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

originally posted by: Badgered1
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* Do you think that because there are historical references in the Bible it should be used as an historical document?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).

These are all great questions that get to the heart of what religious people actually believe. It is in these specific details that the madness becomes evident. I look forward to watching them being ignored.

I know many scientists that are religious, but I know more that are not.
Its amazing how very intelligent people can put their rational thinking aside and believe any old crap.

a reply to: Dr X

Especially people who understand the importance of evidence when it comes to verifying the facts. I attribute this type of dissonance to the millenia of fear based pressure to accept the lies of the churches. Thousands of years of people being killed for not converting will leave quite an impression from a culture that has spread their doctrine with the tip of their swords. It's a convincing argument. One that you want every child to learn so they don't get their heads chopped of by good christian folks. Why do you think africans and latin americans are mostly christians and muslims? I'll give you a hint. It's not because of all of the convincing evidence. Both christianity and islam were spread around the world with a brutal campaign of colonisation and an assimilate or die method.

In the face of an oncoming genocide, who is going to teach their children to become christian/muslim? Every parent. For thousands of years. It's hard to lose that kind of fear, even generations later.

Say something blasphemous around a group of pious believers and watch the fear turn into anger.

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.

So one way to meet god is to almost kill yourself? You never did say whether doctors were involved with saving your life.

a reply to: Woodcarver

It is my belief that it is impossible to prove the existence of spirit, leave alone the identity of such a thing. One has to experience it in order to believe it, because no photograph, shot in any part of the spectrum, or any other scientific method can be applied to prove it either way.

Now, my faith holds that even if a ghost appears to one, appearing to be a famous person, or a relative, or anyone at all, one should assume that it is a liar spirit, an agent of darkness, and not to be trusted.

However, spirit cannot be examined by science any more than physical fact can be established by observation of religious ritual.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Woodcarver

It is my belief that it is impossible to prove the existence of spirit, leave alone the identity of such a thing. One has to experience it in order to believe it, because no photograph, shot in any part of the spectrum, or any other scientific method can be applied to prove it either way.

Now, my faith holds that even if a ghost appears to one, appearing to be a famous person, or a relative, or anyone at all, one should assume that it is a liar spirit, an agent of darkness, and not to be trusted.

However, spirit cannot be examined by science any more than physical fact can be established by observation of religious ritual.

That is a very convenient argument. One that could be used to explain anything a schizophrenic says is true.
How do you reconsile that you can interact with it but no tools of science can? Or do you not understand this either? Is it not just as likely that this is a figment created by your mind that seems convincing? I'm sure that you would agree that others have persistant figments, right? They can't see that they are wrong, even though all of the evidence won't convince them.

A figment which gives you confidence? A figment that you are invested in for many reasons? OP says he almost killed himself until this figent intervened. For him this investment is worth his life. Without it, he has/had no reason to live. Perhaps his mind, in an effort to remain alive, allowed this figment to take over in a proxy attempt to survive. I hear many stories of people finding god at their very lowest. I think i remember you telling such a story too.

Yoda-smurf looks awesome.

originally posted by: CaDreamer
public universities should never advocate any religious belief system.

Would it be fair then to ask them to not preach against religious systems where there are no facts to support doing so? Specifically in World Religions, my professor called himself "the equal opportunity offender", ensuring to criticize "all religions". In reality, all he criticized was Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism and Bhuddism...so actually he left quite a bit out. When I asked why he didn't go after Satanism, Atheism, Druidism, Wiccan, Islam, and so forth, he just smiled and said, "If only I had the time...". Mhm.

originally posted by: CaDreamer
and like it or not evolution has a legitimate place in science classrooms.

Why does a faith-based system such as trans-species evolution have a place in science classrooms and yet you say...

religion does not.

?

a reply to: saint4God

You're a friggin chemist and you don't understand trans-species evolution? You do know that whales used to have legs? Would you consider that enough change to admit that it used to be a dif species?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Woodcarver

It is my belief that it is impossible to prove the existence of spirit, leave alone the identity of such a thing. One has to experience it in order to believe it, because no photograph, shot in any part of the spectrum, or any other scientific method can be applied to prove it either way.

Now, my faith holds that even if a ghost appears to one, appearing to be a famous person, or a relative, or anyone at all, one should assume that it is a liar spirit, an agent of darkness, and not to be trusted.

However, spirit cannot be examined by science any more than physical fact can be established by observation of religious ritual.

One of the keystones of science is that if it happens, it can be measured.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You know what else can't be examined with science? Things that don't exist.

We know that mental dissonance exists. We know that some people thoroughly believe ideas which can be conclusively proven to be untrue. So how do we tell the dif between things that exist and things that people claim to exist, but have no proof for?

a reply to: TrueBrit

No you can believe in the Holy Ghost but when you experience Him, you have really transcended belief. Praise the Lord.

Though you post overall is spot on

a reply to: saint4God

the thing is arrogance is more common in scientific professions then it is in just about any other professions, and it is arrogance to believe assertively "there is no god" the scientific approach would much more be agnostic, "there may or may not be a god" that's science! to remain on the fence without asserting anything and instead to investigate and let facts do the determining is the basis of the scientific method.

why there is such a strong push for science to throw out all notions of a possibility of god is definitely in interesting mystery, i agree with you there.

a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

I'm willing to bet that you've never met or spoken to a scientist or academic in your life if you honestly believe what you just wrote.

I'd argue it's far more arrogant to make up the position that you think scientists/academics take rather than make the effort to learn and understand exactly what the scientific method is and how academic research is conducted.

a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

It is very much in line to dismiss ideas that have been thoroughly examined and found to not have any foundation in reality. Such as ideas that would contradict physical laws. We can dismiss those at a glance.

By your screen name, i'm assuming that you think taking psychodelics and "prying open" your "third eye" is how you gain insight into reality?

originally posted by: saint4God
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

Some idiot at ageac.org... put a title over that video saying "Scientist says he found definitive proof that God exists.", but the title of the video on youtube says nothing about any proof, the video is called: "Michio Kaku: Is God a Mathematician?"

Michio Kaku is credited for helping develop string theory and he's questioning the relationship between string theory and God, but in fact string theory has never been proven, so he's just asking a "what if?" question. Kaku says:

Super symmetry, a symmetry that comes out of physics, not mathematics, and has shocked the world of mathematics. But you see, all this is pure mathematics and so the final resolution could be that God is a mathematician.

Or an artist could say "maybe God is an artist". These are just musings.

As for the OP about university professors stance on religion, I don't see where it would ever come up in the normal course of teaching the subjects you mentioned, unless you badgered them into some off-topic discussion. Some scientists have religious beliefs and some don't. As long as their beliefs and teachings don't conflict with scientific observation (like Young Earth creationists who think the Earth is 6000 years old) there's not really a problem.

As one scientist put it, students can believe the Earth is 6000 years old if they want to, but to pass the course, they need to be able to explain why scientists think that's not the case. They don't have to agree with the scientists to pass the course.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

As one scientist put it, students can believe the Earth is 6000 years old if they want to, but to pass the course, they need to be able to explain why scientists think that's not the case. They don't have to agree with the scientists to pass the course.

So if at the end of the day, a student walks up to the board and successfully reproduces and applies the quadratic formula before turning around and declaring in all sincerity that "two plus two is nineteen" he (or she) would still get a pass. I'm not sure if that's a sound strategy. Being able to accept the results in the presence of diligently applied scientific method is a critical element of the investigation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I certainly would not want that person working in my lab.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
So if at the end of the day, a student walks up to the board and successfully reproduces and applies the quadratic formula before turning around and declaring in all sincerity that "two plus two is nineteen" he (or she) would still get a pass. I'm not sure if that's a sound strategy. Being able to accept the results in the presence of diligently applied scientific method is a critical element of the investigation.

That's not at all analogous to what I said. It would be more analogous to say the student must understand why scientists think 2+2 adds up to 4, even if the student has religious reasons to believe that 2+2 adds up to something else. So if they answer 4 on the test, they can pass the course, even if they think the answer according to the bible is 19. If they answer 19, they won't pass.

The scientist I was referring to is Dr Hazen, who has played a role in setting educational policy in the USA, where science and religion may not agree as discussed in the following video:

I'm always baffled at someone in a position of "authority" such as a teacher shows such disrespect for belief, especially a bio/chem teacher!

Yes, of course some things don't mix well. A good scientist leaves their bible at home so they can do their work as objectively as possible, the same way a cop might leave their wedding ring at home when they go on patrol. But that doesn't mean they have to give up their beliefs altogether.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

I'm willing to bet that you've never met or spoken to a scientist or academic in your life if you honestly believe what you just wrote.

I'd argue it's far more arrogant to make up the position that you think scientists/academics take rather than make the effort to learn and understand exactly what the scientific method is and how academic research is conducted.

quite false, many of my family are in such careers. and as such ive always been keenly interested in science myself.

if you really think the scientific field is not rife with arrogance then id say your just blinded by said arrogance yourself

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

It is very much in line to dismiss ideas that have been thoroughly examined and found to not have any foundation in reality. Such as ideas that would contradict physical laws. We can dismiss those at a glance.

By your screen name, i'm assuming that you think taking psychodelics and "prying open" your "third eye" is how you gain insight into reality?

id love to see you source such material as has "thoroughly examined and found to not have any foundation" the existence of god... you only displaying that exact arrogance i speak of, you are so certain in a lack of god and that it has "no foundation in reality" but you have no actual reason for believing that, your belief in a lack of a god requires its own amount of faith.

and to the second part. no i do not believe psychedelics* is how you gain insight into reality, not at all. actually the screen name was just a lyric from a song i liked, but hey good work making an assumption and clinging to it with that same arrogance im speaking of here, great example you've made for me. also your comment is nothing but an attempt to attack my character, not my message, those sort of tactics are quite shamefull and unscientific, and even against ats T&C, your colors are showing.