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?

Araiba you've just proved yourself to be stupid you don't understand sarcasm!

She's clearly not stupid! Who are you to dictate what some one believes! Did you believe in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy?!

Was Shakespeare stupid for believing in witches and various other mystical creatures?

One of the greatest sciencest ever in di Vinci was a catholic was he studid?!

You are surprised a woman can be intelligent and religious?
No wonder she is the clever one!

"the more you learn as a scientist, the more you realise just how incredibly clever everything is and the harder it can be to believe that this all just sprung up out of cold rock."

I don't agree at all. The more I learn about evolution, for example, the more I understand about how complex and beautiful things can arise out of maths, DNA mutations and chance.

I agree there's a big vacuum at the heart of science – the things that are unknown or impossible to know –and so I can see how a scientist may turn to religion for those answers instead – but to me the more fitting "sciency" response is to say "I don't know, and I'm prepared not to know". To be religious you have to make a leap from "I don't know because the evidence isn't there" to "I'll just believe what this book says because lots of other people do / it's the tradition I was raised in" and I can't get my head round that.

Wow BoskyCat, I think you need to be a bit more open to other people if you judge them so easily.

Really?

**

But fair to say that I am baffled at how any aspect of Dev Bio can reinforce religious faith.

Some of this conversation is becoming a bit disingenuous. I don't feel it's impossible to have a religious faith and be a scientist, but the undeniable fact is that the level of religiosity is low amongst scientists, especially biologists (physicists/mathematicians are the more religious scientists, where belief exists).

And furthermore, while the OP might be a bit off to suggest that the two are always incompatible, I actually have sympathy when statements like this crop up:

The richness and complexity of the natural world driven by only by the simple rules of evolution is mind blowing. Look down a microscope and you are looking at the work of God. It is literally awe inspiring

the more you learn as a scientist, the more you realise just how incredibly clever everything is and the harder it can be to believe that this all just sprung up out of cold rock

These are not scientific statements (and I'm not attacking the specific posters, just using them as examples), and for scientists to make them in the context of their work makes me less inclined to be all-inclusive when it comes to science and religion...

You can believe in god and norovirus (assuming you accept some of the more ancient texts re: The Fall etc?) but you can't interpret your knowledge of norovirus in the context of god if you want to be taken seriously. Now, I am aware that this thread is more oub debate than scientific conference, but that scientists even have such thoughts is part of what I believe the OP is addressing.

YABU

Yes, you're being unreasonable but I can see where you're coming from. I do think we can over-estimate the importance of the kind of truth that science provides, a bit like assuming that modern medicine will cure you when there are many things about the body that it still doesn't know. Many brilliant scientists seem to believe that as an explanatory theory for existence, science is not comprehensive. Not incomplete exactly, just not the whole story.

I do think that people with an interest in contemporary Christian theology are better placed to see how science and modern Christianity are not actually at loggerheads.

Hackman Unfortunately there is nothing i have to say that hasn't been said before on threads about Christianity in general, and none that would change anyones opinion. A debate is pointless. I respect other peoples beliefs whilst i stick by my own.

Wow BoskyCat, I think you need to be a bit more open to other people if you judge them so easily.

The entirety of Christianity is based on the concept of judgement.

I find it difficult to reconcile having an open mind and seeking verifiable truth (the job of a scientist) with accepting religious doctrine which is the opposite of that.

That's not judgemental, it's describing my logical problem with it.

"Did you believe in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy?! "

yes, then I grew up

I would call someone who is an adult and believed in the tooth fairy and santa claus stupid too

You can believe what you like but if you believe in something that has been proven wrong, your thought process must be questioned

i'm a creationist Christian, I must be stupid
Well, your belief is utterly incompatible with pretty much every branch of natural science. Does that make the belief stupid? I think so. I don't know whether you are stupid or not.

YADBU. Many brilliant scientific brains have religious faith, be they jewish, muslim or Christian. My father was an extremely clever man, chess friend, spoke several languages, scientifically trained, and a devout Christian.

"find it difficult to reconcile having an open mind and seeking verifiable truth (the job of a scientist) with accepting religious doctrine which is the opposite of that."

That's a very limited view of theology, and not one espoused by the mainstream religions.

But if you aren't familiar with the actual teachings, I can see why it would be problematic.

I know someone with a PhD in psychology who uses crystals for energy. She is a very nice and very intelligent person. I do not respect her beliefs at all as they make no sense. She is still a good friend though and her work is excellent.

I do think people who have beliefs that I don't share are wrong. How could anyone not?

araiba you are wrong I'm afraid, this is a major debate among sociologists, scientists and philosophers! (and it's even covered at AS Sociology textbooks...or was when I taught it)

Basically, all forms of knowledge, including scientific knowledge, are ‘ideological’ in the sense that there is no neutral, objective body of knowledge that is not infected by the purpose-relative concepts of a group of inquirers (so scientists might ignore some anomalous results because they don't fit with their theory or explain them away by inventing auxiliary theories). Fits in with the original Marxist meaning of ideology as a 'mask and cover for vested interests'.

I think it's fascinating

BoskyCat, that's describing your problem with religion. But to go on from that to say that anyone religious is 'not your type of person' is rather arrogant.

Hackman that's exactly my point, it's a story,it's not to be taken literally! So days aren't literally days, it was written many many years after the events happened, all it is us a set of morel guide lines that can be intuited in many ways! It's not even history it can't be its a bunch of stories handed down mostly verbally, and doesn't chinise whispers prove that anything verbally is very very vulnerable to change and people's agendas!

I am a Christian, in the sense I belive in an creator God and I believe that some one possibly or possibly not called Jesus challenged the Roman and Jewish philosophy sometime in the past. I believe humans are here for a reason essentially to do good. Is the bible true or reliable.probably no more than the just so stories or aesops fables!

Take the thou shall not lie with another man commandment, the Romans did, it was the author who decided it was going on too much, and "God didn't want it" as human purpose was to recreate and you can't, the fact that homosexuality has now been demonstrated in many many animal species, shows it was just human intupetation!

Overthemill Very well said. I agree it all very fascinating.

The scientist in question is Catholic. Catholicism doesn't do Biblical literalism (in fact, compared to other varieties of Christianity, especially evangelicalism, it's not particularly interested in the Bible at all, and there's very little emphasis on 'Bible study' and the like) so this woman is highly unlikely to have ever been asked to believe in Genesis as literally true, or anything other than a poetic creation myth. I grew up Catholic in the 70s, devout family, taught by nuns etc, and even then was never expected to believe Genesis was literally true.

I'm no longer a believer, but I do think that the version of 'religion' that gets attacked on threads like this is a much less complex, nuanced and personal than it is for intelligent believers (by which I mean people who are not creationist nut jobs). During the recent gay marriage referendum in Ireland, significant numbers of priests and nuns came out publicly to support a 'yes' vote. I used to know an admirable London-based nun who worked with prostitutes and trafficked women, a hugely devout woman whose work directly contravened the Church's position on contraception.

Science isn't exclusively about what is proven. A lot of it is conjecture and best guess. For example Einstein's theory of relativity hasn't been proven (hence theory) because it's impossible to test. But the experiments happening at CERN have threatened to debunk it and may well do so.

To say Science is merely about the provable is very simplistic.

Stephen Hawking has even said that it's possible there is a God but on balance he thinks there probably isn't.

And I think any scientist worth their salt would realise that something not being provable doesn't me it's disproved either. It's not black and white.

I actually said I know they're not my type of person (at least on that one rather major issue)

I may get on with them but on a very fundamental level I can't respect their beliefs. Surely that make them less my type (and me theirs) than if we could bon over our atheism, or conversely our religion?

Totally booyaka, a good scientist is open-minded. I'm not sure that God doesn't exist and I'm quite prepared to change my beliefs when I see the evidence.

I don't expect people to respect my beliefs, but it would be nice if they respected me. They are only less your type (and vice versa) if you are only interested in people like yourself. I'd find it boring to only have friends who think the same way as I do.

But to go on from that to say that anyone religious is 'not your type of person' is rather arrogant

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I couldn't be friends with a religious person - that's evidently untrue, given that I have religious friends (3/5 of my closest group)!

It's a dealbreaker in a relationship, though.