It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Public Universities Don't Want Science Students To Believe In God

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: saint4God
...which just lead to a lot of frustration by not being able to understand universally what was happening and why our part in it seemed absolutely pointless.


And you gave up and turned to god...


Reminds me of Newton:

The six primary Planets are revolv'd about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.


Thankfully, there have been other less religious scientists who tackled the problem instead of invoking divine intervention.




posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I don't have any problems bridging deity and natural law. In my theology, the physical universe is the body of god. The macro and microcosm. Just as I am the whole of billions of microscopic components, so is deity the whole of the universe. That is the basis of my perception of deity. The deity is the sum total of all reality; the collective cosmos. The questions are in the details.

With science, we continue to learn more and more to the nature of existence, and I personally believe there is much left to be discovered. One breakthrough in quantum mechanics and our whole cosmology could be completely flipped on its head. I just don't think a person has to take a hard line one way or the other, but it is best to be open to possibilities. The quest for deity is an exercise of imagination and reason, where it is not so important in does god exist, but how does god exist. It is sad that the worlds religions have failed to adapt to modern times and they cling to their outdated concepts of deity, that turn millions away from pondering the possibility of reality beyond the normal confines of our senses. In truth, most atheist I know, have a christian god concept, or a juvenile perception of deity of some asshole on a cloud passing down judgement upon mankind. I am not entirely foreign to the scientific process, as I have studied four years in ecology, but I would not define myself as a scientist. I am a human, and I will not restrict the pondering of my mind because it doesn't fit into this group or that groups method.

The basic faith is the belief in life after death, that our individual identities live on after our body ceases to function. Why, hows and what ifs are the ponders of a universe that is aware of itself, looking for meaning and understanding in its own existence. I for one, take great joy in the questions and possibilities.
edit on 7-6-2016 by MrThortan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I'm going to have to agree that the title of the thread should have been more like, "Some of my professors think my faith may get in the way of what they are teaching me about science." Instead it's a drama filled dog-whistle toward those who believe Christians are persecuted.

Back to the content: Through my magic invisible binoculars I can see an opportunity for a great "god of the gaps" argument.

Professor: Now, we're not exactly sure yet how this comes to be, but by our calculations, and observations we believe tha...
Student: AHA! It's god. See? Gotcha. You don't know, do you? You "believe," eh? Is that "Faith???"

Sorry, that's really a bit oversimplified, but nonetheless something that happens everyday.

In order to justify science and faith being mutually inclusive you have many things to clarify first:
* Is your God a 'force of the universe' or a 'personified, personally involved deity as described in the Bible'?
* Is your faith based on Biblical teachings? In which case, which parts do you take as allegory, and which as literal? Which parts do you ignore completely?
* How do you justify to yourself Biblical events that have since been clearly explained by science? And how will you react when this happens again?
* If your faith is Bible based, is it the New Testament (New Covenant) only, or do you agree with Jesus that he was to uphold the old laws? How much of the Old Testament should we accept as well?
* Do you think that because there are historical references in the Bible it should be used as an historical document? Do you think that, say, an archaeological dig uncovering something mentioned in the bible proves the bible to be true?
* How many of the fantastical claims in the Bible are miraculous to you, and which are simply not possible?
* Could a scientific discovery affect your faith?

Sorry to ask, but I had a discussion recently on similar content, and found that my opponent (albeit in a very polite way) used blind faith to gloss over a lot of scientific knowledge, and used pseudo-science.

On a historical timeline, religion and science have never intersected.
Science works by observing, and experimenting to understand the best available explanation. It changes as new data comes along, and continues to strive for better understanding. No faith required.
Faith begins with an unchanging opinion, and sets about trying to find ways to uphold this opinion. It doesn't change, and insists that those who do not agree are wrong. No science required (unless they are trying to assert that bananas were created with the human hand in mind).



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I've said that on the Dawkins scale I am about 6.999.
I cannot be 100% sure there is no god/s, but so far I have been offered little evidence of it.
Science, on the other hand, has been diligently mining towards a 7, and producing some amazing things along the way.

I'd love to be a 7, but I will happily accept a 1 given the right information.
I think everything in between 1 and 7 is mostly emotional.
I agree that quantum physics is moments away from something amazing, so I cannot completely rule out getting to 1. But I do get very suspicious when people refuse to ever try for a 7.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Badgered1
I've said that on the Dawkins scale I am about 6.999.
I cannot be 100% sure there is no god/s, but so far I have been offered little evidence of it.


It's not a question of whether the evidence is there. Rather, it's a question of whether some particular individual can understand the evidence that is there. It's the same thing with a proof in calculus. Some people can understand the math, and recognize the evidence behind the claim of any proof. While, others either accept on faith, that the mathematicians know what they are talking about (i.e the Math Priests), or they believe that the mathematicians are full of it, and there's a conspiracy to deceive the rest of us, by using some abstruse complicated symbolism that nobody could really understand, but instead creates a mystique around their profession to trick us into accepting whatever they tell us must be true, and so control the larger population with their trickery.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Badgered1
I've said that on the Dawkins scale I am about 6.999.
I cannot be 100% sure there is no god/s, but so far I have been offered little evidence of it.


It's not a question of whether the evidence is there. Rather, it's a question of whether some particular individual can understand the evidence that is there. It's the same thing with a proof in calculus. Some people can understand the math, and recognize the evidence behind the claim of any proof. While, others either accept on faith, that the mathematicians know what they are talking about (i.e the Math Priests), or they believe that the mathematicians are full of it, and there's a conspiracy to deceive the rest of us, by using some abstruse complicated symbolism that nobody could really understand, but instead creates a mystique around their profession to trick us into accepting whatever they tell us must be true, and so control the larger population with their trickery.


But I could learn calculus without the need for any leap of faith.
Also, calculus has never been used to justify slavery, misogyny, slaughter, and abuse.
It's possible, though, that although a tiny portion of the ancient middle east was chosen as the perfect theatre for the unveiling of the Abrahamic tradition, and as the vehicle for the laws to be adopted - I mean rather than in the Indus valley, or China where they already had critical thinking - and perfect understanding was available to the illiterate, ignorant goat herders, fishermen, and carpenters etc., and subsequently to first century 'scholars,' that modern humans are complete unable to understand all the information available to see god without special knowledge. Yes, it's possible, but not probable.

It's also possible that a lot of it is just words which no longer have meaning.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: saint4God
Why this is, I cannot say, but I can certainly recall being challenged by a number of college professors on my knowledge & experiences with God. One professor stated I "could not be both a scientist AND a Christian" as if I had no choice but to choose one or the other. When I was asked why I would bother with Biology/Chemisty when I have 'my faith', I answered, "I want to know how He does it. The smaller the life components, the more complex the mechanisms become." I like to compare it to a pocket watch which has one simple function: to tell time. Within the watch is a hundred and eighty parts that require three thousand steps to bring together. For me, science and faith are a perfect fit. More often than not, to begin experimentation and testing you've got to have faith in something even if it's previous results, trends, a hypothesis, et cetera.

There's a misconception that us scientists don't believe in God (or so this is what many will have students believe in universities). I'm approaching my 9th year as a Biochemist. I can say that at least 40% of the biochemists in my office without a doubt believe in God (most are Christian). Some don't, some I haven't had the discussion with, but by no means is it a small minority. To summarize, the representation of the 'real world' in secular academia does not reflect reality of the scientific and God believing world.

Although I couldn't say one way or another if theoretical physicist Dr. Kaku's details (as I don't understand them myself) are definitive proof of God, I find the article interesting:

Scientist says he found definitive proof that God exists

your headline states


Public Universities Don't Want Science Students To Believe In God

you provide no evidence of this then, link to a 'theoretical physicist' claiming god exists via math.
so are you just theoretically stupid or a hypocrite?



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

I disagree with God on a great many things.

His choices mostly. Allowing the human race to continue after the fall of man? Bad play. I would have burned the batch and started again. Putting the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden? Would not have done that personally. Generally speaking, if I really want someone to leave something alone, I make it impossible for them to obtain it, touch it, or even know of its existence. Not having been and ended the universe already? Frankly, given the poor show we humans are making of things at the moment, I am shocked we have not been introduced to the end of the world yet, and cannot for the life of me work out what the hold up is.

However, I also accept that the dude has been around longer than me, and that the reasons he has for what he is doing will likely as not become clear once I cross the threshold to the next bit, so for all that his unwillingness to get things over with and stop the suffering of my species, REALLY PISSES ME OFF, for now I am going to just have to put up with that and wait and see what the big idea is.

As to wether or not I agree with others interpretations of what God likes and does not like, I am not the sort of believer who goes to church, or has the slightest respect for the concept. Worship is a daily thing, and does not require a community run by corrupt representatitives of corrupt organisations, in order to be valid. I live by faith, not just on Sunday, but every day. Thusly, my opinion of others interpretations of God are irrelevant to me. I believe. That is enough.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

All I would say about that, is that the differing conclusions being drawn have more to do with the areas of study that the scientists you mention are involved with, than it does with their individual faiths and belief systems.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Badgered1

But I could learn calculus without the need for any leap of faith.


Not exactly. This is the whole problem with religion. It's the same like calculus.

You first have to have faith, that the math teacher knows something and that there's something there to be learnt.

If you believe that math is all imaginary hogwash, then you'll never set foot on the path to discovering the proofs by doing the footwork yourself.

The people who say there's no god and religion is all man made mythology, are the people who never studied the religion in the first place. They don't waste their time looking into religion, because they already have a belief that there's nothing there.




Yes, it's possible, but not probable.
It's also possible that a lot of it is just words which no longer have meaning.


It takes a long time to study math to understand some proofs. Some people take 30 years to get their PhD, and then still do postdoc work, before they reach the level of understanding that allows them to see certain truths. That's a long time to spend on any path, just to find the truth.

Religion is no different. There's no quick fix, fast track to the goal, knowledge pill to take, to get you their in a hurry.

Well, actually, there is, but people go mad taking the quick route.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You said you can communicate with god? You 've touched on this several times now.


He's got an open-door policy, which is nice. No need for inpreter or mediator, which I think is a fantastic benefit. Some people have problems with the approach and/or on the reception end.



Please go into detail about what horrible things you used to do and how believing in god got you to change your habits. Or was it an illness that was cured with prayer?


Neither, but an interesting conclusion to come to. I was considered a good kid by my parents with my only illness being seasonal allergies. Does trauma necessitate one seeking out God? I just wanted to know if I was right about nihilism or not. I have to say that posing the challenge did put myself into trouble that I needed help out of.
edit on 7-6-2016 by saint4God because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: saint4God

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You said you can communicate with god? You 've touched on this several times now.


He's got an open-door policy, which is nice. No need for inpreter or mediator, which I think is a fantastic benefit. Some people have problems with the approach and/or on the reception end.



Please go into detail about what horrible things you used to do and how believing in god got you to change your habits. Or was it an illness that was cured with prayer?


Neither, but an interesting conclusion to come to. I was considered a good kid by my parents with my only illness being seasonal allergies. Does trauma necessitate one seeking out God? I just wanted to know if I was right about nihilism or not. I have to say that posing the challenge did put myself into trouble that I needed help out of.
Saying that god has an open door policy, and that some people just have trouble getting in touch, is a clever way of putting the fault on the person instead of putting the onus on a god to be actually present and accountable. It also allows you to pretend that you are in a class that you can percieve as higher than others. You claim to have a direct line of conversation with a deity. That would make you super special wouldn't it? I certainly don't have that. I can't sell myself as a person who can talk to god.


If i prayed to a god and it never talked to me, i would assume that it doesn't exist.

But your telling me that it's just been hiding around the corner this whole time.


edit on 7-6-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TzarChasm

All I would say about that, is that the differing conclusions being drawn have more to do with the areas of study that the scientists you mention are involved with, than it does with their individual faiths and belief systems.



I don't see why. Those fields of study should all corroborate each other on some level, all pointing to the same thing, the same way forensics pieces together a crime scene. We can recreate a Jurassic grassland scene but we can't figure out if a god once walked among us? And once we get over that, there's the equal representation issue. Doesn't thor get a church? Or how about wadjet? Anubis? Vishnu? No temples in honor of the Norse pantheon, no monuments or groves as homage of the patrons of our ancestors. God is on our money but a little sensitivity to the diverse tastes of our people is too much to ask.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Well, i do like honesty, so why do you think people have such different ideas about what god is and whats he wants from them?


Looks like I missed this question before. I think even for Christians at times, despite what God says He wants, I think we try to decide what God wants from us. There's some incorrectly added 'qualifications' that really don't belong in what is otherwise very simple. We like to do things like compete, keep score, try to tip scales in our favour, justify our faults, cover our mistakes, believe we're in control, make judgements in instances we're not qualified to do so and other errors of selfishness or hubris. Proof text: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

This is what God wants: "...all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. " from Timothy 1:4

Very well, how does one become 'saved'? "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romand 10:9

Not my words, not my rules, but can say with assurance, yes this is true.


edit on 7-6-2016 by saint4God because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2016 by saint4God because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

The public universities these days prefer to teach people how to hate one another, and to play the victim. Christian ideals wouldn't fit well with that.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Why can't professors just teach the material their students are being grossly overcharged to learn? Oh yeah, I guess that doesn't provide the same ego high as using the class to promote their own personal beliefs and attempting to control their students' entire lives.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: MoreInterior

Because the OP isn't true.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TzarChasm

All I would say about that, is that the differing conclusions being drawn have more to do with the areas of study that the scientists you mention are involved with, than it does with their individual faiths and belief systems.



I don't see why. Those fields of study should all corroborate each other on some level, all pointing to the same thing, the same way forensics pieces together a crime scene.

Interesting analogy, but the thing is that the conclusions drawn by two separate teams of forensics specialists will not always be the same. It only takes one team having a specialist in blood spatter evidence, and another team having a differently specialised member, to change the way the evidence is interpreted.

So actually, it DOES make a vast difference to the way things might appear, depending on the lens through which they are viewed. A programmer, a physicist, and a biologist look at the universe in VASTLY different ways, and those differing points of view can result in divergent opinions, and do result in divergent opinions and interpretations of the evidence, all the time.



We can recreate a Jurassic grassland scene but we can't figure out if a god once walked among us?

Perhaps because trying to use science to find God, is like trying to use The Holy Bible to find a pathogen? That is not to say that one individual cannot wield both utilities for their respective purposes, only that one should never be used to achieve the aim of the other.



And once we get over that, there's the equal representation issue. Doesn't thor get a church? Or how about wadjet? Anubis? Vishnu? No temples in honor of the Norse pantheon, no monuments or groves as homage of the patrons of our ancestors. God is on our money but a little sensitivity to the diverse tastes of our people is too much to ask.


Well, we have Stonehenge here in Britain, and although there are no temples as such to the Norse gods of old, temple raising was never something that interested the Norse gods. From what I understand, the Norse way was to honour ones deities by performing feats of badassitude in their name. And as for our ancestors, in deeper history, the idea that they are not represented is ludicrous. Look at the pillars and columns on large public buildings all over the west...clearly echoes of the Roman and Greek influences, and thereby a nod to their pantheons.

There are little bits of everything we are, in every thing we do!



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: saint4God

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Well, i do like honesty, so why do you think people have such different ideas about what god is and whats he wants from them?


Looks like I missed this question before. I think even for Christians at times, despite what God says He wants, I think we try to decide what God wants from us. There's some incorrectly added 'qualifications' that really don't belong in what is otherwise very simple. We like to do things like compete, keep score, try to tip scales in our favour, justify our faults, cover our mistakes, believe we're in control, make judgements in instances we're not qualified to do so and other errors of selfishness or hubris. Proof text: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

This is what God wants: "...all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. " from Timothy 1:4

Very well, how does one become 'saved'? "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romand 10:9

Not my words, not my rules, but can say with assurance, yes this is true.

You can say anything with assurance. It's proving it that is the trick. And no matter what you say, you can't prove it to be true. You simply add the caveat that god is merely hiding the evidence, or that you cannot detect god and that there is another undetectable realm that only you have access to, but no tools of science can penetrate. Which is nothing more than circular reasoning. You do understand that a lot of people don't believe because there is absolutely zero evidence that what you are saying is true, and that the proper use of the scientific method does not allow for your opinion as proof. No matter how much assurance you say it with?

So i, and others like me, are supposed to take your word for it? Because you do admit that there is no evidence at all to back up what you say right? If you were really scientifically minded you would know that you cannot make claims that you cannot prove, and realistically expect anyone to take you seriously. Yet you don the persona of spiritual advisor, and peddle your wares with ASSURANCES that you are special and that you can communicate directly with god? And i'm supposed to just trust you? With no proof?

Knowing that your mind can make serious mistakes in judgment, Even you should need better proof to accept what you believe. How do you reconsile the lack of proof? You had a vision while you were killing yourself?
edit on 8-6-2016 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

If i claimed that i was talking to the ghost of Albert Einstein, how much proof would you require to believe me? What kind of proof would convince you?




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join