How do your religious beliefs impact your views on medicine if at all?

[GoSpursGo]

I need someone to classify me. I do believe there is a God, however I don't believe that he has the ability to intervene in life. Life is determined by our own actions. I also believe that there might be an afterlife, but am not sure. Because of this, people should live there lives as good citizens because of what may happen. I don't want to call science my religion, but a good deal of what I believe can be explained by scientific phenomenon, e.g. evolution.

I'm thinking agnostic, but I don't know.

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Retsage]

Bacchus, you're a deist.

 

[GoSpursGo]

I'd love to hear the Hindu or Shintoist interpretation of human suffering, because it might be much more specific depending on the issue at hand. Polytheistic specialization is actually very interesting.

I am not Hindu myself, so if anyone is, please correct me. However, it is my understanding that they view human suffering the the result of karma, the universe's version of justice. e.g., if you are suffering in this life it's probably because you did something evil in a previous incarnation. That is the short, extremely simplistic version, as far as I understand it.

Also, many Hindus would argue with you that they are not polytheistic, and that all of the gods are simply different aspects of one true, supreme god. Many also recognize other religions' gods, such as Jesus, as incarnations of this supreme god.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Bacchus, you're a deist.

Whoops. Yeah, you're right. Not sure why I didn't realize that...

Sorry Bacchus!

 

[Chemist0157]

I really liked your answer to the original "suffering" question. Thanks for responding (to my questions and the original suffering one).

Anytime! I hoped it helped.

Getting back on topic, my faith and my chosen career in medicine really won't intersect at many points. Abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, etc. are pretty fringe topics, especially in the specialty I want to enter. Still, qualities of my faith will be there, and I believe it will only help me be a better doctor.

I like how all of us are able to just discuss these controversial topics. Overall, everyone's been really civil. It's good to remember that no one likes having abortions; everyone is pretty uncomfortable with the topic, no matter which choice they make. I'm glad atheist and Christian can just talk. Neither side has been unreasonable. I feel like sometimes the rest of the world get this skewered image of Christianity from...shall we say, "eccentric" believers? Most of us are very reasonable, and I see the same is true for the rest of you.

Now, what's next?

 

[Bacchus]

I'd agree based on the quick research I did, however this does not apply to me but I saw it in all articles: Most Deists believe that God created the universe, "wound it up" and then disassociated himself from his creation. Some refer to Deists as believing in a God who acts as an absentee landlord or a blind watchmaker. A few Deists believe that God still intervenes in human affairs on rare occasions. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm) I believe the big bang started the Universe, not God. I also occasionally pray, although it seems deists believe God cannot be accessed this way.

I guess it comes down to religion is malleable.

 

[Retsage]

You're being too literal. Most deists believe the Big Bang started the universe, they just also believe that God triggered the Big Bang to take place.

 

[Chemist0157]

Right. Since science can only answer questions through observation, experimentation, etc., it has no answers for before the Big Bang, since there was no time, matter, or space to work with. (Can you imagine there not even being space for something to exist?) So, someone outside of these limitations must have started it, hence God.

I've never heard of Deists praying...if they don't believe God is involved, why pray? Just in case? They believe God still intervenes just to explain the unexplainable?

 

[Bacchus]

I don't often investigate religion. I'm just asking questions.

 

[Retsage]

Right. Since science can only answer questions through observation, experimentation, etc., it has no answers for before the Big Bang, since there was no time, matter, or space to work with. (Can you imagine there not even being space for something to exist?) So, someone outside of these limitations must have started it, hence God.

Whoa, now. Big leap there you've taken. Perhaps the Big Bang was purely spontaneous. After all, if you add in God you simply beg the question of who created Him. And if you say he was spontaneous, then why Him and not the Big Bang (something that would be infinitely less complex)?

 

[Chemist0157]

Good question. I don't have all the answers, but I'll try to explain what I think.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. For this to be true, God must have existed before the beginning of time which began with the rest of creation. Since God created time, He must be outside of time, therefore not limited by time, so He has no beginning and no end. That is logically simple but very complex at the same time. In contrast, I had a beginning and do have an end here on earth; I'm limited by time. The same is true for matter and space; since God created those, He must be outside them, and not bound by them.

The Big Bang itself is simply a process that occurred. It had no control over itself; it just happened. However, God is a conscientious Being who would have control over the universe.

 

[primadonna22274]

I'm not morally culpable for the person who attempts to take his/her own life. This does NOT mean I'm not responsible to provide compassionate and appropriate life-saving care to the person who presents to the ED or clinic after such attempt. In my experience the folks who are dead-set on ending their lives are usually successful and I never see them or they present late when a loved one finds them, and there's little we can do. For the most part the cutters and those who take half the medicine cabinet, little of it lethal, are attention-seeking and "need help".
Talk to me about the ethics of this when you've been in practice a while Bacchus. You do what's right for YOU and I'll keep doing what's right for me. In no situation will a patient dictate to me what is morally right for me.

So as long as you didn't participate, if its a successful or botched severe suicide success/attempt its ok? It'd be better for people to do it this way than use a more humane and comfortable means that a doctor prescribes?

 

[goldenwest]

After all, if you add in God you simply beg the question of who created Him.

I've tried to answer this question clearly once. I'll try again...

I would entirely agree with you that it is completely ridiculous to believe in a God that is bound by the laws of this universe and therefore demands something greater and bigger to be created by. No one is arguing that. Creation implies that the creator is not confined to its rules and laws. It's hard to come up with a good analogy since humans don't create as God creates, but the one I used earlier was about a video game. If I created a video game with all kinds of artificially intelligent personalities that could interact with me then they couldn't possibly understand my existence, why their time doesn't apply to me or how it is that I created them.

The point is that we can speculate about how it is that a God could possibly exist but when it comes down to it if we are indeed a creation then there is no way we could possibly understand the creator unless the creator somehow communicated with us in our terms. If I hear the argument "well if God created the universe then who created God?" one more time I think I might throw up. If He exists (and I think He does) then He exists in a reality that we can't understand.

 

[MadEvans]

I've tried to answer this question clearly once. I'll try again...

(...)we can't understand.

How very agnostic of you.

 

[Fibroblastman]

Ummmm... question: What if SDN is our religion?

 

[goldenwest]

How very agnostic of you.

Well the difference is that I believe He has tried to communicate with us. I stand to my point that the reality God exists in is hard to grasp, but I think He has tried to reveal Himself to us and give us some insight into that reality. Not that I think being labeled as an agnostic is a bad thing though because I think agnosticism is very rational at its core. We all observe and live in the same universe with relatively the same facts, so no matter what conclusion you personally reach from those facts its wise to remember that you don't have any kind of undeniable proof to back it up.

 

[searun]

Well the difference is that I believe He has tried to communicate with us. I stand to my point that the reality God exists in is hard to grasp, but I think He has tried to reveal Himself to us and give us some insight into that reality. Not that I think being labeled as an agnostic is a bad thing though because I think agnosticism is very rational at its core. We all observe and live in the same universe with relatively the same facts, so no matter what conclusion you personally reach from those facts its wise to remember that you don't have any kind of undeniable proof to back it up.

Why do you refer to God as "He" and "Himself?" Why would God have a gender? God certainly would not have to copulate with another gender to reproduce. Can God reproduce and create another equivalent God?

 

[goldenwest]

Why do you refer to God as "He" and "Himself?" Why would God have a gender? God certainly would not have to copulate with another gender to reproduce. Can God reproduce and create another equivalent God?

I thought this might stir up some controversy. I just don't like referring to God as It so I use the predominant pronoun. Sorry for those who are offended by me not being gender sensitive.

I do believe in the Bible though which commonly refers to God with masculine pronouns. It also says that God created man in His image and that woman was created from man. Does this mean that men are better or more spiritual than woman? Most certainly not... I truly don't understand where the offense comes from this belief (Not that I feel you personally were offended, searun).

 

[Chemist0157]

Why do you refer to God as "He" and "Himself?" Why would God have a gender? God certainly would not have to copulate with another gender to reproduce. Can God reproduce and create another equivalent God?

Basically, that's what the Bible uses, and that's how He refers to Himself. God doesn't have a gender; also, Jesus was a man on earth and referred to God as His Heavenly Father.

 

[searun]

Basically, that's what the Bible uses, and that's how He refers to Himself. God doesn't have a gender; also, Jesus was a man on earth and referred to God as His Heavenly Father.

It is probably because the various authors of the books of the Bible were men who lived in a patriachal culture. So naturally they assumed God was a male and referred to God as "He" in their writings.

 

[Flushot]

Good question. I don't have all the answers, but I'll try to explain what I think.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. For this to be true, God must have existed before the beginning of time which began with the rest of creation. Since God created time, He must be outside of time, therefore not limited by time, so He has no beginning and no end. That is logically simple but very complex at the same time. In contrast, I had a beginning and do have an end here on earth; I'm limited by time. The same is true for matter and space; since God created those, He must be outside them, and not bound by them.

The Big Bang itself is simply a process that occurred. It had no control over itself; it just happened. However, God is a conscientious Being who would have control over the universe.

I have a problem with using the Bible as a reference. This a pure case of circular logic and even after hearing this and calling it out with some of my Christian friends, their final statement is that God is the perfect circle then; no beginning, no end, and beyond our understanding.

I'm a fairly practical person and when I hear about God being this infinitely abstract idea, it makes the usefulness of God even more questionable. I know you said that it is ridiculous for us to consider God within the laws of this universe and nature, but isn't that what we base our lives on? Science, nature...things that are right in front of us and that we can use...aren't these things more important or should God trump this?

 

[goldenwest]

I'm a fairly practical person and when I hear about God being this infinitely abstract idea, it makes the usefulness of God even more questionable. I know you said that it is ridiculous for us to consider God within the laws of this universe and nature, but isn't that what we base our lives on? Science, nature...things that are right in front of us and that we can use...aren't these things more important or should God trump this?

Well, if we can push my video game analogy a little further. As the creator of the video game I can still act within its reality even though it's different than my own. Just because I'm not within the reality doesn't mean I have no control or participation in it.

 

[Chemist0157]

It is probably because the various authors of the books of the Bible were men who lived in a patriachal culture. So naturally they assumed God was a male and referred to God as "He" in their writings.

I know not everyone here believes in the Bible, but if you do, the "He" falls into place easily. At least if you believe that Jesus existed, you can see my following reasoning.

For the most part, the Bible is a historical account. On the record, Jesus is a male, and He is recorded referring to God as His Heavenly Father. Also, many of the Old Testament people literally, audibly talked with God. They heard His voice. Since they heard Him refer to Himself as a Him, and they heard a male voice, they came to the easy conclusion of referring to God as "He."

Like I said, this is an explanation if you believe in the Bible, or at least the life of Jesus Christ. Without the Bible, there's no reason to believe that God is a "He." But fortunately, as a Christian, I do have that account.

 

[Chemist0157]

I have a problem with using the Bible as a reference. This a pure case of circular logic and even after hearing this and calling it out with some of my Christian friends, their final statement is that God is the perfect circle then; no beginning, no end, and beyond our understanding.

I'm a fairly practical person and when I hear about God being this infinitely abstract idea, it makes the usefulness of God even more questionable. I know you said that it is ridiculous for us to consider God within the laws of this universe and nature, but isn't that what we base our lives on? Science, nature...things that are right in front of us and that we can use...aren't these things more important or should God trump this?

Even without quoting the Bible, I would have made the same argument. The Big Bang was a process; it had no control over itself. It makes more sense to me for there to be a Creator causing it than for it to have occurred spontaneously. Everything we know from science screams that it couldn't have occurred spontaneously, but science cannot prove/disprove that notion since there is nothing to measure before the Big Bang.

God isn't beyond the laws of the universe in a sense that He can't or doesn't function within the universe. What I meant was that He is not limited by these laws, since He created science, nature, etc. Remember, I'm not agnostic or a deist: I believe that God can be involved and is very involved in some of our lives.

 

[Flushot]

Well, if we can push my video game analogy a little further. As the creator of the video game I can still act within its reality even though it's different than my own. Just because I'm not within the reality doesn't mean I have no control or participation in it.

I find it difficult to compare the complexities of a video game to the universe. This still doesn't account for who created the creator. We know how you, as a video game designer, came to be. We know where your education, skills, and tools came from.

Even without quoting the Bible, I would have made the same argument. The Big Bang was a process; it had no control over itself. It makes more sense to me for there to be a Creator causing it than for it to have occurred spontaneously. Everything we know from science screams that it couldn't have occurred spontaneously, but science cannot prove/disprove that notion since there is nothing to measure before the Big Bang.

God isn't beyond the laws of the universe in a sense that He can't or doesn't function within the universe. What I meant was that He is not limited by these laws, since He created science, nature, etc. Remember, I'm not agnostic or a deist: I believe that God can be involved and is very involved in some of our lives.

I know you hate hearing the "who created the Creator" argument, but if you say that it makes sense for something to have a creator, then I'm going to have to throw this back on you using the same line of logic you are using.

EDIT - Sorry, goldenwest said that. Getting confused here.

I have to ask in your 2nd paragraph: why is God not limited by these laws? The nature of what God seems to lead to that endless loop I told you about. God creating science, nature, etc....these things are mostly conjecture. Show me why these statements are true without resorting to the man made texts. Otherwise, we could just go around again.

 

[Chemist0157]

I find it difficult to compare the complexities of a video game to the universe. This still doesn't account for who created the creator. We know how you, as a video game designer, came to be. We know where your education, skills, and tools came from.



I know you hate hearing the "who created the Creator" argument, but if you say that it makes sense for something to have a creator, then I'm going to have to throw this back on you using the same line of logic you are using.

EDIT - Sorry, goldenwest said that. Getting confused here.

I have to ask in your 2nd paragraph: why is God not limited by these laws? The nature of what God seems to lead to that endless loop I told you about. God creating science, nature, etc....these things are mostly conjecture. Show me why these statements are true without resorting to the man made texts. Otherwise, we could just go around again.

LOL, now I'm confused . What are you asking me, and what are you asking goldenwest? Or are you asking me all of that?

Are you just asking why is God beyond the laws of science?

 

[Flushot]

Haha, yeah that first part of my response to you is still sort of applicable. I just remembered about how goldenwest felt about that counterargument. You're welcome to respond to it.

I guess you could start with that, although, this isn't the first time I've had a similar discussion and I'm afraid it does go back and forth with the same ideas. Maybe until someone else can chime in we'll talk.

 

[Chemist0157]

Haha, yeah that first part of my response to you is still sort of applicable. I just remembered about how goldenwest felt about that counterargument. You're welcome to respond to it.

I guess you could start with that, although, this isn't the first time I've had a similar discussion and I'm afraid it does go back and forth with the same ideas. Maybe until someone else can chime in we'll talk.

I know what you mean. This has nothing to do with medicine, but it has helped me better order things in my mind. I'm not a preacher, evangelist, etc. I'm just a Christian who is trying to make sense of it all.

There is an internal problem with this discussion, and the problem is that it has no end. Let's say that through words and logic, I "prove" that God exists. Boom (...) <--- my argument that God exists. So, we all agree that God exists. Now, like you're saying, well, where did God come from? So, somehow, I explain where God came from. Where where did that thing that created God come from? So on and on and on.

My point is that somewhere you have to draw a line in the sand. This is how I reason it: since I believe that God created er, creation, He must be outside those limitations of matter, space, and time. None of those existed before the "Big Bang." Hence, since God is not bound by time, He has no beginning and no end. The Big Bang is not limitless. With this "infinite" discussion, logic will point toward something that is limitless. I see the Big Bang as big enough to help form the universe, but it wasn't big enough to cause itself, create itself, etc. These kinds of discussions never end because we don't like something/someone infinite as the final answer or conclusion.

I don't know if my rambling gave you what you wanted. My faith is secure in more than just these kinds of arguments. There's much better people who can carry out these arguments and provide a satisfying, logical answer. I can't remember the guy's name, but if you want me to, I'll try to look this one particular guy up.

 

[Flushot]

Yeah, I agree. I doubt an anonymous forum will fundamentally change anyone's spiritual beliefs, but it is something to think about.

About your argument/rambling: I actually already point out how I hear it often and I still wish to question it, even though "God is the perfect circle" makes it clear to me that my points probably won't push the discussion further.

We may never know the total extent of the Big Bang, but at least we can try to gather some empirical evidence. I hope that you agree with me that your belief that God is beyond science, nature and time is due to faith, not due to what we could prove with evidence.

I'm fine with that, because usually the people I talk to who flat out say this also realize this cannot be used in practical terms but rather it is a mere explanation. Note that this doesn't concern whether or not God will intervene in our lives.

That is where I dry my line. Against goldenwest's video game example, I argue against the idea that God can intervene because we have already establish that if God exists, he/she/it is beyond our understanding and rules of the universe. I cannot for practical purposes use God as a tool for the progression of the world nor include God in the secular issues that plague our world.


I've been meaning to clear this up too, since most atheists are not 100% sure that God does not exist. This too is a form of dogmatic thinking and not very useful. I'm certain that if God came down and did something to defy the law of nature that we could measure and confirm, sure, I'll believe. Until then, well, you know

 

[Chemist0157]

Man, I got what you're saying. That's why I don't get much pleasure out of these types of discussions. Some people think that there is only the Big Bang, others say there is no God, and others, including myself, do say there is a God. But like you said, these statements are examples of faith because we have no hard evidence to support them. When I talk about God being beyond nature, science, time, etc., I say that after I take that leap and say there is a God. The infinite nature of God is used to simply expand it. But yes, it does take some faith, whichever side a person is on.

I don't believe that God is completely beyond our understanding. I'm not sure what point goldenwest is trying to make, but there are definitely parts of God's character that we can understand and observe in our lives. Reading the Bible and developing as a Christian allows me to do my part in making the world better. Once again, you're right: if God cannot be understood, He does us no good. However, I just don't believe that; much of God can be understood and applied.

And to your last part: so does Jesus need to come to earth every 2,000 years to perform miracles just in case?

 

[goldenwest]

Okay, apparently my analogy is still confusing so let me clarify its purpose...

First of all, as I stated earlier, the analogy is not a perfect relationship to what it's trying to explain. The point though of the analogy is not the programmer. When I presented that analogy you apparently thought "well yeah, but the programmer was born from a mother and needed to be created as well". That wasn't the point. You have to look at the analogy from the shoes of the video game character. The point is that the time in the video game is not the same as the programmer's time. The laws that restrain you as a video game character do not restrain the programmer. The reason the analogy is imperfect is because the programmer in the analogy IS bound by the time we understand so well, but nonetheless you can observe that the time in and outside of the video game is DIFFERENT. The programmer can fast forward, rewind, and look at the nuts and bolts of the program but the video game player cannot. This is not to suggest that God is necessarily restrained by other laws that we don't understand though He may well be (I honestly don't have any kind of scholarly stance or research on this idea). The point is that He is NOT restrained by the laws of the universe He created.

Whew... I really hope that clears up my reasoning some. I understand it can be confusing.

 

[Flushot]

Chemist, I'm glad that you made your stance clear. And about Jesus coming back every 2000 years: I added the part about the 'miracle' being testable and properly documented. Historical anecdotes about what Jesus did and his life are compilations from numerous sources, some more credible than others.

In a modern age where faith can be questioned without getting stoned to death or crucified, I think it would be nice for God to show up again, just to set the record straight.

goldenwest, that clears it up a bit, but I did understand your final point about God being beyond the laws of the universe. I just simply disagreed using the argument that you don't really like (who created the creator). Sorry, if that's not what you wanted to hear, but it is the exact counter to this argument and maybe you could clear that up.

I realize that as a tangible product of a sentient mind, a video game can be manipulated in any way, but if our lives are more or less an enormous game of The Sims then I have to question how useful this is to making our lives better, since it seems like we're on our own.

 

[searun]

I know not everyone here believes in the Bible, but if you do, the "He" falls into place easily. At least if you believe that Jesus existed, you can see my following reasoning.

For the most part, the Bible is a historical account. On the record, Jesus is a male, and He is recorded referring to God as His Heavenly Father. Also, many of the Old Testament people literally, audibly talked with God. They heard His voice. Since they heard Him refer to Himself as a Him, and they heard a male voice, they came to the easy conclusion of referring to God as "He."

Like I said, this is an explanation if you believe in the Bible, or at least the life of Jesus Christ. Without the Bible, there's no reason to believe that God is a "He." But fortunately, as a Christian, I do have that account.

I certainly agree that Jesus was a Jewish male who lived two thousand years ago during the Roman occupation of the Holy Land. But what is the meaning of gender, "He" or "She" as it relates to God. Gender relates to sexual reproduction, so if you are God, why would you have a particular sex, or gender, intellectually it does not make sense, that an omnipotent being would have a gender, which is only necessary for reproduction.

I am a male. I have no feminist axe to grind, I am just curious, the idea of ascribing a gender to God seems odd, unless it just makes people more comfortable, but intellectually, it is odd.

 

[goldenwest]

goldenwest, that clears it up a bit, but I did understand your final point about God being beyond the laws of the universe. I just simply disagreed using the argument that you don't really like (who created the creator). Sorry, if that's not what you wanted to hear, but it is the exact counter to this argument and maybe you could clear that up.

I realize that as a tangible product of a sentient mind, a video game can be manipulated in any way, but if our lives are more or less an enormous game of The Sims then I have to question how useful this is to making our lives better, since it seems like we're on our own.

Sorry, you're right I didn't address that explicitly, but what I was trying to get at is that perhaps in God's reality (which we've already stated is outside our understanding of time) time (in whatever manner it exists, if at all) may not be linear. I know that's extremely ambiguous and complex. It's nothing something I believe to be able to wrap my head around just as the video game character couldn't wrap its head around me. Our understanding of linear time is that all effects have a cause and all creations have a creator; however, in a reality in which time is not linear God would not necessarily have to be created. It's not something that I'm going to be able to clearly outline and explain.

As for what it does for our lives, that's a very theological question. It has and continues to affect my life in very profound and poignant ways. I would love to get into how I feel it affects my life and in turn the way I will practice medicine, but I've been hesitant to do so because I want to hear other people's opinions on how their religious beliefs affect their views. I didn't want to start this thread just so that I could share my beliefs and values with SDN.

I don't want to push the analogy too far to say that this world we live in is just a gigantic video game. In no way was I trying to suggest that we are just God's entertainment because I believe the purpose of God's creation is much more profound than that.

 

[goldenwest]

I certainly agree that Jesus was a Jewish male who lived two thousand years ago during the Roman occupation of the Holy Land. But what is the meaning of gender, "He" or "She" as it relates to God. Gender relates to sexual reproduction, so if you are God, why would you have a particular sex, or gender, intellectually it does not make sense, that an omnipotent being would have a gender, which is only necessary for reproduction.

I am a male. I have no feminist axe to grind, I am just curious, the idea of ascribing a gender to God seems odd, unless it just makes people more comfortable, but intellectually, it is odd.

Personally I feel this is a non-issue due to the limitations of the English language.

 

[searun]

Personally I feel this is a non-issue due to the limitations of the English language.

Respectfully, perhaps trying to make any definitive statements about the nature of God will be flawed due to the limitations of any human languages and the limitations of human understanding. We are trying to understand what cannot be comprehended.

 

[Pharmavixen]

A really interesting study would be to poll students on their religious beliefs when they first enter university, and poll them again after they finish graduate level science degrees.

For instance, this (highly unscientific) poll on this site dominated by science students finds 51% identifying as atheists. According to this site, only 16% of people in the world identify as non-religious (including atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, and "theistic," but not religious.

 

[Flushot]

Sorry, you're right I didn't address that explicitly, but what I was trying to get at is that perhaps in God's reality (which we've already stated is outside our understanding of time) time (in whatever manner it exists, if at all) may not be linear. I know that's extremely ambiguous and complex. It's nothing something I believe to be able to wrap my head around just as the video game character couldn't wrap its head around me. Our understanding of linear time is that all effects have a cause and all creations have a creator; however, in a reality in which time is not linear God would not necessarily have to be created. It's not something that I'm going to be able to clearly outline and explain.

As for what it does for our lives, that's a very theological question. It has and continues to affect my life in very profound and poignant ways. I would love to get into how I feel it affects my life and in turn the way I will practice medicine, but I've been hesitant to do so because I want to hear other people's opinions on how their religious beliefs affect their views. I didn't want to start this thread just so that I could share my beliefs and values with SDN.

I don't want to push the analogy too far to say that this world we live in is just a gigantic video game. In no way was I trying to suggest that we are just God's entertainment because I believe the purpose of God's creation is much more profound than that.

Thanks for this too. Like Chemist, I'm glad you made it clear about how you feel, so I can take your points and think about the future.

But, I have to ask: when I say how God or the idea of God should be used in our lives, I figured it would be more secular than theological; maybe a mix of both. What do you think about this?

If this universe happens to be God's creation, it wouldn't matter to me either way. It's interesting that you feel there is something more profound at work that you may never understand, but I'm willing to bypass that and just work within this world for myself and others. I guess you could say that's how I would apply my beliefs or lack thereof into this.


About the gender thing: I think searun was right about it being more of the time of the Bible's inception and history, which involves a male-dominated paternalistic society, not so much the limitations of the English language.

 

[Forthegood]

How does being an Agnostic/Athiest affect how I will practice medicine?

In a word, skeptically. Being an agnostic is a matter of support. It is the gray area between Religion proper and Athiesm. Personally, I do not think that there is a God. However, I do not dare say that I KNOW that. If what it comes down to is a belief yes or no, I qualify respectively that life rarely presents with yes/no solutions, and I would expect nothing short of such animated simplicity from religion to be found lacking.

So I am skeptical of god, his existense one, but also his importance. If he is out there, he is certainly not paying much attention. Crack-addicted fetuses not allowed BY LAW to be aborted from a mother who will dump the kid in a dumpster so she can get her next score? If god exists, and is paying attention, and allows such a thing... well then I must not understand the "god is good" meaning of the word good.

And so I also skeptically approach medicine. As a scientist, striving for objectivity in cost/benifit analysis and not allowing my subjective opinions on things to matter. We are not building cars. We are not salesmen/women. It is a person, who came to you for help. Not for you to influence their personal belief system anymore that you ask the grocery bagger to assist your shopping and not convince you that you bought the wrong brand of cereal.

I am sure religious people make fantastic physicians. They care about people because God tells them they should, and if they dont they will burn for eternity (in some religions). That is a good reason. But i think i speak for all agnostics/atheists in that we want to help people because its who we are, not because of some external pressure or threat.

IMO...

 

[Chemdude]

Wow..great discussion guys

I noticed that someone mentioned something about the "sex" of God. In my opinion, God is "asexual". In fact, I don't think God can be described using human characteristics. If God had elements of sexuality, then that could be a form of dependence or "ungodliness". When I think of God, I don't visualize a "huge guy with a stick and a big-fluffy-white-beard". Humans are not capable of understanding the complexity of God.

 

[Chemdude]

Okay, you brought up Hitler and the Nazis in an earlier post.....so in your opinion, God knew about the Holocaust, had the power to do something about it, but chose to let 6 million+ Jews die anyway?? what is that about?? And for the Jews that did survive, you think that God "chose" them over others? What made them so special as to be chosen by God to survive?



I was waiting for you to chime in, as you are openly enthusiastic about your religion and relationship with jesus christ. I know this is a really long thread, but there have been some interesting questions posed throughout and i'd be curious to hear your opinion!

This is also a point which is always brought up. Why would god allow the molestation of a young child? Why do millions of innocent people die in natural disasters?

Firstly, God has given humans the right to choose between right and wrong. This "life" is a mere test. So those that suffer in this life, will be compensated for their suffering in the afterlife. On the other hand, those who have sinned will be punished in the hereafter.

Secondly, We as humans can not judge the way God acts. Although something may seem wrong/right to our human eyes, it may be the complete opposite. In the Quran, there is a story that explains this:

"Moses meets al-Khi&#7693;r, referred in the Quran as "one of Our servants, on whom We had bestowed Mercy from Ourselves and whom We had taught knowledge from Our own Presence,"[Qur'an 18:65] at the junction of the two seas and asks for permission to accompany him so Moses can learn "right conduct of that which thou hast been taught".
Al-Khi&#7693;r, realizing that Moses had the Torah and divine knowledge to draw upon, informs him in a stern manner that their knowledge is of different nature and that "Verily thou [Moses] wilt not be able to have patience with me!" Moses promised to be patient and obey Al-Khi&#7693;r, and they set out together.
After they board a ship, al-Khi&#7693;r damages the vessel. Forgetting his oath to follow quietly, Moses says "Hast thou scuttled it in order to drown those in it? Truly a strange thing hast thou done!" Al-Khi&#7693;r reminds Moses of his warning, "Did I not tell thee that thou canst have no patience with me?" and Moses asks not to be rebuked. Next al-Khi&#7693;r murders a young man. Moses again cries out in astonishment and dismay, again Al-Khi&#7693;r reminds Moses of his warning, and Moses promises he will not violate his oath again. They then proceed to a town where they are denied hospitality. This time, instead of harming anyone or thing, al-Khi&#7693;r restores a decrepit wall in a village. Yet again Moses is amazed and violates his oath for the third and last time asking by al-Khi&#7693;r did not at least exact "some recompense for it!"
Al-Khi&#7693;r replies "This is the parting between me and thee: now will I tell thee the interpretation of (those things) over which thou wast unable to hold patience." Many acts which seem to be evil, malicious or somber, actually were merciful. The boat was damaged to prevent its owners from falling into the hands of "a certain king who seized on every boat by force." "As for the youth, his parents were people of Faith, and we feared that he would grieve them by obstinate rebellion and ingratitude (to Allah and man)." God will replace the child with better in purity, affection and obedience. As for the restored wall, al-Khi&#7693;r explained that underneath the wall was a treasure belonging to two hapless orphans whose father was a righteous man. As God's envoy, al-Khi&#7693;r restored the wall, showing God's kindness by rewarding the piety of the orphans' father."


Source: Wikipedia(I know..bad source...I didn't feel like writing you this long story)

 

[Chemdude]

Exactly. I would hardly call millions of years of evolution a "coincidence."

Questio: do you believe that God has the ability to intervene in our daily lives? And has been involved in our history and is the one who determines our future? Sorry if you answered this before, I havent read every post on this thread.

Ok. If we assume evolution actually occured, then how did the universe come to be? Scientists have been trying to come up with a hypothesis regarding the "origin" of life for ages; sadly, not one hypothesis is based on fact.

 

[DrYoda]

A really interesting study would be to poll students on their religious beliefs when they first enter university, and poll them again after they finish graduate level science degrees.

For instance, this (highly unscientific) poll on this site dominated by science students finds 51% identifying as atheists. According to this site, only 16% of people in the world identify as non-religious (including atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, and "theistic," but not religious.

Not what you're looking for but interesting. I was suprised by the number of physicians who believe in God. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml.

It is interesting how belief varies with demographics. I've allways heard that scientists are below the regular population when it comes to believing in God. From your link I guess physicians are below average too, but for some reason I was expecting them to be more similar with the scientist number. My family is from a country where non-religion is the majority, so that's probably why I think these numbers are so high.

 

[Chemist0157]

This thread has grown since I left just a few hours ago!

But, I have to ask: when I say how God or the idea of God should be used in our lives, I figured it would be more secular than theological; maybe a mix of both. What do you think about this?

You know, we've been talking about just God almost the entire time, but as Christians, Jesus Christ plays a HUGE role in how we live. The entire point of the Bible is to gear us toward being Christ-like. The Old Testament shows us that we need Christ, and the New Testament shows how to be like Christ. This is where lives are affected, not only those who believe in Jesus, but also those around Christians. We are always supposed to do our best to make the world a better place. We were talking about God coming down to perform miracles to set things straight, but as Christians, we are supposed to be witnesses of what He has done in our own lives. Rather than Christ just coming back, there's supposed to be millions of Christ-like people running around during great things for the world. And not just share Christ but also participate in charity efforts, mission trips, etc. Even being a good doctor can be a ministry. There's alot of practical applications of God's character; I can say this: we Christians don't do enough. If we did, people wouldn't have to ask questions like what good comes from Christianity?

Flu, I know you're not a Christian, but as a Christian, what I quickly laid out is what I'm supposed to be doing. Doing so can be the world better.

About the gender thing: I think searun was right about it being more of the time of the Bible's inception and history, which involves a male-dominated paternalistic society, not so much the limitations of the English language.

I'll just chime in one more time, but I think this has pretty much been handled. God is genderless; He's not male or female. I don't think it's so much limitations on language but really just the conclusion Biblical authors found. They didn't want to put "it" (sounds irreverant) so they chose "He" based on their own experiences with the audible voice of God, as well as being in a paternal society.

 

[Chemist0157]

Not what you're looking for but interesting. I was suprised by the number of physicians who believe in God. http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml.

It is interesting how belief varies with demographics. I've allways heard that scientists are below the regular population when it comes to believing in God. From your link I guess physicians are below average too, but for some reason I was expecting them to be more similar with the scientist number. My family is from a country where non-religion is the majority, so that's probably why I think these numbers are so high.

It's really just demographics. Ever heard of the Bible Belt? I'll venture a guess that proportionally, there are more faithful doctors in the South then in the Northeast or West coast. Well, I can only throw that so far come to think of it. This does explain Christian numbers anyways.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm purposefully excluding anyone. I have friends from all backgrounds; I'm just trying to give my side. I just noticed how I keep saying Bible this, Christian that. It's my nature, I guess .

 

[Cp22kjer]

Ok. If we assume evolution actually occured, then how did the universe come to be? Scientists have been trying to come up with a hypothesis regarding the "origin" of life for ages; sadly, not one hypothesis is based on fact.

Evolution is much more than an assumption at this point. There's endless data supporting this.

The nature of science is to hypothesize. If you consider history, many phenomenons have been answered by science over time. With the rate of human advancement and understanding I don't see why it would not be feasible to say that someday this origin phenomenon will be answered in theory. The Big Bang theory isn't a fact either but you're telling me with your scientific background that it's not a very plausible explanation? I'd love to see the mechanism for "Poof here is a planet". An explanation is inevitable........people swore the earth was flat for godsake.


Here's an equally poor question for you: If god made the world in some finite time span, why has the universe been proven to still be expanding?

I suppose that 7 days should have been made a sideways 8.

 

[Forthegood]

Ok. If we assume evolution actually occured, then how did the universe come to be? Scientists have been trying to come up with a hypothesis regarding the "origin" of life for ages; sadly, not one hypothesis is based on fact.

Just curious... what university do you attend and what is your major?

So if evolution does not exist, how do you explain antibiotic resistance? And, the corollary, will you treat your patients with first generation antibiotics because you do not "assume evolution actually occured"? Surely you don't believe that evolution is an assumption. I think you would be hard pressed to find any respectable scientist who did or even considered it a matter of belief. That is the beauty of science. It is testable. So test it. See for yourself if natural selection and sexual selection affect the genotype/phenotype of progeny in a population. For those of us who actually work in settings where we see evolution occur everyday, this is laughable.

Or don't believe me. Here: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

That is as reputable a source as you can find. Read it. See for yourself if it is an assumption.

Now that we have made it out of the 19th century...

The argument that you are hinting at with the

Scientists have been trying to come up with a hypothesis regarding the "origin" of life for ages; sadly, not one hypothesis is based on fact.

is based on the predication that the NUMEROUS hypothesis based on experimental evidence dating back to Miller from the 1950s don't come out statistically promising. So look at the numbers for yourself.
http://darwin.uky.edu/~sargent/EvolutionFAQ/probability2.htm

If you disagree... that is your right. But to think that it is less possible than the religious explanation which offers the idea that god always existed but the universe can not possibly have always existed is a twisted argument logically.

Or perhaps you don't believe anything regardless of "science", in which case, why medicine? Perhaps you should consider this before you apply, as a adcom may tear into you a bit. Especially if he/she is one of the countless scientists who work everyday in the REALITY that is evolution. After a formal education, you can not really believe that right? You were just saying that to see a reaction, surely.

If you would like, I can point you in a direction for your "assumptions". I know several people who have put their lives to this line of work and I think it may be of some benifit to talk this over with them before you try to influence others.

 

[HeatherMD]

I have no idea how life originated, but I think denying evolution takes a blatant disregard for scientific fact or sincere ignorance.

I bet the "it's just a THEORY" point is going to come next.

wait for it, wait for it...

 

[Bacchus]

I don't think Chemdude is denying evolution, just denying the notion that God did not start the universe.

 

[Forthegood]

I don't think Chemdude is denying evolution, just denying the notion that God did not start the universe.

Perhaps you're right. But then we are talking physics. And physics for the last 15 years has moved beyond this point. It seems the idea of "starting" something is a very anthropocentric idea in the first place for something that time has been shown to be not the end-all and be-all that most people ascribe to (see above about Occam's razor). There are books to address this if you haven't seen it before. Read any book by Stephen Hawking. Perhaps that argument would be best suited for an expert in the field.