Faith in medicine?

[neurotrancer]

Do any of you feel what life and death you have seen in medicine has had any effect on your Faith?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[synapse lapse]

I would hope that the science you have seen would effect your faith...but alas that topic hath been discussed before....

 

[ruler]

if you think about that you may find it right but what effects you have found?

 

[ask1288]

Taking anatomy (and learning about the intricacies of the human body in general) greatly increased my faith in a Supreme, Genius, Amazing indescribable, Designer/creator. Call him Allah, Jehova, Yahweh, Brahma or whatever...but its hard not to be amazed...

 

[gregMD]

Taking anatomy (and learning about the intricacies of the human body in general) greatly increased my faith in a Supreme, Genius, Amazing indescribable, Designer/creator. Call him Allah, Jehova, Yahweh, Brahma or whatever...but its hard not to be amazed...

Millions of years of evolution accomplished this.

 

[Keg]

Millions of years of evolution accomplished this.

Impossible to prove, especially to a person of faith. And even if evolution did occur, who's to say that it didn't happen under the guidance of a supernal force?

 

[synapse lapse]

Impossible to prove, especially to a person of faith. And even if evolution did occur, who's to say that it didn't happen under the guidance of a supernal force?

Who's to say it did? The person who makes the positive assertion bears the burden of proof. Given the evidence that evolution occurs, and the complete lack of evidence for any creator, no need exists to hypothesize one. Science 101. The question of ID is outside of science, it is not a scientific question.

 

[Keg]

Who's to say it did? The person who makes the positive assertion bears the burden of proof. Given the evidence that evolution occurs, and the complete lack of evidence for any creator, no need exists to hypothesize one. Science 101. The question of ID is outside of science, it is not a scientific question.

Proof God Exists

Game, set, match.

 

[Whootman]

Arguments such as these accomplish nothing. Religious arguments are stupid because people are so set in their religious beliefs, there is virtually no way that a person's opinions on the topic would change.

 

[synapse lapse]

Proof God Exists

Game, set, match.

Haha yeah that's one of my favorites. I love when he starts talking about our hand and the banana and the coke can It's hilarious because he's serious and that's about the sophistication one can expect in religious arguments

 

[synapse lapse]

Arguments such as these accomplish nothing. Religious arguments are stupid because people are so set in their religious beliefs, there is virtually no way that a person's opinions on the topic would change.

I agree with this but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If, like me, you take the position that it is unethical to be intellectually dishonest (a position I defend with argument) than one has an ethical interest in discovering truth. Regardless, people were set in their ways about many things before science changed their minds, and I hope that science/reason can eliminate religion as well. Religion has already changed immensely as a result of our human endeavours in science and philosophy, and we will continue to make progress in this area as a species. The god of the gaps will hopefully one day have very few gaps to fill. Unfortunately people will create false gaps for god to fill to make themselves fill better. Anyhow I really want to avoid this topic yet again...

 

[rpkall]

I've actually lost my faith in the supernatural and have started believing in science and evolution--and of course the "powers" of random chance and probability.

 

[Keg]

I hope that science/reason can eliminate religion as well

I know that you said you "want to avoid this topic yet again," but I feel that the above statement must be addressed. Science and reason will never eliminate religion, as the two can be made to jive quite closely with one another (as Moses Mendelssohn argued regarding Judaism during the Enlightenment). Furthermore, I fear living in a world without religion - for many people, the only thing keeping their mores in line is their religion, without which they'd go, for lack of a better word, ape$hit. Religion moderates the masses, giving hope to the hopeless, especially in a world where humans aren't (and will never be) perfect.

 

[neurotrancer]

I should have put this thread in the allopathic forum originally, but it is currently in the everyone drs lounge:

http://drslounge.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=3601516#post3601516

 

[synapse lapse]

I know that you said you "want to avoid this topic yet again," but I feel that the above statement must be addressed. Science and reason will never eliminate religion, as the two can be made to jive quite closely with one another (as Moses Mendelssohn argued regarding Judaism during the Enlightenment). Furthermore, I fear living in a world without religion - for many people, the only thing keeping their mores in line is their religion, without which they'd go, for lack of a better word, ape$hit. Religion moderates the masses, giving hope to the hopeless, especially in a world where humans aren't (and will never be) perfect.

Yes as Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses. I of course beg to differ that faith and reason is a false dichotomy, but I am not going to argue this point now. Science and Reason can and hopefully will eliminate religion, but it is unlkely as of course people overwhelmingly don't care about truth, only about what makes them feel good.

 

[trudub]

Yes as Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses. I of course beg to differ that faith and reason is a false dichotomy, but I am not going to argue this point now. Science and Reason can and hopefully will eliminate religion, but it is unlkely as of course people overwhelmingly don't care about truth, only about what makes them feel good.

I would disagree with that. I think many people who are religious put truth is their number one priority and have found truth in religion or probably more accurately said, have found truth in faith. Faith and science really are not dichotomous. While one can never scientifically prove the existence of god, one can never really prove many of the claims made in science either. Both in the end require some sort of leap and that leap is faith. You may argue that faith and relgion require a much bigger leap but for those who have faith and experience God on a daily basis, there is no greater proof.

 

[ask1288]

hey y'all take it easy...While it is definitely impossible to prove that God exists by the modern scientific method, the scientific method is not the only way to achieve truth. Science is about material things (things that u can put in a test tube and quantify and say yes they exist), but God is not material and hence you really cant have an experiment to say yes god exists. Nonetheless this does not prove that he does not exist. To claim that only the material exists is egotistic and naive. Logic, reason and philosophy (at least to me) all point to the fact that for something to be there has to be a maker (of course this is the simplistic rendition of a much more complex argument for God. (ps as a side note i think we should all be abit more open minded instead of shooting each other down) Those who feel evolution is the answer, have a right to their opinions and so do those who feel God created. For those of you who feel religion should be eliminated, many of yr patients will be religios, and to care for them you have to at least try and put away yr biasses. (same goes to religious people who will treat gays etc)

Back to the topic: I took a number of classes by Prof Behe (one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design) and i agree with many of the principles of ID. One of the biggest (and perhaps the only) critique against ID is that it's unscientific. To me, It seems like it is the proponents of evolution that are more fanatically sticking to their beleifs and nothing else you tell them can change their views... If there is an argument against evolution it will simple be tossed away as unscientific...This is not something new in the scientific community...any ideas that go against the norm are often laughed at, castigated etc (helicobater pylori and gastric ulcer link is one of the examples, another one is the endosymbiotic theory of the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts) both these ideas were ridiculed when they were introduced (just like Intellugent Design)

Personally, i do beleive in natural selesction (microevolution)...it happens, it is proven, theres no doubt about it. I however have some doubts about Macroevolution and speciation...(i hope i am not shot down for this)

I think the conflict between Religion and science is one which is very much pronounced in particularly the Christian tradition, and there is a huge amount of history as to why this is (goes back to the time when the church opposed science as heresy) unfortunately the remnants of that age old battle still exist today) Religion wise, i am Muslim, and i don't see such a strong divide or rift between science and Religion in the islamic tradition...and there is a reason for this too. I was personally very surprised actually when i read Keith l Moore (author of Clinically Oriented anatomy, etc) views about the issue:

"It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'aan about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad peace be upon him from Allah, or God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad peace be upon him must have been a Messenger of Allah." Professor Keith L. Moore ( quoted in http://www.islamicmedicine.org/amazing.htm and http://www.what-islam.com/ )

anyway these are my views...anyone may beg to differ

 

[austinap]

I agree with this but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If, like me, you take the position that it is unethical to be intellectually dishonest (a position I defend with argument) than one has an ethical interest in discovering truth. Regardless, people were set in their ways about many things before science changed their minds, and I hope that science/reason can eliminate religion as well. Religion has already changed immensely as a result of our human endeavours in science and philosophy, and we will continue to make progress in this area as a species. The god of the gaps will hopefully one day have very few gaps to fill. Unfortunately people will create false gaps for god to fill to make themselves fill better. Anyhow I really want to avoid this topic yet again...

I'd say that it's just as intelectually dishonest to try to get rid of religion.

In any case, religion will always be around no matter how advanced science becomes. Science answers the "how?" while religion answers the "why?". Science is just an effort to decipher and understand the rules that dictate our lives, and will never be able to answer the "why?" from that point of view. The only way you can ever do that with science is using the anthropic principle, which I think is pretty weak.

Your failure to give religion any credit is just as blind, ignorant, and arrogant as the religions that refuse to acknowledge the achievements of science, and at that point your scientific understanding is nothing more than another religion.

 

[bigfrank]

Your failure to give religion any credit is just as blind, ignorant, and arrogant as the religions that refuse to acknowledge the achievements of science, and at that point your scientific understanding is nothing more than another religion.

Pink quoted Karl Marx, would you expect much more?

 

[eatapita]

After going through third year and seeing all the cover ups for mistakes on part of the medical staff that resulted in either a poor outcome or death in a patient........ I've lost my faith in medicine.

In my medical school, they force you to take these ethics lectures, they preach and preach about doing morally right things, but then the staff turns around and cover up obvious mistakes either they or their staff makes, and never ever tell the patient or the family of the mistakes. What hypocrisy! I'm very sure this goes on at other hospitals too. That's one big thing I don't like about medicine, is this need to "lie" and cover up mistakes..... that may not even be made by yourself for fear of getting blackballed or whatever.

 

[PoorMD]

I am personally not very religious (I think there may be a God sometimes, other times who knows)..

my .02.

My old family doctor used to ask me if I would mind it if he prayed with me. I did not mind at all. It was kind of fun listening to what he said about me, his requests of God to bring me health, all that.. I kind of liked it, and it made me feel like he cared about me more..

On the flip side, I was once shadowing the chaplain at our hospital on his rounds through oncology clinic. We prayed with some end-stage patients and I felt really uncomfortable. They were obviously not christian and not 'buying into his crap' and I wanted to leave real bad..

so you can see that faith in medicine has its (very delicate) place

 

[bkpa2med]

I leave my faith in the hands of the Almighty God and my lord Jesus Christ. Evolution is the worst possible explanation for creationism. Cmon now, chance? I don't buy that. Say what you want but each person has their reason and experiences in my life is what brought me close to my faith. Furthermore, for "evolution" people, what is the meaning of life if it simply came about in chance?

Please PM me if any of you would like, I'd be more than welcomed to hear what others have to say. I just don't believe in forcing others your opinion.

 

[Diceman M.D.]

Please PM me if any of you would like, I'd be more than welcomed to hear what others have to say. I just don't believe in forcing others your opinion.

Now THIS poster is acting like a real Christian! Props, man. Even if I totally disagree with you.

 

[winsicle]

Pink quoted Karl Marx, would you expect much more?

Here's a quote that sums up my feelings about religion from an OG of medicine: Al-Rhazes, a Persian physician who lived 1100 years ago and was the first person to record a method for distinguishing measles from smallpox -


"The miracles of the prophets are impostures or belong to the domain of pious legend. The teachings of religions are contrary to the one truth: the proof of this is that they contradict one another. It is tradition and lazy custom that have led men to trust their religious leaders. Religions are the sole cause of the wars which ravage humanity; they are hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The alleged holy scriptures are books without value. The writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity."


(except I think the word "sole" should be replaced with "primary")

 

[Callogician]

...if evolution did occur, who's to say that it didn't happen under the guidance of a supernal force?

You have invoked what is essentially a "proof by possibility." Just because something is possible does not mean that it has a reasonable probability of being true.

Concrete example: Imagine that I were to make the following claim...

claim #1: There exists a Fod, a sentient, supernatural, omniscient, powerful (but not omnipotent creator) of the universe. Fod is an eleven foot tall dragon with twelve purple stripes. Fod hides behind the planet Jupiter so that we cannot know him.

Now, while claim #1 may be consistent with what we observe in the universe, most would agree that it is not very likely to be true. I could make an infinite number of mutually exclusive metaphysical claims. Possibility is easy. Convincing evidence is tough.

Both [science and religion] in the end require some sort of leap and that leap is faith.

I disagree and acuse you of projection. For me, the sole goal of philosophy is truth. Practical considerations are given no weight. Hence, I use logic and reason to determine my beliefs. I do not use faith (which I define as "belief independent of logic and reason") because it is a poor methodology which is likely to yield false beliefs. If there is good evidence to suggest that X is true, I say, "there is good evidence to suggest that X is true." I don't say, "I am certain that X is true." I do not take a "leap of faith." I allow the level of evidence to determine my level of confidence. I am not afraid of uncertainty.

You may argue that faith and relgion require a much bigger leap but for those who have faith and experience God on a daily basis, there is no greater proof.

You and Dr. Moore are making the same mistake. You are fitting your current observations into a preconceived worldview which was packaged and handed to you on a silver platter by someone you trusted...likely when you were very young, emotionally weak, or otherwise not capable of making a calm, well-reasoned judgement. You are like a sheep to the slaughter...like a reservoir of a virus.

...But am I an different? Am I any better? After all, I believe that glucokinase is an isomer of hexokinase specific to the liver and with a higher Km. I believe this just because I read it in Lippincott's illustrated Biochemistry review and heard it from a few professors. Are these sources any more credible than your priest?

...

Yes.

Science utilizes a peer review system. Religion does not subject its holy texts to scrutinity at all. Scientific facts are less likely to become an emotionally significant part of a person's identity. The researcher who characterized glucokinase didn't care if it had a lower or higher Km than hexokinase. S/he just wanted to ****ing understand the enzyme. This is not true in religion. Theists are often driven to anger or tears when I challenge their beliefs. When scientists have a stake in their conclusions, they too are subject to bias.

Here is why I am a more likely to be correct than you are: I don't care whether or not God exists. I just want to know the truth. By contrast, you can't afford to be objective. You can't risk the pain. You like the idea of an omnibenevolent being watching out for you. You like the idea that everything was meant to be and that everything is going to work out. You are a coward.

Note: The above post is harsh and intentionally so. I feel that it would be dishonest and unproductive if I were to write anything other than my true feelings about religion. However, I recognize that I may be wrong, look foward to rebuttles, and will not complain if people attack me harshly.

 

[winsicle]

I leave my faith in the hands of the Almighty God and my lord Jesus Christ. Evolution is the worst possible explanation for creationism. Cmon now, chance? I don't buy that. Say what you want but each person has their reason and experiences in my life is what brought me close to my faith. Furthermore, for "evolution" people, what is the meaning of life if it simply came about in chance?

Please PM me if any of you would like, I'd be more than welcomed to hear what others have to say. I just don't believe in forcing others your opinion.

What makes you think there is one single point to life? And what makes you think G-d is the only answer?

 

[winsicle]

In any event we are all extremely fortunate to be here, and we should recognize that.



“Not only have you been lucky enough to be attached since time immemorial to a favored evolutionary line, but you have also been extremely – make that miraculously – fortunate in your personal ancestry. Consider the fact that for 3.8 Billion years, a period of time older than Earth’s mountains and rivers and oceans, every one of your forebears on both sides has been attractive enough to find a mate, healthy enough to reproduce, and sufficiently blessed by fate and circumstances to live long enough to do so. Not one of your pertinent ancestors was squashed, devoured, drowned, starved, stranded, stuck fast, untimely wounded, or otherwise deflected from it’s life’s quest of delivering a tiny charge of genetic material to the right partner at the right moment in order to perpetuate the only possible sequence of hereditary combinations that could result – eventually, astoundingly, and all too briefly – in you.”

-Bill Bryson (from: A Short History of Nearly Everything)

 

[synapse lapse]

hey y'all take it easy...While it is definitely impossible to prove that God exists by the modern scientific method, the scientific method is not the only way to achieve truth. Science is about material things (things that u can put in a test tube and quantify and say yes they exist), but God is not material and hence you really cant have an experiment to say yes god exists. Nonetheless this does not prove that he does not exist. To claim that only the material exists is egotistic and naive. Logic, reason and philosophy (at least to me) all point to the fact that for something to be there has to be a maker (of course this is the simplistic rendition of a much more complex argument for God. (ps as a side note i think we should all be abit more open minded instead of shooting each other down) Those who feel evolution is the answer, have a right to their opinions and so do those who feel God created. For those of you who feel religion should be eliminated, many of yr patients will be religios, and to care for them you have to at least try and put away yr biasses. (same goes to religious people who will treat gays etc)

Back to the topic: I took a number of classes by Prof Behe (one of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design) and i agree with many of the principles of ID. One of the biggest (and perhaps the only) critique against ID is that it's unscientific. To me, It seems like it is the proponents of evolution that are more fanatically sticking to their beleifs and nothing else you tell them can change their views... If there is an argument against evolution it will simple be tossed away as unscientific...This is not something new in the scientific community...any ideas that go against the norm are often laughed at, castigated etc (helicobater pylori and gastric ulcer link is one of the examples, another one is the endosymbiotic theory of the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts) both these ideas were ridiculed when they were introduced (just like Intellugent Design)

Personally, i do beleive in natural selesction (microevolution)...it happens, it is proven, theres no doubt about it. I however have some doubts about Macroevolution and speciation...(i hope i am not shot down for this)

I think the conflict between Religion and science is one which is very much pronounced in particularly the Christian tradition, and there is a huge amount of history as to why this is (goes back to the time when the church opposed science as heresy) unfortunately the remnants of that age old battle still exist today) Religion wise, i am Muslim, and i don't see such a strong divide or rift between science and Religion in the islamic tradition...and there is a reason for this too. I was personally very surprised actually when i read Keith l Moore (author of Clinically Oriented anatomy, etc) views about the issue:

"It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'aan about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad peace be upon him from Allah, or God, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad peace be upon him must have been a Messenger of Allah." Professor Keith L. Moore ( quoted in http://www.islamicmedicine.org/amazing.htm and http://www.what-islam.com/ )

anyway these are my views...anyone may beg to differ

Really, well here is a great summary of the evidence for macroevolution evolution from common descent:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Here is a list of poor design found in nature:

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#recurrentlaryngeal

And I know I really want avoid this debate but what is not natural? Everything that exists is natural by definition. If it interacts with our universe in any way it is natural by definition. You create supernatural things so you can call something God and say that's where he is. That's because science has uprooted gods from out world. Historically gods resided in our natural world, but now that we know that not to be true people still need to believe and thus invent some place/way for them to exist. Gods lack any explanatory value, as does faith. Just replace God with leprachauns and you can see the evidence is equal for both! Really reason isn't the only way to find truth? I challenge you to show me just one more way to discover truth. Faith cannot discover truth. If I say hey ask1288 I have faith in Allah's non existence and you say you have faith in his existence which of us is right? Faith cannot give you an answer! Faith makes a mockery of truth! Really you say all of philosophy and science leads you to conclude God exists? Well why don't you just stroll on over to Internet Infidels (www.iidb.org) and explain to them your evidence. If you are truly interested iun discovering the truth you will be open to challenges of your views. And don't come over here feeding us this Islam BS where there are prophecies fullfilled and scientific knowledge in the Quron. Every alleged prophecy or factual information contained within is either to vague to be taken seriously or has been debunked. I challenge you to find one quronic verse that supports your claim. You like most religious people buy into these things your religion teaches you without even applyign a modicum of raitonality or thought to it, and then want to say we are slaves to faith in science. We are not slaves to faith, we are slaves to reason, and reason is the only known means of attaining the truth value of a proposition. Reason ought to be what guides us. You follow reason in everythign in life except the "supernatural" which is an area that you made up to have room for faith! You invent a sphere that rests outside of reason, a place that supposedly knowledge can be found and reason does not apply, in order to indulge your childish fanatasies, to enhance the warm fuzzy feeling you get from feeling you are a special part of this universe and that someone ought there, some sky daddy like Allah, actually gives a $hit about you and your meaningless existence. As I said before all religious people care about is feeling good, not about discovering the truth. Truth is always just that...it does not change to fit what you want it to. You don't want to claim that Allah is true only to you, but that he is true to all people, including me. Behe is an idiot and even his own department doesn't agree with him. Darwin doesn't have a black box, it's an imagined construct to indulge mythology! Check this out for more issues with ID:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

I have a billion more articles and things to say but man I want to avoid this topic! I have a degree in Philosophy and philosophy of religion is my main area of interest, so it is difficult for me to remain silent in the face of such logical fallacies and absurd claims. Especialy when someone says I am being naive to think supernatural things don't exist! Just think about the absurdity of the statement! Now I will post a paper by William Clifford entitled "The Ethics of Belief", which I think is one of the most important documents every written, and one that is much needed in modern society. The inability for people, especially our brightest student scientists to make correct value judgments is really disgusting, and needs to be rectified. I think this paper makes an excellent case for the ethics behind belief, and lays the grondwork for why it is unethical to believe in whatever you want regardless of evidence:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~maartens/logic/Clifford/WKCliffordEthicsOfBelief.htm

 

[ask1288]

Dr Pink, i too do not want to get into a heated debate about Evolution/Creation, primarily because i see both sides as quite fanatic. i do not agree with American creationism as we know it today. For instance the idea that the earth is really very young still etc. However as a scientist i also do not see enough evidence for evolution, in fact i see more and more evidence against evolution. Of course when scientists begin with the premise that evolution happens in the first place, they will always find proof that it does. If however they were to go in without this bias, one would find more evidence to suggest that darwinian Evolution (gradual evolutiuon) just can not explain the extent of diversity we see today.

PS just like you give sources to suggest that it does happen, i could likewise give you many sources that would express doubt in these theories, but i doubt you would read them. or will you? One source for instance is: http://www.discovery.org/csc/ Btw, please don't dismiss it by saying it's not scientific...All the authors are scientists and these are peer reviewed articles.

Another good source is Darwin's black Box by Michael j behe (Prof Behe is a professor of biochemistry PhD at lehigh University)

lastly i will not stoop as low as you have done trying to insult religion or islam or Allah. If you want to beleive that evolution is the only asnwer thats upto you...to me my beleif and to you yours...You claim that i do not have proff, while i feel i do have proof...we can agree to disagree. Btw, It is very easy to do a google search and say hey here, these people say ur wrong...and thats what most scientists engaging this question (who have a previous bias that evolution can only be the answer do). I am not the only one challenging the evidence for evolution. many scientists 9some of them who are atheists) have also done so. it is not that i want you to beleive in God or my god etc, but rather look at the evidence for evolution and crittically examine it. To me it does not add up. if it does to you fine...

lastly i'll just paste one of yr comment to show some of the fanatic zeal against any questioning of evolution by biassed scientists.

"Every alleged prophecy or factual information contained within is either to vague to be taken seriously or has been debunked." Did you even read it to make this claim?

ps i am not here to convert anyone or to make them believe in my point of view by hook line or sinnker...i am telling u why i beleive in what i beleive, and u may accept it or not. If scientists like Dr Moore (whose books we us in med schools think that the verses in the quran do not contradict science, i think thats at least enough endorsement to take a look at the website and read through it...of course u may choose to stick to your fanatical beleifs as well

---

Really, well here is a great summary of the evidence for macroevolution evolution from common descent:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Here is a list of poor design found in nature:

http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm#recurrentlaryngeal

And I know I really want avoid this debate but what is not natural? Everything that exists is natural by definition. If it interacts with our universe in any way it is natural by definition. You create supernatural things so you can call something God and say that's where he is. That's because science has uprooted gods from out world. Historically gods resided in our natural world, but now that we know that not to be true people still need to believe and thus invent some place/way for them to exist. Gods lack any explanatory value, as does faith. Just replace God with leprachauns and you can see the evidence is equal for both! Really reason isn't the only way to find truth? I challenge you to show me just one more way to discover truth. Faith cannot discover truth. If I say hey ask1288 I have faith in Allah's non existence and you say you have faith in his existence which of us is right? Faith cannot give you an answer! Faith makes a mockery of truth! Really you say all of philosophy and science leads you to conclude God exists? Well why don't you just stroll on over to Internet Infidels (www.iidb.org) and explain to them your evidence. If you are truly interested iun discovering the truth you will be open to challenges of your views. And don't come over here feeding us this Islam BS where there are prophecies fullfilled and scientific knowledge in the Quron. Every alleged prophecy or factual information contained within is either to vague to be taken seriously or has been debunked. I challenge you to find one quronic verse that supports your claim. You like most religious people buy into these things your religion teaches you without even applyign a modicum of raitonality or thought to it, and then want to say we are slaves to faith in science. We are not slaves to faith, we are slaves to reason, and reason is the only known means of attaining the truth value of a proposition. Reason ought to be what guides us. You follow reason in everythign in life except the "supernatural" which is an area that you made up to have room for faith! You invent a sphere that rests outside of reason, a place that supposedly knowledge can be found and reason does not apply, in order to indulge your childish fanatasies, to enhance the warm fuzzy feeling you get from feeling you are a special part of this universe and that someone ought there, some sky daddy like Allah, actually gives a $hit about you and your meaningless existence. As I said before all religious people care about is feeling good, not about discovering the truth. Truth is always just that...it does not change to fit what you want it to. You don't want to claim that Allah is true only to you, but that he is true to all people, including me. Behe is an idiot and even his own department doesn't agree with him. Darwin doesn't have a black box, it's an imagined construct to indulge mythology! Check this out for more issues with ID:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

I have a billion more articles and things to say but man I want to avoid this topic! I have a degree in Philosophy and philosophy of religion is my main area of interest, so it is difficult for me to remain silent in the face of such logical fallacies and absurd claims. Especialy when someone says I am being naive to think supernatural things don't exist! Just think about the absurdity of the statement! Now I will post a paper by William Clifford entitled "The Ethics of Belief", which I think is one of the most important documents every written, and one that is much needed in modern society. The inability for people, especially our brightest student scientists to make correct value judgments is really disgusting, and needs to be rectified. I think this paper makes an excellent case for the ethics behind belief, and lays the grondwork for why it is unethical to believe in whatever you want regardless of evidence:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~maartens/logic/Clifford/WKCliffordEthicsOfBelief.htm

 

[Koil Gugliemi]

I assume that the docs who don't believe in evolution will be treating their MRSA infected patients with penicillin right? I mean the bugs couldn't have evolved to be resistant right?

 

[ask1288]

hey like i said, once again, i do beleive in natural selesction...what u have shown here is a classic exaple of natural selection...it does not however prove that we all arose in this way i.e. gradual changes from lower forms...

Also, since we now know that thie process by which bugs acquire this resistance is not timy mutations that were selected for but rather plasmid exchange, this once again casts doubt into the whole idea that random evolutionary changes can brng about the immense diversity we see today.

i dont wanto get into this debate but i am being sucked in ..lol, this is my last post...

I assume that the docs who don't believe in evolution will be treating their MRSA infected patients with penicillin right? I mean the bugs couldn't have evolved to be resistant right?

 

[want2beadoc]

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=hijack+thread&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-img-t&x=wrt

 

[neurotrancer]

http://www.devilducky.com/media/44860/

 

[MarzMD]

http://www.devilducky.com/media/44860/

I think I just lost brain cells watching that.

Wasnt the guy next to banana man one of those old child actors?

*nm, I cant read

 

[chef_NU]

You have invoked what is essentially a "proof by possibility." Just because something is possible does not mean that it has a reasonable probability of being true.

Concrete example: Imagine that I were to make the following claim...

claim #1: There exists a Fod, a sentient, supernatural, omniscient, powerful (but not omnipotent creator) of the universe. Fod is an eleven foot tall dragon with twelve purple stripes. Fod hides behind the planet Jupiter so that we cannot know him.

Now, while claim #1 may be consistent with what we observe in the universe, most would agree that it is not very likely to be true. I could make an infinite number of mutually exclusive metaphysical claims. Possibility is easy. Convincing evidence is tough.



I disagree and acuse you of projection. For me, the sole goal of philosophy is truth. Practical considerations are given no weight. Hence, I use logic and reason to determine my beliefs. I do not use faith (which I define as "belief independent of logic and reason") because it is a poor methodology which is likely to yield false beliefs. If there is good evidence to suggest that X is true, I say, "there is good evidence to suggest that X is true." I don't say, "I am certain that X is true." I do not take a "leap of faith." I allow the level of evidence to determine my level of confidence. I am not afraid of uncertainty.



You and Dr. Moore are making the same mistake. You are fitting your current observations into a preconceived worldview which was packaged and handed to you on a silver platter by someone you trusted...likely when you were very young, emotionally weak, or otherwise not capable of making a calm, well-reasoned judgement. You are like a sheep to the slaughter...like a reservoir of a virus.

...But am I an different? Am I any better? After all, I believe that glucokinase is an isomer of hexokinase specific to the liver and with a higher Km. I believe this just because I read it in Lippincott's illustrated Biochemistry review and heard it from a few professors. Are these sources any more credible than your priest?

...

Yes.

Science utilizes a peer review system. Religion does not subject its holy texts to scrutinity at all. Scientific facts are less likely to become an emotionally significant part of a person's identity. The researcher who characterized glucokinase didn't care if it had a lower or higher Km than hexokinase. S/he just wanted to ****ing understand the enzyme. This is not true in religion. Theists are often driven to anger or tears when I challenge their beliefs. When scientists have a stake in their conclusions, they too are subject to bias.

Here is why I am a more likely to be correct than you are: I don't care whether or not God exists. I just want to know the truth. By contrast, you can't afford to be objective. You can't risk the pain. You like the idea of an omnibenevolent being watching out for you. You like the idea that everything was meant to be and that everything is going to work out. You are a coward.

Note: The above post is harsh and intentionally so. I feel that it would be dishonest and unproductive if I were to write anything other than my true feelings about religion. However, I recognize that I may be wrong, look foward to rebuttles, and will not complain if people attack me harshly.

 

[Keg]

I assume that the docs who don't believe in evolution will be treating their MRSA infected patients with penicillin right? I mean the bugs couldn't have evolved to be resistant right?

I don't think that anyone disputes that microevolution (changes within species) happens every day, as there's irrefutible evidence as to this. Speciation (macroevolution) happening under natural conditions, however, is a harder pill to swallow.

 

[MN81]

Scientific facts are less likely to become an emotionally significant part of a person's identity.

Really? I'd say that scientific facts are an emotionally significant part of any scientist's or doctor's life. In a way, we diefy scientific progress by our belief that it leads us to ultimate truth.

 

[Orth2006]

If we could prove in a scientific way that God exists - then religion or spirituality becomes a science.

If religion could justify scientific evidence then science becomes religion.

But alas science and religion are polar opposites.

Religion says --> Believing is seeing (not based on physical senses)

Science says --> Seeing is believing (based on physical senses)

Religion says --> All things are possible

Science says --> There is a limit to possibilities

If someone is waiting for proof of God's existence before they believe in HIM, then they will never believe.

If someone is trying to prove that God exists to an atheist, they are just wasting their time.

I think the two should stay seperate.

Evolution is could be a valid theory to the physical senses.

Creationism is a valid explanation to the spiritual senses.

We keep trying to juxtapose the two.

I believe in GOD and I think evolution could be a valid theory.

 

[BobBarker]

Speciation happens all the time, google "speciation event" and there are several examples. Like this..
"Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348"

Another example of macrospeciation..
""Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise. "

 

[bigfrank]

I assume that the docs who don't believe in evolution will be treating their MRSA infected patients with penicillin right? I mean the bugs couldn't have evolved to be resistant right?

look up definitions of macro- vs. microevolution.

 

[qr321]

You have invoked what is essentially a "proof by possibility." Just because something is possible does not mean that it has a reasonable probability of being true.

Concrete example: Imagine that I were to make the following claim...

claim #1: There exists a Fod, a sentient, supernatural, omniscient, powerful (but not omnipotent creator) of the universe. Fod is an eleven foot tall dragon with twelve purple stripes. Fod hides behind the planet Jupiter so that we cannot know him.

Now, while claim #1 may be consistent with what we observe in the universe, most would agree that it is not very likely to be true. I could make an infinite number of mutually exclusive metaphysical claims. Possibility is easy. Convincing evidence is tough.



I disagree and acuse you of projection. For me, the sole goal of philosophy is truth. Practical considerations are given no weight. Hence, I use logic and reason to determine my beliefs. I do not use faith (which I define as "belief independent of logic and reason") because it is a poor methodology which is likely to yield false beliefs. If there is good evidence to suggest that X is true, I say, "there is good evidence to suggest that X is true." I don't say, "I am certain that X is true." I do not take a "leap of faith." I allow the level of evidence to determine my level of confidence. I am not afraid of uncertainty.



You and Dr. Moore are making the same mistake. You are fitting your current observations into a preconceived worldview which was packaged and handed to you on a silver platter by someone you trusted...likely when you were very young, emotionally weak, or otherwise not capable of making a calm, well-reasoned judgement. You are like a sheep to the slaughter...like a reservoir of a virus.

...But am I an different? Am I any better? After all, I believe that glucokinase is an isomer of hexokinase specific to the liver and with a higher Km. I believe this just because I read it in Lippincott's illustrated Biochemistry review and heard it from a few professors. Are these sources any more credible than your priest?

...

Yes.

Science utilizes a peer review system. Religion does not subject its holy texts to scrutinity at all. Scientific facts are less likely to become an emotionally significant part of a person's identity. The researcher who characterized glucokinase didn't care if it had a lower or higher Km than hexokinase. S/he just wanted to ****ing understand the enzyme. This is not true in religion. Theists are often driven to anger or tears when I challenge their beliefs. When scientists have a stake in their conclusions, they too are subject to bias.

Here is why I am a more likely to be correct than you are: I don't care whether or not God exists. I just want to know the truth. By contrast, you can't afford to be objective. You can't risk the pain. You like the idea of an omnibenevolent being watching out for you. You like the idea that everything was meant to be and that everything is going to work out. You are a coward.

Note: The above post is harsh and intentionally so. I feel that it would be dishonest and unproductive if I were to write anything other than my true feelings about religion. However, I recognize that I may be wrong, look foward to rebuttles, and will not complain if people attack me harshly.

Please don't lump all religions into one category. The Qur'an challenges people to even produce one chapter like it. Other religions don't like people challenging them because their beliefs can't withstand basic logic and reason. I see a lot of people (not you in particular) here make a mistake of equating religion with only Christianity. We come to this idea because of the history between science and the Church. The Bible failed to withstand the test of science for many reasons. However, in Islam, science is a very powerful tool that allows you to observe the power of God. A major part of the Qur'an is certain scientific laws unknown at the time and you will never see a scientific law contradict anything inside of it.

I absolutely agree with you on your basic premises. Faith as understood by most people is actually a belief void of logic. This is ridiculous because God himself instilled intellect and reason within us to understand Him. This is what makes us different than other animals. However, it does matter whether God exists or not because it relates to the purpose of existence in general.

 

[qr321]

I don't think that anyone disputes that microevolution (changes within species) happens every day, as there's irrefutible evidence as to this. Speciation (macroevolution) happening under natural conditions, however, is a harder pill to swallow.

It is interesting because it seems to me you need to have A LOT of faith to believe in macroevolution and within that, the belief that life came from blind matter. It is a leap of faith.

On a side note, there is a book online written by an Islamic scholar. In another book (not in English), he wrote a very dense analysis on the logical basis of induction. This book looks into an inductive (scientific) argument for the existence of God. Also, it is interesting to note that one of the first classes taken in Islamic seminary (Howza, at least in the Shia school of thought) is logic.

Here is the link to the book:

http://al-islam.org/revealer/