Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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 · 27/09/2015 13:46

And yet he tells them different things.

Or people hear different things. As demonstrated in this thread, most MN threads and quite a lot of real life where people interpret events differently and have different opinions.
Even if God came now and spoke to us directly, giving whatever evidence, there wouldn't be two people with the exact same opinion or the same exact interpretation.

BertrandRussell · 27/09/2015 13:48

"On this thread it was suggested that scientists should be scrutinised on their beliefs to be funded. This certainly suggests at least someone is scared of scientists with religious beliefs. "

That was me. I'm not scared. I just don't want people who are prepared to believe things to be true without any supporting evidence to be doing science. Because I think there is a risk they will do bad science.

Lweji · 27/09/2015 13:49

If you want to think there's a supernatural being who created the universe, then why not? Or indeed if you want to believe there a bunch of gods who live on Mount Olympus, also fine. Or if you think that praying to the rain god is going to make it rain or praying to Saint Anthony will help you find your keys, also fine.
Surely you can understand those are different things?

And if it's harmless why are some people questioning the ability of someone applying the scientific method in their work?
Just as long as they don't blame odd results on the will of a supernatural being. Grin

Lweji · 27/09/2015 13:50

How exactly do you think they will do bad science?

Particularly if their peers are not concerned.

BertrandRussell · 27/09/2015 14:04

I don't know. I just know that I am uneasy about science being done by someone who can be live things to be true without any supporting evidence. I don't think I can put it any more clearly than that.

Lweji · 27/09/2015 14:10

It depends on what the things are.

Is it OK if we look at all possible natural explanations and reserve the believing in a possibility for things that can't be explained through natural means?

People in science are trained to be very factual and through. Yes, we can be biased, but as mentioned bias can have many origins. And tbh the need to get grant money and publish results is probably worse than any religious bias. I worry more about that.

BertrandRussell · 27/09/2015 14:14

"Is it OK if we look at all possible natural explanations and reserve the believing in a possibility for things that can't be explained through natural means?"

Like what?

Micah · 27/09/2015 14:16

Bertrand are you a scientist?

It's a shit job and tbh if you made every scientist prove they were atheist you'd have no scientists to give those grants to.

Are you going to prevent anyone religious from studying science at uni? Or a level?

I'm a scientist and believe me, science and God are not mutually exclusive. Like Pp said unthread, science is not about proof, it's having an idea, then trying everything you can to disprove it. It you can't, the chances are your hypothesis it right. That is how science works.

I have a Muslim (albeit not strictly) who has developed key drugs in cancer research. I know, let's ban him because he believes in allah, and everyone who needs those cancer drugs can do without.

Disprove God, or any higher power, and I'll become atheist.

Lweji · 27/09/2015 14:23

Things like the ultimate origin of the universe.

I really have no other event in the realm of science that I think may never be explained through natural processes.
Although, god, if it exists, will be a natural process too. Just one we don't understand yet and that we call god.

BertrandRussell · 27/09/2015 14:50

"Things like the ultimate origin of the universe.

I really have no other event in the realm of science that I think may never be explained through natural processes."

So why do you think we will never discover the ultimate origin of the universe? And even if you do think that, why would it be all right to say "It must be God, then" rather than "Well. we might never know that- but let's file it under "unknown""

Micah · 27/09/2015 15:04

From a scientists pov...

We don't know the ultimate origin of the universe.

So. Form your hypothesis.

The universe could have been created by "God", or some higher power.

test your hypothesis.

There is nothing that proves this hypothesis is incorrect.

Conclusion. God, or some higher power, is as likely as any other explanation.

Until you can prove my hypothesis is incorrect, it is as valid as any other belief.

And that is how scientists can believe in God. Quite apart from the fact that the simple beauty of science is enough to give you faith.

A scientist would not "file something as unknown". The premise of being a scientist is you seek answers. If every scientist just thought something was unknown and didn't stretch their mind to an explanation, then nothing would be discovered.

We don't know if the earth is round or flat. Ok, let's file it under Unknown.

No, they proved the world wasn't flat.

BertrandRussell · 27/09/2015 15:16

"Conclusion. God, or some higher power, is as likely as any other explanation."

You missed out a vital step.

Any other evidence for said God or other higher power?

Answer- no.

Conclusion. More research needed. No conclusion possible at this stage.

BertrandRussell · 27/09/2015 15:18

And my previous post was incomplete- I meant to say "file it under unknown until more evidence emerges."

Micah, you train of thought beautifully outlines why I am wary of people of faith doing scientific research..........

Micah · 27/09/2015 15:20

I ask again Bertrand, are you a scientist?

Micah · 27/09/2015 15:26

And Bertrand, ftfo.

I have spent many years in cancer research, on long hours and low pay. My work has helped double the life expectancy of a certain cancer.

Any here you are, saying I can't be a good scientist, and produce good results, because I happen to have faith? You would actively prevent me from working, and are saying my train of thought is not that of a scientist.

Ftfo. Again.

I'm willing to bet you aren't a scientist, or your views would differ. Go get a PhD and get back to me in 8 years.

BertrandRussell · 27/09/2015 16:37

Sorry- I don't engage with people who swear at me.

Mehitabel6 · 27/09/2015 16:48

Why would you want scientists to believe something untrue without evidence?
I would prefer scientists to be open minded and their beliefs outside their job are nothing to do with anyone else. They are not mixing the two.

Mehitabel6 · 27/09/2015 16:54

They hackmum were the people who were querying the ability to be religious without being part of organised religion.
It was in reply to all those who like to assume things about religion specifically to then be able to say they are rubbish. One of those being that we should take OT as God speaking rather than a series of books by different people using the beliefs of the time.
I don't see how God can be a 'supernatural being' when he quite probably isn't a 'being' in the first place.

BertrandRussell · 27/09/2015 16:55

"Why would you want scientists to believe something untrue without evidence?
I would prefer scientists to be open minded and their beliefs outside their job are nothing to do with anyone else. They are not mixing the two."

I've explained my position clearly several times. Most recently at 13.48.13 and 14.04.22.

Mehitabel6 · 27/09/2015 16:56

It seems a bit of a witch hunt to say that scientists with a faith can't do the job and should be weeded out. We would be missing a lot of very good scientists.

Mehitabel6 · 27/09/2015 16:58

You said at the time that you couldn't put it more clearly, *BertrandRussell' - hopefully my position is just as clear!

AlanPacino · 27/09/2015 17:48

having scientists of faith could be beneficial to science, as they may check their own motivations more close

You think those without faith are less likely to be honest with themselves?

Lweji · 27/09/2015 18:18

Not necessarily.
Just replying to the accusation that those of faith are.
It's just as fair to suspect ones as the others. For lots of different reasons.

MaidOfStars · 27/09/2015 18:36

For reference, I am an academic scientist with a PhD.

From a scientists pov...We don't know the ultimate origin of the universe. So. Form your hypothesis. The universe could have been created by "God", or some higher power. test your hypothesis
With you so far....

There is nothing that proves this hypothesis is incorrect
OK, an observation, possibly the scraping the barrel chat you come out with in the pub after work...

Conclusion. God, or some higher power, is as likely as any other explanation
Say what now???

No. Conclusion: there is no evidence to support the hypothesis, therefore the hypothesis is rejected (for the time being).

MaidOfStars · 27/09/2015 18:38

X-post, Bertrand. You're completely correct.