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

As a scientist who works at a university I can safely say that this is not true in the least. Stop spreading lies.

Id also back up BrokedownChevy

The item never comes up in lectures, there isn't any sessions iv ever been aware of when the subject of religion is a matter of discussion. I also know some scientists who are deeply religious.

There just simply isn't 'Lets beat the God out of people' sessions. like people might think there is, nore are people's religions used to marginalize people in the classroom.

I am in particle physics, I have worked along side devout Jews, Christians, Hindu's, Sikh and Muslims... not once have I witnessed the subject of belief in god being used as a method of marginalization against them, more often than not it is a conversation piece brought up to bring people together to enjoy social gatherings.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: 0bserver1

"Science and God always seems to follow a contradictory path."

Actually science and religion have a remarkable amount in common.

Science thinks humans are special.

Science casts out heretics and persecutes all other religions.

Science reveres its own saints.

Science makes up stories to explain our origins.

Science has its own code of ethics.

Science has its own priesthood.

Science is based on established dogmas.

Science will bend to accommodate modern trends.

Most of science is unfounded.

Science requires faith.

And those are only the top 10 similarity's.

listverse.com...

Which buzzfeed article did you pull that list from?

originally posted by: saint4God

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
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.

If the term Christian means "one who follows Christ" (as I believe it does) then there is very much the conflict as Jesus said:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," Matthew 5:43

How can you possibly feel persecuted when you have a direct conduit to friggin god?

The fundamental core of any religion, is to believe in something greater than yourself. How religions have been able to manifest that in very evil ways, through history, really keeps you thinking about the relationships.

I go with Kaku's assessment. The complexity is infinite, and what could possibly have come up with it?

Think how different the world would be, if everyone thought of God like that.

originally posted by: charlyv
The fundamental core of any religion, is to believe in something greater than yourself. How religions have been able to manifest that in very evil ways, through history, really keeps you thinking about the relationships.

I go with Kaku's assessment. The complexity is infinite, and what could possibly have come up with it?

Think how different the world would be, if everyone thought of God like that.

Think of how different the world would be if everyone didn't need to.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I don't have a god, but I am endlessly fascinated by the people who are religious and their religions. Sometimes I agree, other times I'm in opposition of what I hear. However, I've learned much about humanity and myself through these interactions. In no way do I believe that science and religion are anathema to each other any more than I believe one must be black to play in the NBA!

science is quite literally one of the few pursuits that only require a desire to learn and test the bounds of our corporeal existence. It teaches you to be methodical and rigorous in your techniques and observations. In other words, discernment! Religion attempts to help people apply this discernment to daily life and make good choices.

I fail to see how this excludes believers from science because you say so.

a reply to: andy06shake

They fear God in some way , maybe because at the end the question always remains...

a reply to: andy06shake

Ah yes, that credible source "listverse.com".

/s

a reply to: TzarChasm

If you clicked the link at the bottom of my post you would have seen which. Not exactly the most credible of sources, but that does not change the fact that there are rather a few similarities between religion and science.

a reply to: GetHyped


Credible source or not, the similarities remain.

Science is just humanities interpretation of how our universe functions just as the organised religions of past and present day attempt to interpret the world around them. We just understand the universe a whole lot better in this day of age than the priest casts of the past, or we like to think we do. Certainly we have better tools at our disposal to do so.

One major difference being that our organised religions are somewhat more laced with control constructs that our scientific methods.

So if you lot are done attempting to discredit my source, care to tell me where i am wrong or why you disagree?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: GetHyped


Credible source or not, the similarities remain.

Only if you have no concept of what the scientific method is and how it is utilised.

a reply to: GetHyped

Well science/experimentation requires repetition which produces the same results/repeatable results to be considered credible, that would be my understanding of our scientific method.

Again i see that you refuse or are unwilling to explain why you disagree that there are similarities between the two.

Out of the ten points listed in the article what is it that you disagree with?

originally posted by: andy06shake
Again i see that you refuse or are unwilling to explain why you disagree that there are similarities between the two.

Myself and others have, numerous times throughout this thread. But on the off-chance that it might sink in the 826th time round, let's go through this silly list of yours:

Science thinks humans are special

Science is a method. It has no thoughts or feelings. But let's be charitable and assume the author of this list means "scientists".

What scientists? Anthropologists, biologists and so on? Not at all. In fact, they'll be quick to point out that we're not some special snowflakes but are animals that have evolved over billions of years just like every other lifeform on this planet.

Religion, on the other hand, claims humans are not animals, but in fact are special little snowflakes for whom this world and all its life was created for them.

Strike 1

Science casts out heretics and persecutes all other religions.

Utter bollocks. New hypotheses are treated with appropriate skepticism until enough evidence comes in to make a compelling case. Case in point: plate tectonics, dark energy. Both theories were treated with deep skepticism, but once the evidence came in, the community accepted the findings.

Religion, on the other hand, will kill people who dare speak against their dogma.

Strike 2

Science reveres its own saints

...what?

Saint: a person acknowledged as holy or virtuous and regarded in Christian faith as being in heaven after death.

Name one single "saint" in science. The "I know you are but what am I?" defense doesn't cut it outside the playground.

Religion, on the other hand, literally has saints.

Strike 3

Science makes up stories to explain our origins

Er... no. Science draws conclusions from empirical evidence. Show me one "story" that science has "made up" to explain our origins.

Religion, on the other hand, literally has origin stories that are made up of whole cloth.

Strike 4

Science has its own code of ethics

So does nearly every discipline. I guess that my HR department is a religion because they have an ethics code we must adhere to /facepalm

Strike 5

Science has its own priesthood

Science is based on established dogmas

Er... no, it doesn't. But I guess this follows the theme of "make up a bunch of crap and attach religious language to it" in order to make the poor case that "science = religion lol".

Religion, on the other hand, literally has its own priesthood and dogmas.

Strike 6 & 7

Science will bend to accommodate modern trends

No, it doesn't. Science is driven solely by empirical evidence, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else likes the conclusions.

But huzza! We've found something science and religion have in common! Except that science won't kill you for it.

Most of science is unfounded

Science requires faith

Laughably stupid claims that I'm not even going to bother dignifying with a response.

Religion, on the other hand, has no evidence for their claims whatsoever and literally requires faith.

Strike 8 & 9

**********************************

So yeah, if this is your idea of a compelling argument, all I can do is laugh until my sides ache at the profound ignorance and comically bad "logic" that went into this.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: GetHyped

Well science/experimentation requires repetition which produces the same results to be considered credible, that would be my understanding of our scientific method.

And if we wiped all scientific knowledge from the earth, we'd discover the same knowledge.

Wipe all religions from the earth and you'll get another countless bunch of conflicting and mutually exclusive superstitions.

Out of the ten points listed in the article what is it that you disagree with?

All of them. I feel embarrassed for you that you find that list even remotely compelling.

a reply to: GetHyped

Well just like everyone else, myself included you are entitled to your opinion. Who am i to try to convince you otherwise.

Science has its limitations simply because it is practiced by Human beings that are prone to error and mistakes. And IMHO you have not discredited any of the similarities listed, you have however at least offered up your own reasons as to why you disagree which is really all that i was looking for.

I do however suggest that you that you remove the profanity's from your above post as im sure you are aware is against the TnC.

Have a nice day

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You can say anything with assurance.

I couldn't just say anything with assurance, because there would be an ethical conflict, but in fairness someone would have to know me well to accept that. There's only one thing I know for sure, that God's son died for my eternal life (and actually present one too).

originally posted by: Woodcarver
It's proving it that is the trick.

Yes. Fortunately it's not up to me to prove it, though I can try to help others obtain their proof.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
And no matter what you say, you can't prove it to be true.

Or to rearrange the sentence, "it cannot be proven true by what I say", but this is also the case in science as well.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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.

Way too many over-statements here, if I may trim the hedges a bit. God isn't hiding evidence, God can be detected, everyone has access, tools of science point towards God but may not be accepted by the majority as proof. Quite a bit of yard work there, looks like a different landscape.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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?

Yes, as a former aggressive agnostic, I remember what it was like. I also wouldn't merely accept someone else's word, I needed to see for myself.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
So i, and others like me, are supposed to take your word for it?

Not at all, but hopefully intellectually curious enough to launch a personal investigation.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Because you do admit that there is no evidence at all to back up what you say right?

No evidence you've found yet perhaps, which is not to say others are without evidence. I have no evidence to show you the moon is made of rock instead of cheese, but it is fact.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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.

Science does this all the time. Surprisingly, many people accept it as true without their demand for proof or even investigation. Trust exists in all fields. For example, the bank says it has a certain amount of money for you. Have you seen the full balance? How then do you know it exists? All you get is their word in the form of a number that it's there and available for you.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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?

It's a good thing the U.S. dollar doesn't say "In saint4God we trust" because we'd all be in a heap of trouble. No one is supposed to just trust me, they're supposed to trust God. He is the proof, can provide the proof and is where I'd gotten mine.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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?

I agree, everyone should need better proof to accept what I believe. All I'm doing is pointing where to get it as my username suggests.

You had a vision while you were killing yourself?

I never went as far as to attempt suicide, just contemplated the 'what if' had I done so. Looking back, I don't think this is as unusual for a person as I did at the time.

a reply to: saint4God

quite easy solution, just dont announce that u have faith and crack on with job at hand.
they dont need to know what your persoan views re in life.

to me scinece is a religion, suppsoe its like a Catholic faith trying to practice islam, you need to let one of them go.
not my view at all, but putting my feet into the scientist shoes i assume this might be there way of thinking.

alot of religiouse folk are deemd smal lminded and set parameters of life within the religiouse box. Maybe this might be a reason. not all folks are like this but many. But working in science i suppose you need an open mind.

originally posted by: saint4God

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You can say anything with assurance.

I couldn't just say anything with assurance, because there would be an ethical conflict, but in fairness someone would have to know me well to accept that. There's only one thing I know for sure, that God's son died for my eternal life (and actually present one too).

originally posted by: Woodcarver
It's proving it that is the trick.

Yes. Fortunately it's not up to me to prove it, though I can try to help others obtain their proof.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
And no matter what you say, you can't prove it to be true.

Or to rearrange the sentence, "it cannot be proven true by what I say", but this is also the case in science as well.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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.

Way too many over-statements here, if I may trim the hedges a bit. God isn't hiding evidence, God can be detected, everyone has access, tools of science point towards God but may not be accepted by the majority as proof. Quite a bit of yard work there, looks like a different landscape.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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?

Yes, as a former aggressive agnostic, I remember what it was like. I also wouldn't merely accept someone else's word, I needed to see for myself.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
So i, and others like me, are supposed to take your word for it?

Not at all, but hopefully intellectually curious enough to launch a personal investigation.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Because you do admit that there is no evidence at all to back up what you say right?

No evidence you've found yet perhaps, which is not to say others are without evidence. I have no evidence to show you the moon is made of rock instead of cheese, but it is fact.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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.

Science does this all the time. Surprisingly, many people accept it as true without their demand for proof or even investigation. Trust exists in all fields. For example, the bank says it has a certain amount of money for you. Have you seen the full balance? How then do you know it exists? All you get is their word in the form of a number that it's there and available for you.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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?

It's a good thing the U.S. dollar doesn't say "In saint4God we trust" because we'd all be in a heap of trouble. No one is supposed to just trust me, they're supposed to trust God. He is the proof, can provide the proof and is where I'd gotten mine.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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?

I agree, everyone should need better proof to accept what I believe. All I'm doing is pointing where to get it as my username suggests.

You had a vision while you were killing yourself?

I never went as far as to attempt suicide, just contemplated the 'what if' had I done so. Looking back, I don't think this is as unusual for a person as I did at the time.

9 pages in and you are still making claims that science can prove god is real without offering this proof up?

The moon? We have been to the moon. You know exactly how we know it is made of rock. We have those rocks to look at and hold in our hands. Is your evidence for god, nearly as compelling as our evidence that the moon is made of various rocks and dirt?

Can you think of another accepted scientific theory that is taken on faith?

Why is it not up to you to prove it? You are the one making the claim. You cannot pass that off. You are the one who is convinced. If your evidence isn't enough to convince others, then it shouldn't be enough to convince you.

Your best effort is that all i need to start believeing, is to start believing?
you were def alluding to the act of suicide throughout this entire thread. Now you are having second thoughts on that? So now, in your story, you were just sitting in your room, thinking about the other side, and the devil popped up?



Bottom line. Where and what is is the proof?

I actually didn't see these before now, maybe because of scrolling or thought the questions may have been directed to someone else:

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."

If my professors stated it this way, I'd have no objections, but it wasn't a "maybe" for them. It was an impossibility.

originally posted by: Badgered1
Instead it's a drama filled dog-whistle toward those who believe Christians are persecuted.

Haha, nice, c'mon y'all that there "drama filled dog-whistle" is funny stuff. This isn't persecution by a mile, I've never even been threatened.

originally posted by: Badgered1
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???"

Straw man fallacy, and not how the discussions went. Ever.

originally posted by: Badgered1
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'?

Yes.

originally posted by: Badgered1
* Is your faith based on Biblical teachings?

Yes.

originally posted by: Badgered1
In which case, which parts do you take as allegory, and which as literal? Which parts do you ignore completely?

Reverse answering: Ignore none, I'm learning more and more is literal, and the only parts I can say for sure are allegory is when Jesus presents a parable.

originally posted by: Badgered1
* 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?

Are you agreeing that these events occurred and science helps explains them? There is no conflict then. God creates natural law, science, and other tools as He sees fit to do so.

originally posted by: Badgered1
* 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?

Jesus was the fulfillment of the old law, which means, through his sacrifice, we no longer need to sacrifice. He paid the debt of deeds that were required in the old testament. It's no longer about what you do, but who you are and from a God-centered spirit come good works.

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

I think there's a lot to be gained from the Bible being used as a historical document.

originally posted by: Badgered1
Do you think that, say, an archaeological dig uncovering something mentioned in the bible proves the bible to be true?

Partly. Depends on the details, but relics don't really seem to have much relevancy to people here and now compared to an actual relationship with the living God.

originally posted by: Badgered1
* How many of the fantastical claims in the Bible are miraculous to you, and which are simply not possible?

I hold the same position as Matthew 19:26, "Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'

originally posted by: Badgered1
* Could a scientific discovery affect your faith?

I don't know. It has been reaffirming so far and would expect it to continue to do so, but always interested in learning more. It's okay to doubt, test, and verify according to the Bible.

originally posted by: Badgered1
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.

Let's not allow the past dictate the present or future and hope I'm not seen as an opponent.

originally posted by: Badgered1
On a historical timeline, religion and science have never intersected.

For example?

originally posted by: Badgered1
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.

You had me until "No faith required". I have to use faith in science several times a day as a biochemist.

originally posted by: Badgered1
Faith begins with an unchanging opinion,

Christian faith changed so much that right now people are having difficulty reconciling an old and new testament. For example, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment." Matthew 5:21-22. This is very jarring because we've gone from a faith that says you're okay as long as you don't act on evil, but Jesus says even THINKING evil is subject to judgement. Revolutionary for its day.

originally posted by: Badgered1
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.

I don't know if it's quite that static. In a Christian debate there's a lot to talk about without declaring who is right or wrong unless it is clearly documented in the Bible which it is.