Mentioning faith/religion during interview

[iPodtosis]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I read alot of posts about mentioning faith and religion in the PS, and I did in my PS slightly talk about how me being a buddhist helped me determined to devote into medicine. I am assuming it's ok since I'm getting interviews.

But now is my concern: should i mention my religion during interviews if they were to ask me about my motivation and philosophy. I have a interview at Texas A&M, which I consider to be slightly conservative. I want to be honest at interview and really want to talk about how it affects me, but will this offend my interviewer?

Thanks

 

[mirrorpair]

I'm not an adcom so take my advice with a grain of salt--I think adcoms are looking for sincerity and an honest devotion to medicine. It actually costs med schools money to put a student through (as opposed to law schools which can make money--which is why there is a glut of them). So they want to make sure you actually make it through and be a good doc.

I'd just be honest and prepare to defend your opinions/motivation but also talk about the ethics involved in the interplay of religion and medical practice. They might be worried that you'd breach the line and that you might stop practicing medicine because aren't comfortable being told to stay on one side of that line.

I think that finding motivation for medicine via a religious context isn't too different than arguing that practicing medicine is emotionally fulfilling--you just put your argument on a different peg, that's all. I don't know much about Buddhism but if you want to play it safe you could think about translating the relevant ideas in Buddhism and putting them in a more universal/secular context and take those values as intrinsic rather than leave them attached to the more religious aspects of Buddhism.

 

[ilikekiwis]

i honestly wouldnt mention it unless it really is a primary motivation or if specifically brought up.

that being said, i am mentioning my faith in autobiography 2ndary essays simply because it is so much of who i am.

trick is to do it without being preachy

 

[Longshanks]

Has to be sincere and in the proper context. It may be school dependent as well. Definitely something that will get brought up if you're applying to Loma Linda, and may be something worthwhile discussing at the Catholic institutions, since their mission statements are based on Christian values but they don't shove it down people's throats. The Jesuits understand what's appropriate.

 

[2008orbust]

I wouldn't bring it up, but if they bring it up (and it IS fair game since you wrote about it) just be thoughtful and concise with your answer.

 

[teenmachinery1]

Personally, I wouldn't mention being a buddhist. They might think it's SILLY.

 

[chicubsfan]

I think that finding motivation for medicine via a religious context isn't too different than arguing that practicing medicine is emotionally fulfilling--you just put your argument on a different peg, that's all. I don't know much about Buddhism but if you want to play it safe you could think about translating the relevant ideas in Buddhism and putting them in a more universal/secular context and take those values as intrinsic rather than leave them attached to the more religious aspects of Buddhism.

Good advice.

 

[GH253]

If I was adcom and you told me that you were primarily motivated by religion, I would reject you.

 

[TopSecret]

If I was adcom and you told me that you were primarily motivated by religion, I would reject you.

The justice department might have issues with that.

 

[Longshanks]

If I was adcom and you told me that you were primarily motivated by religion, I would reject you.

You do realize there's several medical schools founded by religious organizations, correct? And the close mindedness of your answer is glaring.

 

[Yudid]

I wouldn't mention anything about my religion views unless they ask about it.... Religion is too personal and better not to talk about it with ppl u barely know...

 

[strummin]

You do realize there's several medical schools founded by religious organizations, correct? And the close mindedness of your answer is glaring.

He says primary motivation. I can imagine adcoms being worried about religion being your primary motivation - personal beliefs and opinions can sometimes negatively affect your interaction with a patient.

If you're a devout Evangelical Christian who believes that "Jesus is the only way to God," will you treat a devout Muslim the same way you'd treat a fellow Evangelical?

I'm not saying that all people who are religious are like that, but many religious people are - Personally, I have seen the most intolerance among the most religious.

 

[GH253]

I have dealt with a religious doctor before and would he was in every respsect the single worst doctor I've ever encountered. His incompetence was partially rooted in his religiosity.

 

[FloatOn]

I don't know much about Buddhism but if you want to play it safe you could think about translating the relevant ideas in Buddhism and putting them in a more universal/secular context and take those values as intrinsic rather than leave them attached to the more religious aspects of Buddhism.

This is exactly what I'd do. But also remember Buddhism teaches you to not automatically believe everything that you hear. Decide for yourself if it makes sense to you, then choose to accept or not.

 

[iPodtosis]

Thanks for all the comments. I will definitely be as moderate as I possibly can. In fact, I probably will just talk about how I learn altruism from it, that's it. Nothing more detail or personal than that. Hope that's fine.

 

[wanderer]

The justice department might have issues with that.

I've heard of people getting asked all sorts of illegal questions at their interviews.

 

[FloatOn]

Why is that? The only comments in this thread arguing against mentioning religion/faith are based on prejudice and anecdotal evidence. I don't think adcoms bring prejudice into the equation when they are evaluating applicants. I also think they use real evidence in their reasoning, not anecdotal. You would absolutely be safe bringing religion up. Even if your interviewer is personally offended by your religion (aka he or she is closed minded and myopic), he/she shouldn't bring his/her personal biases into your evaluation.

That's it. The interviewer shouldn't, but easily could. Who knows what they're thinking when you walk into the room and open your mouth? They could be judging your choice in shoes, your cologne/perfume, how you sit, if you lick your lips during pauses, whatever they feel like.

 

[BerlinDude]

I don't see why you wouldn't mention it. First of all, its illegal to discriminate based on religion. Second of all, if an adcom member is simple minded enough to pass judgment on your faith/religion background, why would you want to be at that school?

First of all, lots of things are illegal, people still do them.

Second of all, if you think there aren't opinionated people on every admissions committee, you don't know what you're talking about.

To the OP, there are simple rules for the admissions process. Don't ever criticize a patient, mentor, or anyone in authority, and don't bring up religion, race, or politics. If you must, talk about universal values like helping others, etc, without mentioning your specific religion.

Bear in mind, there are hardly any Buddhists on admissions committees or in med school.

 

[FloatOn]

Do they judge the color of your skin? your socioeconomic background? your sexual orientation? your marital status? your disability? your age? your race? your gender? No. And they don't judge your religion either. You people are too cynical.

You say "no" with such certainty. Maybe you're being too naive.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

Do they judge the color of your skin? your socioeconomic background? your sexual orientation? your marital status? your disability? your age? your race? your gender? No. And they don't judge your religion either. You people are too cynical.

I guarantee you there are interviewers that would judge every one of those traits. They wouldn't ever admit it or state it publicly (except some of the less controversial ones like age), but they are out there.

 

[TcuTcuca]

Their prejudices aren't necessarily malicious in nature, maybe more subconscious than anything. It stinks, but it is true.

 

[mirrorpair]

Why is that? The only comments in this thread arguing against mentioning religion/faith are based on prejudice and anecdotal evidence. I don't think adcoms bring prejudice into the equation when they are evaluating applicants. I also think they use real evidence in their reasoning, not anecdotal. You would absolutely be safe bringing religion up. Even if your interviewer is personally offended by your religion (aka he or she is closed minded and myopic), he/she shouldn't bring his/her personal biases into your evaluation.

Read some of the interview stories floating around here. Interviewers are human too--subject to human frailties like arrogance, indifference, and prejudice. The OP needs to keep that in mind.

 

[strummin]

Do they judge the color of your skin? your socioeconomic background? your sexual orientation? your marital status? your disability? your age? your race? your gender? No. And they don't judge your religion either. You people are too cynical.

Haha, you clearly haven't spent enough time in the real world. People are judged base on all of those all the time - of course nobody will admit to it openly, but it happens. All. The. Time.

 

[ChemEngSoonMD]

Some good laughs.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw80oduQckM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ[/youtube]

Yeah, its pretty much no brainer, don't mention it.

 

[ChemEngSoonMD]

Thanks for coming in here and perpetuating stereotypes/prejudices. Evidently its people like you who will judge others

You damn straight I judge things. Its part of our evoluntionary to fight/flight response and survival. Its part of sizing up information quickly and be able to make snap judgments during situations where you can't draw a fish bone diagram. Cops judge people, Adcoms judge people, we all JUDGE people based on limited information. Whether you show it consciously, you do it subconciously.

 

[mirrorpair]

You damn straight I judge things. Its part of our evoluntionary to fight/flight response and survival. Its part of sizing up information quickly and be able to make snap judgments during situations where you can't draw a fish bone diagram. Cops judge people, Adcoms judge people, we all JUDGE people based on limited information. Whether you show it consciously, you do it subconciously.

One of the things that separates us from animals is that we can carefully evaluate whether those snap judgments are valid or not. If you want to perpetuate our animalistic tendencies, go judge--otherwise, think more carefully.

 

[ChemEngSoonMD]

One of the things that separates us from animals is that we can carefully evaluate whether those snap judgments are valid or not. If you want to perpetuate our animalistic tendencies, go judge--otherwise, think more carefully.

read this book and come back, maybe well have an intelligent discussion then.

 

[mirrorpair]

.

 

[devilpup]

So I read alot of posts about mentioning faith and religion in the PS, and I did in my PS slightly talk about how me being a buddhist helped me determined to devote into medicine. I am assuming it's ok since I'm getting interviews.

But now is my concern: should i mention my religion during interviews if they were to ask me about my motivation and philosophy. I have a interview at Texas A&M, which I consider to be slightly conservative. I want to be honest at interview and really want to talk about how it affects me, but will this offend my interviewer?

Thanks

Faith and Religion are two different animals. Keep this in mind if you plan on opening this can of peas.

 

[ChemEngSoonMD]

Fail. You cut my post off when you quoted it. If you wouldn't have, you'd sound like a bigot right now. Try to respond to people's entire thoughts, otherwise you just come across as ignorant and asinine.

Hey, I believe in evolution and big bang. Actually let me rephrase that. I don't believe in anything. Based on the evidence presented, the facts support evolution and big bang and I agree with them. If you don't agree with this, cool man. I'm not going to be intolerant of that and start a crusade all up in your house. Its just my opinion dude. This is America, I can have an opinion if I want. How many acts of violence do you know that are the result of atheism? You might wanna read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I hope you don't think he is stupid too.

FYI, science and religion inherently contradict. One is based on evidence and one is based on faith. There are far less religious scientists than there atheist scientists. And even if you are a religious scientists, you are picking and choosing the text. It is analogous to MCAT scores Could you have a low MCAT and still succeed in med school? Perhaps. Then why do adcoms still favor high scoring MCAT scores? Single word answer: Probability. You herd?

There is nothing wrong in stating a statistic. Random Example: Statistically, black people have more red blood cells and more fast twitch muscle fibers than Asians on average. If I were to pick a random Asian or a random Black person for a 100 meter dash, I would pick the random Black person simply because of higher probability. Obviously there are still fast Asians, like Liu Xiang. If more information is presented, then you would make an adjustment in your initial assessment. Thats not being a bigot newb, thats common sense.

Back to the topic, why would you state something, that gives a negative impression? Even if the stereotype doesn't apply to YOU, you still have to fight the stereotype in other peoples minds.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I'd expect the vast majority of adcoms to be Christian or agnostic. Do educated Christians generally have a negative view of Buddhists?

As an atheist I view Buddhism much more favorably than most religions, as it seems to contribute less to bigotry and violence than other belief systems. Though I still run into the problem of finding the idea of faith in anything incomprehensible. But that doesn't mean I judge somebody because they harbor beliefs that I personally do not understand. Even if I go so far as to think of their beliefs as foolish, it's not like I've never had foolish beliefs before.

Faith and Religion are two different animals. Keep this in mind if you plan on opening this can of peas.

Faiths: Beliefs without reason.

Religions: Organized belief systems without reason.

Did you mean something else?

 

[mipp0]

He says primary motivation. I can imagine adcoms being worried about religion being your primary motivation - personal beliefs and opinions can sometimes negatively affect your interaction with a patient.

If you're a devout Evangelical Christian who believes that "Jesus is the only way to God," will you treat a devout Muslim the same way you'd treat a fellow Evangelical?

I'm not saying that all people who are religious are like that, but many religious people are - Personally, I have seen the most intolerance among the most religious.

Loving your neighbor, fellow believers or otherwise, is a fundamental of Christian doctrine. If a "Christian" doctor gives unequal treatment to his patients based on their respective religions, he isn't upholding Christian values as a Christian doctor to begin with.
EDIT: Ah the source of the misunderstanding.

You have come to some poor, misguided conclusions my friend.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Loving your neighbor, fellow believers or otherwise, is a fundamental of Christian doctrine. If a "Christian" doctor gives unequal treatment to his patients based on their respective religions, he isn't a Christian doctor to begin with.

You have come to some poor, misguided conclusions my friend.

Most people who call themselves Christians do so because they believe that acknowledging Jesus as the God/Son who sacrificed himself to pay for sin is the only way to heaven. They are not very good, on average, at following other parts of Christian doctrine, I'm afraid, but generally they expect to be forgiven as nobody is perfect anyway. They often argue that a real Christian will feel bad about not being a saint, but that doesn't mean they can't be a Christian if they hired a prostitute or hated a Muslim yesterday. Your highly restrictive version of what makes somebody a Christian would make real Christians a very small group.

 

[Compass]

Please keep the religion-bashing/flaming to a minimum, guys. As far as I can tell, everybody is being nice and open-minded.



That being said, I will throw out a scenario:

Let's say I follow Confucianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism

It is more a philosophical than religious. As such, I can be, say, Confucianist and Christian or Jewish or Hindu or Muslim or etc. depending on where I stand in the Confucian/religion relationship. Furthermore, you can be Confucian and athiest as well depending on your viewpoint, since your level of religious perception is your own.

It is a set of rules that basically say honor your parents, be loyal to your people, and be a gentleman. All of these some people do without being Confucian.

Now, had I not explained this to you, would you have considered Cofucianism to be a religion?

Just putting this out there.

 

[mipp0]

Hey, I believe in evolution and big bang. Actually let me rephrase that. I don't believe in anything. Based on the evidence presented, the facts support evolution and big bang and I agree with them. If you don't agree with this, cool man. I'm not going to be intolerant of that and start a crusade all up in your house. Its just my opinion dude. This is America, I can have an opinion if I want. How many acts of violence do you know that are the result of atheism? You might wanna read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I hope you don't think he is stupid too.

FYI, science and religion inherently contradict. One is based on evidence and one is based on faith. There are far less religious scientists than there atheist scientists. And even if you are a religious scientists, you are picking and choosing the text. It is analogous to MCAT scores Could you have a low MCAT and still succeed in med school? Perhaps. Then why do adcoms still favor high scoring MCAT scores? Single word answer: Probability. You herd?

There is nothing wrong in stating a statistic. Random Example: Statistically, black people have more red blood cells and more fast twitch muscle fibers than Asians on average. If I were to pick a random Asian or a random Black person for a 100 meter dash, I would pick the random Black person simply because of higher probability. Obviously there are still fast Asians, like Liu Xiang. If more information is presented, then you would make an adjustment in your initial assessment. Thats not being a bigot newb, thats common sense.

Back to the topic, why would you state something, that gives a negative impression? Even if the stereotype doesn't apply to YOU, you still have to fight the stereotype in other peoples minds.

I have, for one, read all of Dawkin's books. His God Delusion and associated ramblings have logical flaws of their own. I have also studied evolution and the big bang theory in depth, having been an evolutionary Darwinist for many years prior to conversion. If you think the theory of evolution is without flaw, I can't help but laugh. The irony is that evolution is a religion in itself.

If you have such faith in Dawkins, I humbly ask you to watch Expelled by Ben Stein. Yes, Ben Stein of all people. Tell me what you think of Dawkin's take on the origins of life. What is the probability of that occurring? His ideas are as much faith based as religion...

Science and religion do not inherently contradict. Science is an attempt to explain phenomena by purely objective means, though it is clear we have many unanswered questions. Religion "balances" objective and subjective perspectives, though we could argue whether it explains anything at all.

And it's very naive to go by statistics blindly, due to many potential lurking variables. For example, were the black subjects of the study more active athletically in general prior to testing? In case you don't know, a person can actually increase his muscle mass, body size, and muscle twitch fibers through general and more specific kinds of exercise.

Through your rationale, I suppose some races are intellectually "inferior" due to "inherent" IQ differences. Why don't you do yourself a favor and think more critically?

I only say this because your comments come off as extremely bull-headed and arrogant. I'm sorry, but a person doesn't have to read your suggested book in order to hold an intellectual conversation with you. Seems like you're having trouble holding one yourself.

By the way, those "CREATIONIST" videos show how hypocritical you are. So much for being "tolerant" and respecting other peoples' world views. Again, think critically, and actually LEARN what other people believe, rather than making ridiculous assumptions.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Please keep the religion-bashing/flaming to a minimum, guys. As far as I can tell, everybody is being nice and open-minded.



That being said, I will throw out a scenario:

Let's say I follow Confucianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism

It is more a philosophical than religious. As such, I can be, say, Confucianist and Christian or Jewish or Hindu or Muslim or etc. depending on where I stand in the Confucian/religion relationship. Furthermore, you can be Confucian and athiest as well depending on your viewpoint, since your level of religious perception is your own.

It is a set of rules that basically say honor your parents, be loyal to your people, and be a gentleman. All of these some people do without being Confucian.

Now, had I not explained this to you, would you have considered Cofucianism to be a religion?

Just putting this out there.

Buddhism can be a religion or a philosophy. Even the religious form of it can be atheistic, but not all versions are atheistic. When somebody calls themselves a Buddhist, I assume they mean it in a religious sense. If they said something like, "I follow the teachings of the Budda," or "I follow Buddhist doctrine and philosophy," then that wouldn't necessarily mean they are religiously Buddhist.

 

[mipp0]

Most people who call themselves Christians do so because they believe that acknowledging Jesus as the God/Son who sacrificed himself to pay for sin is the only way to heaven. They are not very good, on average, at following other parts of Christian doctrine, I'm afraid, but generally they expect to be forgiven as nobody is perfect anyway. They often argue that a real Christian will feel bad about not being a saint, but that doesn't mean they can't be a Christian if they hired a prostitute or hated a Muslim yesterday. Your highly restrictive version of what makes somebody a Christian would make real Christians a very small group.

A Christian would argue: "Even the devil believes Jesus is the Son of God. Does that mean the devil is saved?"

Loving your neighbor is "highly restrictive"?

I didn't make any mention of specific "requirements" for Christians, so you don't have to be so defensive. Christian scripture dictates, however, that loving your God and your neighbors are the two most important commandments in the New Testament era. To anybody who cares, the Old Testament laws were not limited to just 10. I believe there were over 6,000 ritualistic commandments for the Jewish people as well.

You are correct in saying nobody is prefect. I'm far from. I'm sorry if you felt I was building a pedestal for Christian believers. But being a true Christian is more than just talking the talking, wishing for salvation, and then doing whatever you want.
The walk is the most important, naturally.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I have, for one, read all of Dawkin's books. His God Delusion and associated ramblings have logical flaws of their own. I have also studied evolution and the big bang theory in depth, having been an evolutionary Darwinist for many years prior to conversion. If you think the theory of evolution is without flaw, I can't help but laugh. The irony is that evolution is a religion in itself.

Those are some bold statements. Elaborate.

Tell me what you think of Dawkin's take on the origins of life. What is the probability of that occurring? His ideas are as much faith based as religion...

I like this model:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[LiveUninhibited]

A Christian would argue: "Even the devil believes Jesus is the Son of God. Does that mean the devil is saved?"

Well they have to genuinely love Jesus as well, and I'm not sure theologians believe the same rules apply to angels/demons. Jesus didn't die for their sins by any account I've seen.

Loving your neighbor is "highly restrictive"?

You stated that Christians wouldn't do things like judge Muslim patients. Is there a correlation between loving your enemies and calling oneself Christian? Weak at best.

You are correct in saying nobody is prefect. I'm far from. I'm sorry if you felt I was building a pedestal for Christian believers. But being a true Christian is more than just talking the talking, wishing for salvation, and then doing whatever you want.
The walk is the most important, naturally.

That may be true for you, but historically self-described "Christians" have not been so morally sophisticated. They burned witches, waged crusades, and hate those unlike them. This is all symptomatic of human imperfection, but saying, "Oh a Christian wouldn't do that," is just silly.

 

[mipp0]

Well they have to genuinely love Jesus as well, and I'm not sure theologians believe the same rules apply to angels/demons. Jesus didn't die for their sins by any account I've seen.

If they genuinely loved Jesus, shouldn't they obey him? Loving Jesus and loving your own idea of Jesus are two entirely different things. Before you wrote "believe", now you write "love". This changes the discussion.


You stated that Christians wouldn't do things like judge Muslim patients. Is there a correlation between loving your enemies and calling oneself Christian? Weak at best.

A correlation between loving your enemies and calling one's self Christian? Again, based on Christian teachings, a true Christian should love his enemies. I am a Christian, and I can look you in the eye and say, 'I will treat my patients equally'. Even the people who tried to kill me several years ago. Loving your enemies is not exclusive to Christians of course, though you are hard pressed to find many people who think like this.

That may be true for you, but historically self-described "Christians" have not been so morally sophisticated. They burned witches, waged crusades, and hate those unlike them. This is all symptomatic of human imperfection, but saying, "Oh a Christian wouldn't do that," is just silly.

Don't look to history, but look to Christian Scripture. If they justified killing "heretics and nonbelievers", I'm sorry to say, they weren't true Christians to begin with. This is a common argument people make against Christianity.

Again, Christians are as fallible as anyone else. And I didn't say a Christian wouldn't do that. Rather, a true Christian SHOULDN'T do that.


Again, loving Jesus and loving your own idea of Jesus are entirely different things. If you want to find out who Jesus is, look to Scripture, not your gut feeling, politics, or media depictions. Seeing how you have misinterpreted some of my comments, I am assuming you had some bad experiences with Christians?

 

[mipp0]

Those are some bold statements. Elaborate.

Bold indeed! Please message me so we can undertake an interesting, but respectful dialogue. Prior to PM-ing me (I believe this is the term we use), please actually watch the documentary "EXPELLED" and hear it from Dawkin's mouth first. You can hear, first hand, his theory on the origins of life...even further back in time, before the time frame of your cute Youtube video.

 

[Compass]

Please stay on topic, people. Religion @ interviews. We are not here to argue the merits of evolution versus religion.

The OP has asked whether he should broach the subject of his religion, GIVEN that he has written about it in his essays or PS.

 

[mipp0]

Ah I apologize 'compass'. You are right. I must say, I do enjoy your blogs 🙂

I believe the OP should be true to him or herself. Be open and confident about your faith/beliefs without proselytizing, if they played a prominent role in your decision to go into medicine. Religion is the primary reason I got into medicine, a step I took after taking considerable time reflecting on the nature of human life and what not--rest assured, I took great care to balance the "objective" and "subjective" truths of our reality.

Regardless of what I or anyone else believes, I think staying true to who you are is the most important thing you can do.

 

[bamtuba]

Some good laughs.Yeah, its pretty much no brainer, don't mention it.

Actually, no, it's not a no-brainer. And I really hope that this attitude, which has been perpetuated on multiple threads in multiple forums, shines right through for the adcoms to see. 👍

You damn straight I judge things. Its part of our evoluntionary to fight/flight response and survival. Its part of sizing up information quickly and be able to make snap judgments during situations where you can't draw a fish bone diagram. Cops judge people, Adcoms judge people, we all JUDGE people based on limited information. Whether you show it consciously, you do it subconciously.

Yes, but if we were really going to do things in a "scientifically-minded" way we would then use those judgments to form a hypothesis. We then test those in lieu of just searching and searching until we find evidence to back up our hypothesis instead of looking at ALL evidence, even that which refutes our original belief. This is what stalls progress in every generation. It is what makes all of your arguments so...interesting.

Faith and Religion are two different animals.

👍 One of the best quotes in this thread. Very true.

Faiths: Beliefs without reason.

Religions: Organized belief systems without reason.

👎 One of the worst quotes in this thread. Misleading because it applies equally as well to that which people are taught in high school or college and instead of testing all options blindly follow what their professors say to be true. NO ONE has proven anything to be 100% true in the world of science and though we have "laws" even "laws" are commonly broken.

Please keep the religion-bashing/flaming to a minimum, guys. As far as I can tell, everybody is being nice and open-minded.

Agreed. But no, everyone is not being nice and open-minded. But I wish we all were. 🙁

1) I have, for one, read all of Dawkin's books. His God Delusion and associated ramblings have logical flaws of their own. I have also studied evolution and the big bang theory in depth, having been an evolutionary Darwinist for many years prior to conversion. If you think the theory of evolution is without flaw, I can't help but laugh. The irony is that evolution is a religion in itself.

Science and religion do not inherently contradict.
2) And it's very naive to go by statistics blindly, due to many potential lurking variables.

1) We all believe something. And I tend to agree that MANY (while not all) do cling to evolution as their de facto religion.

2) 👍 ding-ding-ding. Unless you feel the need to justify your beliefs to others by "proving" that they are wrong and you (as some in this thread wish to do) are right. It is statistically implausible that the universe just "happened," but that doesn't fit our hypothesis, so just chuck it out, right? Oh, and I almost forgot: Belittle everyone who disagrees with you and make arguments questioning their intelligence...that'll show 'em!

1) You stated that Christians wouldn't do things like judge Muslim patients. Is there a correlation between loving your enemies and calling oneself Christian? Weak at best.

2) That may be true for you, but historically self-described "Christians" have not been so morally sophisticated. They burned witches, waged crusades, and hate those unlike them. This is all symptomatic of human imperfection, but saying, "Oh a Christian wouldn't do that," is just silly.

1) 👍 Agreed. Jesus himself said that many would one day cry out "Lord, Lord" and the Bible states that he will tell them "I never knew you."

2) 🙂 Exactly. Self-described. I know many people who are "self-described" friendly, outgoing, team players who are none of these. Same applies to every facet of life I guess.

Again, Christians are as fallible as anyone else. And I didn't say a Christian wouldn't do that. 1) Rather, a true Christian SHOULDN'T do that.

2) Seeing how you have misinterpreted some of my comments, I am assuming you had some bad experiences with Christians?

1) True, but the thing that people misunderstand about what the Bible actually teaches is that NO ONE, except Jesus himself, could ever actually be a perfect person who meets God's standards. Being a christian is not about being perfect and judging others, but about recognizing that we are all in the same boat and must depend upon God to help us change.

2) Who hasn't? And this applies to people FROM EVERY CATEGORY OF HUMAN KIND! The problem is that when people start proclaiming how "right" they are while at the same time pointing out how "wrong" everyone else is, people leave with a REALLY bad taste in their mouths.

Please stay on topic, people. Religion @ interviews. We are not here to argue the merits of evolution versus religion.

The OP has asked whether he should broach the subject of his religion, GIVEN that he has written about it in his essays or PS.

👍 True. OP, talk about what makes you the person you are today. If that includes religion then do it. Just make sure that you do so tastefully and with respect to the fact that others are not you. Some people, "if they were the adcom...," would get rid of you ASAP, but do you really want to spend the next 4 years under the direction of that type of person? You have to interview the school as much as they interview you.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

👎 One of the worst quotes in this thread. Misleading because it applies equally as well to that which people are taught in high school or college and instead of testing all options blindly follow what their professors say to be true. NO ONE has proven anything to be 100% true in the world of science and though we have "laws" even "laws" are commonly broken.

I stand by my definitions. Here's some cursory evidence of non-spiritual religion/faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion

faith

–noun 1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. [...]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faithhttp://www.dictionary.com

Faith and religion in this more secular sense are where you can sabotage yourself in an interview. It's more important that you have reasoning behind your ideas than what your actual ideas are. One can have "faith" in evolution if one believes in it but does not actually understand why it is the best-fit explanation for the evidence. Some ideas, like spiritual faith, can only be arrived at through faith because reason cannot give you a path there. Many interviewers will likely carry the misconception that people of spiritual faith are more likely to be moral/ethical, so it's not necessarily a bad thing even if you're not of their faith. They're looking for future doctors, not best friends.

 

[bamtuba]

I stand by my definitions. Here's some cursory evidence of non-spiritual religion/faith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religion



Faith and religion in this more secular sense are where you can sabotage yourself in an interview. It's more important that you have reasoning behind your ideas than what your actual ideas are. One can have "faith" in evolution if one believes in it but does not actually understand why it is the best-fit explanation for the evidence. Some ideas, like spiritual faith, can only be arrived at through faith because reason cannot give you a path there. Many interviewers will likely carry the misconception that people of spiritual faith are more likely to be moral/ethical, so it's not necessarily a bad thing even if you're not of their faith. They're looking for future doctors, not best friends.

I never questioned your definition, but the application of it in the context of the thread. I agree with your definition with the exception that reason varies from person to person, and for many (not those "born into" a belief, though there would be "reason" for that as well) it is the "evidence" that leads them to such "faith."

This is not in response to you necessarily, but the things I believe are a direct result of "seeking the truth." The christianity to which I subscribe actually tells people to not follow blindly without "reason."

This is why it irks me when people (not necessarily you) *assume* one must "dumb themselves down" to follow "blindly" through faith that which others do not understand.

But I will happily discuss any other "non-OP" related thoughts pertaining to all of this via PM from this point onward.

 

[musafirah]

Even the people who tried to kill me several years ago.

huh??😕

 

[Compass]

Let's try this one more time:

======================================= <--- the line

Everything below this line is on-topic. Everything unresolved above the line should be resolved in PM or other means of communication.


OP, how much DID you write about religion having an impact? In my opinion, I would only broach such a subject when asked, whether it is related to my answer or simply the fact that they noted it in an essay of mine.

 

[strummin]

I think the discussion(s) above should have answered your question perfectly!

See how controversial religion can be? Many people are fervently for it or against it, and I'm sure there are many adcoms who are very opinionated regarding religion - both for it and against it!

The question is: do you really want to risk it? What if you have one of those adcoms who is a staunch atheist?

So, my answer: Don't do it. But if you still want to do it, then make sure it's not something like "Jesus came to me and told me to become a doctor". Perhaps something more along the lines of, "my faith/belief system have helped me realize..." One thing you should definitely NOT do (which many super-religious people tend to do) is to give off the idea that you believe one faith is superior to another, or one faith's practitioners are superior to another's. That won't hold well with many adcoms, even some of the religious ones.

 

[bamtuba]

I think the discussion(s) above should have answered your question perfectly!

See how controversial religion can be? Many people are fervently for it or against it, and I'm sure there are many adcoms who are very opinionated regarding religion - both for it and against it!

The question is: do you really want to risk it? What if you have one of those adcoms who is a staunch atheist?

So, my answer: Don't do it. But if you still want to do it, then make sure it's not something like "Jesus came to me and told me to become a doctor". Perhaps something more along the lines of, "my faith/belief system have helped me realize..." One thing you should definitely NOT do (which many super-religious people tend to do) is to give off the idea that you believe one faith is superior to another, or one faith's practitioners are superior to another's. That won't hold well with many adcoms, even some of the religious ones.

👍