Being secular in medical school

[LutGholein]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

MY accounts are deactivated. May reactivate when I matriculate, maybe , maybe not.

Right there with yah! Deactivated my account and contemplating deleting it all together this coming year.

You can always just stick with anonymous dummy accounts if you feel inclined to talk politics, religion, or in this case med school process.

 

[efle]

be prepared to feel incredibly uncomfortable, a good portion of hospitals in america are affiliated with religious institutions.

Eh, usually in name only I think. The place I work has a religion literally in the name of the hospital and I've never seen it surface related to the medical work done inside, ever. Being in a Trump state in the Midwest has, however, led to a good number of times when I have to go to my mental happy space while coworkers talk about how life clearly begins at conception.

OP, med schools are full of educated, bright, scientifically inclined people. Atheism/agnosticism is probably the most commonly held belief over any other individual religion on most campuses. I don't know what an Atheism Club would do at meetings, but nobody is going to harass its members.

 

[jesie]

Maybe check if the Secular Student Alliance has ever had a chapter opened at a medical school? I'm at a Christian school so the SSA here is a life saver (even if our institution tries to suppress our existence as often as possible). I'm definitely considering opening a chapter wherever I end up in the fall!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[LizzyM]

What types of things do religious student clubs talk about? Not asking to be sarcastic or anything, I'm just curious what they entail.

They assemble as a group to worship God (pray), have a conversation or hear someone talk about how to put the teachings of their faith into daily life, share food/eat a meal together.

A talk might be about how to use meditation or daily prayer within a busy life, ways to deepen one's prayer life and why it is worthwhile to do so. how to interpret religious law in light of modern advances in science/technology, a testimonial about how faith helped the speaker get through a difficult time.

 

[NeuResurgens]

I would think many medical students will be fairly secular. I'm religious myself and I wondered if I'd be a minority in medical school, personally. I think as long as everyone respects each other's beliefs you might be able to have interesting conversations both with like minded and with disagreeing people.

 

[Jdrill]

Agnostic/atheist at a Jesuit school.
I don't think anyone has ever asked about my faith and it has not played into anything at all, and the admissions staff themselves have said before the interview that they recognize that atheists were just as capable as any other in accomplishing great humanitarian feats.

 

[theBriefing]

"Secular" does not equal "Atheist." I would hope all doctors and future doctors are secular in their approach to medicine, because a person's individual religious beliefs should have no impact on how he/she treats patients.

 

[jorjorswens]

Medical school has all kinds of people: Hindus, Muslims, Buddhist, Christians and a large amount of atheists. Most people won't talk about religion unless you bring it up or join a school group centered around religion.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Espressso]

Am I the only one who enjoys talking about religion and politics??

 

[y123]

Most people in my school are not religious at all

 

[Funny_Current]

Am I the only one who enjoys talking about religion and politics??

I love taking about the two, especially regarding how they relate to and impact medicine. The hard part is finding people who will have a meaningful and adult conversation. In my personal experience, people are so easily triggered when you try and talk about religion and politics, and often times they are the ones who start the conversation!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[y123]

Oh there is no secular student organization in my school since non-religious people are the majority.

 

[gabem480]

Free country freedom of religion or in your case non religion. This is one reason America is great. As someone who fought for those rights as long as laws aren't being broken I personally wouldn't mind.

 

[Lannister]

I would think many medical students will be fairly secular. I'm religious myself and I wondered if I'd be a minority in medical school, personally. I think as long as everyone respects each other's beliefs you might be able to have interesting conversations both with like minded and with disagreeing people.

I was wondering the same and I've been surprised to find that a huge percentage of my class is religious.

 

[Funny_Current]

Oh there is no secular student organization in my school since non-religious people are the majority.

Lucky you. I'm not to sure about the religious climate at my school. There are a handful of religious student organizations I have found on the website


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[NeuResurgens]

I was wondering the same and I've been surprised to find that a huge percentage of my class is religious.

That's awesome. What's cool too is that people have all different levels of religiousity so you get a good blend of perspectives. I always find it interesting to talk to people who switched from atheist to religious or vice versa to see what their thoughts are. There are also secular-leaning religious adherents and spiritual atheists/agnostics who have interesting views too.

 

[libertyyne]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Seems like there is a higher percentage of People who dont beleive in GOD in the sciences compared to the general public. Interesting that the younger folks believe at a higher rate.

 

[JustAPhD]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Seems like there is a higher percentage of People who dont beleive in GOD in the sciences compared to the general public. Interesting that the younger folks believe at a higher rate.

Probably a function of their upbringing. As they get older they start to lose their religiousness, for lack of a better word.

 

[Lannister]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Seems like there is a higher percentage of People who dont beleive in GOD in the sciences compared to the general public. Interesting that the younger folks believe at a higher rate.

Yeah I believe it. I learned in one of my psych classes in undergrad that professors who teach in the sciences are actually more likely to be religious than professors who teach in the humanities (who are more likely to be religious than business professors...unsurprisingly lol). I thought that was really interesting.

 

[NeuResurgens]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
Seems like there is a higher percentage of People who dont beleive in GOD in the sciences compared to the general public. Interesting that the younger folks believe at a higher rate.

So let me ask all of you a philosophical question here that I thought of while reading this. Is atheism simply a rejection of the claims of known religions about the characterization of what a God is? Or is it the rejection of the existence of any sort of "higher power?" I ask this because in my opinion there is not enough evidence to scientifically prove the existence of what various religions conceive as God (making the former definition of atheism reasonable), but I think there's a lack of evidence to disprove the existence of an advanced being or beings that understand us more than we understand it as well (the latter definition, which I think would be somewhat disingenuous as it would represent being intellectually closed off to an idea in the absence of evidence, which is counter to science). Interested to hear y'alls thoughts on this.

 

[libertyyne]

Probably a function of their upbringing. As they get older they start to lose their religiousness, for lack of a better word.

Yeah, but people tend to become more conservative as they age, left leaning institutions tend to accept atheist/agnostic/religiousless ideas more compared to the right leaning institutions, just an odd thing if you ask me to see younger scientists more religious compared to their older peers. Heck we are a more secular nation now then ever. And younger people are more secular compared to older folks.

 

[libertyyne]

Yeah I believe it. I learned in one of my psych classes in undergrad that professors who teach in the sciences are actually more likely to be religious than professors who teach in the humanities (who are more likely to be religious than business professors...unsurprisingly lol). I thought that was really interesting.

Can you link a source for that if you get a chance. I find that surprising , i always though there were less religious people in science compared to other fields, the survey confirms that bias compared to the general public.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/belief-in-god/
This makes the case that younger people are less religious.

 

[JustAPhD]

So let me ask all of you a philosophical question here that I thought of while reading this.

From what I understand:

the rejection of the existence of any sort of "higher power?"

Athiest^

in my opinion there is not enough evidence to scientifically prove the existence of what various religions conceive as God

Agnostic^

 

[TheBiologist]

Am I the only one who enjoys talking about religion and politics??

I am agnostic but love religion as an literary/academic subject

 

[JustAPhD]

Yeah, but people tend to become more conservative as they age, left leaning institutions tend to accept atheist/agnostic/religiousless ideas more compared to the right leaning institutions, just an odd thing if you ask me to see younger scientists more religious compared to their older peers. Heck we are a more secular nation now then ever. And younger people are more secular compared to older folks.

Yes but people on average also don't have 40+ years devoting their life to the scientific method. It makes sense to me that as scientists age they become less religious overall. Of course I'm just speculating here though. Would be interesting to see a poll of scientists involving religion and political party to see if your conservatism argument stands for the scientific population.

 

[TheBiologist]

Yes but people on average also don't have 40+ years devoting their life to the scientific method. It makes sense to me that as scientists age they become less religious overall. Of course I'm just speculating here though. Would be interesting to see a poll of scientists involving religion and political party to see if your conservatism argument stands for the scientific population.

also, the fear and uncertainty of death definately contributes to why people become more religious as they age. it's psychology

 

[Lannister]

Can you link a source for that if you get a chance. I find that surprising , i always though there were less religious people in science compared to other fields, the survey confirms that bias compared to the general public.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/belief-in-god/
This makes the case that younger people are less religious.

Okay what the frick, I distinctly remember that fact from my textbook, it's probably the only thing I remember from psych. And now I read that business professors are most likely to be religious and biology professors are least likely. Not sure who's lying, that textbook, this website, or my memory lol.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/09/religion

 

[NotYou20]

So let me ask all of you a philosophical question here that I thought of while reading this. Is atheism simply a rejection of the claims of known religions about the characterization of what a God is? Or is it the rejection of the existence of any sort of "higher power?" I ask this because in my opinion there is not enough evidence to scientifically prove the existence of what various religions conceive as God (making the former definition of atheism reasonable), but I think there's a lack of evidence to disprove the existence of an advanced being or beings that understand us more than we understand it as well (the latter definition, which I think would be somewhat disingenuous as it would represent being intellectually closed off to an idea in the absence of evidence, which is counter to science). Interested to hear y'alls thoughts on this.

Seems to depend who you ask. I consider gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist to be separate designations. The latter is a simple yes our no to "does got exist?" whereas the former answers how confident one is and obviously it's mostly shades of grey. I can't think of a single gnostic atheist, even people in the dawkins camp agree that a god it's possible.

So I'd say it responds to your second question but is both more simple and more complex. One could be either theist or atheist by agreeing with your first definition.
People who consider themselves agnostic don't seem to find the definitions I use useful for themselves.

There's other ways to look at it too. For example, I'm reasonably confident that there isn't a god that is directly involved in our lives. For that reason I don't particularly care if one exists or not, so I'd best describe my beliefs as ignostic. Since that's usually met with a blank stare I just go with agnostic atheist if it comes up

 

[libertyyne]

Okay what the frick, I distinctly remember that fact from my textbook, it's probably the only thing I remember from psych. And now I read that business professors are most likely to be religious and biology professors are least likely. Not sure who's lying, that textbook, this website, or my memory lol.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/09/religion

Lol. Our memory is terrible fidelity storage . Scientists are less religious than their peers so it makes sense that bio professors are less religious compared to their peers.

 

[pseud0]

So let me ask all of you a philosophical question here that I thought of while reading this. Is atheism simply a rejection of the claims of known religions about the characterization of what a God is? Or is it the rejection of the existence of any sort of "higher power?" I ask this because in my opinion there is not enough evidence to scientifically prove the existence of what various religions conceive as God (making the former definition of atheism reasonable), but I think there's a lack of evidence to disprove the existence of an advanced being or beings that understand us more than we understand it as well (the latter definition, which I think would be somewhat disingenuous as it would represent being intellectually closed off to an idea in the absence of evidence, which is counter to science). Interested to hear y'alls thoughts on this.

This is is a fundamental breakdown of socratic questioning. The atheist doesn't have to disprove anything. The current base of evidence is not compatible with a supreme being or anything supernatural at all, for that matter.

If there is a species or something like that that created our universe etc. It would have done so through natural means that we simply have not discovered yet.. and would have gotten to the point of being able to create a universe through a slow process of evolution

There are VERY few real scientists who truly believe in the fundamental tenants of judeo-christian/any other organized religion (like the divinity of the ten commandments, the virgin birth, walking on water, water into wine, etc.).

Walking on water is incompatible with a scientific worldview. Most scientists who are religious are basically deists/pantheists/cultural christians/muslims/hindus etc.

 

[NeuResurgens]

This is is a fundamental breakdown of socratic questioning. The atheist doesn't have to disprove anything. The current base of evidence is not compatible with a supreme being or anything supernatural at all, for that matter.

If there is a species or something like that that created our universe etc. It would have done so through natural means that we simply have not discovered yet.. and would have gotten to the point of being able to create a universe through a slow process of evolution

There are VERY few real scientists who truly believe in the fundamental tenants of judeo-christian/any other organized religion (like the divinity of the ten commandments, the virgin birth, walking on water, water into wine, etc.).

Walking on water is incompatible with a scientific worldview. Most scientists who are religious are basically deists/pantheists/cultural christians/muslims/hindus etc.

Yeah, that's why I feel like the issue can become a lot more complex than what the simple labels we attach to people in the different camps would suggest. A member of such a species that created the universe through natural means might meet the conception of what the religious call "god," but the irreligious wouldn't label them as such and would seek to understand where they came from and through what natural laws they went about creating, etc. rather than relying on faith in their wisdom in doing things.

I'm not following your reasoning about atheists not needing to disprove anything though. I think the empiric evidence is pretty scant in religious discussions, but I'm not sure I'd qualify the examples you gave (virgin birth, walking on water, water into wine and the like) as scientific impossibilities either. For example, parthenogenesis is interesting: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-komodo-d/. This example doesn't represent any evidence that this has ever happened in humans or anything like that, it's more just to illustrate the point that something may be possible, we just don't understand how the act might work from a scientific standpoint. We need to rely on the scientific method to discover whether such a thing is possible. The point I'm really trying to make is, I think it can be a bit dishonest to say that believing such a thing is ridiculous because "current science says it's impossible" when further scientific inquiry might reveal a possibility that was not previously known.

 

[pseud0]

This is why conversations about religion and politics are toxic and why we shouldn't get into them in med school .

We're simply not going to agree. I think you're wrong, and that the burden of proof is on you. You think I'm wrong. No convincing each other ever happens, just pointless back and forth that never gets anywhere

Lets go learn some doctoring instead

 

[libertyyne]

Yeah, that's why I feel like the issue can become a lot more complex than what the simple labels we attach to people in the different camps would suggest. A member of such a species that created the universe through natural means might meet the conception of what the religious call "god," but the irreligious wouldn't label them as such and would seek to understand where they came from and through what natural laws they went about creating, etc. rather than relying on faith in their wisdom in doing things.

I'm not following your reasoning about atheists not needing to disprove anything though. I think the empiric evidence is pretty scant in religious discussions, but I'm not sure I'd qualify the examples you gave (virgin birth, walking on water, water into wine and the like) as scientific impossibilities either. For example, parthenogenesis is interesting: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-komodo-d/. This example doesn't represent any evidence that this has ever happened in humans or anything like that, it's more just to illustrate the point that something may be possible, we just don't understand how the act might work from a scientific standpoint. We need to rely on the scientific method to discover whether such a thing is possible. The point I'm really trying to make is, I think it can be a bit dishonest to say that believing such a thing is ridiculous because "current science says it's impossible" when further scientific inquiry might reveal a possibility that was not previously known.

There are lots of things I dont believe in without disproving the null hypothesis. The tooth fairy, Santa Claus, vampires. The burden of positive proof is on the believers. The most logical stance is obviously agnosticism because you are not stuck with trying to negate the exisitence of a supernatural being a problem that athiesm has.

 

[pseud0]

^Atheism does not have that problem actually. Atheists wouldn't say that the existence of 'the supernatural' is impossible if there was anything resembling evidence to support it in the natural world. If you take the human brain out of the equation and merely look at proven facts, there is no supernatural. The only reason we even think about the supernatural at all is because we have eons of mythology that appear to support the existence of such a thing. None of that mythology is based on the Socratic method.

 

[Levo]

I'm sure every medical school is different, but at my institution, the majority of students are secular/atheistic by default or only vaguely religious. The minority who are more-than-vaguely religious tend to be quiet about their beliefs unless specifically ask, and never bring up their religiosity in ethical discussions. The ethics courses we are taught are rooted in secular values, even if the lecturer teaching them is religious themselves. A secular student group would not be necessary to feel comfortable there, and would in my opinion be redundant.

 

[libertyyne]

^Atheism does not have that problem actually. Atheists wouldn't say that the existence of 'the supernatural' is impossible if there was anything resembling evidence to support it in the natural world. If you take the human brain out of the equation and merely look at proven facts, there is no supernatural. The only reason we even think about the supernatural at all is because we have eons of mythology that appear to support the existence of such a thing. None of that mythology is based on the Socratic method.

Athiesm positively asserts that God does not exisit. What sort of scientific experiment is there to prove or disprove that assertion? When religious people kritik athiesm for this assertion it is somewhat justified as religious people are criticized for having the opposite view with about as much evidence as the athiests have.

 

[Funny_Current]

This is why conversations about religion and politics are toxic and why we shouldn't get into them in med school .

We're simply not going to agree. I think you're wrong, and that the burden of proof is on you. You think I'm wrong. No convincing each other ever happens, just pointless back and forth that never gets anywhere

Lets go learn some doctoring instead

Or like-minded people can form a group to talk about like-minded things. Conversations about Religion and politics are, in my opinion, not toxic because they relate intimately to medicine. Not interested in a debate club.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Promethean]

If anything, I find myself taken aback when I find out that a physician is particularly religious. I've come to understand that it is more common than I'd once thought. But it still surprises me sometimes, especially when someone holds beliefs that aren't compatible with science. I mean, it is not my business, they can believe whatever they like. Just, it is hard to reconcile.

 

[NeuResurgens]

^Atheism does not have that problem actually. Atheists wouldn't say that the existence of 'the supernatural' is impossible if there was anything resembling evidence to support it in the natural world. If you take the human brain out of the equation and merely look at proven facts, there is no supernatural. The only reason we even think about the supernatural at all is because we have eons of mythology that appear to support the existence of such a thing. None of that mythology is based on the Socratic method.

What does supernatural mean though? I find it's often just a code word for "something we don't understand." There is an explanation for all strange phenomena in nature, we just don't know how many of them work and we are actively trying to discern those mechanisms.

Athiesm positively asserts that God does not exisit. What sort of scientific experiment is there to prove or disprove that assertion? When religious people kritik athiesm for this assertion it is somewhat justified as religious people are criticized for having the opposite view with about as much evidence as the athiests have.

This is kind of what I was trying to say. "A higher power doesn't exist" is a positive claim requiring some proof. Although, like I said above, what you understand as "a higher power" definitely factors into the discussion. It's very different to say "certain religious claims are not currently supported by science" (can be supported by observations and data compared to what is claimed, etc.) vs. "beings with higher powers don't exist" (too broad, not testable)

 

[NeuResurgens]

If anything, I find myself taken aback when I find out that a physician is particularly religious. I've come to understand that it is more common than I'd once thought. But it still surprises me sometimes, especially when someone holds beliefs that aren't compatible with science. I mean, it is not my business, they can believe whatever they like. Just, it is hard to reconcile.

It would confuse me a lot if a doctor believed in strict creationism. Even I'm a practicing Christian who fully believes in evolution, including hominid evolution.

 

[libertyyne]

If anything, I find myself taken aback when I find out that a physician is particularly religious. I've come to understand that it is more common than I'd once thought. But it still surprises me sometimes, especially when someone holds beliefs that aren't compatible with science. I mean, it is not my business, they can believe whatever they like. Just, it is hard to reconcile.

I find myself taken aback when some of the physicians I meet aren't very scientific minded!! Rants against ebm or inability to articulate why they believe small observational studies are better then rcts. A good portion just operate on heuristics.

 

[libertyyne]

It would confuse me a lot if a doctor believed in strict creationism. Even I'm a practicing Christian who fully believes in evolution, including hominid evolution.

I don't get why Christians want to die on that hill. Just say : God created the big bang and you avoid all the hand wringing around. Evolution.

 

[pseud0]

This is kind of what I was trying to say. "A higher power doesn't exist" is a positive claim requiring some proof.

That isn't the claim atheists make though. The claim atheists make is: "according to the accepted and verifiable fundamental laws of nature, there is no evidence for a higher power"

no atheist would ever positively conclude that there is no god..Just that the existence of god(s) is as likely as the existence of anything else that there is no evidence for (like unicorns)

Which is a reason why a substantial percentage of atheists want to stop calling themselves 'atheist'

 

[pseud0]

Athiesm positively asserts that God does not exisit. What sort of scientific experiment is there to prove or disprove that assertion? When religious people kritik athiesm for this assertion it is somewhat justified as religious people are criticized for having the opposite view with about as much evidence as the athiests have.

no, it doesn't. See above post.

 

[Lawpy]

It would confuse me a lot if a doctor believed in strict creationism. Even I'm a practicing Christian who fully believes in evolution, including hominid evolution.

What about strict Old Earth creationism?

 

[pseud0]

What does supernatural mean though? I find it's often just a code word for "something we don't understand." There is an explanation for all strange phenomena in nature, we just don't know how many of them work and we are actively trying to discern those mechanisms.

Supernatural means "anything that cannot possibly exist if the fundamental/verifiable laws of nature are true"

Yes there is an explanation for all strange phenomena in nature. There is no explanation for teleportation, water-walking, or causing snakes to fall from the sky because there is no evidence that any of these things has ever occurred in nature.

 

[NeuResurgens]

That isn't the claim atheists make though. The claim atheists make is: "according to the accepted and verifiable fundamental laws of nature, there is no evidence for a higher power"

no atheist would ever positively conclude that there is no god..Just that the existence of god(s) is as likely as the existence of anything else that there is no evidence for (like unicorns)

Which is a reason why a substantial percentage of atheists want to stop calling themselves 'atheist'

This is the point I was really trying to get at - whether atheists simply dispute the reality of current religious claims as presented, or whether they deny any possibility of the existence of some "god-like" species out in the universe we don't understand or know about. By your claim it is the former, which I think is a pretty reasonable position to have.

 

[NeuResurgens]

What about strict Old Earth creationism?

Pretty broad group of beliefs but some of them are more compatible with science than is what we typically see creationism as.

 

[NeuResurgens]

I don't get why Christians want to die on that hill. Just say : God created the big bang and you avoid all the hand wringing around. Evolution.

Seriously. Many christians simply shut their mind down when science challenges what they thought was true, rather than consider that maybe their understanding or interpretation of their faith might not have been right. I find it pretty easy to reconcile faith with science because the universe is so vast and it's easy to accept that it's extremely likely that my conceptions of things aren't always true.

 

[Levo]

Athiesm positively affirm that God does not exisit. What sort of scientific experiment is there to prove or disprove that assertion? When religious people kritik athiesm for this assertion it is somewhat justified as religious people are criticized for having the opposite view with about as much evidence as the athiesm have.

Strictly speaking, the word "atheism" doesn't describe a belief system. It's a-theism, as in "the absence of theism". It's a null state. A baby who has no concept of what a god is atheist. Now, an adult human who is atheist will likely believe in something, whether it's the scientific theory that the universe was created in the Big Bang or something else, but atheism itself makes no claims whatsoever.