of not doing what he said he would do. I wasn't aware that he ever said he was going to do anything and no one has told me anything to the contrary as yet.
People also get onto original sin, not eating pork, virgin births etc etc which is all organised religion - as if you can't have religious belief without belonging to an organised religion.
You can have a belief in God without ever setting foot in a religious building or taking part in any sort of service.
Humans think they are so clever but really know very little. Studying science makes me aware of how little anyone really knows- certainly it is very difficult beyond human experience. We are gaining knowledge all the time, but if there are still humans alive in 500 years time no doubt they will laugh at our ignorance in early 21st century.

Humans think they are so clever but really know very little.

do we need to make stuff up though? No one is saying we shouldn't think outside the box. it's making stuff up that can be verified that's being rebelled against.

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"

the conflict is right in your words. "faith" is the opposite of reason or evidence.

mehit, if you strip away all of the "organised" elements of religion, what is left? Really interested to hear what that looks like. Do you think of God as a being who you can know literally nothing about? No guidance on what it can and can't do, what it likes and dislikes, how if at all it might communicate, whether it involves itself in human affairs? Whether it wants you to worship it? If all these things (and more) are unknown, how does belief in a god guide you in life?

Are you saying that you have to have human intervention to interpret? Why?
I think that many people have a belief in God without feeling a need to be organised.
I still think that all these things are unknown. I think it was BertrandRussell who stated that God had not done the list of things he said that he was going to do. I was not aware that he ever gave a list and have repeatedly asked for it- to no avail as yet. We do know literally nothing about God. Anything known comes from human interpretation.
I am beginning to have more respect and sympathy with the Quakers and they don't have anyone making all these 'rules'.
I am sure that if there is a God 'he' (for want of a better word) isn't confined by human interests, interpretations, rules, imagination etc.

I am sure that if there is a God 'he' (for want of a better word) isn't confined by human interests, interpretations, rules, imagination etc.

Absolutely agree. But then how does belief in such a good help/guide us?

God