Why do some people believe..... that you can't be a scientist and still believe in God ?

@Sharon So does Einstein and so many other scientists abandon their scientific principles ?

@usher [quote]So does Einstein and so many other scientists abandon their scientific principles ?[/quote]
No, see the quotes posted by @newjaninev2. Einstein didn't believe in "god" in a religious way. @TinyViolins' has provided a very good explanation too.

@CopperCicada [quote]Different ways people frame God.[/quote]
That raises another question, what do we mean by "god"? Is whatever drives us to exchange gifts at Yule/Xmas a god called Santa Claus? Is love the result of the influence of Eros/Aphrodite/Cupid/Venus? Those gods are just as "real" as the christian one.

@Sharon Ok, so what about the many other scientists? Like Carl Sagan?

@usher How religious are they really? In some place everyone, including scientists, have to profess a belief in the christian god to be accepted in the community. I attended a hustings some years ago where the only question one woman asked of prospective candidates was simply "Are you a christian?" As far as she was concerned, nothing else mattered.

@Sharon I'm guessing that was a very personal experience that you had to deal with, but I suppose I never mentioned any type of what the interpretation of God is. So my question is based on a broader idea of some scientists who do believe in God and are true scientists.

@usher [quote]I'm guessing that was a very personal experience that you had to deal with,[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you're referring to the hustings, I was just an attendee, not a prospective candidate. I was just amused that anyone would base such a decision solely on a person's claimed religious allegiance.

[quote]So my question is based on a broader idea of some scientists who do believe in God and are true scientists.[/quote]
It's not unreasonable for a scientist to consider the possibility that hitherto unknown forces exist and to name it or them "god" - "dark matter" and "dark energy" for example. How many scientists really, honestly, believe the christian idea of "god" actually exists though?

@Sharon I know of a few personally. But they are not famous.

@usher I know a couple of people in prominent positions for whom it is prudent to profess a belief in the christian god, but it's just an act.

@Sharon I don't believe that. No scientist or people in a prominent position would pretend to believe in God . I currently hold a position in popular Science College in Paris where I am on the faculty and I believe in God and Jesus and the Gospels. I am certainly not faking it.

@usher [quote]I don't believe that.[/quote]
Whether or not you believe it isn't relevant, it remain the truth.

[quote]No scientist or people in a prominent position would pretend to believe in God .[/quote]
They're not scientists. They just have positions where a (professed) belief in the christian god (rather than any of the others), if not a [i]sine qua non[/i], is nevertheless a wise claim to make.

So how dto you reconcile a belief in a mythical being or deity with a scientific approach?

@Sharon I believe that God is the ultimate scientist, that he created the Universe through the Big bang and he also use's evolution as part of his creation. Simple. The big band had a creator or higher consciousness. That's my belief.

@usher [quote]The big band had a creator or higher consciousness. [/quote]
So why the christian god and not one of the others such as, for example, Brahma?

Also, the bible, claimed to be the word of god, suggests everything was created as it is now rather than evolved. There is scientific evidence that we evolved along with the other Great Apes from a common ancestor about 25 - 30 million years ago. The bible disagrees. How can you reconcile the biblical story with the evidence?

@Sharon i believe that the bible is metaphorical and representative of creation. I dont believe in a literal bible. Genesis the book of creation can be interpretated in different ways. However i believe the gospels as the word of god literally. Religion is far more sophiscated than just writings and god is a great consciousness that can be understood by some.

@CopperCicada [to your 2nd last comment]

"The truth is, we believe in all sorts of things that are not approachable by the scientific method. Love, beauty, peace. Freedom, liberty, justice. Metaphysics is just another category of phenomena outside the scientific method."

The emotional state of love's something for which there's an extremely high level of evidence for. Not only this, but the existence of love doesn't disprove the idea that all non-physical things that exist are a product of things that're physical. This's in contrast to the idea of God (?).
Meanwhile, beauty, peace, freedom, liberty & justice are merely social constructs, therefore they tell us nothing to do with the nature of phenomena.
So metaphysics isn't alike to the examples you've given.

I don't know if you were being disingenuous or if you were unaware of the flawed logic you used to make your point.

@CopperCicada Had you posted Metaphysics is another category of phenomena outside the scientific method, I wouldn't have disputed that.

But, comparing the belief in emotional states or social constructs to beliefs in God, in order to make the point that metaphysics's just another non-scientific thing to believe in's problematic.

"Everything I listed as being outside the scope of the scientific method— love, beauty, liberty, freedom, justice, religious beliefs— those are all things informed by values."

Love isn't. If love exists, it exists objectively (my understanding of the word objectively makes this sentence redundant). If love doesn't exist, then we've a situation in which millions of people think they're in love, but they're not.
A person's values affects their emotions, including love. But people don't love their parents due to their values.
Tbh, I'm struggling to make a point here, because I'm not sure what you mean by "... those are all things informed by values."

"But does love have charge? Does God have mass? What is the volume of justice? The angular momentum of beauty? Of course there isn’t an answer. So these are the friends of “natural philosophy” that belong in other endeavors."

I agree with you (though it's worth noting that having science done without making any philosophical assumptions as a base for the data isn't necessarily a superior way to carry out the research). But here you're making a different point; the point that metaphysics is another category of phenomena outside the scientific method.

What's problematic's that by saying "[m]etaphysics is just another category of phenomena outside the scientific method", you're showing them to be equivalents. But they're not.

"What I DID say, was there there are two genera of human experiences. Those which are approachable by the scientific method. And those which are not"

As I've demonstrated, your point was 'greater' than that.

@CopperCicada I get the last 2 paragraphs.

""So how dto you reconcile a belief in a mythical being or deity with a scientific approach?"

The truth is, we believe in all sorts of things that are not approachable by the scientific method. Love, beauty, peace. Freedom, liberty, justice. Metaphysics is just another category of phenomena outside the scientific method."

Your point was that since we can hold the belief in love & scientific principles at the same time, this shows that 1 can hold non-scientific beliefs & value the scientific method at the same time.
Fair enough.

You then went on to say that "[m]etaphysics is just another category of phenomena outside the scientific method."

Meaning that since metaphysics's just another thing to be believed outside of the scientific method, it follows that holding beliefs in God & the scientific method makes sense in the same way that the love/scientific method combo does.

To sum up, you demonstrated that a belief in a mythical deity can be held alongside that of the scientific method, since the same can be done for love.

This's the leap I don't accept.