How do physicians/med students/pre-meds feel about religion?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by NightGod

Eating and breathing through the same hole is a good source of skepticism that doesn't get invalidated by the bowling ball defense

Then you missed the point of most of the posts so far....
Per your logic, not being made out of adamantium is also a perfectly logical and valid source of skepticism. This is, of course, completely absurd.
your argument is, essentially, that because we are not all sentient gundam fighters (or lets get even more silly) that because we are not ourselves GODS that we could not have been created by a perfect god. Your argument hinges on the assumption that an all powerful god is bound to create something that is in all ways perfect. Your argument is asinine because if such a god were bound he wouldnt be all powerful in the first place
based on its own assumptions, your argument (and all such arguments) cannot be valid.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

If you are unwilling to defend your beliefs, are they really worth having? I believe this is a cop out on your part.

I have been defending them.


You are getting mixed up on your terminology here

I have just acknowledged that the level of proof you require does not exist I dont think you have been able to get there yet on your side though.

you're being sloppy dude....

i be leaving this thread

Originally Posted by mmmmd

i be leaving this thread

Cheers :beer:

You've said some things in defense of evolution and believe in an interventionist god, so I was not suggesting you were a creationist, but you have said things that could be interpreted as pro-Intelligent Design (or gentle nudging at least by a guiding deity).

You may have just been playing Devil's advocate, but the truth is if you believe in a deity that cares about humanity, wouldn't it have interfered in evolution? I find a belief in pure evolution + an interventionist deity less logical than intelligent design (although it is harder to disprove).

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I have been defending them.


You are getting mixed up on your terminology here

I have just acknowledged that the level of proof you require does not exist I dont think you have been able to get there yet on your side though.

you're being sloppy dude....

I may have missed a post, but I have yet to see you provide any evidence or argument for your belief in god.

Don't need a full proof obviously, just any evidence aside from upbringing or your own feelings (eg "feeling God's presence").

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

The evidence against it is the evidence against any unnecessarily complicated theory.

If the simpler explanation works, you need evidence to suggest the more complicated one.

And yes, any theory involving God is the more complicated one because in order to be complete said theory would need to explain God as well.

So unless you have evidence that shows natural selection cannot possibly produce the current diversity of life, the burden of proof lies with you for your theory of a guiding hand.

And I know you acknowledged the possibility of a perfect deceiver, but I will still counter your arguments if you intone to make them.

You believe it is unnecessarily complicated. That is not proof. That is just a belief based upon a theory that is applicable most of the time.

Who made up this rule of "burden of proof"? I don't believe we can prove God's existence. I also don't believe you can prove there is no God.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

If you are unwilling to defend your beliefs, are they really worth having? I believe this is a cop out on your part.

You have presented a belief also, that there is no God. That is a conclusion and therefore you need proof (according to your standards, not mine). Saying that it is the least complicated theory is not proof.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

You've said some things in defense of evolution and believe in an interventionist god, so I was not suggesting you were a creationist, but you have said things that could be interpreted as pro-Intelligent Design (or gentle nudging at least by a guiding deity).

You may have just been playing Devil's advocate, but the truth is if you believe in a deity that cares about humanity, wouldn't it have interfered in evolution? I find a belief in pure evolution + an interventionist deity less logical than intelligent design (although it is harder to disprove).

Again, you finding something logical or not means absolutely nothing. Since when are you the judge? Is everything you find logical true and everything you find illogical false? No.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

I may have missed a post, but I have yet to see you provide any evidence or argument for your belief in god.

Don't need a full proof obviously, just any evidence aside from upbringing or your own feelings (eg "feeling God's presence").

Is this your goal? To relish in the fact that we are unable to prove God's existence? Again, this is what some of us have choose to believe based upon the phenomenon in life we've seen. Now do we have a burden? No. We have no more burden than you do in coming to your conclusion. Your conclusion, the absence of God, is your faith. It's faith in a theory that is correct sometimes.

What is your evidence for God's absence? If you present none, then you hold us to a standard you do not satisfy.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

just any evidence aside from upbringing or your own feelings (eg "feeling God's presence").

Sorry lol. That is all you get. I already said evidence doesn't exist so you should stop asking. It also doesn't exist to the contrary. Per evidence alone I have every bit as much reason to believe as you have not to believe

Originally Posted by JackShephard MD

You believe it is unnecessarily complicated. That is not proof. That is just a belief based upon a theory that is applicable most of the time.

Who made up this rule of "burden of proof"? I don't believe we can prove God's existence. I also don't believe you can prove there is no God.

Occam's razor has worked well for us. Without positive evidence of God's existence, if we have a workable theory without him that us the simpler theory and the one we should assume to be true until presented with further evidence.

This is the way science works, might as well apply it to religion too.

If we start believing theories that are more complicated without evidence, there is an infinite number if possibilities and your individual faith is just as unlikely as any of the rest (enter perfect deceiver, FSM, etc).

To steal from Grover Norquist, it's not that I want to destroy God, I just want to shrink him to a size that's small enough to drag to the bathtub and drown.

There's room for a deity to set up natural laws and do whatever the hell he wanted prior to the big bang. After that, natural laws require no need for manual intervention to describe the current universe.

I read all of your posts in Tyrion's voice in my mind. It's delightful.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

I read all of your posts in Tyrion's voice in my mind. It's delightful.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Occam's razor has worked well for us. Without positive evidence of God's existence, if we have a workable theory without him that us the simpler theory and the one we should assume to be true until presented with further evidence.

This is the way science works, might as well apply it to religion too.

If we start believing theories that are more complicated without evidence, there is an infinite number if possibilities and your individual faith is just as unlikely as any of the rest (enter perfect deceiver, FSM, etc).

To steal from Grover Norquist, it's not that I want to destroy God, I just want to shrink him to a size that's small enough to drag to the bathtub and drown.

There's room for a deity to set up natural laws and do whatever the hell he wanted prior to the big bang. After that, natural laws require no need for manual intervention to describe the current universe.

So do you propose that Occam's razor is infallible and always true?

I respect your belief. There is no reason to want to shrink God so that you can drown him. What is it in you that wants to destroy another person's faith?

We're all making bets in this life. My bet has been placed on God, you on the other hand are placing your bet on a theory created by Franciscan friar Father William of Ockham, who ironically was a Roman Catholic with strong faith in the existence of God.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

I read all of your posts in Tyrion's voice in my mind. It's delightful.

Honestly, I like this humor better than the discussion. We all believe different things and that's ok.

Best Tyrion quote:

I will hurt you for this. I don't know how yet, but give me time. A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid.

The trouble with evidence is the unidirectional temporal vector that encompasses our lives. We see evolution, the proposed origins of the universe and life on earth and say hey! No god needed, right? Then the other side, because of our temporally based minds, says well, hey, what started that? Oh, well, according to this here math it could have been 2 branes smacking each other! Well, what started that? And so on.

In the end it all becomes one giant regression-jerk (instead of circle-jerk) where no one is really more sure than the other. Based on the way I synthesize the data I come to the conclusion of no god. Someone else comes to the conclusion of god. The societal problem comes about when one side is so sure of their belief that they try to push it onto everyone else. From my experience these people tend to be the ones who have never really thought through any side, including their own, and go by only what they have been told.

That is also my favorite Tyrion quote. When he told ____ (to prevent spoilers) it made me so happy. I hope ____ gets what he/she deserves.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

The trouble with evidence is the unidirectional temporal vector that encompasses our lives. We see evolution, the proposed origins of the universe and life on earth and say hey! No god needed, right? Then the other side, because of our temporally based minds, says well, hey, what started that? Oh, well, according to this here math it could have been 2 branes smacking each other! Well, what started that? And so on.

In the end it all becomes one giant regression-jerk (instead of circle-jerk) where no one is really more sure than the other. Based on the way I synthesize the data I come to the conclusion of no god. Someone else comes to the conclusion of god. The societal problem comes about when one side is so sure of their belief that they try to push it onto everyone else. From my experience these people tend to be the ones who have never really thought through any side, including their own, and go by only what they have been told.

That is also my favorite Tyrion quote. When he told ____ (to prevent spoilers) it made me so happy. I hope ____ gets what he/she deserves.

Very excited for Season 3.

Any clue when season 3 starts? I googled it a while ago, but came up with nothing. I don't want to wait another year

One...more...neuro question block. Uuuuugh.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

Any clue when season 3 starts? I googled it a while ago, but came up with nothing. I don't want to wait another year

One...more...neuro question block. Uuuuugh.

I'd be very surprised if it was much less than 41 weeks from today. =x

Originally Posted by JackShephard MD

So do you propose that Occam's razor is infallible and always true?

I respect your belief. There is no reason to want to shrink God so that you can drown him. What is it in you that wants to destroy another person's faith?

We're all making bets in this life. My bet has been placed on God, you on the other hand are placing your bet on a theory created by Franciscan friar Father William of Ockham, who ironically was a Roman Catholic with strong faith in the existence of God.

I don't want to destroy others' beliefs. The majority of people are idiots and need something like religion to keep them under control.

I just don't want their beliefs shaping public policy or healthcare policy, much less scientific debate.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

Any clue when season 3 starts? I googled it a while ago, but came up with nothing. I don't want to wait another year

One...more...neuro question block. Uuuuugh.

Not sure when, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Occam's razor has worked well for us. Without positive evidence of God's existence, if we have a workable theory without him that us the simpler theory and the one we should assume to be true until presented with further evidence.

This is the way science works, might as well apply it to religion too.

If we start believing theories that are more complicated without evidence, there is an infinite number if possibilities and your individual faith is just as unlikely as any of the rest (enter perfect deceiver, FSM, etc).

To steal from Grover Norquist, it's not that I want to destroy God, I just want to shrink him to a size that's small enough to drag to the bathtub and drown.

There's room for a deity to set up natural laws and do whatever the hell he wanted prior to the big bang. After that, natural laws require no need for manual intervention to describe the current universe.

You are making a huge mistake here. Just because Occam's razor is reliable, it does not make it EVIDENCE. Its honestly just an adage..... from a specific point of view "god did it" it infinitely less complex than "science" and if you don't believe that you have never read a cell signalling paper

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

I don't want to destroy others' beliefs. The majority of people are idiots and need something like religion to keep them under control.

I just don't want their beliefs shaping public policy or healthcare policy, much less scientific debate.

Beside the point. I also don't want Christians making policy based on Christian ideals. So what? This is not really what your message has been

Originally Posted by dr zaius

Though in his defense the proximity of the vagina to the anus should be enough to cause skepticism .

Edit: Now that I think about it to some it may be proof of the existence of god.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I remember some joke, I don't remember the whole thing, but it ended with if god designed humans, he must be a civil engineer, because who else would have a sewage line running through a recreation area?

The joke is, Why did God put a sewage treatment plant next to a playground? or something like that anyway

But like Zaius said ... maybe we should be grateful for not one but TWO playgrounds! eww

Why would a loving God want to be "proved?" This would force people into believing and loving him. That wouldn't be true love. Maybe the absence of proof against a God is a sign of a God? Of course this can't be proven, so it is rather just something to ponder.

Originally Posted by SoonerFromTexas

Why would a loving God want to be "proved?" This would force people into believing and loving him. That wouldn't be true love. Maybe the absence of proof against a God is a sign of a God? Of course this can't be proven, so it is rather just something to ponder.

So you're suggesting you can only truly love something if you don't really know if it exists?

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

So you're suggesting you can only truly love something if you don't really know if it exists?

No. That would be silly if you applied it to most things. My point was that I don't believe a loving God wants to force you to love him. We all know that you cannot force someone to love you. Undeniable proof would do that.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

So you're suggesting you can only truly love something if you don't really know if it exists?

Beat me to it.....This sounds like a confused take on the free will argument....which states that God gave us free will to choose Him over sin because he desires genuine love, worship, and devotion. I can't fathom how 'undeniable proof' would force anyone to believe, though. From a biblical perspective, didn't those who lived with Jesus or witnessed the resurrection have (near) undeniable proof? Some remained faithful, and some didn't.

Here's a short article on the topic: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1104161902.htm

From the article: "Physicians view religion and spirituality as a barrier when it impedes medical recommendations and as a bridge when it helps families answer questions medicine inherently cannot," the authors wrote.

Originally Posted by JESSFALLING

Beat me to it.....This sounds like a confused take on the free will argument....which states that God gave us free will to choose Him over sin because he desires genuine love, worship, and devotion. I can't fathom how 'undeniable proof' would force anyone to believe, though. From a biblical perspective, didn't those who lived with Jesus or witnessed the resurrection have (near) undeniable proof? Some remained faithful, and some didn't.

This whole conversation has been "confused takes" on all sides....

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

This whole conversation has been "confused takes" on all sides....

Yeah, 17 pages so far....Is this the longest religion thread on SDN so far?

I did think that there's a few interesting gems throughout, though.

It would be very difficult to selflessly love God if he were proven. It is even difficult now without proof.

Originally Posted by SoonerFromTexas

It would be very difficult to selflessly love God if he were proven. It is even difficult now without proof.

Sorry, but love is based upon quality of relationship.

Selfless?

What about a god that would smite you for believing in him/her/it without evidence?

Originally Posted by SoonerFromTexas

It would be very difficult to selflessly love God if he were proven. It is even difficult now without proof.

Would you care to explain how the quality and strength of evidence for god's existence would affect one's ability to love him (or the idea of him)? Because right now that's just not making any sense.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

You are making a huge mistake here. Just because Occam's razor is reliable, it does not make it EVIDENCE. Its honestly just an adage..... from a specific point of view "god did it" it infinitely less complex than "science" and if you don't believe that you have never read a cell signalling paper

Different definitions of complex. For a theory invoking God to be complete, it would require a complete description of God.

Even you would consider that a bit more complex than a signaling pathway, right?

And that signaling pathway is just complexity arising from the applcation of very simple natural laws to a specific example - this is not the type of complexity I'm referring to.

I'm arguing against the existence of God here because it's an Internet forum so there's no reason not to try to poke holes in beliefs I find ridiculous.

In real life, I only object when they directly affect public policy, science, healthcare, etc, or they annoy me personally (proselytizing).

And you're right Occam's razor is an unprovable premise, but it's one that has helped us improve scientific theory time and again.

If two different theories produce an untestable difference in the world we can observe, then why not choose the simplest answer? And if there is a testable difference, then test it.

I can agree with the concept of God as the prime mover, but if you have him tinkering with the scales after putting things in motion, I'll cry foul.

I will try and be clear. I am on my phone and it is late.

God shows himself to the world. Everyone now believes in him. You are called upon to love selflessly. Now that he is fact you are no longer given the option to love him or not. Believers actions are no longer those of generosity and self sacrifice, but actions of self preservation as they seek to appease God.

Originally Posted by SoonerFromTexas

I will try and be clear. I am on my phone and it is late.

God shows himself to the world. Everyone now believes in him. You are called upon to love selflessly. Now that he is fact you are no longer given the option to love him or not. Believers actions are no longer those of generosity and self sacrifice, but actions of self preservation as they seek to appease God.

Really? I missed his twitter update.

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Really? I missed his twitter update.

My comment was in response to the question directed towards my previous post.

Originally Posted by SoonerFromTexas

My comment was in response to the question directed towards my previous post.

Ah, I see.

The part where your argument gets in trouble is that many do worship out of fear of hell, even without 100% evidence. If god wanted unconditional love, why not all carrot and no stick? Or even no reward/punishment at all?

Originally Posted by SoonerFromTexas

I will try and be clear. I am on my phone and it is late.

God shows himself to the world. Everyone now believes in him. You are called upon to love selflessly. Now that he is fact you are no longer given the option to love him or not. Believers actions are no longer those of generosity and self sacrifice, but actions of self preservation as they seek to appease God.

Ok. But yeah that doesn't really work. As JD pointed out, many people do do so in line with the reward/punishment deal even without absolute proof already. Also, one could be made aware of god's existence and still not love him. In the bible, wasn't Judas supposedly aware of Jesus being the messiah and betrayed him anyway?

For the record, I am not arguing. Just presenting some thoughts. You are not supposed to believe out of fear. Some people do though. In fact, I am sure most believers have fearful thoughts at some point. People are not perfect of course. I will leave it at this since I think I have said what I needed to say.

Fire Insurance lol

Originally Posted by JESSFALLING

My wife exists (hopefully ), and I selflessly love her. What's the difference? Would I love her more if we had never meet and I just had a bunch of ambiguous love notes that I could possibly interpret as being directed at me?

Sorry, but love is based upon quality of relationship.

I guess I always kind of assumed you were a small ninja girl.....

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I guess I always kind of assumed you were a small ninja girl.....

Yeah I always imagined "her" as a tiny asian girl who liked anime lol

Originally Posted by Venom5

Yeah I always imagined "her" as a tiny asian girl who liked anime lol

Isn't that really redundant?

Originally Posted by johnnydrama

Isn't that really redundant?

There are two Asian girls in my class who knew nothing about anime first year. My worldview immediately changed.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

There are two Asian girls in my class who knew nothing about anime first year. My worldview immediately changed.

Were they also not tiny?

Originally Posted by ingramw1202

Personally, I have struggled with religion for a long time. I used to be an extremely devout Christian. Now, I don't really know what I believe. But if I were to work my butt off to save someone's life and the patients family thanks god, then I wouldn't be offended or upset. The patient is alive, and that is all that matters. But to be honest, as I took more and more advanced biology and chemistry and physics courses, I think I have come to believe MORE in the existence of a higher power than before. If there is a God, then he is a mathematician with a sense of humor

I agree. I am certainly no specialist on the topic, but it is interesting, in my opinion, that the more I study biochemistry the more it seems improbable if not impossible for things like metabolism, etc to have been only a product of "time and probability".