Christian med students: how do you reconcile your religion with your profession?

[physiologist]

Hi,

I'm an agnostic to whom the concept of religious faith is quite foreign, so bear with me. While I can understand and appreciate faith in those who "don't know better" (ie patients), it is completely beyond me how medical students, most of whom were undergrad bio, can retain their faith when they have studied evolution, etc.

I go to a southern medical school and am surprised by how large a proportion of my class is not only Christian, but devout. Like 2/3 of the class attend the weekly fellowship, and genuinely believe in the craziness that is the resurrection, the Virgin Mary, prophets, etc. while the profs go on about the importance of evidence-based medicine.

Can someone care to explain this to me? How can I best connect with my fellow classmates when religion is such a large part of their lives, yet something I hold so much contempt for (I genuinely feel that religion is the biggest impeder of progress.) Can someone explain the mindset, like how they/you reconcile your field and religious beliefs?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yehhhboiii]

if you think that evidence based medicine is different from religion, you're in for a treat
selective data reporting, confounding variables, interpretation bias, etc. etc.

 

[music2doc]

Hi,

I'm an agnostic to whom the concept of religious faith is quite foreign, so bear with me. While I can understand and appreciate faith in those who "don't know better" (ie patients), it is completely beyond me how medical students, most of whom were undergrad bio, can retain their faith when they have studied evolution, etc.

I go to a southern medical school and am surprised by how large a proportion of my class is not only Christian, but devout. Like 2/3 of the class attend the weekly fellowship, and genuinely believe in the craziness that is the resurrection, the Virgin Mary, prophets, etc. while the profs go on about the importance of evidence-based medicine.

Can someone care to explain this to me? How can I best connect with my fellow classmates when religion is such a large part of their lives, yet something I hold so much contempt for (I genuinely feel that religion is the biggest impeder of progress.) Can someone explain the mindset, like how they/you reconcile your field and religious beliefs?

Maybe you need to get off your high horse of arrogance about things we really cannot know. My guess would be your classmates really don't care whether or not you believe the same thing they do. My classmates are of all different religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, agnosticism, atheism, sexism...) and we interact perfectly fine. Honestly, it's interesting to have interfaith discussions sometimes. And the rest of the time, religion is irrelevant. It's simply not something we focus on.

While religious beliefs can be difficult at times to reconcile with some aspects of medical science, that doesn't make it impossible to do so. Further, religious beliefs give people hope. They give people purpose. They offer something greater than ourselves on which to rely. Instead of seeing religion as a hindrance to progress, maybe you need to open your eyes a bit and be more tolerant. You should be able to see the advantages to religion as well as its disadvantages. If you can't, your bias has greatly hindered your objectivity.

 

[huskerdye]

Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of (any) supernatural being. Science relies on the senses, religion relies on faith. I don't see why you can't have faith and still be a scientist. I wish I could remember what my evolution professor said about this in undergrad, and she was a firm believer in her faith.

 

[physiologist]

Kind of hard to put it aside when so much of the class social life revolves around fellowshipping and church events... there is basically just 2 agnostics, a muslim, and the rest are super-religious Christians (maybe some are not so religious but amp up their religiosity to fit in). It's quite lonely over here.

As for the evidence-based medicine argument, at least scientists TRY to be evidence-based. The only evidence for religion is in a book written 2000 years ago by an unknown author.

According to Socrates: he who is wise is he who admits he knows nothing.

I'm an agnostic because I don't know if there is a supernatural being or not and frankly do not care. There is no evidence for it. These classmates wouldn't believe in a treatment plan if there was no evidence for its efficacy, but they believe in a supernatural God, Jesus, etc.? It seems so...contradictory.

 

[mehc012]

Maybe you need to get off your high horse of arrogance about things we really cannot know. My guess would be your classmates really don't care whether or not you believe the same thing they do. My classmates are of all different religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, agnosticism, atheism, sexism...) and we interact perfectly fine. Honestly, it's interesting to have interfaith discussions sometimes. And the rest of the time, religion is irrelevant. It's simply not something we focus on.

While religious beliefs can be difficult at times to reconcile with some aspects of medical science, that doesn't make it impossible to do so. Further, religious beliefs give people hope. They give people purpose. They offer something greater than ourselves on which to rely. Instead of seeing religion as a hindrance to progress, maybe you need to open your eyes a bit and be more tolerant. You should be able to see the advantages to religion as well as its disadvantages. If you can't, your bias has greatly hindered your objectivity.

 

[punkedoutriffs]

Maybe you need to get off your high horse of arrogance about things we really cannot know.

Why is it arrogant to negate a belief but not arrogant to posit one?

 

[Mr Avante]

Hi,

I'm an agnostic to whom the concept of religious faith is quite foreign, so bear with me. While I can understand and appreciate faith in those who "don't know better" (ie patients), it is completely beyond me how medical students, most of whom were undergrad bio, can retain their faith when they have studied evolution, etc.

I go to a southern medical school and am surprised by how large a proportion of my class is not only Christian, but devout. Like 2/3 of the class attend the weekly fellowship, and genuinely believe in the craziness that is the resurrection, the Virgin Mary, prophets, etc. while the profs go on about the importance of evidence-based medicine.

Can someone care to explain this to me? How can I best connect with my fellow classmates when religion is such a large part of their lives, yet something I hold so much contempt for (I genuinely feel that religion is the biggest impeder of progress.) Can someone explain the mindset, like how they/you reconcile your field and religious beliefs?

Those who believe in the christianity the bible preaches understand evolution. The rest are just indulging in hypocrisy without truly understanding the why of their beliefs.

 

[Trogghunter]

I asked something similar when talking to my hospitals chaplain. I asked how he comforts his patients and their families despite his beliefs, and he responded that ''pushing your belief or lack of is the worst thing to do unless specifically asked and if you have a lot of rapport with them.''

Rather, he said that one should familiarize themselves with as many beliefs as possible and approach the patient/family/colleague on THEIR terms. Ie a family was offended when a nurse said that grandma was going to be with the angels, because 7th day Adventists don't believe in that specifically.

Honestly, if you don't understand where someone is coming from, then learn about it, even ask them. Don't just assume and believe that your way is the right or best because no one really knows, its faith...its human. Respect and love your fellow man.

 

[JourneyAgent]

Why is it arrogant to negate a belief but not arrogant to posit one?

Indeed. Although easily mapped behavior if you consider the huge investment in maintaining a particular religious faith as opposed to not believing anything without good evidence.

The point about evidence based medicine is taken. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here. We developed vaccines that have saved the lives of millions and millions with science and the evaluation of evidence. And so on.

So science and medicine to a lesser extent is based on using the best evidence we have until some better evidence gets presented. There is no equivalent process in religion. Thus, they are incompatible.

To the extent a scientist or doctor accepts that a 900 year old man built a boat to put 2 of each the animals in (or substitute any page of any centuries old religious text) is the same measure of how much s/he shuts down their rational mind to make exceptions for faith for whatever reason. You can do it, but its not the best form or measure of consistency.

But that won't stop us from doing it, clearly, as most of my colleagues are quite religious as well. We are not a very rational species. We fear, want reward, need comfort, prefer to be lied to, and so gods and their clergymen are born.

 

[JourneyAgent]

I asked something similar when talking to my hospitals chaplain. I asked how he comforts his patients and their families despite his beliefs, and he responded that ''pushing your belief or lack of is the worst thing to do unless specifically asked and if you have a lot of rapport with them.''

Rather, he said that one should familiarize themselves with as many beliefs as possible and approach the patient/family/colleague on THEIR terms. Ie a family was offended when a nurse said that grandma was going to be with the angels, because 7th day Adventists don't believe in that specifically.

Honestly, if you don't understand where someone is coming from, then learn about it, even ask them. Don't just assume and believe that your way is the right or best because no one really knows, its faith...its human. Respect and love your fellow man.

I understand psychosis but I don't want be psychotic.

If my fellow man is getting sold a bunch of lies that cause people to fly airplanes into buildings then it is love to dissuade them.

 

[Trogghunter]

I also will add that faith and religion are different. People who are blindly zealous/religious can impede 'progress' as you state, but faith can lead a to great works of compassion and humanity. Vice versa. You have faith in yourself, others, the greater good, and a power (whatever it is) that is greater than yourself.

Seriously, I hope that you're sincere in your quest to learn. Be kind and keep an open heart and open mind regardless

 

[GUH]

[YOUTUBE]2Z4m4lnjxkY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Member 331305]

Kind of hard to put it aside when so much of the class social life revolves around fellowshipping and church events... there is basically just 2 agnostics, a muslim, and the rest are super-religious Christians (maybe some are not so religious but amp up their religiosity to fit in). It's quite lonely over here.

As for the evidence-based medicine argument, at least scientists TRY to be evidence-based. The only evidence for religion is in a book written 2000 years ago by an unknown author.

According to Socrates: he who is wise is he who admits he knows nothing.

I'm an agnostic because I don't know if there is a supernatural being or not and frankly do not care. There is no evidence for it. These classmates wouldn't believe in a treatment plan if there was no evidence for its efficacy, but they believe in a supernatural God, Jesus, etc.? It seems so...contradictory.

1) Have you taken the initiative to propose some secular class activities? There is the radical possibility that your classmates have interests outside of religion.

2) Who cares about a doctor's personal beliefs as long as he/she makes objective decisions regarding patient care. You're gonna have a bad time if you keep viewing your classmates as hypocrites. Remember, you're stuck with these people for 4 years. Don't come off as intolerant or condescending.

 

[JP2740]

Why do you give a ****? lol

I refuse to believe you're fun to hang out with.






Come at me bro

 

[Akali]

Religious people are indoctrinated from the day the enter this world on how to believe in their religion even with conflicting evidence or conflicting ideas.

In Christianity, the Bible is full of such conflicting contradictions. There are a ton of rules explicitly stated in the Bible that hardly any Christian today follows. Pastors and priests just cherry pick from it and anything that isn't congruous with modern society they just try to repackage as some metaphor that means something different from what the Bible actually says (1 example: Leviticus 25:45 about slavery - there are plenty others). Christians will also make up all kinds of crazy excuses for things the Bible posits that we have come to learn are completely false that people during the time the Bible was written didn't know about.

In Christian's defense though, many of them are actually truly ignorant of what the Bible dictates. Studies have shown that atheists/agnostics are more knowledgeable about religions that the theists themselves.

 

[JourneyAgent]

I also will add that faith and religion are different. People who are blindly zealous/religious can impede 'progress' as you state, but faith can lead a to great works of compassion and humanity. Vice versa. You have faith in yourself, others, the greater good, and a power (whatever it is) that is greater than yourself.

Seriously, I hope that you're sincere in your quest to learn. Be kind and keep an open heart and open mind regardless

The fellowship of man and human solidarity need not presuppose faith. Kindness to spurious and wicked nonsense is unkindness to myself and to those I care about. And to those unknown to me.

Faith is simply belief in things that there is no evidence for, hence the need for it. It's the ultimate non sequitur.

There's a stunningly grandiose ignorance of human history built in to this liberal hogwash you're speaking. Might I refer you to the Inquisition. And how only after centuries of secular Enlightenment thinking did it become even safe to publish scientific papers or a certain import.

Also this naive idea that all faith is equal. And that because Christians have calmed their adherence to their most wicked doctrines, doesn't mean others aren't in the current active phase of such endeavors.

These endeavors are to be met on the battlefield of mind and culture with courage and defiance. Not with some weak apologetic nonsense. Even if that is to be taken in these spoiled environs--where we can send our girls to school without offending the local man of god--as arrogance, intolerance, and political incorrectness.

 

[thedoctor8706]

This question most always spawns voices from two opposite sides: someone who knows that there is no God and anyone who believes is indoctrinated, and someone who knows that there has to be one and anyone who doesn't believe is foolish. Those who don't believe say Christians are too close-minded, writing off what they don't understand as acts of God. But then on the other hand, they themselves might be acting close-minded by automatically shutting out the possibility of a higher power. Unfortunately, someone has yet to show me how to convince either side to stop being so stubborn.

What I never understand is why do science and religion have to be mutually exclusive? Maybe my thinking is way too far into the sci-fi realm, but if God is truly omnipotent, all-powerful if you will, then how are we to define God by what we perceive as time, space, physics, whatever? Can't there be a way to further explore science and all it's fascinating possibilities without completely shutting out the possibility of God?

 

[BooRadley85]

The fellowship of man and human solidarity need not presuppose faith. Kindness to spurious and wicked nonsense is unkindness to myself and to those I care about. And to those unknown to me.

Faith is simply belief in things that there is no evidence for, hence the need for it. It's the ultimate non sequitur.

There's a stunningly grandiose ignorance of human history built in to this liberal hogwash you're speaking. Might I refer you to the Inquisition. And how only after centuries of secular Enlightenment thinking did it become even safe to publish scientific papers or a certain import.

Also this naive idea that all faith is equal. And that because Christians have calmed their adherence to their most wicked doctrines, doesn't mean others aren't in the current active phase of such endeavors.

These endeavors are to be met on the battlefield of mind and culture with courage and defiance. Not with some weak apologetic nonsense. Even if that is to be taken in these spoiled environs--where we can send our girls to school without offending the local man of god--as arrogance, intolerance, and political incorrectness.

I didn't understand much of this, but I only got a 9 on verbal on the MCAT. Mind sharing your score??

 

[BioBeaver]

I'll answer from my perspective:

I think many atheists and agnostics generally underestimate religious people's intellect. Most religious people don't read the Bible or Koran and believe everything it says word for word. Its not illegal to pick and choose what you personally believe in. But they do believe that there is a higher being responsible for creating the universe.

And who's to say there isn't? We live in such a complex reality that we honestly don't know where the universe came from, if there are more universes outside of ours, or how it got it's natural laws. I think it's perfectly reasonable when you look at all of these things to believe in a higher being. Heck, it might even be MORE reasonable to believe in intelligent design when you really take a step back and examine how fine tuned the universe is for existence.

Science can't prove everything now, and it probably never will be able to prove some things. Let people believe what they want to believe and move on.

 

[novafan3000]

Those who believe in the christianity the bible preaches understand evolution. The rest are just indulging in hypocrisy without truly understanding the why of their beliefs.

this.

I respect all faiths. But I actually believe studying the hard sciences has strengthened my faith in God. Life is just too, for lack of a better word, beautiful to be the result of chance. It is a miracle that we exist and although we are tested in evolution, we can still study and understand the material without having to believe it yourself.

 

[The Kraken]

Religion has not passed the burden of proof. Do you believe the person who says the sky is green? No, not until they show something that validates their claim. The same thing applies to religion.
1) Humans are fallible.
2) Be skeptical of everything humans say.
3) Assume null until the burden of proof is passed.
4) Existence of god has not passed the burden of proof.
Therefore, agnosticism at best. Atheism is more appropriate, however it is stigmatized and not a good starting point for rational debates.

 

[Mr Avante]

this.

I respect all faiths. But I actually believe studying the hard sciences has strengthened my faith in God. Life is just too, for lack of a better word, beautiful to be the result of chance. It is a miracle that we exist and although we are tested in evolution, we can still study and understand the material without having to believe it yourself.

I believe science has become misunderstood by people that are religious to the extreme. At some point in life both "ologies" drifted away when it was not supposed to happen. There are things like evolution that cannot be fully understood, that doesn't mean God never intended for them to happen.

 

[PhysMatMan]

Religion has not passed the burden of proof. Do you believe the person who says the sky is green? No, not until they show something that validates their claim. The same thing applies to religion.
1) Humans are fallible.
2) Be skeptical of everything humans say.
3) Assume null until the burden of proof is passed.
4) Existence of god has not passed the burden of proof.
Therefore, agnosticism at best. Atheism is more appropriate, however it is stigmatized and not a good starting point for rational debates.

1) Are you sure? After all, if you are fallible human, then you might be wrong on this point.
2) I'm not sure if I should trust this statement.
3, 4) Why? Most people assume that it's impossible to prove that God exists just as it's impossible to prove he doesn't exist. Although that's not a proof He exists, if we know to 5 sigma that the Higgs Boson is within the energy bound but we need 6 sigma to prove it, is it terrible to assume it is within 5 sigma? (Bad example)

People assume that there is no evidence for God, but 2000 year-old writings ARE evidence. It's only debatable how strong the evidence is. It's also very possible that only one set of beliefs about the Bible are correct. It's not a good argument to say some people pick their own beliefs, therefore there is no correct set. Yes, religious people have excuses for why they believe the Bible says certain things, but so does anyone have an "excuse" when responding to an argument against their position.

 

[KinesiologyNerd]

1) Are you sure? After all, if you are fallible human, then you might be wrong on this point.
2) I'm not sure if I should trust this statement.
3, 4) Why? Most people assume that it's impossible to prove that God exists just as it's impossible to prove he doesn't exist. Although that's not a proof He exists, if we know to 5 sigma that the Higgs Boson is within the energy bound but we need 6 sigma to prove it, is it terrible to assume it is within 5 sigma? (Bad example)

People assume that there is no evidence for God, but 2000 year-old writings ARE evidence. It's only debatable how strong the evidence is. It's also very possible that only one set of beliefs about the Bible are correct. It's not a good argument to say some people pick their own beliefs, therefore there is no correct set. Yes, religious people have excuses for why they believe the Bible says certain things, but so does anyone have an "excuse" when responding to an argument against their position.

What makes you so sure the bible is right and everything else is just gobbledygook? The oldest known religious texts are from ancient egyptian mythology. The Rigveda is nearly 1700 years older than the bible. So there's more evidence for hinduism by your logic.

 

[Danlee07]

There is a need to be sedulously attentive to new literature and studies with "evidence." But there are many that just require...common sense while reminding ourselves of context.

To the core of this thread, there are many who equivocate thousands of statements while holding onto a sliver of knowledge. You really listen to all of it? No. Do you "believe" all the evidence-based medicine? No. There's some studies where there were treatments done on evidence-based medicine such as the Duke clinical studies. For all the cancer patients receiving Aflibercept for naught... they were treated with evidence based research that resulted in flummoxed patients wondering why they couldn't get better. After all, they were treated with evidence-based research. And when the papers were coming out showing that data had been fudged, did the trials stop? Nope. And after thousands of years of humans drinking/eating different forms of ginger to increase circulation/feel warm, is it really that revealing when a study comes out showing gingerol as a vasodilator..? Or the recent studies that media reports as "No, fish oil increases risk of prostate cancer" when in fact if you look at the paper....no, the authors don't even dare to make such a bold statement and not even the main point of the paper.

When doctors truly want to practice evidence-based research, there's way more work to be put in to know what's going on with the flashy papers being published in Nature Medicine, etc. Putting what you read, the study design, the outcomes, the mechanisms, and everything into context per patient is ideal for any doctor.

Not only does this apply to religion with its "so called Christians" and "atheists" but also it pretty much applies to everything...read and analyze yourself, put everything in context, and stop listening to everything out there. And what happens if you do this...you could probably connect to people without having to worry so much about their religion unless you shun everyone with one by awkwardly asking their religion in the first meeting...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note for the Lev. 25 comment:
Deuteronomy 12, Deuteronomy 16:13-14, Leviticus 22:10-11, etc. all show to "rejoice as one." These were just some examples of law where slavery was about eliminating base attitude. It wasn't even slavery, or indentured servitude as people in the New World can only come to think of the Hebrew term, "abad." In the New Testament, Jesus teaches to break out of human bondage in Matthew 11:30. Peter and Paul also write to break the bondage. And you don't see the word slave as often in the New Testament since there's an assumed Father-Son or master-servant relationship.

Post more random out-of-context verses that you feel so appropriate...

And as much as you disdain "Christians" for quoting from a "Bible with an unknown author," don't be so presumptuous to cherry pick a verse that's already been dissected in more books and words than this forum's posts put together for contextual meaning of the by scholars who put more hours into reading and understanding Mediterranean languages for a living.

But one thing to think about: if there's only matter and mind, what's love?

 

[The Kraken]

1) Are you sure? After all, if you are fallible human, then you might be wrong on this point.
2) I'm not sure if I should trust this statement.
3, 4) Why? Most people assume that it's impossible to prove that God exists just as it's impossible to prove he doesn't exist. Although that's not a proof He exists, if we know to 5 sigma that the Higgs Boson is within the energy bound but we need 6 sigma to prove it, is it terrible to assume it is within 5 sigma? (Bad example)

People assume that there is no evidence for God, but 2000 year-old writings ARE evidence. It's only debatable how strong the evidence is. It's also very possible that only one set of beliefs about the Bible are correct. It's not a good argument to say some people pick their own beliefs, therefore there is no correct set. Yes, religious people have excuses for why they believe the Bible says certain things, but so does anyone have an "excuse" when responding to an argument against their position.

The positive is never assumed true. God is not assumed to be true until reasonable evidence has been presented. The sky is not assumed green nor blue; eyes are used to match the color of the sky to the appropriately defined color. This by convention is blue, during normal periods of the day. This example is limited to a sensory experience, but illustrates a simple example.

It is a logical fallacy to say things must be proven false before they are false. End of story.

 

[Akali]

...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note for the Lev. 25 comment:
Deuteronomy 12, Deuteronomy 16:13-14, Leviticus 22:10-11, etc. all show to "rejoice as one." These were just some examples of law where slavery was about eliminating base attitude. It wasn't even slavery, or indentured servitude as people in the New World can only come to think of the Hebrew term, "abad." In the New Testament, Jesus teaches to break out of human bondage in Matthew 11:30. Peter and Paul also write to break the bondage. And you don't see the word slave as often in the New Testament since there's an assumed Father-Son or master-servant relationship.

Post more random out-of-context verses that you feel so appropriate...

...

See, you say these things and to you it seems logical. I read this, trying earnestly to understand why you think this actually rationalizes the explicit promotion of human slavery by the Bible, and I don't see it. I feel like you believe what you're saying is logical only because you were raised since birth by family to accept those kinds of ideas. I know because I've been there.

Please explain to me better how some verses saying "rejoicing as one" have to do with the what was said about slavery? Matthew 11:30 doesn't even say anything about human bondage. Do you not see how loose and faulty the connections you're trying to make are? Also, having a ton of different translations that may mean different things moreso invalidates anything in the Bible moreso than it validates anything. I too could just as easily dream up a whole number of interpretations that are different from the literal meanings in Bible verses.

It's too bad your god decided to stop showing up after the invention of things like the camera. He could just clear this whole thing up for us in an instant.

Please post more absurd rationalizations that help you to ignore the truth of reality

 

[mehc012]

There is a need to be sedulously attentive to new literature and studies with "evidence." But there are many that just require...common sense while reminding ourselves of context.

To the core of this thread, there are many who equivocate thousands of statements while holding onto a sliver of knowledge. You really listen to all of it? No. Do you "believe" all the evidence-based medicine? No. There's some studies where there were treatments done on evidence-based medicine such as the Duke clinical studies. For all the cancer patients receiving Aflibercept for naught... they were treated with evidence based research that resulted in flummoxed patients wondering why they couldn't get better. After all, they were treated with evidence-based research. And when the papers were coming out showing that data had been fudged, did the trials stop? Nope. And after thousands of years of humans drinking/eating different forms of ginger to increase circulation/feel warm, is it really that revealing when a study comes out showing gingerol as a vasodilator..? Or the recent studies that media reports as "No, fish oil increases risk of prostate cancer" when in fact if you look at the paper....no, the authors don't even dare to make such a bold statement and not even the main point of the paper.

When doctors truly want to practice evidence-based research, there's way more work to be put in to know what's going on with the flashy papers being published in Nature Medicine, etc. Putting what you read, the study design, the outcomes, the mechanisms, and everything into context per patient is ideal for any doctor.

...those things you are saying, they are not evidence-based. They are examples of how/why we SHOULD use evidence-based approaches, but often fail to do so. I'm sorry, but you can't hold up fudged data sets and then claim that the results are a failure of evidence based medicine...no, they're not. They're a failure to ACTUALLY USE evidence based medicine, and instead letting human ego/bias/folklore run the show.

 

[Mr Avante]

I thought medicine was already evidential.

 

[Donald Juan]

To answer how people reconcile religion with conflicting scientific knowledge I've seen people do it a couple ways.

Many religious people aren't fundamentalists and do not take the bible (or whatever other holy text they use) to be hardened facts. They just believe there is more to the universe and they enjoy a moral compass and place for fellowship with other like-minded people.

Some people haven't reconciled it. It's two mutually exclusive mindsets they have. They know there is some conflicts but they are okay with that. When they are praying or at church they are in the religious mindset, and when they are in a classroom they are in the scientific mindset.

And some people just reject any science that goes against their beliefs. In my Biology senior seminar class, my instructor was very interested in evolution and education so she had people write down how they feel about evolution and then read them all off anonymously. About half the class (keep in mind these were all senior biology students) either outright denied evolution or was extremely skeptical of it. Some said they weren't exposed to it, which was horse**** because everyone of them had to take an ecology and evolution class. I realize I'm in the bible belt, but my professor said she used to teach in Ohio and the results were always about the same.

 

[Diagnose]

Explain to me the process of abiogenesis. Then I will consider that science argues against faith......



Thomas M. Devlin wrote, RNA is simpler than DNA and the first organisms were probably of RNA..... Okay, that is not evidence of abiogenesis, that is a hypothesis. I am well aware of Szostak and Joyce's work, and their evidence is limited to organic molecules. Systems chemistry has repeatedly been demonstrated to not occur through innumerable experiments.

Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Instead of "God did it", a "singularity did it"...

 

[BioBeaver]

Explain to me the process of abiogenesis. Then I will consider that science argues against faith.

Good point.

 

[Moose A Moose]

Hi,

I'm an agnostic to whom the concept of religious faith is quite foreign, so bear with me. While I can understand and appreciate faith in those who "don't know better" (ie patients), it is completely beyond me how medical students, most of whom were undergrad bio, can retain their faith when they have studied evolution, etc.

I go to a southern medical school and am surprised by how large a proportion of my class is not only Christian, but devout. Like 2/3 of the class attend the weekly fellowship, and genuinely believe in the craziness that is the resurrection, the Virgin Mary, prophets, etc. while the profs go on about the importance of evidence-based medicine.

Can someone care to explain this to me? How can I best connect with my fellow classmates when religion is such a large part of their lives, yet something I hold so much contempt for (I genuinely feel that religion is the biggest impeder of progress.) Can someone explain the mindset, like how they/you reconcile your field and religious beliefs?

Just mind your own business?

 

[JourneyAgent]

Explain to me the process of abiogenesis. Then I will consider that science argues against faith......



Thomas M. Devlin wrote, RNA is simpler than DNA and the first organisms were probably of RNA..... Okay, that is not evidence of abiogenesis, that is a hypothesis. I am well aware of Szostak and Joyce's work, and their evidence is limited to organic molecules. Systems chemistry has repeatedly been demonstrated to not occur through innumerable experiments.

Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Instead of "God did it", a "singularity did it"...

No it's not a good point. It's ridiculous reductionism.

The origins of life are highly skeptical at best. We have ideas. They get argued over. It remains unclear.

But it nevertheless remains remotely less likely that the matter began with a man and a woman clothed in leaves and dealing with the conundrum of fruit and talking snakes.

We don't claim to have answers as non-believers we just demand plausibility and reasonable argument. So that we don't get bullied by bearded mullahs and the yarmulke wearing zealot who believes in the divine real estate broker or the Christian scientist who argues against the process of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

 

[punkedoutriffs]

No it's not a good point. It's ridiculous reductionism.

The origins of life are highly skeptical at best. We have ideas. They get argued over. It remains unclear.

But it nevertheless remains remotely less likely that the matter began with a man and a woman clothed in leaves and dealing with the conundrum of fruit and talking snakes.

We don't claim to have answers as non-believers we just demand plausibility and reasonable argument. So that we don't get bullied by bearded mullahs and the yarmulke wearing zealot who believes in the divine real estate broker or the Christian scientist who argues against the process of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

I agree w/ everything you say, but I wonder what you think about the opportunity cost of atheism, namely that it makes life somewhat of a Sisyphus-ian absurdity.

 

[quechua]

this.

I respect all faiths. But I actually believe studying the hard sciences has strengthened my faith in God. Life is just too, for lack of a better word, beautiful to be the result of chance. It is a miracle that we exist and although we are tested in evolution, we can still study and understand the material without having to believe it yourself.

Same here.

 

[Donald Juan]

Explain to me the process of abiogenesis. Then I will consider that science argues against faith......

Even if abiogenesis is someday completely understood and is able to be recreated in a laboratory, it won't prove or disprove anyone's faith. You can still say God is what created the matter and the physical laws that makes the creation of life a possibility. I don't think science argues against faith...some people looked at Newton's theories about how there are underlying forces as proof that God isn't necessary, while Newton thought it was just more proof that God must have put these things in place.

However, science does conflict with specific things in the bible: the age of the earth, the creation of the earth and all it's organisms in 7 days, the creation of birds before land animals, the ability to live inside of a whale for 3 days, the ability to repopulate the earth with 2 of every animal or the fact that an ark that size couldn't hold the millions of species we now know exist. Now, if someone says these things aren't literal, then there is not a big problem, but many people think that the bible is the complete, infallible truth straight from God's mouth. Yes, they know men wrote the words, but they argue that it was God's guiding hand that has given us the scriptures we have today.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm not scared of science...if God is right, science won't contradict Him. I predict more hassle with law than science

 

[JourneyAgent]

I agree w/ everything you say, but I wonder what you think about the opportunity cost of atheism, namely that it makes life somewhat of a Sisyphus-ian absurdity.

That's an interesting point. While I hadn't thought of it in that way, it has occurred to me that there might be an indefatigable need in man kind to be consoled and comforted by the childlike bedtime stories of religion. And that the confidence and infallibility of faith might have certain advantages in well-being even if the same for others subjected to one's acquired infallibility is dubious.

I have reconciled myself to absurdity because it suits me as a realistic and humorous reflection of our condition. Additionally I enjoy most heartily the destruction of idol worship and foiling of certainty.

Some of us are heretics by birth and natural inclination. We might as well enjoy it. I do.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Wow. SDN Blockbuster week. First a males vs females and now a religion vs non-religion debate.

Few points:

Why does 'religion' auto-correct to Christianity on this forum? There are so many religions. Question to all the Christians on this thread: Is it possible that there is a God but his basis is not in Christianity, but rather Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? What about Mormonism?

There are 5 types of people in the world:
1) Religious zealots who decry any science that does not agree with them. (Evolution, earth only 600 years old)
2) Religious people who believe in science and evidence more than religion in a direct comparison (Earth is not only 6000 years old)
3) Non-religious people who don't know if there is a God out there.. (Agnostic)
4) Non-religious people who don't believe in any sort of God (Athiest)
5) Non-religious people who don't beliveve in any sort of God and feel compelled to continually bash those who do as idiots (Militant Athiests)

I consider myself as between 2 and 3. I'm not extremely religious (NOT Christianity. You could not pay me enough money to believe in the bible and their inane restrictions on humanity), but I believe there is some higher power at there (even if it is a flying spaghetti monster). The main things to take away from religion (be a good person, don't be immoral, help your fellow man, basically the 10 commandments in Christianity) are present in (almost) all religions.

 

[punkedoutriffs]

That's an interesting point. While I hadn't thought of it in that way, it has occurred to me that there might be an indefatigable need in man kind to be consoled and comforted by the childlike bedtime stories of religion. And that the confidence and infallibility of faith might have certain advantages in well-being even if the same for others subjected to one's acquired infallibility is dubious.

I have reconciled myself to absurdity because it suits me as a realistic and humorous reflection of our condition. Additionally I enjoy most heartily the destruction of idol worship and foiling of certainty.

Some of us are heretics by birth and natural inclination. We might as well enjoy it. I do.

Hm... I guess I don't share the same glee. I feel more like I'm moored in the ocean holding on to a 2 x4, but I can't manage to "judo" my mind.

 

[Donald Juan]

Why does 'religion' auto-correct to Christianity on this forum? There are so many religions.

1) The OP was asking in reference to his class which is 2/3 Christian.

2) It is likely that more people here are more familiar with the Christian faith than other religions.

3) You can't really talk about how to resolve religion with science because it is too broad. The way a Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, or Christian (insert every other faith here) would look at these issues is very different. Even subsets in a particular religion will have many different outlooks on their faith.

 

[Conflagration]

I agree w/ everything you say, but I wonder what you think about the opportunity cost of atheism, namely that it makes life somewhat of a Sisyphus-ian absurdity.

You know, maybe this is just me.

Blaise Pascal (the mathematician) also fancied himself a philosopher and made the sort of collection of statements referred to as Pascal's Wager. Essentially, his argument was that you're better off trying to believe in God(this was the 17th century Europe, they weren't being all-encompassing) because if He exists and you don't believe that he does, you're going to Hell. But if you do and He doesn't exist, it's simply imposing some self-control.

My issue with that is that it really cheapens Christianity, and to some extent, religion in general. Shouldn't belief be more involved? I mean, religion ideally inspires you to do good for the sake of it being good, not because you don't want to burn in Hell. It just irks me, I guess.

I'm agnostic too, OP. Don't feel alone.

 

[JourneyAgent]

Wow. SDN Blockbuster week. First a males vs females and now a religion vs non-religion debate.

Few points:

Why does 'religion' auto-correct to Christianity on this forum? There are so many religions. Question to all the Christians on this thread: Is it possible that there is a God but his basis is not in Christianity, but rather Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? What about Mormonism?

There are 5 types of people in the world:
1) Religious zealots who decry any science that does not agree with them. (Evolution, earth only 600 years old)
2) Religious people who believe in science and evidence more than religion in a direct comparison (Earth is not only 6000 years old)
3) Non-religious people who don't know if there is a God out there.. (Agnostic)
4) Non-religious people who don't believe in any sort of God (Athiest)
5) Non-religious people who don't beliveve in any sort of God and feel compelled to continually bash those who do as idiots (Militant Athiests)

I consider myself as between 2 and 3. I'm not extremely religious (NOT Christianity. You could not pay me enough money to believe in the bible and their inane restrictions on humanity), but I believe there is some higher power at there (even if it is a flying spaghetti monster). The main things to take away from religion (be a good person, don't be immoral, help your fellow man, basically the 10 commandments in Christianity) are present in (almost) all religions.

This is probably one of the more common dispositions in the world particularly in educated populations. And I don't have any quarrel with your kind. Except that you take advantage of our relative freedom from oppressive doctrines and cringe when the heavy lifting of taking on real destructive ideas in world needs to be done.

I am any where between 3 and 5 depending on the situation. If its protecting the rights of my gay friends in California from the multi-million dollar efforts of Mormon funding to thwart constitutional protection for them, then I'm militant. Etc. Personally, in my quiet hours, I have no idea what forces guide this mysterious universe.

But, I do think, the moderate religious people, and strangely enough even liberal non-believers have moral culpability in shielding from criticism the destruction of human civilization that the project of faith continues to yield in our world.

In their eyes I am militant. To them I say, it's not your little girl that got shot in the face for going to school, you pretentious prick.

So the militant atheists will continue to do the tough lifting of both challenging destructive ideologies while taking criticism from our flank by enlightened liberals and moderates. You can thank us after nuclear apocalypse is averted. Or wish you had joined us. Wherever our destiny lies.

 

[Chrissisissi]

I hate when people throw out generalizations. How do so many of you know that Christians don't read the bible!??? I was born in the church. First accepted Christ when I was 5 after I asked my mom some questions, and first started to really understand what Christianity was when I was 15 when I chose to be baptized. At first I had what the bible said fed to me by my pastors and small group leaders, then when I was in college I was frustrated because I feel like I didn't have the wisdom or understanding or peace that these people had. The I joined a summer small group of girls around my age (early 20s) who were just wise beyond their years and I realized that they disciplined themselves to study the bible, and reflect on it, and write about it. My point is Christianity is a process that lasts for your whole life and has different stages of maturity. It took me 20 years to start reading and understanding the bible like I should and yes it's a complex text but if you really read it (old and new testament) it's not contradictory at all. I think it's crazy that people are like ooooh Christians are so intolerant, what jerks they are! But it seems to me that many people are equally intolerant to Christians. I thought we were supposed to be the "intolerant" ones. To the OP I would suggest maybe telling your classmates how you feel and asking them these questions. I'm sure they'd be open to the conversation and that you would learn a lot. And btw, this one guy from history named Luke was a physician. Seeing that he was one of the 12 disciples, I would say it's possible to reconcile Christian faith with being a physician. I also want to add that there is this weird idea that Christians are supposed to be perfect never ever sinning is a big misconception. That is why people become Christian, because we as humans are deeply flawed and need Jesus. We recognize that he lived a perfect life and died as a sacrifice for our sins (as opposed to us going to a temple and giving animal sacrifices up to God whenever we messed up). The bible says if we judge other people than we will be judged as well and to forgive people as He forgave us. So, Christians believing that it is a sin to do something and maybe slipping up at some point and doing it is not being hypocritical, it is being human. As long as they sincerely repent, renounce their ways and seek to live a righteous life, they are doing as God wants them to.

 

[mehc012]

Wow. SDN Blockbuster week. First a males vs females and now a religion vs non-religion debate.

Few points:

Why does 'religion' auto-correct to Christianity on this forum? There are so many religions. Question to all the Christians on this thread: Is it possible that there is a God but his basis is not in Christianity, but rather Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism? What about Mormonism?

There are 5 types of people in the world:
1) Religious zealots who decry any science that does not agree with them. (Evolution, earth only 600 years old)
2) Religious people who believe in science and evidence more than religion in a direct comparison (Earth is not only 6000 years old)
3) Non-religious people who don't know if there is a God out there.. (Agnostic)
4) Non-religious people who don't believe in any sort of God (Athiest)
5) Non-religious people who don't beliveve in any sort of God and feel compelled to continually bash those who do as idiots (Militant Athiests)

I consider myself as between 2 and 3. I'm not extremely religious (NOT Christianity. You could not pay me enough money to believe in the bible and their inane restrictions on humanity), but I believe there is some higher power at there (even if it is a flying spaghetti monster). The main things to take away from religion (be a good person, don't be immoral, help your fellow man, basically the 10 commandments in Christianity) are present in (almost) all religions.

I'm generally a 4), but with a few quirks which probably elevate me to 5) occasionally. I won't debate the accuracy of someone's religion with them...it's called faith for a reason...but I will object to them bringing it up at me or addressing me with it. For example, if someone says "God bless you", I will ask them politely not to, as it makes me uncomfortable. If I'm being nice to someone and their response is to talk about God, I get pretty annoyed and somewhat insulted, because I do not do these things for some reward, from God or anyone. I try to say 'salud' instead of 'bless you' because I think the message 'health' is a better one. Religion has permeated our culture and our day-to-day interactions, and while no one means anything by it, I find it worrisome, primarily because only one faith (generally christianity in the US) seems to be included. It would be incredibly rude of me to walk around telling people "God doesn't exist" everytime they sneezed or did something nice for me...people would react awkwardly if a non-Christian religion were constantly referenced, etc. I don't care what anyone's religion is, but it ought not to come up in daily conversation except with people who you know are comfortable with it. Maybe I'm a 5, then...but iis it so surprising that I'm bothered by having a constant reminder that the world is SO inextricably bound up with these beliefs and feelings that I have zero attachment to and zero faith in. It's like smacking me in the face all day long reminding me that a significant portion of the voter population, who will make decisions that will strongly affect MY life, are basing their decisions on something which they have no right to make me ascribe to, and yet which will inevitably affect the laws that I will have to abide by.

 

[Danlee07]

...those things you are saying, they are not evidence-based. They are examples of how/why we SHOULD use evidence-based approaches, but often fail to do so. I'm sorry, but you can't hold up fudged data sets and then claim that the results are a failure of evidence based medicine...no, they're not. They're a failure to ACTUALLY USE evidence based medicine, and instead letting human ego/bias/folklore run the show.

In this discussion of whatever topic, including this thread, religion or science, mostly it's as you say "human ego/bias/folklore running the show." I add to it though, that they misunderstand what they're actually running and spewing with their mouth. The example I showed was demonstrating my previous statement.

Not really sure what you're saying in the first half. I don't claim this is a failure of evidence-based literature. It's a failure of human bias and not reading. Finding the error took the bioinformatics guy at MD Anderson only a short while. What took long was to reproduce each and every step so that they could provide proof with accusation. Scientists at Duke were going through clinical trials providing very sickly patients with drugs they thought would be effective based on positive outlook from a whole series of published literature...evidence based. But the latter is part of my point. If the thought is a null hypothesis, that there is no God, why be so vehement about the opposite? When applying statistics, just because you got a p value of 0.03, it doesn't prove anything. But there's no complete denial that the null could still be true. Even if the p value was 0.001. This is why the statistics analogy doesn't work since believing or not is black or white based on Bible and whichever religion.

And previously, your rebuttal is the words you seek are not explicitly said in the Bible so therefore it can't have anything to do with the topic, and the "you're illogical" statement. You're assuming that there's promotion of slavery. There's not, so there's no need to rationalize. Read the verses I pointed out again, but it won't do much good with a priori. And what is truth of reality? Don't say vague phrases...Reality is already truth.

 

[mehc012]

In this discussion of whatever topic, including this thread, religion or science, mostly it's as you say "human ego/bias/folklore running the show." I add to it though, that they misunderstand what they're actually running and spewing with their mouth. The example I showed was demonstrating my previous statement.

Not really sure what you're saying in the first half. I don't claim this is a failure of evidence-based literature. It's a failure of human bias and not reading. Finding the error took the bioinformatics guy at MD Anderson only a short while. What took long was to reproduce each and every step so that they could provide proof with accusation. Scientists at Duke were going through clinical trials providing very sickly patients with drugs they thought would be effective based on positive outlook from a whole series of published literature...evidence based. But the latter is part of my point. If the thought is a null hypothesis, that there is no God, why be so vehement about the opposite? When applying statistics, just because you got a p value of 0.03, it doesn't prove anything. But there's no complete denial that the null could still be true. Even if the p value was 0.001. This is why the statistics analogy doesn't work since believing or not is black or white based on Bible and whichever religion.

And previously, your rebuttal is the words you seek are not explicitly said in the Bible so therefore it can't have anything to do with the topic, and the "you're illogical" statement. You're assuming that there's promotion of slavery. There's not, so there's no need to rationalize. Read the verses I pointed out again, but it won't do much good with a priori. And what is truth of reality? Don't say vague phrases...Reality is already truth.

Dude, I never once said ANY of the bolded. I think you have me confused with someone else...I NEVER get involved with scripture-based debates. I generally find them rude and unproductive.

 

[doctech]

Hi,

I'm an agnostic to whom the concept of religious faith is quite foreign, so bear with me. While I can understand and appreciate faith in those who "don't know better" (ie patients), it is completely beyond me how medical students, most of whom were undergrad bio, can retain their faith when they have studied evolution, etc.

I go to a southern medical school and am surprised by how large a proportion of my class is not only Christian, but devout. Like 2/3 of the class attend the weekly fellowship, and genuinely believe in the craziness that is the resurrection, the Virgin Mary, prophets, etc. while the profs go on about the importance of evidence-based medicine.

Can someone care to explain this to me? How can I best connect with my fellow classmates when religion is such a large part of their lives, yet something I hold so much contempt for (I genuinely feel that religion is the biggest impeder of progress.) Can someone explain the mindset, like how they/you reconcile your field and religious beliefs?

*Why would you practice medicine if you don’t believe in a higher power?
*The way I see it, if there is no God, then there are no objective morals. If there are no objective morals, then why should we heal people instead of letting them die? Healing would not be better than suffering. Nothing ultimately matters if there is no God, we are all just molecules in motion. Sure you may like science and your preference might be healing over suffering, but nothing would make them “good” in an objective sense.
*How do atheists and agnostics justify that healing fellow human beings is a virtue?