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?

@ Suburban

For me "the Kingdom of Heaven" isn't somewhere we all get transported to when we die, where everyone is dressed in white and floating around. It is something that could potentially be created here during our earthly lives if we humans were fully able to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Or just be humane to each other, pernaps, which would appeal to all religions and none, not just Christianity.

Agreed - the point of Jesus was that he was human - and to be fully humane is to be holy. It doesn't matter what label people gather themselves under, if at all. Many of Jesus teachings are found also in other religions - they have the ring of universality about them.

Have any religious people here got a comment on the Epicurean paradox?

Grunt - I will have to look it up. But later - got four three olds coming to play

Aeroflorgirl, but (IMO) everything CAN be explained. We just do not have all the explanations to hand yet. (And we might never know. But it doesn't mean/automatically follow that there is a god.)

Once-upon-a-time, humans could not understand things which we now know much more about eg conception/illness, the weather ... or even day/night. So they decided to make up various imaginative, (but false & sometimes fairly crazy) 'belief systems', which incorporated these events into a story which they could tell their children. But now we know better?!

Therefore, if you say "there must be a god, because there are still some big things which we cannot explain with science", are you not merely showing a lack of intellect?

I am constantly amazed that people who make a career out of finding proof for things (which is essentially what science is)

No it isn't actually. You can't prove most things, you can only argue what is the most likely explanation. You do millions of experiments, and draw conclusions from your results.

Religion is the same. You can't disprove "God", a higher being, a creator. You look at the world, and some people conclude there must be something behind it all.

phenomonen happen that cannot be explained by science yes beyond the realm of science

If a phenomenon is happening, it is observable. And if something is observable, it is testable. And if something is testable, it is firmly within the realm of science.

So what kind of "phenomena" are you talking about?

Not that unreasonable given that surveys show that around two thirds of scientists identify as atheist, and in some sub-disciplines, that figure approaches 90-95%. This is not terribly surprising: For the very reasoning that underpins scientific methodology is not conducive to sustaining religious beliefs.

Unreasonable to think that the two cannot co-exist. They clearly do in a significant minority, though I admit to bafflement at the cognitive dissonance that seems to be involved.

What, exactly, does "beyond the realm of science" mean? Too often I see these sort of woolly statements, expressed as if they are something meaningful (e.g. "God is outside of time and space"), but it is not at all obvious what conclusions we are meant to draw from it.

Errrr itsnot because a phenomenon is observable that it's testable.
You can look at the universe, see a phenomenon, make a theory but never be able to test it as such.
Hence you have lots of theories about the universe, whether it has some limits or not, if there are done paralleled universe etc etc
Were not at the stage of being able to test any if it though
and no there are no way at the moment to say if one theory is oar to the truth than the other. Just as it is possible that both theories can co exist anyway just as classic mechanic and relativity do co exist)

You can look at the universe, see a phenomenon, make a theory but never be able to test it as such

But the lack of ability to test is methodological, not philosophical.

If you can observe, you can measure, you can test, you are doing science.

It is only unobservable "phenomena" that fall out of the "realm of science".

out = outside.

OP,

Why does this,

I assumed she was joking, but no she's a very intelligent woman (double first) but she has deeply religious beliefs.

(something that I assume conflicts with your world view), lead to this?

Aibu to think this is a bit strange and to think less of her professionally?

Why does this lead to thinking less of the person in question rather than questioning your view of religion?

Why is something, that seems unusual / conflicting with a personally held world view, seen as a negative thing rather than positive?

Unless personally held views are things that are deemed as being particularly precious.

Mysteries are intriguing, entertaining and interesting...they lead us to question and find out more IMO.

I am a Christian, and for me this involves nothing as straightforward as a set of rules to live by. There are different, well reasoned (within the framework of examining traditions and Biblical interpretation) interpretations of what being a Christian means, which for me just strengthens my belief since I don't expect God to be easily and fully understood in this lifetime.

YABVU - Our synagogue is full of doctors and scientists, including many who are leaders in their field.

Intelligence is controlled by many factors including genetics, upbringing, illness, trauma etc.

Faith/spirituality is controlled by many factors including genetics, upbringing, illness, trauma etc.

Neither of them are likely to be subject to choice. You don't chose how much intrinsic intelligence you have, you don't chose how much intrinsic belief you have.

Most importantly the genetic aspects aren't thought to be coupled. So any value of intelligence can be matched with any value of belief from a genetic stand point.

In society the two may be correlated through factors that affect both in upbringing and illness and trauma might simultaneously affect both too.

Either way it is as discriminatory to assume all people of faith/spirituality are stupid as to assume all gay people are stupid or all black people.

The scientist who discovered pulsars is religious - a Quaker.

maid I have wondered for some time if string theory is actually a science or a religion...maybe the real difference is if you make predictions that could be observed but can't currently...

The problem with looking back in history at the religion of scientists is that you HAD to be religious...or at least to pretend you were. I wonder what fraction actually believed in the existence of the god of their religion.

Even now people pretend to believe to get kids into schools....there was a lot more riding on it in historic times.

"Have any religious people here got a comment on the Epicurean paradox?"

What is evil, and from where does that concept come from? What about free will? It also assumes that there is no purpose in suffering.

Of course the existence of suffering is going to challenge most belief systems, and for lots of people refutes the idea of God. That is perfectly understandable. But the logic of the epicurean paradox convinces me no more than the ontological argument convinces me that God does exist.

It seems to me that believing the universe created itself out of nothing with a bang, is just as big a leap of faith as accepting that it was created by a God.

I'm an agnostic / atheistic stem scientist.

I've a few Christian and Muslim colleagues, but our field does not conflict with any religion, AFAIK.
We should respect different faiths in a multicultural society, so long as they do not conflict with science or the law.

Wrt an earlier point:

Science is the development and application of knowledge and understanding of the universe, using a systematic evidence-based methodology, observation and experiment.

An ideology is a set of opinions, prejudices, beliefs or myths of a group or an individual.

Very different:
Science continually develops as new hypotheses are proposed, tested and bring new evidence.
Ideology does not require evidence or logic, so may try to change the facts to fit the beliefs / Sky Fairy / Guru.

It seems to me that believing the universe created itself out of nothing with a bang, is just as big a leap of faith as accepting that it was created by a God

Perhaps you should read up on the evidence for the Big Bang? That there is evidence to support the Big Bang theory puts it miles ahead of a competing "god" theory.

Classic mechanics as it is writ and quantum theory sort of can't co exist though...or at least neither is entirely correct.

... We know that stuff on a larger scale obeys something that's very close to classical mechanics (planets and whatnot) and we know that stuff in smaller scales (light going through slots and all that weirdness) obeys something like quantum theory.

But both the theories are thought to be incomplete, there's something we are missing. So both are subtly wrong in some way we don't understand yet.

Religion says have faith/more things in heaven and earth, horatio...
Science says that's cool, and rolls it's sleeves up to tinker around.
The starting point for science is knowing you know nothing and striving to explore. Our theories aren't set in stone, they are current best guesses. They change as data emerges. Religion on the other hand is much more static. It tells you what to believe. In some religions (lookin at you, Islam!) even questioning the basic parameters by asking if your holy book might be the tiniest bit apocryphal is apostasy. So religion denies critical thinking.

And that's why I don't like religion. It tells you what's right and what to think, instead of encouraging you to doubt, and ask 'is this right?'

maidofstars

I like the cut of your jib, ma'am ;)

And that's why I don't like religion. It tells you what's right and what to think, instead of encouraging you to doubt, and ask 'is this right?'

I suggest you have a brief look on this forum, below, if you think this...

forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi