Hello,
I'm a chemist irl and work in a research center. I've always been very curious and inquisitive and even though I grew up in a christian family, it didn't take long for me to discard any belief in general.
I'd classify myself as an agnostic, since I don't really have proof for the non-existence of some "creator", but my views are very close to those of an atheist. I have a nihilistic view of the world and life, in my view there is no good/evil, there are just a bunch of things that move. I found myself often discussing religion with believers, be it christians or muslims, but every time we hit a wall. There is just one thing that I, as a scientist, can't accept: believe something without proof.
No matter how nice and detailed and passionate one religion can be, it's still a book written by another person like me that, for all I know, could have been a troll. The main argument of these people is always the same: "How do you explain this and that? You can't, so it must be because of God, as it's written in this book".
This is non-sense and just bad practice in the research world, as it's not my duty to prove its non-existence: it's their duty to prove its existence. When writing a research paper or defending my doctoral thesis, I was being questioned for the smallest things like "how can you say for sure that you found that crystalline phase in this solid? From XRD I only see peaks relative to this and that phase, so you are speculating a bit", so how can I let pass something huge like "I can't explain it, so it must be God's work" as a proof of god's existence?
I tried discussing religion with a seemingly chill muslim who looked very quiet and available when I was asking him about islam, but when I started questioning his point, stating that what he presented wasn't enough proof, he started getting irritated and annoyed, since according to him I should have already been converted by his speech. His argument was:
"The quran describes scientific facts in detail and it's the word of Allah. So what other proof do you need to believe in islam?"
However from my experience, any chemistry of physics book does the same thing without claiming it to be the word of god. According to his reasoning, then any scientist could claim godhood by stating "This phenomenon happens because of this, I dare you to prove it wrong. Yeah you can't, I'm god."
At this point he just got mad and started saying I'll go to hell. When I suggested that the world could have as well been created by an alien or giant uncaring monstrosity, he said "Com'on, that's absurd", as if magic wizard Allah was any less absurd.
Most of these religions are sketchy and superficial and fail to address many points (eg, how are animals or plants judged? And what about cavemen that didn't know how to speak and communicate and just hit things with their club? And what about people who are born in such conditions where knowledge is kept hidden to them? What about people who are born physically or mentally ill and can't really help themselves? What about those who are forced to behave in some way? If we really must assume there is a creator, then I'd picture it as some neutral and uncaring entity that wanders in the universe. No hell or heaven, just something that spawns life here and there and moves on).
So my question is: how do you engage in a discussion with these people without it derailing? It's as if they were willfully ignoring or filtering some information, I don't really get it. I'm not really trying to convert them, but rather trying to understand the reasoning that leads them to believe in whatever religion... but no matter how hard I try to understand, their logic is just not in order. Sometimes I'm literally asking them to help me believe in their religion, but every time it's just not enough information to warrant any belief.
I'm a chemist irl and work in a research center. I've always been very curious and inquisitive and even though I grew up in a christian family, it didn't take long for me to discard any belief in general.
I'd classify myself as an agnostic, since I don't really have proof for the non-existence of some "creator", but my views are very close to those of an atheist. I have a nihilistic view of the world and life, in my view there is no good/evil, there are just a bunch of things that move. I found myself often discussing religion with believers, be it christians or muslims, but every time we hit a wall. There is just one thing that I, as a scientist, can't accept: believe something without proof.
No matter how nice and detailed and passionate one religion can be, it's still a book written by another person like me that, for all I know, could have been a troll. The main argument of these people is always the same: "How do you explain this and that? You can't, so it must be because of God, as it's written in this book".
This is non-sense and just bad practice in the research world, as it's not my duty to prove its non-existence: it's their duty to prove its existence. When writing a research paper or defending my doctoral thesis, I was being questioned for the smallest things like "how can you say for sure that you found that crystalline phase in this solid? From XRD I only see peaks relative to this and that phase, so you are speculating a bit", so how can I let pass something huge like "I can't explain it, so it must be God's work" as a proof of god's existence?
I tried discussing religion with a seemingly chill muslim who looked very quiet and available when I was asking him about islam, but when I started questioning his point, stating that what he presented wasn't enough proof, he started getting irritated and annoyed, since according to him I should have already been converted by his speech. His argument was:
"The quran describes scientific facts in detail and it's the word of Allah. So what other proof do you need to believe in islam?"
However from my experience, any chemistry of physics book does the same thing without claiming it to be the word of god. According to his reasoning, then any scientist could claim godhood by stating "This phenomenon happens because of this, I dare you to prove it wrong. Yeah you can't, I'm god."
At this point he just got mad and started saying I'll go to hell. When I suggested that the world could have as well been created by an alien or giant uncaring monstrosity, he said "Com'on, that's absurd", as if magic wizard Allah was any less absurd.
Most of these religions are sketchy and superficial and fail to address many points (eg, how are animals or plants judged? And what about cavemen that didn't know how to speak and communicate and just hit things with their club? And what about people who are born in such conditions where knowledge is kept hidden to them? What about people who are born physically or mentally ill and can't really help themselves? What about those who are forced to behave in some way? If we really must assume there is a creator, then I'd picture it as some neutral and uncaring entity that wanders in the universe. No hell or heaven, just something that spawns life here and there and moves on).
So my question is: how do you engage in a discussion with these people without it derailing? It's as if they were willfully ignoring or filtering some information, I don't really get it. I'm not really trying to convert them, but rather trying to understand the reasoning that leads them to believe in whatever religion... but no matter how hard I try to understand, their logic is just not in order. Sometimes I'm literally asking them to help me believe in their religion, but every time it's just not enough information to warrant any belief.
