Your religious views

[Buddhasmash]

I'm interested in knowing what religious views are most often held by doctors, med students, and pre-meds.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[morning]

<---------- atheist

 

[tweek125]

i demand there be an option for the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Atheist. I make Richard Dawkins look like he's the pope.

 

[VikingLegacy]

baleeted

 

[ssahjm]

Atheist. I make Richard Dawkins look like he's the pope.

Maybe we can add "IvyHopeful20" to this shirt.

 

[RadioCure]

Someone needs to make one of these that says "I'm interested in knowing the religious views of pre-allopathic students," because this one is going to get moved to the general forum to die just like all the other ones do.

I am however looking forward to the inevitable discussion that will ensue here while it lasts. It always starts with one person who says something like, "It's a shame how many people who claim to respect science still believe in fairy tales," and explodes from there.

<--- Atheist

 

[ssahjm]

.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

It's a shame how people can claim confidence in the scientific method and even choose a career based on the fruits of that method, and still believe in fairy tales.













Did I do that right?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Nah, you have to be a wiccan and put a spell on your adcom member.

 

[sideways]

The more I learn about the human body, the more I begin to raise an eyebrow at evolution as a plausible, all-encompassing, explanation. I'm beginning to look at evolution as the mechanism by which an already intelligently laid plan is shaped and pruned. Any claim grander than that just doesn't pass the sniff test.

So I guess in my case, medical school has made me even more skeptical, not of God, but of some of the prevailing views of the evolution/design of life.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

The more I learn about the human body, the more I begin to raise an eyebrow at evolution as a plausible, all-encompassing, explanation. I'm beginning to look at evolution as the mechanism by which an already intelligently laid plan is shaped and pruned. Any claim grander than that just doesn't pass the sniff test.

So I guess in my case, medical school has made me even more skeptical, not of God, but of some of the prevailing views of the evolution/design of life.

It can seem that way, understandably. But in medical school you learn the final product, not the evolution. For example, the incus, malleus and the stapes (the ear bones) have evolved from earlier JAW BONES of vertebrates. There is fossil, developmental and genetic evidence for that. You don't obviously learn the similarties between species and the correlation of changes in terms of development, genetics, and history in the fossil record with clear changes throughout the eons. It's really not necessary for medical school, but looking at a product of two billion years of a continuous process is definitely going to seem that way, unless you also study the process and the life forms and other factors.

There is no other way to make sense of the history of biology, the fossil record, the morphologic, genetic, developmental similarities that just happen to coincide with the tree of life and happen to coincide with the fossil record in a clear linear tree line back to the beginning of life.

That doesn't say anything about the existance of a God or a plan or lack thereof, but it works perfectly well without one.

 

[DaisyBuchanan]

I'm a culturally Catholic athiest... with a Jewish sister.

 

[sideways]

It can seem that way, understandably. But in medical school you learn the final product, not the evolution. For example, the incus, malleus and the stapes (the ear bones) have evolved from earlier JAW BONES of vertebrates. There is fossil, developmental and genetic evidence for that. You don't obviously learn the similarties between species and the correlation of changes in terms of development, genetics, and history in the fossil record with clear changes throughout the eons. It's really not necessary for medical school, but looking at a product of two billion years of a continuous process is definitely going to seem that way, unless you also study the process and the life forms and other factors.

There is no other way to make sense of the history of biology, the fossil record, the morphologic, genetic, developmental similarities that just happen to coincide with the tree of life and happen to coincide with the fossil record in a clear linear tree line back to the beginning of life.

That doesn't say anything about the existance of a God or a plan or lack thereof, but it works perfectly well without one.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on evolution and the debate, nor should you. All I can say for sure is that there are very intelligent people, with much deeper understandings of the current state of knowledge of the debate, who don't think it's as clear or as convincing of an explanation as you seem to think.

I'm simply saying I wouldn't be surprised if much of what is currently used to explain the development of intelligent life on Earth is debunked in some profound ways at some point in the future.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on evolution and the debate, nor should you. All I can say for sure is that there are very intelligent people, with much deeper understandings of the current state of knowledge of the debate, who don't think it's as clear or as convincing of an explanation as you seem to think.

I'm simply saying I wouldn't be surprised if much of what is currently used to explain the development of intelligent life on Earth is debunked in some profound ways at some point in the future.

Well, my research is in evolution and two of my publishes are in the field, so while I don't have a PhD, I've pretty much taken every evolution course. That of course is irrelevant to the argument.

As for 'very intelligent' people, I really don't know of a single person with a deep knowledge of the subject who has the type of doubts you do. I mean, not a single person. There are a few isolated cases like Behe (who is a biochemist) but if you polled a thousand scientists, somewhere around one thousand would not express any skepticism at the broad outlines (of course you'll have disagreements on many minor issues).

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on evolution and the debate, nor should you. All I can say for sure is that there are very intelligent people, with much deeper understandings of the current state of knowledge of the debate, who don't think it's as clear or as convincing of an explanation as you seem to think.

I'm simply saying I wouldn't be surprised if much of what is currently used to explain the development of intelligent life on Earth is debunked in some profound ways at some point in the future.

Even if there were some prominent scientists skeptical of evolution, what you said is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). Just because an authoritative figure has a certain view doesn't mean that it's the correct view.

I have to agree with what Ivy's written so far.

 

[sideways]

Well, my research is in evolution and two of my publishes are in the field, so while I don't have a PhD, I've pretty much taken every evolution course. That of course is irrelevant to the argument.

As for 'very intelligent' people, I really don't know of a single person with a deep knowledge of the subject who has the type of doubts you do. I mean, not a single person. There are a few isolated cases like Behe (who is a biochemist) but if you polled a thousand scientists, somewhere around one thousand would not express any skepticism at the broad outlines (of course you'll have disagreements on many minor issues).

A lot of people have vested interests, whether they're aware of them or not, in conforming to the ideals of the academic community they're a part of. Also, the training of scientists isn't exactly a very intellectually creative one, for most people. Much of a career in science is following the intellectual thread you were exposed to as a student.

While you were taking your evolution classes, you should have thrown in a couple history classes. From those you'd learn that group consensus on a matter in any point in time is hardly the definitive beacon of Truth. It can, and has been, completely and utterly incorrect.

 

[sideways]

Even if there were some prominent scientists skeptical of evolution, what you said is a logical fallacy (appeal to authority). Just because an authoritative figure has a certain view doesn't mean that it's the correct view.

I have to agree with what Ivy's written so far.

I never said they were correct because they were intelligent. I was saying they can't be said to be incorrect because they're idiots. Not a logical fallacy.

 

[FrkyBgStok]

the problem i see is that too many people claim atheism for the sake of argument. it is the "cool" thing to do to go against the grain and to argue religion makes you look educated. i get it. and the people say "only *****s believe in fairy tales" are no different. maybe we don't believe because we feel it is factual. maybe we believe because we want to.

i know there is no logical reason to believe but i also have 3 kids helping me get through life. if something were to happen to them, i couldn't handle the idea of them going to nothingness. i do not believe in the typical heaven, but i do believe we will all be together. and if that makes me look less educated, less logical, or disregarding science i don't really care. i know the importance of science in my life, and i also know the importance of my children.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

I never said they were correct because they were intelligent. I was saying they can't be said to be incorrect because they're idiots. Not a logical fallacy.

They are not wrong because they are unintelligent, they are wrong because they have no good arguments or evidence against evolution.

While you were taking your evolution classes, you should have thrown in a couple history classes. From those you'd learn that group consensus on a matter in any point in time is hardly the definitive beacon of Truth. It can, and has been, completely and utterly incorrect.

That's a straw man. I never said evolution was utterly correct. If another theory ever comes that explains more, I'm all for it. There isn't.

 

[cbrons]

Well, my research is in evolution and two of my publishes are in the field, so while I don't have a PhD, I've pretty much taken every evolution course. That of course is irrelevant to the argument.

As for 'very intelligent' people, I really don't know of a single person with a deep knowledge of the subject who has the type of doubts you do. I mean, not a single person. There are a few isolated cases like Behe (who is a biochemist) but if you polled a thousand scientists, somewhere around one thousand would not express any skepticism at the broad outlines (of course you'll have disagreements on many minor issues).

Einstein?

Also, Dawkins isn't really an atheist (surprise, surprise). He is much more of an agnostic who gets pissed off quite frequently with organized religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Knowing how little we do about our universe, it is amazing to me that some of the brightest minds in the world would take a definitive "no" stance on the existence of God.

 

[sideways]

They are not wrong because they are unintelligent, they are wrong because they have no good arguments or evidence against evolution.



That's a straw man. I never said evolution was utterly correct. If another theory ever comes that explains more, I'm all for it. There isn't.

Tell it to Copernicus.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Einstein?

Also, Dawkins isn't really an atheist (surprise, surprise). He is much more of an agnostic who gets pissed off quite frequently with organized religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Well you can't disprove God, I just find the existance of one highly unlikely and will choose not to believe until proof is presented.

Knowing how little we do about our universe, it is amazing to me that some of the brightest minds in the world would take a definitive "no" stance on the existence of God.

What you're talking about is the God of the Gaps. In ancient Greece, people would have said lightning is by God, and there is nothing we could ever know about such awesome power. Now we do, and the unexplained phenomena becomes smaller, and your God of the Gaps becomes ever smaller. 'We don't know the root of this complex phenomena, so it must be this other more complex unexplainable phenomena (e.g God) that is the cause.'

 

[rhesuspieces]

the problem i see is that too many people claim atheism for the sake of argument. it is the "cool" thing to do to go against the grain and to argue religion makes you look educated. i get it. and the people say "only *****s believe in fairy tales" are no different. maybe we don't believe because we feel it is factual. maybe we believe because we want to.

And this is exactly why I hate telling people that I'm an athiest. I feel like people think I'm just being contrary, or that I'm over-educated, or that it's some elitist thing. Athiests often come across as cold-hearted, argumentative, or patronizing (*cough*Dawkins*cough*)

Honestly, I'm an athiest because after much reflection it's the viewpoint that makes the most sense to me and gives me the biggest sense of purpose in this world. Don't assume that such purpose and fulfillment only come from religion.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Tell it to Copernicus.

Tell copernicus that his theory has to explain more than the previous theory? Yea, he did exactly that.

 

[rhesuspieces]

Also, Dawkins isn't really an atheist (surprise, surprise). He is much more of an agnostic who gets pissed off quite frequently with organized religion

Read "The God Delusion." Dawkins has an entire chapter on how much he despises agnosticism...something along the lines of resentment towards those without the balls to form an opinion (his thoughts, not mine)

 

[orthomyxo]

No option for total indifference?

 

[Suenya]

Discordian, as if that wasn't obvious.

<---------

 

[sideways]

What you're talking about is the God of the Gaps. In ancient Greece, people would have said lightning is by God, and there is nothing we could ever know about such awesome power. Now we do, and the unexplained phenomena becomes smaller, and your God of the Gaps becomes ever smaller. 'We don't know the root of this complex phenomena, so it must be this other more complex unexplainable phenomena (e.g God) that is the cause.'

Modern religious thought isn't philosophized by 3rd graders. Religion isn't an effort to convince the world that lightning shoots out of God's fingertips. It's to explain the very existence of a natural world - of which science is simply a way of describing those observations. It's to explain EVERYTHING. It supercedes any observation you can make or discovery you can uncover. So when people say you can't prove or disprove the existence of God - no ****! Religion is a matter a faith - even amongst the religious. The only difference between them and you is you see the world and don't scratch your head going: this doesn't make sense - all this from nothing? While they say: look around, how can there NOT be a God.

For the record, I'm truly agnostic. I have no ****ing clue what's going on.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Modern religious thought isn't philosophized by 3rd graders. Religion isn't an effort to convince the world that lightning shoots out of God's fingertips. It's to explain the very existence of a natural world - of which science is simply a way of describing those observations. It's to explain EVERYTHING. It supercedes any observation you can make or discovery you can uncover. So when people say you can't prove or disprove the existence of God - no ****! Religion is a matter a faith - even amongst the religious. The only difference between them and you is you see the world and don't scratch your head going: this doesn't make sense - all this from nothing? While they say: look around, how can there NOT be a God.

For the record, I'm truly agnostic. I have no ****ing clue what's going on.

Anything that explains all possible phenomena is really not an explanation of anything at all. You're just attributing the word 'God' as a catch-all and saying that it does not require an explanation or an origin, yet the universe does. FTR, Big Bang Theory explains the origin quite well, though we do not know the cause of the inflationary period. What came before the big bang may be (though not sure) an irrelevant question since according to the experimentally demonstrated concept of time dilation (from the theory of relativity), at virtual infinite densities, time dilation would render the concept of time meaningless (it would also approach infinity as the density approaches infinity). That's just an aside that I wanted to throw in (math major, gotta throw in some math and physics for funsies ) and not really directly related to the question of God.

People are welcome to hold their beliefs, and I don't really mind (Newton for example, was hugely religious). I am just explaining why I do not subscribe to those beliefs. However, evolution is an observable fact, the theory of evolution (consisting natural selection and other processes like gentic drift, etc) is a theory with monumental evidence that provides the framework to explain this fact. I have not heard of anyone proposing a viable alternative to that theory.

The question of God is not an observable fact. I do not believe as I do not see any evidence for it. One cannot prove negatively the existance of any deity (since it makes no predictions that are verifiable and refuted or supported by observation or experimentation). If you choose to believe in it, that's fine. That's up to you and you are welcome to it. Again, that is a different question to evolution.

 

[cbrons]

What you're talking about is the God of the Gaps. In ancient Greece, people would have said lightning is by God, and there is nothing we could ever know about such awesome power. Now we do, and the unexplained phenomena becomes smaller, and your God of the Gaps becomes ever smaller. 'We don't know the root of this complex phenomena, so it must be this other more complex unexplainable phenomena (e.g God) that is the cause.'

No, what I'm talking about is this: you would never be able to use convential logic to explain how the universe came into existance. Something from nothing? Not logical. Scientists used to believe the universe has been around forever but since that makes no logical sense (and is not consistent with modern observations of an expanding universe with signs that there was definitely a "start").

I'd like to leave my options open at this point.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

No, what I'm talking about is this: you would never be able to use convential logic to explain how the universe came into existance. Something from nothing? Not logical. Scientists used to believe the universe has been around forever but since that makes no logical sense (and is not consistent with modern observations of an expanding universe with signs that there was definitely a "start").

Actually, 'logically', if you posit that one cannot have something from nothing, than that logic would also apply to a diety (e.g, where did it/he/she originate)?

And secondly, an expanding universe does not preclude the possibility of an infintie age of the universe.

 

[sideways]

Anything that explains all possible phenomena is really not an explanation of anything at all. You're just attributing the word 'God' as a catch-all and saying that it does not require an explanation or an origin, yet the universe does. FTR, Big Bang Theory explains the origin quite well, though we do not know the cause of the inflationary period. What came before the big bang may be (though not sure) an irrelevant question since according to the experimentally demonstrated concept of time dilation (from the theory of relativity), at virtual infinite densities, time dilation would render the concept of time meaningless (it would also approach infinity as the density approaches infinity). That's just an aside that I wanted to throw in (math major, gotta throw in some math and physics for funsies ) and not really directly related to the question of God.

People are welcome to hold their beliefs, and I don't really mind (Newton for example, was hugely religious). I am just explaining why I do not subscribe to those beliefs. However, evolution is an observable fact, the theory of evolution (consisting natural selection and other processes like gentic drift, etc) is a theory with monumental evidence that provides the framework to explain this fact. I have not heard of anyone proposing a viable alternative to that theory.

Fine, but I just want to point out for future dialogue that when you characterize religious people as believing in fairy tales, you probably don't realize the joke's on you.

If God does indeed exist, then by definition, life has meaning. So for a believer in God, they aren't going through the motions of life for naught. They're doing it because they feel a genuinely profound sense of obligation to approach life in a very specific manner.

If you don't believe in God, and in fact, actively deny His existence, then you have no rational argument for meaning in life. Life is ultimately meaningless. Sure you can claim you find meaning in things, or do things because you enjoy them, are moved by them, etc. But it's really the non-believer that's living the life of a fairy tale. Because in spite of their own beliefs to the contrary, they wake up every morning and pretend that what they're doing really matters. When it doesn't.

 

[chrisoc13]

Anything that explains all possible phenomena is really not an explanation of anything at all. You're just attributing the word 'God' as a catch-all and saying that it does not require an explanation or an origin, yet the universe does. FTR, Big Bang Theory explains the origin quite well, though we do not know the cause of the inflationary period. What came before the big bang may be (though not sure) an irrelevant question since according to the experimentally demonstrated concept of time dilation (from the theory of relativity), at virtual infinite densities, time dilation would render the concept of time meaningless (it would also approach infinity as the density approaches infinity). That's just an aside that I wanted to throw in (math major, gotta throw in some math and physics for funsies ) and not really directly related to the question of God.

People are welcome to hold their beliefs, and I don't really mind (Newton for example, was hugely religious). I am just explaining why I do not subscribe to those beliefs. However, evolution is an observable fact, the theory of evolution (consisting natural selection and other processes like gentic drift, etc) is a theory with monumental evidence that provides the framework to explain this fact. I have not heard of anyone proposing a viable alternative to that theory.

The question of God is not an observable fact. I do not believe as I do not see any evidence for it. One cannot prove negatively the existance of any deity (since it makes no predictions that are verifiable and refuted or supported by observation or experimentation). If you choose to believe in it, that's fine. That's up to you and you are welcome to it. Again, that is a different question to evolution.

You should know that many religious people do not think God and Evolution are mutually exclusive. Bringing up evolution continually as a personal argument against a belief in deity shows a lack of understanding of many religions and religious persons on your part. Most religious people (and many organized religions these days) see science as a manifestation of God, and not as evidence of there not being a God.To many who believe in deity God's power can be seen through the intricate and perfect workings of what we have come to observe in science. God can work through the laws of science and we are simply observing that which he has done.

Of course God isn't provable, hence the word faith. But many intelligent people believe in God and still understand the importance of science and completely agree with the current teachings of scientific observations.

As sideways put it some people look at the world around us and say "everything works together so beautifully, how could there not be a God?" It's important to understand this view when engaging in a discussion of this sort.

 

[sideways]

Actually, 'logically', if you posit that one cannot have something from nothing, than that logic would also apply to a diety (e.g, where did it/he/she originate)?

And secondly, an expanding universe does not preclude the possibility of an infintie age of the universe.

Dude this is philosophy 101. If God had to obey principles of logic, he wouldn't be God. Logic would.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Fine, but I just want to point out for future dialogue that when you characterize religious people as believing in fairy tales, you probably don't realize the joke's on you.

Look at the post several posts above me, I was joking .

If God does indeed exist, then by definition, life has meaning. So for a believer in God, they aren't going through the motions of life for naught. They're doing it because they feel a genuinely profound sense of obligation to approach life in a very specific manner.

Yes, of course.

If you don't believe in God, and in fact, actively deny His existence, then you have no rational argument for meaning in life. Life is ultimately meaningless.

Yes, of course.

Sure you can claim you find meaning in things, or do things because you enjoy them, are moved by them, etc. But it's really the non-believer that's living the life of a fairy tale. Because in spite of their own beliefs to the contrary, they wake up every morning and pretend that what they're doing really matters. When it doesn't.

Well, it matters. To me. I don't need for it to matter in the grand scheme of the universe.

You should know that many religious people do not think God and Evolution are mutually exclusive. Bringing up evolution continually as a personal argument against evolution shows a lack of understanding of many religions.

I thought I took pains to separate evolution and God. I know they are not mutually exclusive.

My PI in evolutionary research believes in God. He [obviously] would laugh at any suggestion that he does not accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Dude this is philosophy 101. If God had to obey principles of logic, he wouldn't be God. Logic would.

I know that's the argument. But that's not an argument at all, that's a cop out because there is no argument. You can substitute any word for God and call it a day. You can say the universe does not have to obey the principles of logic (which is created by humans after all). And the argument ends there equally well. You cannot use a word 'God' instead of the word 'universe' to render your concept immune from argument, and analysis. It's not a falsifiable concept, there is no argument, you've just decided, for whatever reason, to bypass logic and simply make a statement because....you want to. If that's what you want to do, that's fine, but that's here nor there. I can substitute Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Spaghetti Monster in there too.

 

[sideways]

Well, it matters. To me. I don't need for it to matter in the grand scheme of the universe.

Of course not, but the fact that it matters to you is based on a delusion. Let's just be clear that, in a Godless world, you're not deluding yourself any less by living life everyday as an atheist any more than a religious believer is deluding themselves everyday by believing in God.

 

[sideways]

I know that's the argument. But that's not an argument at all, that's a cop out because there is no argument. You can substitute any word for God and call it a day. You can say the universe does not have to obey the principles of logic (which is created by humans after all). And the argument ends there equally well. And yet again, another layer of complexity (e.g, God) is rendered useless as an explanation.

That's the very basis of the argument for God. If God were confined by ANYTHING, then God could not exist. Sure you could call God anything you want, but the concept of God is very specific and unmalleable, and no, can't be applied to ANY OTHER analogy you can drum up. God is an entirely unique thing with no parallel.

God isn't a scientific principle IvyHopeful. You can't attempt to attack the notion of God with a theorem. That's not how it works.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Of course not, but the fact that it matters to you is based on a delusion. Let's just be clear that, in a Godless world, you're not deluding yourself any less by living life everyday as an atheist any more than a religious believer is deluding themselves everyday by believing in God.

Wait? What am I deluding myself of? I do something because I wish to feel happy and accomplished? That is a delusion?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

That's the very basis of the argument for God. If God were confined by ANYTHING, then God could not exist.

God isn't a scientific principle IvyHopeful. You can't attempt to attack the notion of God with a theorem. That's not how it works.

And I don't. Unless people start using logic to justify the existance of God. Then it is fair play to use that same logic to show why that is unnecessary.

If you want to make an apriori statement that 'God Exists.' Fine. Roll with it. I won't make such a statement, but there is nothing stopping you.

 

[Remuneration]

Could God, like, create a rock so heavy even he couldn't lift it? Woooooaaaaahh.

 

[sideways]

Wait? What am I deluding myself of? I do something because I wish to feel happy and accomplished? That is a delusion?

It's irrational to attribute meaning to something that has no meaning.

 

[niblet]

Of course not, but the fact that it matters to you is based on a delusion. Let's just be clear that, in a Godless world, you're not deluding yourself any less by living life everyday as an atheist any more than a religious believer is deluding themselves everyday by believing in God.

This is trash.

 

[boggvir]

Wow, ~60% atheist/agnostic! Maybe there is hope yet for the future of our race.


Not that I think this is at all a representative sample, but it's very nice to see.

 

[Mithril]

I'm a third Jew, a third Muslim, a third Christian, and 100% MAN.

 

[chrisoc13]

Wow, ~60% atheist/agnostic! Maybe there is hope yet for the future of our race.


Not that I think this is at all a representative sample, but it's very nice to see.

Why exactly does that give you more hope? That seems like an ignorant statement to make based off broad and sweeping generalizations you hold to be true.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

It's irrational to attribute meaning to something that has no meaning.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I did not attribute any cosmic meaning to any point. It has meaning to me in the sense that it makes me feel happy, accomplished, proud (e.g, I like when certain chemicals are released in my brain that leads me to that state, and as such I'd like to continue that). I am not deluding that it 'matters' in the sense that anyone else cares, let alone the universe, or some God has a personal interest or stake in what I do....

 

[addo]

And I don't. Unless people start using logic to justify the existance of God.

If someone attempts to do this, dont even take them seriously, or waste your time and breath.

 

[boggvir]

Why exactly does that give you more hope? That seems like an ignorant statement to make based off broad and sweeping generalizations you hold to be true.

Whoa nelly.

I'm allowed to like this. I think on balance, religion contributes and has contributed a lot more negative things than positive things to the world. I would be happy if there was a decrease in the influence and acceptance of organized religion in the world. Therefore, it gives me more hope. You can keep calling me ignorant though.