Religion among Premeds

[Womb Raider]

I am just going to post one more time.

- phylum problematica
- inconsistent decay rates of radioactive isotopes
- cell theory (All cells arise from pre-existing, living cells) vs. the primordial soup theory
- inconsistencies and discrepancies of facts within scientific text books.

Research these topics thoroughly. Your findings may be surprising....or not.

I know you're done posting here, so I'll just leave this for you to ponder.

Although I don't believe any of the reasons you listed are a "good" reason to start doubting science, I'll hold my tongue and dive a little deeper.

There are a few important differences between religion and science that I would like to point out so we can better understand this ancient conflict.

1. Knowing vs. degrees of certainty.

Science is not like religion, where its followers must have confidence that what they believe is an absolute truth - no doubt whatsoever. Rather, we believe certain things (e.g. theories, ideas, "laws") are true to different degrees of certainty and this certainty is based upon data obtained through trial and error, or the scientific method - which is empirical evidence.

We don't claim that what we know is perfect and infallible, it is quite the contrary. Scientists will readily admit that many of the theories and laws of today are very unlikely to remain, unaltered, for the rest of human history. When a scientific theory is proven wrong, scientists rejoice in the fact that they have found a better, more advanced version of the "truth" to which they can use to pursue further knowledge. Paradigm shifts are good. There is no such thing as absolute truth, or absolute falsity in science. Which brings me to my second point.

2. Predecision & Adapting

Religion has already predetermined what there is and what we are searching for. It tries to give you all the answers. On the other hand, scientists believe you shouldn't predecide what you're going to do, except find out more about the world. We (scientists) investigate things because they are unknown, not because we already know the answer.

If you look at the history of science vs. religion conflicts, you will see that in every case, religion is always the one retreating, gradually accepting science and slowly adapting their religion in such a way so that it is consistent with the newfound scientific discovery. They do this for two reasons: the scientific evidence is overwhelming and if they did not incorporate it into their belief, their whole structure would collapse, since the religious framework is much more delicate than that of science (i.e. we encourage change, religion doesn't). The fact that religions have changed their position so many times and are still rampant, is really quite amazing.

3. It is important to note that religions encompass a much larger realm than science, and science only occasionally interferes with one aspect of religion: the metaphysical (i.e. what things are, where they come from, what is man, what is God, etc...). Other aspects of religion, such as morality, are not affected by science. I feel that this is partly the reason that religions do not fall apart when they adapt new "scientific" theories - after all, what REAL difference does it make to religious doctrine if the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than the Sun revolving around the Earth? These changes do not affect the moral guidance of religions.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WillburCobb]

@sat0ri ironically we used your avatar in several studies we did in the lab. Also, I'm not a behaviorist. There's a reason that dwindled ages ago.

 

[deleted407021]

Maybe I missed your previous posts, but I don't get this.

Red Letter Christian + Zen.

These kinds of Christians ignore about 99% of the Bible and Zen is just a philosophy/way of life and thinking. I'm largely non religious.

 

[sat0ri]

In all fairness religion can be pretty much whatever you want it to be. I remember a case study from my abnormal psych class about a guy who founded a religion around Millard Fillmore. So whatever floats your boat and negates the existential threat of your own mortality I guess.

I'm reading a cool book called "On giving birth to your own mother" (if you're into post-modernism as well) and the last couple of pages I read on the bus were literally about this (the mortality part that is, hence the birth giving and what not).
Philosophy is definitely not my religion, but I think we use these things--like philosophy, religion, and the search for beauty (i.e. art and science)--to approach these same things though. There difference in approach give radically different answers, and ask different questions even (science asks emprical ones), but I think they all get to the existential quality you mention. "That feeling it's all for nothing" as Louis CK puts it so eloquently. (This isn't even my particular favorite, but I love a good unabashed CK promotion)

 

[AlbinoHawk DO]

I'm an atheist, but please spare me from this "agnostic atheist" technicality.

 

[WillburCobb]

I'm reading a cool book called "On giving birth to your own mother" (if you're into post-modernism as well) and the last couple of pages I read on the bus were literally about this (the mortality part that is, hence the birth giving and what not).
Philosophy is definitely not my religion, but I think we use these things--like philosophy, religion, and the search for beauty (i.e. art and science)--to approach these same things though. There difference in approach give radically different answers, and ask different questions even (science asks emprical ones), but I think they all get to the existential quality you mention. "That feeling it's all for nothing" as Louis CK puts it so eloquently. (This isn't even my particular favorite, but I love a good unabashed CK promotion)

Your use of Louis is unfair. It's like putting Sarah McAchlan in animal cruelty ads to tug at my heart strings.

 

[Stoptheclot]

So many interesting combos... RC --> Wicca --> Jewish? (mind blown) You gotta tell more @familyaerospace !

I just want to say, I'm fascinated by this stuff, really. I think that someone's "journey" through beliefs tell a lot about someone's history. I believe there's a lot of importance with asking the questions that religion makes you think. I accept the criticism that some Christians sadly use a God-of-the-Gaps mentality, that IF we don't know something, THEN the sundayschool answer "God!" is the final answer. I've gotten the judgmental stares from churchgoers after I tell them I majored in evolutionary biology (now I just stick to 'natural history' to confuse the "EVILution" reaction ). However, I also believe that some scientists have become so jaded by religious groups that some have neglected to remember the true realm of research - nature. Nothing we do naturally can rule out a supernatural being. So, I personally don't rule out the existence of (a) God. If a deity exists, why not explore religion? Why not keep asking and questioning my beliefs? Totally understand how someone would take it the other direction: I don't see God, therefore he does not exist. As long as an atheist is willing to discuss their reason, I'm always down for a good chat.

And to avoid from derailing the thread: I truly believe that my religious beliefs challenge me to continue striving towards becoming a better person, scientist and future physician: humility, perseverance, respect, service, discipline, joy. I'm not arguing that atheists can't pursue the same qualities, but the questions that I have personally struggled with through religion have given me a new appreciation for them.

 

[Lucca]

Absurdist. Saying agnostic just didn't make me feel special enough anymore

Kierkegaard is that you?

Edit: totally missed the discussion y'all had on absurdism. damn, maybe next time. Camus is my favs.

 

[deleted407021]

Interesting.

You don't have a problem with meshing two belief systems and picking/choosing parts of each? Embracing both of those systems seems more complicated than just the Zen or just RLC. I hope this isn't too personal, but why do you retain the Christianity portion? Does't Jesus say some pretty "religious" like stuff in the Bible...even in that 1% that you read? Why don't you just go with the Zen?

I suppose it's because I was raised as a Baptist. Jesus said to love everyone. That was his message. You also have to remember that he was a Jew in a world of Jews, so that may have influenced some of the things he said. All sin can be summed up as a failure to love another person. It's not about adhering to rules. Maybe Jesus is God. I sort of hope so. Maybe he's an extraterrestrial. Perhaps he was just an exceptional human. Either way, he is one of the best examples in history of someone to look up to, so I'll try to emulate him.

Zen is about free thought and self improvement. It doesn't teach you what to think, but how to make your own decisions. It's highly rational. It's also about doing no harm to living things and to find balance within nature. It's peaceful and thoughtful. What matters in Zen isn't God or the afterlife, but the here and now and how we may improve our condition. They accept that humans are merely animals born from evolution. You cannot with any cetainty know what comes after death, and Zen accepts that. There are no dogmas in Zen. It's a simple practice and way of approaching and dealing with problems. It is inherently atheistic and doesn't attempt to answer those questions.

I detest literal interpretations of scripture. It's a millennia old document written by dozens of authors and translated so many time as to be inherently dubious and yet so many people strap on their blinders and go to church each Sunday and Wednesday to wallow in their collective ignorance. Religion is more bloody trouble than it's ever been worth. All Jesus said to do was love everyone and love me and you do that by loving everyone. He said nothing about homosexuality, race or any of these other stupid things we use to marginalized people. If you are about to do something, think about whether it will show them love or not. If it's the latter, find a new way of dealing with the problem. It's that simple.

Zen is also pretty simple. Progress through life while avoiding hurting anything, aside from defense of self and others. Budo is the deadly combination of Zen and warfare. Discipline your mind. Profit shouldn't be your motivation. Be focused on whatever you do and practice perfecting it.

If you look at Jesus' life, he was really quite Zen.

 

[deleted407021]

So many interesting combos... RC --> Wicca --> Jewish? (mind blown) You gotta tell more @familyaerospace !

I just want to say, I'm fascinated by this stuff, really. I think that someone's "journey" through beliefs tell a lot about someone's history. I believe there's a lot of importance with asking the questions that religion makes you think. I accept the criticism that some Christians sadly use a God-of-the-Gaps mentality, that IF we don't know something, THEN the sundayschool answer "God!" is the final answer. I've gotten the judgmental stares from churchgoers after I tell them I majored in evolutionary biology (now I just stick to 'natural history' to confuse the "EVILution" reaction ). However, I also believe that some scientists have become so jaded by religious groups that some have neglected to remember the true realm of research - nature. Nothing we do naturally can rule out a supernatural being. So, I personally don't rule out the existence of (a) God. If a deity exists, why not explore religion? Why not keep asking and questioning my beliefs? Totally understand how someone would take it the other direction: I don't see God, therefore he does not exist. As long as an atheist is willing to discuss their reason, I'm always down for a good chat.

And to avoid from derailing the thread: I truly believe that my religious beliefs challenge me to continue striving towards becoming a better person, scientist and future physician: humility, perseverance, respect, service, discipline, joy. I'm not arguing that atheists can't pursue the same qualities, but the questions that I have personally struggled with through religion have given me a new appreciation for them.

Exactly. We can't say there is or isn't a God or gods. That's why religion has to be separate from the study of science. They corrupt one another. One is based on fact while the other is based on hope.

What are we supposed to do if we try and merge them? Create a "God Coefficient"? Add 777 to every physics equation? They're immiscible.

 

[dcc23]

I worked in an existential social psych lab for over two years and helped research and start a number of projects. I've read my share of Becker, Camus, and Kierkegaard.

 

[WillburCobb]

Nah. More like recycled paper. But srsly given this threads direction and my own bias, I encourage all to check out Flight From Death. Used to be on Netflix, but now I think YouTube may be your best option.

 

[deleted407021]

Christian - though I sometimes worship brownies.

Is that to suggest that you went to a Catholic school?

 

[dramatrauma]

Christian - though I sometimes worship brownies.

Amen to brownies (and cupcakes)!

 

[DrTorkashvand]

Pantheism

 

[pterygoideus]

Exactly. We can't say there is or isn't a God or gods. That's why religion has to be separate from the study of science. They corrupt one another. One is based on fact while the other is based on hope.

What are we supposed to do if we try and merge them? Create a "God Coefficient"? Add 777 to every physics equation? They're immiscible.

Now, now, that's a strawman and you know it. Not going to speak for other religions or even for other Muslims, but I have never found a contradiction between my faith and my research/pursuit of scientific knowledge. Quite oppositely, I see the natural sciences as trying to uncover the wonder that God has laid before us. Our holy book says things like:

Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the Night and the Day; in the sailing of the ships through the Ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth; (here) indeed are signs for a people that are wise. (2:164)

I'm pretty sure that's a ringing endorsement for studying - count 'em out - quantum physics/big bang theory, astronomy, oceanography, agronomy, biology, and meteorology. No mention of adding magical coefficients or anything. There's plenty of ground for arguments to be had between religious and atheist/agnostics without fabricating stuff. Leave that to the media

 

[familyaerospace]

So many interesting combos... RC --> Wicca --> Jewish? (mind blown) You gotta tell more @familyaerospace !

Both my parents were Roman Catholic (mom and maternal grandmother converted to RC from Lutheran). I was raised in South Florida so I had a good cultural Jewish upbringing. The Jews were convinced I was one of theirs as I would listen to them more than their kids would. I was excommunicated from the church when I was 8 because I was gender-noncomforming, asked really hard questions about the New Testament and Jesus, and also that I had a science/religion conflict as evolution seemed more reasonable. I liked the Old Testament stories and while I was fairly sure they were not literal, I still thought they were cool.

I spent 5 years (roughly) as a complete atheist although I think it was more tearing down every single belief in anything I knew and had to rebuild based on my own experiences. I knew for sure in my experiences there were a few things that had no current scientific basis, but that I could not discredit as most atheists would. I also studied religions as there was surely one that met what I believed. I had three favourites.... Wicca, Judaism, and Buddhism.

I dated a lot of Jews and was going to convert to that. That first rabbi rejected me 5 times as he had a problem with me being gender-non-comforming and they told me I would not be a good Jew. (For the record, there are several gender non-conforming sexes in Judaism in the Talmud.) I was crushed and became a Wiccan which honoured my gender issue. I became very knowledgeable about every paranormal thing you can think of despite the fact I was very much a model scientist, everyone (including bosses, advisers, boyfriends who dated me for years) assumed that I was an atheist as I kept my religion and knowledge to myself and always looked for a reasonable scientific or psychological issue first for almost everything. But I still felt homesick.

I ended up giving a guest lecture at a medical school a few years ago and one of the questions was heavy (it involved sexuality and spirituality) and when I gave my answer I edited out about an 8 year time span because in part I didn't want to hurt my mentor (a gay Jew) who had invited me. The moment I edited it out I knew I had to be honest with him after the lecture. I wrote him this long email about everything. Every drop of what was said. His reply? "That's deep." I knew at that moment I had to finish the conversion process that was started so many years ago. I decided to argue with HaShem asking why He did this to me then and caused me to nearly have a breakdown in the lecture. The response was apparently that is what it took to actually completely get my attention. He tried to get my attention two times earlier in the previous six months which I confirmed by reading back parts of my paper diary (yes I am a luddite), one occurred when volunteering which originally freaked me out and the other was when I was shadowing a different doctor. (Both times I had patients who would not believe me when I said I was not Jewish and the second one shook me up so bad I confessed to the person that I had wanted to convert a long time ago, but did not finish.)

I went through several more rabbis that year and finally on my 31st birthday I went to the mikvah. The birthday (at my birth time no less!) was randomly selected by my converting rabbi. He had no idea it was my birthday. I finally feel at home and with the culture I love. And the year after I converted I was surprised by being given a free two week trip to Israel (I was too old for birthright). Everyone assumes I was born Jewish based on behaviour and appearance but it confuses everyone that I don't know Hebrew. Many people assume I was raised Orthodox. Every movement of Judaism seems to both like and hate me. I keep being made the moderator of Jewish groups because the Orthodox want a Torah and Talmud knowledgeable (by their standards) Jew in charge and the Reform Jews want a liberal Jew in charge. Since I can speak to both sides as "one of theirs" but defend the other group if needed, I am a good candidate.

 

[familyaerospace]

But I did "practice" Wicca when I was like 14 I thought I could put a curse on a boy to be my boyfriend. Ended up scaring the ish out of myself. Over active imagination. and ......that's probably why I'm still single. I wish I was making this up....

One should never do that form of magick. It never goes right. Ask for love in general and it would have gone better. Trust me. Wicca actually forbids that form of magick. Other forms of paganism allow it.

I have an Orthodox Jew friend who knows I practiced Wicca for years and she is convinced I am going to teach her magick and spells. Um... no. I actually had this conversation with my best friend (a Druid) yesterday. Even if it was not against the Torah and the Talmud to attempt such a thing, she is not mature enough to learn it. Things would go very wrong very fast. Just like I believe certain people should not learn medicine of any form (including herbal), some people should not be allowed that knowledge.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

What? No I am not catholic. I think about brownies way more than Mary...

Might have missed a reference there...

My religious views: Pope Francis is a rock star

 

[deleted407021]

Now, now, that's a strawman and you know it. Not going to speak for other religions or even for other Muslims, but I have never found a contradiction between my faith and my research/pursuit of scientific knowledge. Quite oppositely, I see the natural sciences as trying to uncover the wonder that God has laid before us. Our holy book says things like:


I'm pretty sure that's a ringing endorsement for studying - count 'em out - quantum physics/big bang theory, astronomy, oceanography, agronomy, biology, and meteorology. No mention of adding magical coefficients or anything. There's plenty of ground for arguments to be had between religious and atheist/agnostics without fabricating stuff. Leave that to the media

I didn't reinterpret an argument. I just made a remark illustrating my point. Not really a straw man, but I appreciate your position. I was being facetious in saying that last bit, but I'm mostly serious in suggesting that science should be separate from faith, at least as much as possible. Some findings may force you to be true to either your faith or your religion, then you would have to pick which one to believe. Therefor, they should be practiced separately.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

I'm mostly serious in suggesting that science should be separate from faith, at least as much as possible. Some findings may force you to be true to either your faith or your religion, then you would have to pick which one to believe. Therefor, they should be practiced separately.

I had this convo with a Physics professor many years ago, he said science was in the business of measuring things, if it can't be measured then science should have little to say about it. He concluded that he saw no conflict between faith and science, based on this reasoning.

 

[deleted407021]

I had this convo with a Physics professor many years ago, he said science was in the business of measuring things, if it can't be measured then science should have little to say about it. He concluded that he saw no conflict between faith and science, based on this reasoning.

And science generally has no issue with faith. It's the other way around.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

And science generally has no issue with faith. It's the other way around.

Maybe "science" doesn't but scientists certainly do.

 

[deleted407021]

Maybe "science" doesn't but scientists certainly do.

Certainly. I'm not suggesting that scientists must be atheistic. Quite the opposite; I am aware of several prominent scientists who are religious. I'm suggesting that the practice of science and the practice of faith often find themselves at odds. I suppose this mostly revolves around Judeo-Christian accounts of creation.

 

[darkjedi]

I'm surprised no one has said mormon. Maybe that's just on the DO side?

I met a couple at Case so I think there's definitely some on the MD side. I get the impression BYU sends a lot of students to medical school, but I have absolutely no evidence to support that.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

There are a few Mormons at my school too from BYU. Some of my favorite people in the class. BYU seems to send their kids everywhere as far as med school goes.

 

[VVH1003]

People criticize those who have faith, yet they don't realize the amount of faith it takes to believe in evolution and etc.

That is all I am going to say, as nothing I can say can convince people.

What amount of faith do you need exactly to understand/acknowledge evolution? It's pretty flippin' evident.

 

[XmedBarney]

I had this convo with a Physics professor many years ago, he said science was in the business of measuring things, if it can't be measured then science should have little to say about it. He concluded that he saw no conflict between faith and science, based on this reasoning.

Isn't there a direct conflict, esp. in terms of creation stories.

 

[274631]

Isn't there a direct conflict, esp. in terms of creation stories.

Based on Whipple's comment, I think the conflict would only lie if you try to prove the creation story i.e. make it something measurable. Most of the religious people I know are more than content to just let it be what it is or don't take it as a literal chain of events. Until that Bill Nye debate I actually didn't realize so many people took it so literally.

Or I could be completely off base since its 3 in the morning and my comprehension skills might not be all there right now.

 

[Mornhavon]

.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Isn't there a direct conflict, esp. in terms of creation stories.

There certainly doesn't have to be.

But my take way from his comment was this: There's the natural world, which we can measure and science reigns supreme to explain it. And if there is a super-natural world, science really should have nothing to say about it, as by definition, it can't be measured.

Of course, things aren't this cut and dry as both scientists and religious practitioners enjoy speaking about things that they probably ought not.

 

[Stoptheclot]

Based on Whipple's comment, I think the conflict would only lie if you try to prove the creation story i.e. make it something measurable. Most of the religious people I know are more than content to just let it be what it is or don't take it as a literal chain of events. Until that Bill Nye debate I actually didn't realize so many people took it so literally.

Or I could be completely off base since its 3 in the morning and my comprehension skills might not be all there right now.

Naw, you pretty much got it. I'm a "theistic evolutionist" who sees evolution as the mechanism of "creation" and believe that the creation account seen in the Bible was required to meet the Old Testament readers where they were. The people who Genesis 1 was written to didn't understand, or care for that matter, HOW they came into existence. They needed some context in comparison to the creation accounts of pagan gods. (Check out more info here if your curious!) Genesis 1 doesn't tell anything about the mechanics (or science) of creation. As @pterygoideus mentioned, yes, as theists we then utilize the things we observe in nature as indications of a deity's work. But there's a stark difference between "finding a contradiction between faith and science" and "utilizing faith (i.e., God) to fill in a natural process where science doesn't have an answer." That's what destroys me about things like the Creation Museum that stands against the scientific data that point to evolutionary processes, it doesn't have to be "join or die."

 

[XmedBarney]

Based on Whipple's comment, I think the conflict would only lie if you try to prove the creation story i.e. make it something measurable. Most of the religious people I know are more than content to just let it be what it is or don't take it as a literal chain of events. Until that Bill Nye debate I actually didn't realize so many people took it so literally.

Or I could be completely off base since its 3 in the morning and my comprehension skills might not be all there right now.

Naw, you pretty much got it. I'm a "theistic evolutionist" who sees evolution as the mechanism of "creation" and believe that the creation account seen in the Bible was required to meet the Old Testament readers where they were. The people who Genesis 1 was written to didn't understand, or care for that matter, HOW they came into existence. They needed some context in comparison to the creation accounts of pagan gods. (Check out more info here if your curious!) Genesis 1 doesn't tell anything about the mechanics (or science) of creation. As @pterygoideus mentioned, yes, as theists we then utilize the things we observe in nature as indications of a deity's work. But there's a stark difference between "finding a contradiction between faith and science" and "utilizing faith (i.e., God) to fill in a natural process where science doesn't have an answer." That's what destroys me about things like the Creation Museum that stands against the scientific data that point to evolutionary processes, it doesn't have to be "join or die."

Right, but isn't that essentially a modern reinterpretation of canon, where space previously occupied by the canon has been ceded to science and the natural world? Which would then lead to a "God of the Gaps" argument? It seems to me that slippery slope that you've placed your foundation on at some point, assuming adequate scientific progress, you too will either have to cede ground or stand firm at some point when faced with new science that goes against the your belief structure.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Right, but isn't that essentially a modern reinterpretation of canon, where space previously occupied by the canon has been ceded to science and the natural world? Which would then lead to a "God of the Gaps" argument? It seems to me that slippery slope that you've placed your foundation on at some point, assuming adequate scientific progress, you too will either have to cede ground or stand firm at some point when faced with new science that goes against the your belief structure.

This may be slightly tangential to your point (or massively) but I don't necessarily see the problem of ceding ground. It makes sense to me that in lieu of optional or better systems to explain something, one chooses his adopted worldview (the revelation of Jehovah for example) as the lens through which to look around and try to determine an explanation for the natural world, for instance. With the advent of the scientific method, many of those explanations are no longer valid nor needed. This doesn't necessarily affect the original worldview that was used as the lens, it just affects some of the conclusions reached through using it.

 

[XmedBarney]

This may be slightly tangential to your point (or massively) but I don't necessarily see the problem of ceding ground. It makes sense to me that in lieu of optional or better systems to explain something, one chooses his adopted worldview (the revelation of Jehovah for example) as the lens through which to look around and try to determine an explanation for the natural world, for instance. With the advent of the scientific method, many of those explanations are no longer valid nor needed. This doesn't necessarily affect the original worldview that was used as the lens, it just affects some of the conclusions reached through using it.

See if that's what you are advocating, I don't think any atheist or scientist can reasonably object to it. However, the problem is that very few people have the highly pragmatic view that you espouse. Especially in US more than other developed nations has been the rise of a dogmatically driven pseudo-revisionist religious base that has to be pandered to, with increasing intensity. This hijacking has caused an unnecessary entry of religion into public policy formulation in many areas including but not limited to, Human Resource Development, Climate Change/Energy policy, Immigration... The policy paralysis that results from this in many ways is what people like me detest, and some become outspoken anti-theists(Bill Maher...) that on occasion appear just as "toolish" as the other side.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

See if that's what you are advocating, I don't think any atheist or scientist can reasonably object to it. However, the problem is that very few people have the highly pragmatic view that you espouse. Especially in US more than other developed nations has been the rise of a dogmatically driven pseudo-revisionist religious base that has to be pandered to, with increasing intensity. This hijacking has caused an unnecessary entry of religion into public policy formulation in many areas including but not limited to, Human Resource Development, Climate Change/Energy policy, Immigration... The policy paralysis that results from this in many ways is what people like me detest, and some become outspoken anti-theists(Bill Maher...) that on occasion appear just as "toolish" as the other side.

I'm completely ignorant to what you're describing. Are there some prominent examples of pseudo-revisionists and/or their agenda that I can look up?

 

[XmedBarney]

I'm completely ignorant to what you're describing. Are there some prominent examples of pseudo-revisionists and/or their agenda that I can look up?

By pseudo-revisionism, I meant people who question the intellectual basis of science, such as the young earth creationists and other of the sort.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

By pseudo-revisionism, I meant people who question the intellectual basis of science, such as the young earth creationists and other of the sort.

Ok I'm familiar with the young earth creationists. I'm not familiar with how they've influenced Climate Change/Energy policy, immigration, or human resource development. Do you know of any examples of these?

 

[QuantumJ]

Premeds, med students and attendings all seem more conservative than I would have thought. That's also because I'm in Texas though so I'm not sure what it would be like outside of the state. I would guess it's fairly representative of the rest of the population.

Myself, atheist.

 

[XmedBarney]

Ok I'm familiar with the young earth creationists. I'm not familiar with how they've influenced Climate Change/Energy policy, immigration, or human resource development. Do you know of any examples of these?

Human Resource Development is a euphemism for education, and I don't have the time to point out all the instances where they have been trying to push un-scientific material into textbooks, but you can Google it and the other topics I've mentioned.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Human Resource Development is a euphemism for education, and I don't have the time to point out all the instances where they have been trying to push un-scientific material into textbooks, but you can Google it and the other topics I've mentioned.

I had tried Google on Human Resource Development and got this:
http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryh/f/hr_development.htm

I had also tried "pseudo revisionist" and got a Russian guy named Platonov.



But alright, thanks anyway.

 

[Stoptheclot]

Human Resource Development is a euphemism for education, and I don't have the time to point out all the instances where they have been trying to push un-scientific material into textbooks, but you can Google it and the other topics I've mentioned.

This is the saddest thing ever - religion is getting paired with political parties/ideas. Honestly, I believe that your pseudo-revisionists will always be significantly outnumbered. While they are the most outspoken, they are surely outnumbered. There are plenty of us who hold very strong religious beliefs that want our kids to struggle and challenge the information that they hear, see, observe with their worldview. This is not happening - information is everywhere and its nauseating to see how many people believe information from unfounded sources (blogs, tweets, random websites, reading headlines and not articles, etc). While I identify myself as having Christian beliefs, I will always stand against this rejection of science and observation movement (about to use "agenda" but that term also comes with a gag reflex).

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

This is the saddest thing ever - religion is getting paired with political parties/ideas. Honestly, I believe that your pseudo-revisionists will always be significantly outnumbered. While they are the most outspoken, they are surely outnumbered. There are plenty of us who hold very strong religious beliefs that want our kids to struggle and challenge the information that they hear, see, observe with their worldview. This is not happening - information is everywhere and its nauseating to see how many people believe information from unfounded sources (blogs, tweets, random websites, reading headlines and not articles, etc). While I identify myself as having Christian beliefs, I will always stand against this rejection of science and observation movement (about to use "agenda" but that term also comes with a gag reflex).

That's the correct word in this case though. The intelligent design crew that was spear heading the push to get ID into textbooks, as science, had their agenda exposed. You might find it interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

 

[JuanPabloCastel]

bokononist.

spade, you are a spade.

 

[911 Turbo]

I am a Christian who believes in Biblical literalism.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

bokononist.

spade, you are a spade.

But what IS a spade????????????????

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

I am a Christian who believes in Biblical literalism.

I'd like to hear more about trees in the garden of Eden. Did they, or did they not, have growth rings ?

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

Now, now, that's a strawman and you know it. Not going to speak for other religions or even for other Muslims, but I have never found a contradiction between my faith and my research/pursuit of scientific knowledge. Quite oppositely, I see the natural sciences as trying to uncover the wonder that God has laid before us. Our holy book says things like:


I'm pretty sure that's a ringing endorsement for studying - count 'em out - quantum physics/big bang theory, astronomy, oceanography, agronomy, biology, and meteorology. No mention of adding magical coefficients or anything. There's plenty of ground for arguments to be had between religious and atheist/agnostics without fabricating stuff. Leave that to the media

Your avatar. So.Much.Movement.

 

[JuanPabloCastel]

But what IS a spade????????????????

where'd the quote in your signature come from?

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

where'd the quote in your signature come from?

Some older Doc in the comment section at Kevin MD's blog.

 

[pterygoideus]

I didn't reinterpret an argument. I just made a remark illustrating my point. Not really a straw man, but I appreciate your position. I was being facetious in saying that last bit, but I'm mostly serious in suggesting that science should be separate from faith, at least as much as possible. Some findings may force you to be true to either your faith or your religion, then you would have to pick which one to believe. Therefor, they should be practiced separately.

Super late reply because bills gotta get paid, yo.

I would quote the person but my multiquote thing is acting up, but I think someone said something along the lines of believing in evolution as a mechanism of creation, etc. As a theist, here's my science logic for everything from evolution to the big bang to anything else controversial in between:

(1) God don't make mistakes
(2) God made everything
(3) Nothing is a mistake
(4) If I get a scientific result that I was not expecting/am not happy about, it is not a mistake
(5) Check myself befo' I wreck myself (reinterpret worldview so that evidence and faith reconcile)
(6) ???
(7) Profit!

And for @WhippleWhileWeWork I have a whole folder full of Kelly Rowland and Nicki Minaj gifs. All of them are sassy. None of them are sorry.