Atheism in Medical School and the Practice of Medicine

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

I'm all for questioning beliefs and assumptions, but I'm not for unreasonable demands that make little sense to me.

I certainly agree with the following statements.
1. Current evidence can neither prove nor disprove God.
2. If a God exists, it is likely beyond our abilities to test for its presence.
3. It makes little sense to use science to test for a God.

What I mean by viable category, is whether or not anything should be accepted as "supernatural." Whether or not earlier generations found something to be valid has little meaning to me (short of other context outlining why). Previous generations also had classifications for demons, magic, and various spirits. I do not believe in those either.

Examples of "classifying anything" as supernatural: the new york black outs were caused by black magic. Autism happens because children are marked by cursed needles used in vaccines, which demons use to find children.

Either of these events could be called "supernatural," which by your definition places them beyond testing (unless I am misunderstanding). Should I then accept these statements? If the answer is "you cannot reject them," I would find your argument consistant. If it is "of course not!" I would question your consistency.

It may be due to my own poor understanding, but I would also claim science as a branch of philosophy. While there is certainly no method to prove science is "best," which has no meaning to begin with, we can say that science offers precision. So I can understand the desire to accept scientific explanations religiously.

As for apologetics, I hadn't heard the term before. Thank you for introducing me to it! Now I have another thing to google and pretend knowledge about

"I'm all for questioning beliefs and assumptions, but I'm not for unreasonable demands that make little sense to me." Agreed.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

I certainly agree with the following statements.
1. Current evidence can neither prove nor disprove God.
2. If a God exists, it is likely beyond our abilities to test for its presence.
3. It makes little sense to use science to test for a God.

It's nice to find some common ground on this thread.

What I mean by viable category, is whether or not anything should be accepted as "supernatural." Whether or not earlier generations found something to be valid has little meaning to me (short of other context outlining why). Previous generations also had classifications for demons, magic, and various spirits. I do not believe in those either.

This is certainly a great discussion to have. But, it's an entirely different conversation then what my argument was addressing. I do understand what you mean by the phrase now and there are plenty of apologetic resources on this topic. I'm not a great philosophical defender of the faith so I'd rather not try to engage on this as I will run out of depth quickly and do not have the time or resources to devote to diving into this.

I will argue that many of our ideas and beliefs (whether or not we recognize them as such) have been inherited from previous generations, I think it would be extremely difficult to try and invent an entirely original (or current) set of beliefs/assumptions/ideas that are not in some way inherited from those who've come before us.

Examples of "classifying anything" as supernatural: the new york black outs were caused by black magic. Autism happens because children are marked by cursed needles used in vaccines, which demons use to find children.

I think the difference between what I'm calling supernatural and what you're arguing here is that while someone could label anything supernatural, that does not mean it actually is supernatural. God, however, is by definition and necessity, supernatural. We could probably prove, using various methods, what caused a New York blackout (eye witness accounts, physical evidence, circumstance, etc), or eventually autism (hopefully).
Now, can someone still claim that God caused the lightening bolt that took out the power station? Sure. That doesn't mean it's now elevated beyond examination and argument though. It just means that that claim, can not be validated by the scientific method. Maybe it's validated by some prophecy in someone's religious book somewhere, though. (just to make the point, I don't know of any prophecies that are that specific) or maybe it's not validated at all and is just a crazy claim made by someone, somewhere. They can argue their case. You may find their case persuasive, you may not. Scientific evidence is only one type of evidence, it's not the sum and total of evidence though.

Either of these events could be called "supernatural," which by your definition places them beyond testing (unless I am misunderstanding). Should I then accept these statements? If the answer is "you cannot reject them," I would find your argument consistant. If it is "of course not!" I would question your consistency.

The events themselves are not beyond testing (the blackout, autism), the claims about the events may be beyond testing though. I hope I've shown in the above what I mean by this. I think that's sufficient to show why you're not forced into either position that you've outlined above.

It may be due to my own poor understanding, but I would also claim science as a branch of philosophy. While there is certainly no method to prove science is "best," which has no meaning to begin with, we can say that science offers precision. So I can understand the desire to accept scientific explanations religiously.

I love science, but I realize that like most tools, it has an intended purpose and use. "When all you have is a hammer" and all that. I don't look to science to inform the totality of my worldview, it has its place among other useful tools.

As for apologetics, I hadn't heard the term before. Thank you for introducing me to it! Now I have another thing to google and pretend knowledge about

Haha, not a problem. Jewish and Christian thinkers have been dealing with skeptics and critics for a very long time, it's not as if challenging beliefs about God is a new idea.

"I'm all for questioning beliefs and assumptions, but I'm not for unreasonable demands that make little sense to me." Agreed.

 

[Jcthoma3]

And coming back around to my original argument that you quoted....Science is also not the appropriate tool to tell us much about a supernatural "object", like God.

lol because we made it up

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

lol because we made it up

"lol"

You've made the claim, now support it.

 

[tdram]

lol because we made it up

+1

If god really existed and was a kind and loving being like most religions say, he wouldn't let humans argue and fight to the death over who/what he is. He'd just reveal himself and end all the confusion.

lol indeed.

 

[WhippleWhileWeWork]

If something is supernatural it means that it falls outside of what is measurable and repeatable, so why would you believe in such a thing to begin with?

Why wouldn't I? They have nothing to do with one another.
I don't look to philosophy to dictate my car repairs.
I don't look to physics to navigate my relationships.
I don't look to the scientific method to prove my beliefs about the supernatural.

The more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be. If I tell you that an invisible god sent his son to earth or that an illiterate middle eastern man all of a sudden had god's world revealed to him, you should require much evidence before you believe something so out of the realm of what we have observed.
Those would would dismiss such claims after no evidence turned up don't need to prove that such nonsense could not have possibly happened.

1. there is evidence that Jesus existed, died, and was resurrected. Just because you reject the evidence or find it unconvincing does not mean it is not evidence or doesn't exist.
2. I didn't say anyone needed to prove anything, I have no idea what you're talking about with your last sentence.

The burden of evidence falls on the person making the claim. There is no different standard with which to judge these "supernatural" claims.

These two sentences have absolutely nothing to do with my claim so I'm not sure why you quoted me to say this. I'm not sure if you just misunderstood, but my claim was very straightforward.

I've quoted my claim, below.
Maybe you find belief in the supernatural irrational? What I find irrational is demanding that someone use the methods/test for the natural world to try and prove the supernatural world. Seems more than a bit illogical.

I've further demonstrated why this is irrational many times over now.

 

[tdram]

I've quoted my claim, below.
Maybe you find belief in the supernatural irrational? What I find irrational is demanding that someone use the methods/test for the natural world to try and prove the supernatural world. Seems more than a bit illogical.

I've further demonstrated why this is irrational many times over now.

Religious people believe that the supernatural and natural are intertwined, no? God is not separate from the natural world. He has the ability to control the natural world. You also have the ability to communicate with him via prayer. Therefore there is a connection, an interface if you will, between the natural and supernatural. If there wasn't, they would be two completely separate things that could never interact. There has to be something in common. Therefore, it is far from irrational to think that methods for examining things in the natural world could pick up certain aspects of the supernatural, if they did exist. At the very least we should be able to detect the interface that connects the two.

 

[Siggy]

Lol atheists are always so full of themselves. Seriously I don't know of any group that thinks itself more superior to it's counterparts than atheists.

Well, there's always the evangelicals...

 

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

Religious people believe that the supernatural and natural are intertwined, no? God is not separate from the natural world. He has the ability to control the natural world. You also have the ability to communicate with him via prayer. Therefore there is a connection, an interface if you will, between the natural and supernatural. If there wasn't, they would be two completely separate things that could never interact. There has to be something in common. Therefore, it is far from irrational to think that methods for examining things in the natural world could pick up certain aspects of the supernatural, if they did exist. At the very least we should be able to detect the interface that connects the two.

I would disagree. To help illustrate why, let's assume that any god which exists does not wish to be found, or at least does not wish to be found by us. Assuming such a being is all knowing and powerful (a common prerequisite for a deity), they could know where we would place our instruments and how to disrupt them. As has been pointed out multiple times, a god is by definition outside our purview to test.

Your other concerns (testing a God, demanding proof, wondering at the nature of the world) are all addressed by every religion I can think of.

I don't propose you change your life over a lack of evidence (I certainly don't plan to), but I agree with whipples. It makes no sense to propose a "deity test" any more than it makes sense to use an oijja board or faith healing to find a cure for cancer.

Nothing that is measured would be of any consequence.

 

[tdram]

I would disagree. To help illustrate why, let's assume that any god which exists does not wish to be found, or at least does not wish to be found by us. Assuming such a being is all knowing and powerful (a common prerequisite for a deity), they could know where we would place our instruments and how to disrupt them. As has been pointed out multiple times, a god is by definition outside our purview to test.

Your other concerns (testing a God, demanding proof, wondering at the nature of the world) are all addressed by every religion I can think of.

I don't propose you change your life over a lack of evidence (I certainly don't plan to), but I agree with whipples. It makes no sense to propose a "deity test" any more than it makes sense to use an oijja board or faith healing to find a cure for cancer.

Nothing that is measured would be of any consequence.

I don't agree with the definition of God being something that is outside our ability to test. The fact that we haven't found a test that works repeatedly doesn't mean such a test cannot exist. Defining God as outside our scope of testing is, to me, a cop out. Maybe the scientific method is not an appropriate test, but there may be a better test out there that we have yet to find. Although I am an atheist, I am readily open to testing and searching for God. The fact that the supernatural and natural are connected and interoperate in many ways suggests to me that there must be some way of detecting the presence of God, if one exists. I also don't buy the argument that God doesn't want to be found. Most religions have many of examples of God speaking to man and revealing his existence. I was taught by my own religious leaders that God wants us to know him.

If an objective deity test really can't be created, then arguing about the presence or absence of God means absolutely nothing. It's just argument over personal opinion.

 

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

I don't agree with the definition of God being something that is outside our ability to test. The fact that we haven't found a test that works repeatedly doesn't mean such a test cannot exist. Defining God as outside our scope of testing is, to me, a cop out. Maybe the scientific method is not an appropriate test, but there may be a better test out there that we have yet to find. Although I am an atheist, I am readily open to testing and searching for God. The fact that the supernatural and natural are connected and interoperate in many ways suggests to me that there must be some way of detecting the presence of God, if one exists. I also don't buy the argument that God doesn't want to be found. Most religions have many of examples of God speaking to man and revealing his existence. I was taught by my own religious leaders that God wants us to know him.

If an objective deity test really can't be created, then arguing about the presence or absence of God means absolutely nothing. It's just argument over personal opinion.

1st bold is you and whipples agreeing (he points out the field of apologetics, which I know absolutely nothing about), the second one is my general attitude toward the whole question. There may be tests, but I like to think I'm going to act the same way regardless of the answer to this question. I don't usually waste time considering it, unless I feel like being a jerk on the internet.

I do like many of the ideals found in a variety of religions(forgiveness, humility, etc.) , and apply them to my life as best I can.

 

[tdram]

1st bold is you and whipples agreeing (he points out the field of apologetics, which I know absolutely nothing about), the second one is my general attitude toward the whole question. There may be tests, but I like to think I'm going to act the same way regardless of the answer to this question. I don't usually waste time considering it, unless I feel like being a jerk on the internet.

I do like many of the ideals found in a variety of religions(forgiveness, humility, etc.) , and apply them to my life as best I can.

Apologetics is present in almost every religion. It's not a test, it's just a defense based on theology. There are christian apologetics, hindu apologetics, etc. It still relies completely on faith, whereas with science, you can do an experiment and see the evidence before your own eyes. The beauty of science is that even after I spent hours explaining to you how scientifically speaking compound X should combust in a certain environment, if you don't believe me, you can go set up that experiment and prove it to yourself. There's no faith required. Unfortunately you can't do that with any religious argument. You simply have to decide whether it sounds reasonable enough to believe or not. You can't summon God to appear and verify that he exists.

What I would prefer is a test of some sort that can actually allow me to experience God or detect God in some way for myself. That would be the only true proof for me. The day that I experience God for myself, I'll stop being an atheist. There are tests out there - for example many buddhists and hindus claim to have experienced God/supernatural through years of meditation.

 

[Kahreek]

I am atheist, yet i think that science is no substitute for faith. Or the other way around.

 

[tantacles]

What I would prefer is a test of some sort that can actually allow me to experience God or detect God in some way for myself. That would be the only true proof for me. The day that I experience God for myself, I'll stop being an atheist. There are tests out there - for example many buddhists and hindus claim to have experienced God/supernatural through years of meditation.

I'm agnostic because science can not prove that God exists, and even if I did experience God, who's to say that I would be capable of understanding that what I experienced was God, and if I truly thought it were, who's to say it wasn't just my imagination?

 

[hopefulMD12]

Sorry that I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread, but can someone give me any approximation/ data / anecdotes regarding how many non-believers there are in US medical schools and in the physician community? A lot of people seem to feel isolated in their lack of non-belief. For me, my agnosticism (leaning towards atheism) has never been a source of loneliness. I grew up in a very liberal environment in Canada where it really wasn't a big deal. Most of my friends were very secular. In college, however, most of friends were quite religious. I was the only one in my friend circle who was a non-believer. Again, we sometimes had lively debates and I was outnumbered... but have never felt lonely because I'm very comfortable with (and very confident in) my beliefs. I do respect moderate religious folks though. My mother is a fairly religious, although very moderate in interpretation, individual. She knows I don't share her religious convictions and she's very much fine with it and almost never brings it up.

 

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

Sorry that I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread, but can someone give me any approximation/ data / anecdotes regarding how many non-believers there are in US medical schools and in the physician community? A lot of people seem to feel isolated in their lack of non-belief. For me, my agnosticism (leaning towards atheism) has never been a source of loneliness. I grew up in a very liberal environment in Canada where it really wasn't a big deal. Most of my friends were very secular. In college, however, most of friends were quite religious. I was the only one in my friend circle who was a non-believer. Again, we sometimes had lively debates and I was outnumbered... but have never felt lonely because I'm very comfortable with (and very confident in) my beliefs. I do respect moderate religious folks though. My mother is a fairly religious, although very moderate in interpretation, individual. She knows I don't share her religious convictions and she's very much fine with it and almost never brings it up.

A lot of the thread is pretty irrelevant...in answer to your question, it probably varies greatly based on geography. In the midwest, you'll probably never even discuss it (unless you discover you're the same faith accidentally or something). I would hazard a guess that we have an even division of "moderately religious" and "religious with agnostic leanings". In the deep south, I get the impression this might be a little different.

 

[altitudinarian]

If people are interested, and I think this adds to the discussion, there's this project run by an agnostic male where he goes on 30 month trials of experiencing different aspects of various religions and philosophies in attaining certain aspects that they are purportedly supposed to help you with. It's interesting to look at how someone who does not have an organized religion make sense of what is going on in these various practices.

http://theancientwisdomproject.com/project/

 

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

If people are interested, and I think this adds to the discussion, there's this project run by an agnostic male where he goes on 30 month trials of experiencing different aspects of various religions and philosophies in attaining certain aspects that they are purportedly supposed to help you with. It's interesting to look at how someone who does not have an organized religion make sense of what is going on in these various practices.

http://theancientwisdomproject.com/project/

I applaud any effort to better understand other people/cultures better. Too often we see assumptions and judgement ruling over attempts to listen or understand.
However, a cynical part of me questions the value of a 30 day experience in any religion. Really understanding any religious text requires sincere, dedicated study and contemplation. The kind that takes years to develop, not days. The same could be said for the rituals involved, or the "ancient wisdom" to be imparted.

Example: the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. At face value, this story basically has Jesus walk up to some chick at a well, and ask her "why are you getting water from the well?" and she says " cus' I'm thirsty." Then he says "yo....if you drink from my water, you'll never be thirsty again." Then she says "ZOMG you're the messiah! It sounds like a pretty cheesy, simple story.

But there's a lot of detail and context that makes it more significant: the story is set at noon, which at the time would mean everyone was home sleeping through the heat of the day. The well in these towns was a sort of social center. This woman being out and about at the noon hour indicates she was probably a social outcast...homeless, an adulterer, had leprosy, something bad. Women and men in this region of the world didn't always speak with one another, and a Jewish man would almost certainly not speak with a Samaritan woman (much less an outcast).

Essentially, the story ends up being about accepting people, no matter their background. Further, Jesus offers to make her a disciple, indicating that he believes she is a great human being (despite her very low status). It makes the actions he's taking much more significant, and her response more unusual.

The above example is an extremely poor summary of a homily I listened to around a year ago....the point is, you can't just read the bible like a normal book. It has a ton of context....it'd be like reading shakespeare without annotations, only worse.

The same is true of the Koran or Torah.

Having said that, I found this under the catholic month:

"During my first weeks of Catholic month, I ignored a homeless guy and felt incredibly guilty about it"
holy crap...he's a master!

Conclusion: what he's doing is cool, but I wonder if he'll find what he's seeking.

 

[touchpause13]

^ lol Catholic guilt never dies either.

(I still feel super guilty whenever I ignore a homeless person and I left the church over 4 years ago)

 

[Kahreek]

^ lol Catholic guilt never dies either.

(I still feel super guilty whenever I ignore a homeless person and I left the church over 4 years ago)

it has nothing to do with religion, it is their job to make you feel that way, if they dont, they wont be making money.
I refuse to give any money but i do pay my taxes. On the other hand i know people who go all the way to show "solidarity" and spare some change, but will go lengths to not pay their share on society.
Direct action!
charity only helps to keep the poor poor

 

[altitudinarian]

I definitely get what you're saying @dadaddadaBATMAN . I also thought about that as well. It reminds me of what every anthropologist has said to me when it comes to looking at other ways of living, "30 days of exploring a culture is useless. The minimum requirement is 6 months, and that is if you truly have done your research and immerse yourself completely." Usually a year is the best way to do it if you don't want to spend all your time in one place, but still, culture is always changing, and there's so much there that one might've missed the first time around. Every person and professor who has done fieldwork or the like always find amusing those who believe 30 days will be enough to truly grasp at things. It's a start, but not wholesome enough.

Hopefully, this guy will figure out in his project how to have more in-depth experiences with these various philosophies. It's an interesting project though.

 

[lunes]

Atheists are simply people who do not accept the claims set forth by religion. That is all.

 

[lunes]

Why? Because there is no evidence for these claims. Very simple.

 

[Doctor Bob]

Way to bump a year-dead thread.