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?

Yes, you are being unreasonable. Religious belief if not about scientific fact it is about faith. Lots of religious beliefs and lots of scientific beliefs may appear ridiculous and may turn out to be so! And lots may be and may turn out to be completely true. The difficulty with religion is it is not really test-able! Sometimes what was once thought to be scientific fact has been disproved. I would rather focus on the person, is she trustworthy, is she contentious, etc etc, are her professional actions appropriate, etc.

I think your thoughts on this say more about what you believe than what she does. But having said that I do understand where you are coming from and I am a Christian! I would rather say of faith, what is the fruit of faith, what does it produce, where it produces good things, I feel positive about it and vice versa. If it were to cause someone to act unprofessionally then it is either bad or they are in the wrong profession.

"It's a dealbreaker in a relationship, though."

Yup, can see that. (Not that it can't be done but it is difficult).

Days" in the bible does not neccessarly mean days, as in 24 hours. We are in the last days waiting for the second coming, we have been for the last thousands of years

Or the Bible did mean 'days' and the second coming isn't actually coming.

I can see that some very intelligent people are religious, so you obviously it happens. But I think this statement shows a temptation to show a bias in interpreting things in a way that's led by belief rather than analysis. The assumption is made that the end of days is coming (a belief) and that influences the assumptions made around the interpretation of 'days'.

However, not saying that's always the case and I can see that you could hold both in your head at once - humans are good at that.

I've already said I have a religious friend, I can see that things aren't black and white and my feelings about this are a struggle.

I may be arrogant to have a problem with it, but I can't see how it's as arrogant as being sure you're right about a load of beliefs there's no evidence for.

I think there's a distinction – I can respect religious feelings and respect people as individuals – I can't respect unverifiable beliefs, especially those that are prescribed by an old book and traditions.

It's no different to astrology or homeopathy. If someone believed in those, they might be a lovely person and we might be friends, but that belief would be a stumbling block for me.

booyaka i was simplifying for the thread really but i agree that there's a lot of science that isn't provable but Scientists believe that ultimately all science is provable and until then its working stuff out, and conjecture and best guess as you say. But people who argue like the OP (I believe) that she can't understand how scientists can believe in God because unlike Science it's not provable - they are wrong - science is not an objective and neutral body of knowledge.

But I think I agree with Popper that 'if a theory is in principle open to being disproved or ‘falsified’ by the facts of the world, then it is scientific' which covers what you are saying, I think.

and i irritate the hell out of my MIL by telling her I believe in God but not the Theory of Relativity and she can't prove/disprove me wrong either way. Livens up family lunches with her!!

Of course not all science is provable, it's best guess and theory and conjecture – but the point is it moves on as the evidence moves on. If Einstein theory is disproved, we'll move on and replace it with a better fit. It's about open-mindedness. Religion generally isn't – it's about a set of rules and beliefs that don't even need to keep up with the facts as they aren't based on them to begin with.

With a few exceptions – the Catholic church had to concede the Earth does move, for example.

OP, you sound like a hardcore communist

You know what... A religious person believes in God, an atheist believes there is no God. They have one thing in common -- they believe.

And for science... Here we go!

Well I'm not that sure...doubts are part and parcel of my belief.

My Mum is into homeopathy. I debate with her, try to change her mind etc, but it doesn't mean I think less of her.

O/p are you a scientist?

The general reconciliation between creationism and evolution is one of timescale. What the bible says happened in 7 days happened over several billion millennia.

I'm catholic, and generally think the bible is a collection of stories and parables. Possibly based in truth, but changed over years of passing down.

Science is about faith in many ways. The more I learn about science (anyone done embryology? That is mind blowing. How all these perfect little babies appear when one tiny little thing wrong can be catastrophic is pretty much a miracle) the more I think it can't just be the science. It's all too complicated yet beautifully simple. If someone sat down and designed life they couldn't do it any better.

Margaritapracataz I found your post absolutely astonishing tbh. And not in a good way.

You do know that we have no proof whether good exist or not, don't you? (lack of proof is NOT the evidence that something doesn't exist).

You do know that, beliving in god/being religious is a belief in the same way that saying you are not religious is.

So basically you are saying that your belief is better than the others and that you need to be stupid not to see it....
Right ....

an atheist believes there is no God

This is not true.

No, it's not. But it's a very tiresome line that continually gets trotted out in these threads.

And I'm not even going into the debate of whether whatever science says is reliable or not...

There are plenty of scientists who believe in God. Actually a lot of the ones who are working on the bing bang theory (or whatever has replaced it now) because they say that
1- the chances of our world existing are minute (ie the 'contsants' that have to be there are so precise that they can NOT be a randon thing)
2- it still leaves the question of 'what was there before and why did it start like this?' which is unaswered wo having an outside influence.

But clearly, these people are also very very stupid aren't they?

you cant prove something doesn't exist

i believe in pink unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster- prove to me they dont exist

Last comment to Margaritapracataz

You seem to think that it's OK to think less of a person professionally for what is, after all, a very private matter. Would you also think less of her if that person turns out to be homosexual or what ever other private matter she is keen on?

These 'beliefs' will not affect her work anymore than your beliefs against religion do. Unless of course, it makes you a very judgemental and bigotted person.

YABVU!

Would make me think a lot less of you professionally that you can't appreciate there may be other points of view/theories other than your own - how shallow!

I'm not religious (and have a biochemistry Phd) and I don't believe in God (I can't really) but I find it fascinating.
I have heard the days rather than years thing before...and it makes sense. If you were explaining something to people who had little concept of number and time, no education using 'days' to describe millennia would work ...even with our education and world knowledge we struggle with the concept of the time involved - it is mind blowing. We simplify it to man being on earth for less than the last 2 mins of 24hrs. And even then we struggle to comprehend even the length of time man has been on the earth.

I do find it interesting that someone who made up a story a few thousand years ago got the order of evolution (afaik -knowledge of bible is sketchy) more or less right...or as we now believe is right....and lots of people believed them...
I had an undergraduate lecturer who was talking about DNA proofreading and repair enzymes - a long time ago so I can't remember the exact detail - but it was about two enzymes 'working' together with completely different structures - basically he said you can see why a scientist could believe in a God, in intelligent design as you can't see how this could happen through evolution...
Some things you can debunk - in some why 'Muslims can be scientists' thing I read it said a lot of what is in the Koran has been proved right scientifically, when at the time it was written they couldn't have know these things.
One of them is apparently in the Koran talking about hell and burning in the eternal flames kind of thing - it says God will take something away so you will always be in agony, feel the burning. The booklet said we now know from modern science there is a process (chemical/enzyme?) by which after a certain degree of pain from burning you can't feel the pain any more. Wow. God must exist. Except when the Koran was written burning to death would still be an acceptable form of punishment, lots of people would have seen that happen and know that after a while people stopped feeling the pain...they didn't know about the process -just that it happened.

being gay is not a belief!

it would be great if religion was a private matter but it seems necessary that religious types want to spread the word and make it very much part of public life

You can believe in god and norovirus but you can't interpret your knowledge of norovirus in the context of god if you want to be taken seriously.

Absolutely correct.
But the observations you make in science can also contribute to the spiritual side of your life - without impacting on the quality of the empirical analysis of your research.
Lots of factors contribute to faith - the actions of people around you, religious texts and leaders, but also your observations of the world including those you make in your work as a scientist.

Personally, I not religious, but have huge amounts of respect for those who are and do not see it as evidence of a lower intellect like the OP does.

and i irritate the hell out of my MIL by telling her I believe in God but not the Theory of Relativity and she can't prove/disprove me wrong either way.

I have no doubt that it irritates the hell out of her. You want her to prove a negative (that god doesn't exist) and provide you with proof of a theory which explains much of what we see about space and time, and which has been verified by experiment. Even if the theory was wrong, it will not be wrong by much and the missing factor will not be the hand of god. Gravity doesn't give a toss whether you believe in it or not.

unlucky I agree. The texts actually are full of things like this that actually reveal a hell of a lot knowledge that we have very happily dismissed as 'just beliefs' or quakery.
It's a shame because we should also all remember that muslims for example were very good scientists and doctors for their time (think surgery for example).
Same with the Chinese (who were fantastic sailors and were the ones to 'discover' America before the Europeans etc...)

Micah, do you seriously believe that if someone sat down and designed life they couldn't do better than a design which results in babies being born with things like epidermolysis bullosa?

Has anybody seen Stephen Fry's comments on God - www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=stephen%20fry%20on%20god

You do know that, beliving in god/being religious is a belief in the same way that saying you are not religious is.

No, Kevin, it really isn't.