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

Still no proof other than a few personal anecdotes that "Public Universities" take any position on God?

Not surprising.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: saint4God

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

Nether does God.

How do you figure?

Especially when to the contrary is stated, "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4

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

Certainly not a lie (may the mods ban me otherwise). I'm also not the only person in the world who has come to this conclusion, although at the time I had wondered if I was. If you'd like to claim "hasty generalization", you may be on to something, but at least present some sort of support to validate this being the case other than that you are also a scientist and one who doesn't believe these reoccurring experiences are true.

Maybe it's not just in the public university science classes: www.breitbart.com...

Thank you OP for reminding people that all scientists are not the same. Each person on this Earth is unique!

It's my opinion some of us have more than just "faith" in God. My belief is based on my own personal proof of a force I call God.

Many times have I set the stage for a certain response or action and received said response from an energy of positive affirmation.

Because of "free will" it's a must when you want something to ask for it. Prayer works in my life and there seems to be jaw dropping times when I am still amazed. Wish I knew how prayer works for sure. My theory is it works because the Universe (Energy/God/Higher Self/Whatever you want to call it) wants to give you what you ask for. The Universe or God is a giver!!

For this reason the old saying is very true... Be careful what you ask for.

Not worth it.

a reply to: saint4God

I figure because any benevolent God worth our admiration would wish his creations to progress, learn, and further our understanding of the universe.

Far as i can see most organised religious practices run counterproductive to humanity's progress and learning down to the numerous different control constructs contained with in the holy books and scriptures. Designed to retard and corrupt our ability to think for ourself.

So if a benevolent God does exist i hardly imagine he/she/it would wish us to believe in books and religious texts written by Man with all his fears and fallibility at play.

originally posted by: ErosA433
The item never comes up in lectures,

Not only is it not true, it also assumes you must be everywhere all the time.

there isn't any sessions iv ever been aware of when the subject of religion is a matter of discussion.

It's not supposed to be, which is exactly why I made the thread

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've witnessed Hindus take quite a verbal thrashing about their beliefs in Philosophies of Life as well as in World Religions. Both professors say they teach the same format every semester. What surprised me most was that the Hindus in our class had no interest in responding.

For the science classes, there may not have been planned 'Lets beat the God out of people' sessions, but if you question trans-species evolution (for example) according to the scientific method, the retort comes back like, "so how do you explain it, GodDidIt?" *cue chuckling class* It was hard keeping the professor focused on the actual science after that.

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.

This is how the real world as I've seen it operates. If it occurs in public academia, that would be fantastically ideal and good preparation for the diversity they'll come to know in the occupation.

a reply to: saint4God

So which universities don't want science students to believe in god, then?

Are you going to back up any of your tall claims with verifiable facts, or is the premise of this thread a fabrication?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: saint4God
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?

Although I don't think I've ever felt persecuted, I imagine those who do are going through some sort of physical and/or mental pain imposed by other people due to their relationship with God. I'm not sure if having a direct conduit with God would shut down one's ability to feel pain (though there's a lot to suggest that it wouldn't), but in times like these, the Bible says to rejoice since Christ also suffered in order for us to have this relationship with God. I'm not sure if I've reached that 'rejoice in suffering' skill personally, but would hope that I could.

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
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.

That is the norm in daily work and should've been the norm in the classroom as well. I made no such announcement. Maybe because I was wearing a cross that day or a Christian t-shirt? I hadn't thought of that until now. Since I didn't wear them everyday, I don't even recognize the days that I do or don't.

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.

It certainly may have been the professors' view, which makes sense when put this way.

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.

Perhaps it was some previous encounters with students. A lot of people who are quick on the draw or overly cynical usually have a history to cause them to be such.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
When do you have to use faith as a biochemist and why?

Just about every step of the way. To make the drug testing kits, I get a copy of the last batch made, trusting that it was made correctly even though the possibility exists that it was not. I have to have faith that if I repeat these things, I'll get the same results (even though in biochemistry isn't always true because of antibody/enzymatic reactions mostly). I believe that the calculations I've made are correct and that person who checked them didn't make the same mistake if I had made one. I have had to re-make a product a time or two when this happens if one of us discovers the error. I trust the procedure will lead me in the right direction (which is far from clear), that the instrument will provide accurate data (although sometimes it doesn't and have to troubleshoot if so). When the product is complete, I have faith that I haven't been given any erroneous confirmations that what I've done is correct. These kits are sold to hospitals where doctors test patients on medications. If they're not functioning correctly, it could have serious healthcare consequences for a patient. I have faith the hospitals will use these correctly and trust the doctors will read the results in the manner the kits were designed. These are just a few examples.

What did Plato say about faith? "The Form of Good" is that by which all things gain their intelligibility.

Aristotle's physics gave arguments demonstrating the existence of an unmoved mover as a timeless self-thinker from the evidence of motion in the world.

All philosophy has some form of faith.... even Science has some form of faith.

ALL faiths have conflict.


From "Faith and Reason" www.iep.utm.edu...

Not all scientific discoveries were used to invoke greater skepticism about the validity of religious claims, however. For example, in the late twentieth century some physicists endorsed what came to be called the anthropic principle. The principle derives from the claim of some physicists that a number of factors in the early universe had to coordinate in a highly statistically improbable way to produce a universe capable of sustaining advanced life forms. Among the factors are the mass of the universe and the strengths of the four basic forces (electromagnetism, gravitation, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). It is difficult to explain this fine tuning. Many who adhere to the anthropic principle, such as Holmes Rolston, John Leslie, and Stephen Hawking, argue that it demands some kind of extra-natural explanation. Some think it suggests possibilities for a new design argument for God's existence. However, one can hold the anthropic principle and still deny that it has religious implications. It is possible to argue that it indicates not a single creator creating a single universe, but indeed many universes, either contemporaneous with our own or in succession to it. The twentieth century witnessed numerous attempts to reconcile religious belief with new strands of philosophical thinking and with new theories in science.

Listen to what Manly Hall has to say about "faith".

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

Firstly, I haven't written 9 pages of material, thank the ATS community for that one. Secondly, I don't see where I claimed science and prove god is real nor is it the title of this thread. Thirdly, I don't have Dr. Kaku's phone number on me and am also interested in hearing the proof as claimed by the article.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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?

We have? I don't remember going. I should've taken pictures while I was there, maybe a selfie or two. I haven't held a rock from the moon in my hands, but I sure would like to. The moon hasn't done anything for me personally that I'm aware of, so I suppose I'm more sure of God than lunar composition.


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

Pretty much all of them, which is why they are theories and not facts.

Why is it not up to you to prove it?

If I don't want to believe the moon is made of rock, could you prove it to me? It exists whether others wish to accept it or not.

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.

This doesn't even make logical sense. You're saying that if I cannot persuade others, my data is invalid? Sounds more like a popularity contest than science.

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?

I was considering suicide, which as mentioned before is a stupid thing to do. The second stupid thing to do was to try to force the issue of something beyond the human realm to prove itself, because if you commit to believing with only that simple requirement it puts not just a person's life in danger, but the person's much longer lasting soul.

So now, in your story, you were just sitting in your room, thinking about the other side, and the devil popped up?

The oversimplification of this statement overlooks a temporal progression. It's okay to think about the other side and recommend people do so often. If you begin ascribing to an nihilist, humanistic view of the universe, become progressively frustrated, then give up on finding the answers any other way other than the idea of creating the conditions in which life changes to afterlife, a person's spirit is in trouble. I'm not going to detail how the challenge came to be (somebody replicated and now I regret doing so), but the devil has no problem answering the call if it is to his advantage to do so.

Bottom line. Where and what is is the proof?

Already addressed, see previous posts.

originally posted by: GetHyped
There is a mountain of evidence for evolution. You're not seriously denying this, are you?

Let's begin with a functional mechanism for trans-species evolution. Do you have one available?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Love is a chemical reaction.

According to this statement, the Bible verse (John 15:11-12) can be studied by scientist to verify its validity. If so, the suggestion is that science could provide proof for the Bible. Interesting notion, hadn't considered this approach with the verse before.

originally posted by: saint4God

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Love is a chemical reaction.

According to this statement, the Bible verse (John 15:11-12) can be studied by scientist to verify its validity. If so, the suggestion is that science could provide proof for the Bible. Interesting notion, hadn't considered this approach with the verse before.

Dopamine and serotonin can both induce spiritual experiences with the right dosage. This isn't proof of anything except drugs are bad, mkay?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Doesn't sound like the father of lies. Doesn't he have the gift of words or something? Seems like aggressive stalking is a little tactless for him.

He has many tools, using whichever one he feels is most effective at the time. If I was into flourishing speeches at the time, no doubt he would've given one. For me, he was less like Luke 4:1-13 and more like Job 1:11. Rightly so, keeping in mind my skepticism (hard headedness?). In dealing with stone, one would not bring a chisel without a hammer. There was probably some finessing going on leading up to this point that I was unaware of and some indirect digs since, but probably knows now I'm a waste of time & energy for him directly given our last exchange.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Atheists like myself want real proof. Or i want it to go away.

Also true for an aggressive agnostic, we had this in common. I say aggressive because I know of passive agnostics that not only don't know, they don't care. Not much hope when someone doesn't care and represents a problem as the clock is counting down to a moral end and a decision should to be made.

originally posted by: graysquirrel
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.

Which amendment was that again?

a reply to: saint4God

It is incorporated in to the first amendment.