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

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.

Because you believe in something they do not believe in and materialism is the dominant belief system in the universities.

As long as you don't force your belief system on others and it doesn't affect what you do in a negative way i don't see anything wrong with it, real honest science is an objective tool and so far doesn't deny or confirm a Creator/God. Only humans with a subjective mind and many hours of indoctrination would be folish enough to claim they know how reality is operating without truly knowing, persuading oneself doesn't lead to wisdom and persuading others in this condition is even worse, a complete self-deception.

The ideal human condition would be to not assume anything before the facts are known and consequently no need to enforce belief systems, peace on earth so to speak. It's unfortunate that so few realize this.. like that zen monk said, ''We'll see''.

a reply to: Woodcarver

But how does one's faith help to make discoveries? Which scientific discoveries were made because of one's faith in a deity?

Bit of a red herring there...like saying... If you are a scientist you cant play poker...after all there is the element of faith and probability involved. As a scientist you're going to have to try harder than that

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Woodcarver

But how does one's faith help to make discoveries? Which scientific discoveries were made because of one's faith in a deity?

Bit of a red herring there...like saying... If you are a scientist you cant play poker...after all there is the element of faith and probability involved. As a scientist you're going to have to try harder than that

I'm not saying that you can't be a christian, muslim, scientologist, or whatever, and still make scientific discoveries. That is the red herring. What i'm pointing out is that people use their strong beliefs/faith, to then assure others that their god, or any god exists. Which is a claim that scientists will ask you for your proof of. If you have only your faith/belief and no valid evidence to support your claim, or do not think that your claim can be proved by science, or do not care that there is no proof of your claim, then you are ignoring one of the most important aspects of science. Proof!!! And without proof of your claim, it will not be accepted in the scientific community as a fact. You have to be able to back up your claims. Also, if you can let your faith/belief, allow you to ignore the FACT that there is no evidence for any of these types of claims, then how can you be trusted to keep your faith out of your scientific work? Some people manage to do so, but with the barrage of christian science click bait, it's pretty clear that a large section of believers are unable to separate fact from fiction, and they don't care about proof. They offer things like


"look into the eyes of a new born baby, and tell me there is no god,".

Or

"Get up early and watch a sunset and tell me there is no god"

Or

"I was questioning whether there is a god or not, and the devil started chasing me around town. "

When none of these things are convincing stories. Much less scientific proof. The fact is that people who understand the importance of proving one's claims, are not the one's making wild claims. It's believers in superstitions who are are making the claims.

Atheists like myself want real proof. Or i want it to go away. The truth is that proof will come from someone following the scientific method, so if they truly wanted to prove their claims, or at least understand what would/could be considered valid proof of deity. They will NEED to educate themselves in the sciences that will enable them to do so.

In this country, we have a constitutional amendment called separation of church and state. That is, it is illegal for any school or university receiving government money (public) from preaching the word of god.

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.

I don't see as to how this follows from the topic.

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.

If your professor said this (which I sincerely doubt, honestly) then he clearly does not understand that religious denominations are in no way related to science whatsoever.

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.

Who asked you this? Was it a college professor?

For me, science and faith are a perfect fit.

How?

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.

No. Not at all.

In the realm of science, previous results can certainly be used to predict future ones--it is not so much as faith as it is that there is no reason to believe that new results would deviate from past results if the conditions that the past results were extracted from remained the same in future testing.

You also don't need faith to make a hypothesis. All you need to do is to make a supposition with limited evidence and investigate the supposition further to strengthen or weaken the hypothesis. There is no faith inherently required to make a supposition.

There's a misconception that us scientists don't believe in God (or so this is what many will have students believe in universities).

There is? I never once believed that. Where are you getting this idea? Do you have statistics to suggest that this is true?

To summarize, the representation of the 'real world' in secular academia does not reflect reality of the scientific and God believing world.

I did not realize that there was a particular representation of the "real world" in secular academia.

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Thread title is 100% false

Certainly not false (not even close to 100%). If you'd like to claim I've made a "hasty generalization", I'd welcome additional data. Until then, I think it's safe to say that my history doesn't include an isolated incidence...especially since my professors kept stating things such as, "nothing personal, but..."

originally posted by: jamespond
a reply to: saint4God

You should of made a deal with your professor, that if he could prove (or even show proof for that matter) that God doesn't exist, that then and only then you would stop believing in him.

I like the way you think, but they would claim that proving a negative is outside the bounds of science. I couldn't blame them for that since science (even logic?) is an inadequate tool for such an absolute.

originally posted by: saint4God

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Thread title is 100% false

Certainly not false (not even close to 100%). If you'd like to claim I've made a "hasty generalization", I'd welcome additional data. Until then, I think it's safe to say that my history doesn't include an isolated incidence...especially since my professors kept stating things such as, "nothing personal, but..."

You've yet to provide any data to reinforce your claim so how can you begin to request "additional data" from him? The burden of proof is on you, not him in this case.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Thanks for answering my questions, but it seems to me your answers are more romantic than honest.

This made me smile even though it wasn't meant as a compliment.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You claim you were not killing yourself over sadness, but rather you were emotionless.

(which is not really possible, and sounds very much like bravado, (the same kind of bravado that would lead some to openly identify as a Nihlist. Which you did earlier in this thread) or that you spent a lot of effort at that time pretending to be emotionless to avoid confronting very strong emotions. Strong emotions which seem to lead many people to attempt a suicide. )

and just wanted to know what was on the other side. So you decided to take your own life (without drugs, but i'm still left to assume. Possibly a wrist cutter) you say you were looking for answers. (Like whether there is a god or not?) so you were consciously looking for god?

I wouldn't say devoid of emotion, but it wasn't my primary motivation. I loved my parents, they were cool people, but I also was frustrated by not knowing the answer. My justification is that they would eventually understand, and if not, would only live a few decades (when faced with eternity didn't seem to be that long) with whatever sorrow I caused. Emotion was most certainly there, it caused me pause.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
And in a hallucinatory state, (the brain dumps powerful psychodelics when in a near death state) you found the devil. (All of that emotion that you were NOT feeling, came rushing in, and guilt and remorse took center stage.). Confirmation bias took the form of the devil, and then as relief that you did not actually die set in, that hallucination took the form of god. The thing you were searching for when you started on this path. The one thing that could give your life meaning. You say it clear as day. You wanted to see if there were something on the other side. The only things "on the other side" in our culture, is god and the devil, and how convenient, you found them both, in a hallucination as your body and brain were trying to convince you not to kill yourself. The brain is full of powerful hallucinatory chemicals which we know very well are dumped into the body at very stressful moments, especially in near death experiences. It is not only common, but very much expected for you to hallucinate when you are near death. Your story sounds like a perfect storm for confirmation bias. It sounds like a thousand other cases that are thoroughly vetted in lab settings. As in, of course you were hallucinating, thats what happens before you die. It's a fact of our physiology. So, no matter what you say, you were def tripping at that time when you met the devil. Without a doubt.
Backed up by mounds of research. People are hallucinating when in a near death exp. thats why christians see jesus, and muslims see allah. Comfirmation bias.

Such a simple excuse, but I can't say I blame since I doubted myself a number of times whether any of it was real. Confirmation and verification over a number of years needed to solidify. Here's a few problems. 1.) I didn't expect God or anything else to actually exists. 2.) I was pulling for Zeus if anything did (last resort), since Greek mythology made sense to me at the time whereas other notions most certainly did not. 3.) Zeus didn't show, so my mind's dream went unfulfilled. 3.) The devil was never a consideration, or had foreknowledge of and yet appeared 4.) Was completely out of control which is not something the mind wants a person to experience when seeking some sort of resolution. 5.) Wasn't hallucinating. It really is that simple. No drugs, no scientific reason, no explanation. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Sigmund Freud

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: saint4God

I have a friend, who, many years ago was drinking way too much when he slipped into oblivion caused by alcohol poisoning. After he woke up, he said he was saved by "Jack Nicholson".

Nobody questions that he was hallucinating.

Maybe if he had just seen the passion of the christ, instead of the shining, he might have had a dif experience.

As mentioned, was not under the influence of any drug (alcohol included) and did not have any Christian movie or otherwise experience.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You said yourself that you were going through with your deed to answer questions. Mainly, what is on the other side. You were clearly focused on finding god. You might as well have taken a handful of drugs and sat down on a spirit quest.

Nah, didn't really care at that point, just know that I had nothing to lose.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Uhh yea, you cannot define/explain it because it was a hallucination as your brain was shutting off.

My brain was never in a state of shutting off nor was I seeing things that weren't real. If ti were, it wouldn't bother with consistency, reoccurance, and repetition to verify the experience though many years from it without any form of a physical/emotional stressed state.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
There it is again. You asked for something to show up, (while you are hallucinating) and the devil (All of the emotions you were suppressing) made an appearance? No mysteries here folks.

Heh, if it were a hallucination, it'd be a 'one-off' and there would be neither any problem nor discussion. Nothing at that time would've promoted such a physical or psychological response...unless you believe in magic?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
You have to be able to back up your claims. Also, if you can let your faith/belief, allow you to ignore the FACT that there is no evidence for any of these types of claims, then how can you be trusted to keep your faith out of your scientific work? Some people manage to do so, but with the barrage of christian science click bait, it's pretty clear that a large section of believers are unable to separate fact from fiction, and they don't care about proof. They offer things like


"look into the eyes of a new born baby, and tell me there is no god,".

Or

"Get up early and watch a sunset and tell me there is no god"

Or

"I was questioning whether there is a god or not, and the devil started chasing me around town. "

When none of these things are convincing stories. Much less scientific proof. The fact is that people who understand the importance of proving one's claims, are not the one's making wild claims. It's believers in superstitions who are are making the claims.

Atheists like myself want real proof. Or i want it to go away. The truth is that proof will come from someone following the scientific method, so if they truly wanted to prove their claims, or at least understand what would/could be considered valid proof of deity.

I just watched a horrific video testimony of a guy named David Woods but well worth a listen, once very dangerous Atheist Psychopath with very real potential of being a mass murderer who knocked on the right door of God and was changed instantly (as can be attested to by many many Christians self included ) , I`d watched some of his videos years ago in his ministry of speaking to Muslims on a radio show about the Quran and Christianity. He is a very bright and intelligent guy, though this was the first time I`d seen or heard his testimony.

As far as proof of deity finding God yourself is the only way, hopefully people don`t have to go through as much as David did to believe first and ask God into their life, but its only then you get your own personal proof, that will never be found under a microscope, through telescope etc even though you would be staring at the evidence all along.

Very disturbing at times, no devil chasing him etc , but he is very articulate in sharing his life that bought him to the point of finding God. ( it goes for 34 minutes, but it`s captivating from the start to end ) no matter how smart or good/ bad one may think of themselves, its always the same process in the end as this. ( bended knee believing and asking God into our life)


as for the OP
It is ridiculous any Professor would say pick one-science or Christianity , though wouldn`t surprise me in the least and obviously this was quite a few years ago so you didn`t need to make that choice anyway and you got your PHD.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: saint4God

If every account of NDE included meeting the same entity, that would lend credence to claims it would not neccasarily be proof, but it would be intriguing. As it is, people see all kinds of things. All of which seem to be relevant to the culture in which that person is used to. I.e. Christians see christ, muslims see allah or Mohamed, some people see loved one's (not always dead one's), some people see a light, some people see dear pets, some people see celebrities who aren't even dead. The common core in all of these stories is powerful psychodelics produced by the brain to calm you down as you die. We know that happens without a doubt.

I'm assuming you are well aware of this fact and have consciously chosen to omit it from your world view.

I did not have a near death experience and cannot speak to what happens during them (only read about it), though I must say from what you've listed above, there's a lot of similarities between them. As previously mentioned, my wife didn't see anything during her overdose, just went unconscious.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: saint4God

Churches, actual buildings and organisations cost money, money that should ONLY ever be spent on doing the Lords work. They take collections, bedeck their worship space in finery and rich materials, and this I have NO time for. You should see the places they train even Church of England clergy. Plush does not even get close to the correct term.

Although I don't know what the Church of England's balance sheet looks like, I can say I have seen the quarterly financial reports for my own church. Not only do the numbers show the giving (EFCA certified, compliant with 5-Star Charities, et cetera), but have personally delivered meals the church bought to people who needed them. Even those who never approach the church are given food and basic necessities because we're aware of where the homeless camps are located and see the same people on the street corners every day. In our case, the giving of the community multiplies the giving of the individual not only in funds, but in sharing the gospel message as commanded by Christ (Mark 16:15) as well as volunteering works.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Till then, I will maintain that all human organisation funnels power and wealth into the control of mortal human beings who cannot, by reason of their being part of mankind, be trusted worth a brass plated crap to administer them properly.

The Church, any of them, the mortal, world wide construct, and the local organisation dedicated to maintaining worship space, can officially get in the sea for all I care. It's about as Christian to bother with that nonsense, as it is to screw hookers and stab grannies for their pension money.

I see words like "all" and "any", so you have visited every organization?

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1-2

Are you saying you're a better judge of all of these than God? He Himself has different things to say about different organizations. (For example, Revelation chapter 1, 2 and 3).

Can anyone actually give an example of a public university not wanting students to believe in god?

originally posted by: GetHyped
Can anyone actually give an example of a public university not wanting students to believe in god?

No.

a reply to: saint4God

Be careful what you wish for. The "God" may turn out to be an alien running a simulation on a computer. Whatever the "God" turns out to be, it probably won't be the nice guy in your Bible.

Regardless, does it really matter if there is or isn't a god? There's no proof either way so why waste energy contemplating something that you can't know? You're free to believe it if it makes you happy, but in terms of science, who cares? As a biochemist, when you run an experiment and analyze the data, does your god play any role in the outcome? No (or it shouldn't anyway). Whether 40% or 90% in your lab believe in a god, it should have no impact on their experimental results.

Religion is not incompatible with science. Science is about discovery and evidence. Religion is about faith with no evidence. Two very different things.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: saint4God



Regardless, does it really matter if there is or isn't a god? There's no proof either way so why waste energy contemplating something that you can't know?

Religion is not incompatible with science. Science is about discovery and evidence.
Religion is about faith with no evidence. Two very different things.

All of these are your opinions and like elbows we all have at leat two of, your projecting your opinions onto others as if everyone else shares also.

You obviously think all Christians think or contemplate there is a God, where many if not most know there is a God.

Two very different things.

Personal proof can be obtained. As per just one example in the video I posted above.

a reply to: gps777

Personal proof can be obtained. As per just one example in the video I posted above.

Personal proof is not hard evidence. The scientific method doesn't lend itself to religions, only to science.

Opinions which are not backed by evidence are only opinions. As I said before, science is about discovery and evidence. Religions are based on faith and no evidence. Nothing wrong with either one. Just how it is.

originally posted by: [post=20857780]Phantom423

Personal proof is not hard evidence.

To the individual it is though.

Opinions which are not backed by evidence are only opinions.

A complete renewed/healed self instantly is evidence, its just not the evidence science wants nowadays.

As I said before, science is about discovery and evidence. Religions are based on faith and no evidence. Nothing wrong with either one. Just how it is.

Yep yep I know and I`m not trying to be difficult either.

I`m all for science, so long as its done and used morally, but I don`t hold faith in all scientists and especially governments with that.

originally posted by: LittleBurgh
a reply to: saint4God

IMH- There is no reason for science & religion to be mutually exclusive. Scientists are akin to those who participate in Bible study. Studying both is nothing more than learning how & why our world exists and works. Both look outside themselves seeking knowledge & understanding. If God divinely wrote the Bible, he also created microorganisms. Why is it not possible to seek the divine in all living creatures?

That aside, there is no place in a public university to squelch any idea scientific, divine or otherwise.

This is what I was thinking as well, so to find conflict was surprising.

A professor has no business in your personal faith.

I don't mind a professor seeking to understand, it's when they're looking to change that raises a concern. When they're doing so aggressively in front of a student audience, this is where I would object.

[quote[
It is their job only to guide & instruct students in his or her area of expertise.

i wouldn't want to remove the human element involved in teaching entirely, I'm sure everyone has some sort of bias. Some announce it, others just state it as if it were fact.