Do Med Students Believe In God

[EmmaNemma]

Like so many of you, I grew up around religion. However, I was never very devout and my academic education in science eventually moved me into the egnostic/atheist category. In my experience, I have found that science can explain the mysteries of the universe and that human nature creates the need for religion.

Please don't get me wrong. I think that a belief in God is great and I encourage it in my family and friends. Why put someone down for believing something if it does not affect you and it makes them happy?

Nevertheless, I am curious how religion is viewed in medical school. In several of my undergrad bio classes, the instructor would give a disclaimer before starting lectures on things like evolution. This was mainly done to be pollitically correct and try and neutralize any accusations that religious students might make in the future. What is the prevailing attitude in medical school?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[misparas]

Religion and Medicine are very involved with one another.

You'll find that many of your patients will be deeply religious and that is important to them when they are sick. You'll work with chaplains in the hospitals at times to make important decisions about their care.

Many medical students are very religious.

My personal thoughts are that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Monocles]

Nope. I'm a hardline atheist.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm saying there's nothing wrong with being religious though. To each their own!

 

[tehdude]

Why put someone down for believing something if it does not affect you

But unfortunately it often does.

What is the prevailing attitude in medical school?

I would say a decent percent of our faculty are creationists. One often talks in lectures about god and how this or that in the body is too complex to have come about by evolution. From a show of hands earlier in the semester, I would estimate at least 90% of my class believes in a god that occasionally violates the laws of nature to assist in surgeries or cure medical conditions. Think about that for a minute. It's genuinely frighting.

 

[Dotsero]

After 2 years of medical school my belief in God has been strengthened.

When you see how complex the human body is and how even a minute variation in a biochemical pathway can alter the outcome, chance evolution becomes (for me) unlikely.

 

[misparas]

How is it so frightening to believe that there is a creator out there who directed a creation. If what we feel about evolution is correct (I feel much of it probably is), why is it so frightening to think that there could be a "god" who is making it work?

If that is the case and there is a God who defines the laws of nature, why is it impossible to think that he could abide within set laws to help heal those in need. Do we feel that we have a perfect understanding of nature or of the human body? If so then why do we continue to do scientific research?

We continue to do research because any educated person knows that we still don't know much of anything.

If there is an all knowing creator, why couldn't he try something that we didn't know how to do? Completely within the laws of nature... Just something that we haven't figured out yet.

Not trying to argue... Just trying to share another point of view.

From a show of hands earlier in the semester, I would estimate at least 90% of my class believes in a god that occasionally violates the laws of nature to assist in surgeries or cure medical conditions. Think about that for a minute. It's genuinely frighting.

 

[heroes31]

Another believer here, but to each their own.

 

[hawkeye pierce]

I will be a believer med student. I think medical school just like any other group with have a wide range of belief systems.

 

[OMG Lizards]

This just in: People are afraid of death. They have created their own coping mechanisms.

 

[Kuba]

This just in: People are afraid of death. They have created their own coping mechanisms.

Amen

Like someone else said "To each their own." I don't have to face death in anyone's but my own shoes. However, it bothers me that society has been so brainwashed that I can't tell someone that I personally don't believe in God without being judged as deviant or immoral or some other synonym.

 

[D elegans]

This just in: People are afraid of death. They have created their own coping mechanisms.

+2

This hits the nail on the head and I believe is the driving force behind all religious belief.

 

[Deferoxamine]

Yes, a lot of medical students believe in "God". Sadly, though, this very often just involves them looking at themselves in the mirror.

 

[DoctwoB]

After 2 years of medical school my belief in God has been strengthened.

When you see how complex the human body is and how even a minute variation in a biochemical pathway can alter the outcome, chance evolution becomes (for me) unlikely.

Not trying to burst any bubbles, but this type of "it's so complex it must have been designed" argument simply doesn't hold water, it just reflects a current lack of understanding and knowledge. Show a man in the middle ages a modern jet engine, and he would have felt that only god could design such a thing, which is now simple for engineers. The human body is far more complex then any mechanical object, but the idea remains the same. "God(s)/spirits did it" is a response to the unknown that has persisted as long as human society has been around.

The "life hangs on such a slender balance" argument is also a self-referential one, namely that only those organisms that survive are capable of making that argument. For every mutation that is beneficial, there are many more that are harmful. For every genetic rearrangement that produces some important new enzyme, there are many more that are fatal. However, we only see the successes, not the failures, and are thus predisposed to view the string of evolutionary successes that lead to our existence as being impossibly unlikely.

God and science can certainly co-exist, and religiosity definitely plays a role in real-world medicine, but I am wary of a medical student that equates anything unknown or seemingly complex with god.

 

[Long Way to Go]

Yes, a lot of medical students believe in "God". Sadly, though, this very often just involves them looking at themselves in the mirror.

 

[DocEspana]

92% of americans believe in God according to a recent poll. Surprised its so low in this poll.

 

[Lil Mick]

I come from a pastor's family but was staunchly atheist as a preteen/teen because: 1) of my study at university (started as a preteen with research and classes) and 2) my life experiences of violence in the inner city and the horrible things going on in war (lots of refugees in my area).

I came back to a belief in God and a faith through some personal circumstances (kid in recovery here) and through my study of theoretical particle physics, philosophy, and mathematics (anyone interested: Dr. John Polkinghorne has written some excellent books and articles on particle physics and faith). I have a deep appreciation for evolution, quantum physics, and geology, and I don't think that it has to clash with God giving meaning to the world around me or his mercy throughout history (Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Kenneth Miller have written a bit about this).

I have several friends in the atheist camp and in the creationist camp, and I think we can all learn from each other and gain a more complete picture of reality by doing such. For me, nothing is more beautiful than learning about M-Theory and marveling at the interconnectedness of different branches of science and mathematics forming a foundation that allows us to exist

 

[StephenMaturin]

92% of americans believe in God according to a recent poll. Surprised its so low in this poll.

Funny, I was kind of shocked so many have said they believe in God here. I thought by this point almost no one would actually believe believe in gods, though I could understand taking comfort in the cultural and ceremonial aspects of religion.

 

[hawkeye pierce]

stephen where do you live that you would think no one believes in god. I mean the head of the human genome project was a believer.

 

[StephenMaturin]

stephen where do you live that you would think no one believes in god. I mean the head of the human genome project was a believer.

Bay Area. Of course I don't think that no one believes in gods. I do know some people IRL that are staunchly in that camp. I have some friends that I think have a sort of fuzzy religiosity that is tied up in their culture, but I'm not sure if pressed they would say, "yes, I believe there is a god, and that he 'occasionally violates the laws of nature to assist in surgeries or cure medical conditions'", as tehdude put it. I don't really, know, though, because I'm not a dick and wouldn't pry about something like that. And then I know a **** ton of people, probably the majority, that are not religious at all. I was just surprised that out of a med-student population this many people were in the "i'm sure there is a God" camp, that is all.

 

[heroes31]

For those interested, this is an article from Time magazine about Einstein and his faith. It's not medical related but interesting to see how he viewed science and God.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

 

[hawkeye pierce]

I think the bay area (i assume san francisco area) would have a higher rate of athiesm due to the specific population. You should visit the midwest sometime.

 

[Slack3r]

I think the bay area (i assume san francisco area) would have a higher rate of athiesm due to the specific population. You should visit the midwest sometime.

 

[hawkeye pierce]

I am 3 of those (well technically socialist not communist).

 

[Monocles]

Ha, scientists.

 

[Nickelpennykid]

How is it so frightening to believe that there is a creator out there who directed a creation. If what we feel about evolution is correct (I feel much of it probably is), why is it so frightening to think that there could be a "god" who is making it work?

If that is the case and there is a God who defines the laws of nature, why is it impossible to think that he could abide within set laws to help heal those in need. Do we feel that we have a perfect understanding of nature or of the human body? If so then why do we continue to do scientific research?

We continue to do research because any educated person knows that we still don't know much of anything.

If there is an all knowing creator, why couldn't he try something that we didn't know how to do? Completely within the laws of nature... Just something that we haven't figured out yet.

Not trying to argue... Just trying to share another point of view.

The language behind this point of view is interesting.
Evolution and other scientific theory really isn't a "feeling." It is something you can demonstrate, observe, re-create etc.

A creator is a feeling or a belief, but that language really shouldn't be applied to hard science. It is perfectly acceptable to believe, feel or speculate about the possibility of a god but it is a slippery slope to try to integrate a belief that has so scientific backing into a scientific framework with well defined and reproducible laws.

While not everything in science, and especially medicine, is understood there is at least a framework of working to try to understand it. The same cannot be said about religion or god and until people apply the same standards and scrutiny to religion it is difficult to mix the two.

However, I am not implying that religion/god has no role in science (medicine). Pts have beliefs that have to be respected and often play a role in their care or the care of a loved one.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Not trying to burst any bubbles, but this type of "it's so complex it must have been designed" argument simply doesn't hold water, it just reflects a current lack of understanding and knowledge. Show a man in the middle ages a modern jet engine, and he would have felt that only god could design such a thing, which is now simple for engineers. The human body is far more complex then any mechanical object, but the idea remains the same. "God(s)/spirits did it" is a response to the unknown that has persisted as long as human society has been around.

The "life hangs on such a slender balance" argument is also a self-referential one, namely that only those organisms that survive are capable of making that argument. For every mutation that is beneficial, there are many more that are harmful. For every genetic rearrangement that produces some important new enzyme, there are many more that are fatal. However, we only see the successes, not the failures, and are thus predisposed to view the string of evolutionary successes that lead to our existence as being impossibly unlikely.

God and science can certainly co-exist, and religiosity definitely plays a role in real-world medicine, but I am wary of a medical student that equates anything unknown or seemingly complex with god.

Well said.

 

[AbbyNormal]

For those interested, this is an article from Time magazine about Einstein and his faith. It's not medical related but interesting to see how he viewed science and God.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

That was a good read, not just about religion. I had no idea he was a rebel at such a young age. Thanks for posting.

 

[Dxr123]

No. Very strong atheist. And lol@complexity argument being trotted out after studying only the end result of 3 billion years of evolution.

Man created God in His image. But I don't really care what people believe as long as it doesn't affect my life (eg they start legislating their morality in terms of schools or abortion or gay rights).

 

[Kuba]

For those interested, this is an article from Time magazine about Einstein and his faith. It's not medical related but interesting to see how he viewed science and God.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

Thank you for this wonderful read.

 

[ozzi22]

i believe. very strong catholic here

 

[1Life]

Religion is too broad to discuss. It has millions of variations with often contradictory messages and philosophies. It is easy to pick something out and try to build a case against or for God. There is no lack of evidence for both.

I believe in God. In its truest sense, a belief in God is not something that's concerned with external and temporal things but strengthening the inner life. A person is greatly hindered in so far as he/she is entangled in external cares. Once this internal peace is taken care of, the external life will naturally mirror it without apprehension or inner conflict.

If a person's belief in God becomes centered on any external benefit (monetary gains, social approval etc), it seizes to become a 'belief in God'. In this case, the word 'God' will be thrown around while the meaning has long been lost.

So, it is good to explore meanings and representations before coming to an understanding.

I've seen life where people lacked almost all the comforts of a 'civilized' life yet kept that inner spark alive within them and maintained their happiness. I've also seen life where people had whatever they 'wanted' but were ridden with depression and anxiety and have let go of their happiness.

 

[duswdav]

i believe. very strong catholic here

oh yah? whats your bench?
lulzzz

 

[flatearth22]

Probably more atheists at allopathic schools since religiosity is negatively correlated with intelligence.






















































I keed I keed

 

[tehdude]

There is no lack of evidence for both.

Actually, there's a complete lack of evidence for a god. That's the very definition of faith. It's an illogical belief in improbable, unsubstantial occurrences.

I've always found it odd that Christians consider faith to be a virtue. What's noble about blind belief?

 

[tehdude]

Probably more atheists at allopathic schools since religiosity is negatively correlated with intelligence.

Many a truth is told in jest.

 

[2000 Man]

Actually, there's a complete lack of evidence for a god. That's the very definition of faith. It's an illogical belief in improbable, unsubstantial occurrences.

I've always found it odd that Christians consider faith to be a virtue. What's noble about blind belief?

Ah but the realm of science is a religion/faith unto itself. It is a belief in mankind. His mind and knowledge, which has been shown many times to be flawed and faulty and tinged with more than a little bit of self promotion/pride.

It takes faith to surrender yourself to concepts such as evolution because there is no real evidence for interspecies evolution. But the church of the enlightened has declared that this is what is required of its disciples. So the followers embrace the doctrine by faith. It's the same thing you are saying about Christians.

But why is it so hard to beleive in God? Can you look out into this universe and be content that we are just a cosmic accident? Why is that so appealing? Can you look at the millions of biochemical pathways in a human body and write it off to a series of fortunate combinations over billions of years? To me, that takes some real strong faith to believe.

 

[OMG Lizards]

It takes faith to surrender yourself to concepts such as evolution because there is no real evidence for interspecies evolution.

Umm...fossils?

 

[SFO-IST]

Umm...fossils?

...and mitochondrial DNA of existing species, and the evolution of dogs within the past few hundred years.... you know what? Why bother.

I'm surprised the poll is about 50/50.

 

[2000 Man]

Umm...fossils?

When the fossil record is examined you find life forms as complex at the bottom of the strata as that in later strata. You see fossils appearing in the record without less evolved transitional ancestors prior to them. In the Cambrian layer (the oldest) virtually all phylums of life seem to have abruptly appeared on the scene without any preceding ancestors.

"The fact that bones similar to human or ape bones exist does not prove that they belonged to humans or apes. Such bones may be the remains of creatures outside the ancestral line of either. They could point to extinct species of apelike or humanlike creatures with no kinship to humans at all. To claim that the bones of such creatures are stages in the process of evolution is an unwarranted jump to a biased conclusion.

Scientists who are firmly entrenched in the evolutionary theory should be embarrassed by the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species that would demonstrate evolution conclusively. Charles Darwin himself was troubled by the absence of fossil evidence for evolution. He said, “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of transitional species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”

Despite claims to the contrary, evolution is not a fact; it is a theory. Data is often interpreted to support the theory by using the assumptions of the theory as the starting point. The result is a tautology—a closed circle of logic without a solid premise: We know that evolution must be true because we have found the bones of evolving humans. We are convinced that these are the bones of evolving humans, because we know that evolution must be true. It just doesn’t work that way.

Unfortunately, the bones paleontologists dig up do not come with identifying labels already attached. As it is, the discoverers name them and give them histories that fit their theories. Dogmatic evolutionists insist that these bones show us stages in the evolution of humans. Dogmatic creationists might as easily insist that they point to some form of human or ape or the remains of an independent, extinct species. The truth is, no one knows what these bones are. All claims are guesses."

Josh Mcdowell 2008

 

[Slack3r]

Ah but the realm of science is a religion/faith unto itself. It is a belief in mankind. His mind and knowledge, which has been shown many times to be flawed and faulty and tinged with more than a little bit of self promotion/pride.

It takes faith to surrender yourself to concepts such as evolution because there is no real evidence for interspecies evolution. But the church of the enlightened has declared that this is what is required of its disciples. So the followers embrace the doctrine by faith. It's the same thing you are saying about Christians.

But why is it so hard to beleive in God? Can you look out into this universe and be content that we are just a cosmic accident? Why is that so appealing? Can you look at the millions of biochemical pathways in a human body and write it off to a series of fortunate combinations over billions of years? To me, that takes some real strong faith to believe.

xkcd says it better than I ever could. (second to last panel)

 

[EmmaNemma]

When the fossil record is examined you find life forms as complex at the bottom of the strata as that in later strata. You see fossils appearing in the record without less evolved transitional ancestors prior to them. In the Cambrian layer (the oldest) virtually all phylums of life seem to have abruptly appeared on the scene without any preceding ancestors.

"The fact that bones similar to human or ape bones exist does not prove that they belonged to humans or apes. Such bones may be the remains of creatures outside the ancestral line of either. They could point to extinct species of apelike or humanlike creatures with no kinship to humans at all. To claim that the bones of such creatures are stages in the process of evolution is an unwarranted jump to a biased conclusion.

Scientists who are firmly entrenched in the evolutionary theory should be embarrassed by the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species that would demonstrate evolution conclusively. Charles Darwin himself was troubled by the absence of fossil evidence for evolution. He said, “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of transitional species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”

Despite claims to the contrary, evolution is not a fact; it is a theory. Data is often interpreted to support the theory by using the assumptions of the theory as the starting point. The result is a tautology—a closed circle of logic without a solid premise: We know that evolution must be true because we have found the bones of evolving humans. We are convinced that these are the bones of evolving humans, because we know that evolution must be true. It just doesn’t work that way.

Unfortunately, the bones paleontologists dig up do not come with identifying labels already attached. As it is, the discoverers name them and give them histories that fit their theories. Dogmatic evolutionists insist that these bones show us stages in the evolution of humans. Dogmatic creationists might as easily insist that they point to some form of human or ape or the remains of an independent, extinct species. The truth is, no one knows what these bones are. All claims are guesses."

Josh Mcdowell 2008

I really like it when intelligent people make cases for God's existence thru knowledge and critical thinking. However, let's just say that you are correct, the gaps in the fossil record were caused by the devine influence of God. Then, where did God come from? This brings us right back to evolution.

 

[Doc2015]

Actually, there's a complete lack of evidence for a god. That's the very definition of faith. It's an illogical belief in improbable, unsubstantial occurrences.

I've always found it odd that Christians consider faith to be a virtue. What's noble about blind belief?

Well along with there being no evidence for a god, I also feel there is a complete lack of evidence that there is no god. I find it hard to to believe one way or another with no evidence for either side.

 

[engineeredout]

As previously mentioned, religion is a comfort system. Comfort centuries ago involved the need to believe in a heaven because you were a peasant with a crappy life and the noble class didn't want you to revolt. Today, people fear death, so medicine gives them something to look forward to (hint: notice how the average age of people in church is 60+)

Belief in God just doesn't make a damn bit of senseto me. There is no logic justifying any of it, which is what makes it confusing in my opinion that scientists and those with scientific minds (physicians) could believe in it. Why are people proud of blind faith? Its a placebo effect, and God is never at fault. Something goes right, oh thank god. Something goes wrong, oh its God's plan.

And then Religion: I can't see how any physician could be proud of being catholic when you have the pope telling Africa not to use condoms, you have bishops excommunicating the family of a girl in south america who got her an abortion because she was 9, pregnant with twins thanks to her rapist uncle, whose pregnancies would have killed her.

Now don't get me wrong, I realize that many future patients are going to be spiritual and especially in desperate health crises will be clinging to their faith. I have no problem praying with a patient or their families because its not about me, its about the patient and what makes them comfortable. And contrary to the lunatic atheists who start massive protests because somebody put up a christmas tree decoration in the office, I'm not looking to convert anybody to my beliefs. You're free to believe what you believe, as long as you're not stuffing it in my face.

Someone once said to me "What kind of doctor could you possibly be without your faith?" The way I see it, I can be the kind of doctor that doesn't require the validation of an invisible entity and the threat of hell-fire and torture for eternity in order to act like a decent human being

 

[hawkeye pierce]

The abortion topic will lead no where good very fast. Emma, for me at least I don't see a contradiction between faith and evolution.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Well along with there being no evidence for a god, I also feel there is a complete lack of evidence that there is no god. I find it hard to to believe one way or another with no evidence for either side.

I don't see any evidence disproving the existence of pink unicorns on Alpha Centauri either. Doesn't mean I'm going to hedge my bets on that front.

 

[muhali3]

Well along with there being no evidence for a god, I also feel there is a complete lack of evidence that there is no god. I find it hard to to believe one way or another with no evidence for either side.

Agnosticism.

I kind of feel the same way. My rational mind tells me "There's no reason for a God, everything can be explained by science." But there's always a thought in the back of my mind that tells me: "Maybe God does exist..." And there's no existing evidence that I can use to completely quell that curiosity. All I can say is that it's very likely that God doesn't exist, but there's still a chance that he does.

But if God does exist, I wouldn't expect him to be anything like that in the various Abrahamic religions, or in any religion for that matter.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

When the fossil record is examined you find life forms as complex at the bottom of the strata as that in later strata. You see fossils appearing in the record without less evolved transitional ancestors prior to them. In the Cambrian layer (the oldest) virtually all phylums of life seem to have abruptly appeared on the scene without any preceding ancestors.

It's pretty hilarious to believe in the Cambrian explosion without evolution because then the only other possible explanation is that God has been spontaneously winking species in and out of existence for the past three billion years for ****s and giggles. I'm waiting for the next species to spontaneously arise. And no, it wasn't 'abrupt' but it was a time of great diversity and there are plenty of reasons why that might have been the case.

And when you say life as 'complex' at the bottom of the strata as the top, what do you mean? Examples?

"The fact that bones similar to human or ape bones exist does not prove that they belonged to humans or apes. Such bones may be the remains of creatures outside the ancestral line of either. They could point to extinct species of apelike or humanlike creatures with no kinship to humans at all. To claim that the bones of such creatures are stages in the process of evolution is an unwarranted jump to a biased conclusion.

Really, it is? That doesn't make any sense? What about other evidence, such as genetic evidence that shows similarities?

Scientists who are firmly entrenched in the evolutionary theory should be embarrassed by the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species that would demonstrate evolution conclusively. Charles Darwin himself was troubled by the absence of fossil evidence for evolution. He said, “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of transitional species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”

Err, we do. A google search will give you thousands.

Despite claims to the contrary, evolution is not a fact; it is a theory. Data is often interpreted to support the theory by using the assumptions of the theory as the starting point. The result is a tautology—a closed circle of logic without a solid premise: We know that evolution must be true because we have found the bones of evolving humans. We are convinced that these are the bones of evolving humans, because we know that evolution must be true. It just doesn’t work that way.

You don't understand the scientific meaning of theory. And the bolded statement is false. Again, a google search showing the overwhelming and multidisciplinary evidence for evolution, all gathered from independent sources will fix this illusion for you.

Unfortunately, the bones paleontologists dig up do not come with identifying labels already attached. As it is, the discoverers name them and give them histories that fit their theories. Dogmatic evolutionists insist that these bones show us stages in the evolution of humans. Dogmatic creationists might as easily insist that they point to some form of human or ape or the remains of an independent, extinct species. The truth is, no one knows what these bones are. All claims are guesses."

Josh Mcdowell 2008

Clearly, you've never actually spoken to a paleontologist.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Let's get specific:

 

[D elegans]

I think the two choices in the poll that highly doubt God's existence are difficult to separate. Even a staunch "atheist" would still say there's no way to prove God doesn't exist, much like you can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, making him/her agnostic in the strictist sense.

That being said, God is clearly fictitious.

 

[muhali3]

I think the two choices in the poll that highly doubt God's existence are difficult to separate. Even a staunch "atheist" would still say there's no way to prove God doesn't exist, much like you can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, making him/her agnostic in the strictest sense.

That being said, God is clearly fictitious.

Yeah, the gods portrayed in existing and extinct religions are clearly apocryphal. Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, The Trinity, etc.