Do Med Students Believe In God

[judasreznor]

Oh, pray tell, what are these arguments? They don't exist because you can't prove something like God using logic or science or any other methods.

I don't understand your question, really. My point was that religious (or any other kind of) philosophers, like Craig, can pick apart arguments against the existence of God by some non-philosophers with a bone to pick with the institution of religion, like Hitchens and Dawkins. The whole concept of faith insists that we cannot "know" or "prove" that God exists in an empirical way. There are, however, many defensible philosophical and logical stances that one can take in support of believing in God's existence and divine influence on all of us.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[shaggy alfresco]

I don't understand your question, really. My point was that religious (or any other kind of) philosophers, like Craig, can pick apart arguments against the existence of God by some non-philosophers with a bone to pick with the institution of religion, like Hitchens and Dawkins. The whole concept of faith insists that we cannot "know" or "prove" that God exists in an empirical way. There are, however, many defensible philosophical and logical stances that one can take in support of believing in God's existence and divine influence on all of us.

And I'm asking what would those be?

 

[judasreznor]

And I'm asking what would those be?

Read some articles and listen to debates with Atheists from academic Christian theologians and Apologists (I would offer William Lane Craig and N.T. Wright as examples) on natural theology, teleological, and axiological arguments. While you may not be inclined to believe in God or be a religious person, those arguments are sound and defensible for those that believe when faced with criticism. I don't really want to devote any more time to this debate, but I did want to at least attempt to illustrate that Christianity isn't some willy-nilly fairy tale by which simpletons go around perpetrating violence and suppression of science. There are serious scholars that spend their entire careers researching the minutiae of theology and philosophy (which is incredibly complex). It's interesting to me that people are willing to paint with such a broad brush.

It's been an interesting discussion. Thanks for it.

 

[shaggy alfresco]

Read some articles and listen to debates with Atheists from academic Christian theologians and Apologists (I would offer William Lane Craig and N.T. Wright as examples) on natural theology, teleological, and axiological arguments. While you may not be inclined to believe in God or be a religious person, those arguments are sound and defensible for those that believe when faced with criticism. I don't really want to devote any more time to this debate, but I did want to at least attempt to illustrate that Christianity isn't some willy-nilly fairy tale by which simpletons go around perpetrating violence and suppression of science. There are serious scholars that spend their entire careers researching the minutiae of theology and philosophy (which is incredibly complex). It's interesting to me that people are willing to paint with such a broad brush.

It's been an interesting discussion. Thanks for it.

So you presented your side by presenting no arguments.

Natural Theology (what people like Lane Craig advocate) is not a valid logical position. That's been debunked by people like Hume since the 18th century. Need to come up with a better argument. That belief is indeed unsound and unreasonable regardless of what people spend their entire careers doing.

 

[judasreznor]

So you presented your side by presenting no arguments.

Natural Theology (what people like Lane Craig advocate) is not a valid logical position. (<-- in your opinion) That's been debunked by people like Hume since the 18th century. Need to come up with a better argument. (<-- what I have is just fine, thank you. I provided others upon which you didn't comment.) That belief is indeed unsound and unreasonable regardless of what people spend their entire careers doing.

I presented three different arguments that are valid philosophical stances in support of religious belief. You've been pretty scant on your critique of positions that are quite complex. As with the other poster, I doubt very seriously that the "debunking" of natural theology is as settled as you seem to think. Yes, Hume did pen a work about it, but there has been refinement and continued debate of the subject beyond what was done in the 18th century.

Debate of these positions continue. I will also provide the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a further argument in defense of belief in a higher power. Finally, I hope you are not expecting an all-out, point-by-point defense of these arguments. I'm merely providing arguments by which people who are interested in defending their faith in a deity can debate with confidence those that would posit that believing in a higher power is settled as absurd. It goes far beyond the scope of this forum and thread to engage in an all-encompassing debate on the issue. If you're interested in reading about those arguments (they absolutely are not settled positions), you can do so.

 

[Luelinks]

So you presented your side by presenting no arguments.

Natural Theology (what people like Lane Craig advocate) is not a valid logical position. That's been debunked by people like Hume since the 18th century. Need to come up with a better argument. That belief is indeed unsound and unreasonable regardless of what people spend their entire careers doing.

A better argument? On being reasonable: People believing in a___pick one of the 1000+ super natural existing beings concocted since prehistoric times___ without any concrete irrefutable evidence.

'Nuff said.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

I will also provide the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a further argument in defense of belief in a higher power.

FYI physics does allow something to come from nothing. And even if it didn't first cause would then still need a cause. Claiming that everything needs a cause and then positing the existence of something that doesn't makes no sense and is not a logical solution. Eg, it is as stupid as pascal's wager.

 

[judasreznor]

FYI physics does allow something to come from nothing. And even if it didn't first cause would then still need a cause. Claiming that everything needs a cause and then positing the existence of something that doesn't makes no sense and is not a logical solution. Eg, it is as stupid as pascal's wager.

Alrighty. I'm sure scholars (theist and atheist) go back and forth on this argument in academic journals because they're stupid and want to waste time. I'll write them all letters and tell them it's already been figured out, and that they should devote their time elsewhere.

 

[judasreznor]

A better argument? On being reasonable: People believing in a___pick one of the 1000+ super natural existing beings concocted since prehistoric times___ without any concrete irrefutable evidence.

'Nuff said.

We've covered this about empiricism already. "'Nuff" really hasn't been said with regard to this issue at all. I wish there was a way to have this discussion without words like "stupid" and "illogical" being used to describe either side.

 

[coreytayloris]

Dawkins is a f*ckin jerk if ever i've come across one.
Not because of his beliefs, but because he comes across as so arrogant and acts so superior to anybody who doesn't agree with him; he's a very spiteful man.

 

[Danlee07]

Too much to say, but some points:

If there is a case for evolution, then I think it would be Gould's view. Evolution occurs to diversity not for long-term progress. Natural selection just eliminates those that diversified in not-such-a-great-result. But I don't see why evolution went past bacteria. Super reproduction and super adaptation. God?

God exists, and is a vengeful but caring God. However, the many so-called Christians, the very literal Bible reading Christians, the very lax, and so many more...all lead to the general public's wrongly understood view of what is really means to be a Christian or not. So many examples can be said on the wrong view.

Just to be brief, these are two examples. God made a covenant, and one part of that covenant not to destroy everyone. The wrong view: these earthquakes and tornadoes and peopletrafficking occurs, where's God? The better view: God's to test the people that are so called "Christians" for an eventual reward if successfully completed...in this life or the next. The wrong view: God was made up to rely during hard times. The better view: God's also there for the good times, and should be justly thanked.

A being made up just for fun is no good.... but the amazement factor is not just what leads me to believe. It's knowing that someone to guide you when no one's there will lead you to the right path that's best for you.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Well there's a shark, and here we go jumping over it.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Alrighty. I'm sure scholars (theist and atheist) go back and forth on this argument in academic journals because they're stupid and want to waste time. I'll write them all letters and tell them it's already been figured out, and that they should devote their time elsewhere.

I am just pointing out that if they are still trotting out the first cause nonsense, they simply need to get caught up on the latest science.

 

[hfdoc]

Imagination veiled as superior science is something we should be mindful of. 'Are not quantum fluctuations themselves a manifestation of natural law (e.g. the laws of quantum mechanics)? How then could quantum fluctuations be the ultimate cause of natural law as you claim? Did the laws governing quantum fluctuation invent themselves? Not even Stephen Hawking believes that. ' Random quantum fluctuations may not be so random. Just because we can prove an instancethat is very unlikely with an equation doesn't negate that a higher complex being might have put it into motion. There is a vast amount of research done for both arguments. Listening to people Dawkins can have arrogant effects on people IMO, regardless of whether hes right or wrong.
I think many of the athiest side have this fear of being deluded and taken for a ride into 'believing' and having 'faith' as these terms have a negative association nowadays, and rightfully so after how in the name of God many evil things have taken place. But this baggage needs to be dropped and looked at with clear eyes.

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's...."If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset." -C.S. Lewis

This isn't a proof, but I think it brings up one point. It takes someone humble to accept that there might be things we can't explain and to submit to unlikely assumptions rather than submitting to a higher Being might be the true test as to why we are here. Are we submitting to our desires of no divine means freedom to do what I think is in my best interest or submit to a creator because his knowledge is far greater than mine. Some say why doesnt he just reveal Himself in his true form? He does through signs and logic. But it would defeat the purpose of life, as to see who is rational and humble enough to submit and lower himself out of love for the one that gave him life. AlsoHe is not governed by our laws of physics.

I know people are thinking, thats ignorant,why would I stop at being humble? I dont say stop, but research deeply. It can only further your mind into thinking how little we know.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

He is not governed by our laws of physics? Of course he isn't, positing anything that might be remotely refutable would cause the argument to fall apart. I like how you'd accept that answer but get in a tizzy about quantum fluctuations. Saying 'I don't know' is the most important answer in science. Saying 'I don't understand so God did it you heretic' is the opposite and is the important answer if you want the dark ages.

Also, CS Lewis needs to look up the meaning of an accident. The whole world is an illusion and nothing can be known cause we're in the matrix is also another one of those irrefutable irrelevancies.

 

[hfdoc]

My point in saying he is beyond our laws of physics was to say we will never be able to 'scientifically' prove the Divine because its beyond our realm. So its not a proof He doesnt exist.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

My point in saying he is beyond our laws of physics was to say we will never be able to 'scientifically' prove the Divine because its beyond our realm. So its not a proof He doesnt exist.

I realize that and by positing such an entity, you have shown that there is no way that such an entity can ever be disproven. You can make up any phenomena or entity (flying spaghetii monster, invisible pink unicorns, Shiva, Zeus etc) and simply make him, her or it irrefutable by claiming that it does not exist within the laws of physics and thus voila, you now have a logical reason to believe in such a phenomena. It's an irrelevant claim without proof.

 

[hfdoc]

this is an example of that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

 

[IvyHopeful20]

An example of what? None of what he says points to a necessary presupposition of an entity that by definition makes the problem of origin twice as complex.

 

[hfdoc]

Your right, I'm just pointing to the side that it isnt as clear cut as science vs. religion because even science pre supposes logic.

With regards to pascals wager, I think what I am saying is that its not as easy as ok I believe in a creator, so ill choose whatever is popular to my culture or where I live, i.e. Zues, etc. But you can certainly narrow it down. Has to be One single creator, not greek mythology or anything else that was made by man that is incoherent with reality. Really only leaves monotheistic faiths. But what messages do they have? Which one believes in a sole creator and has a book unchanged with a message no more than believe in One God, nothing in return for the human(prophet/ messenger) that facilitated it to be brought to people? That was my method of thinking, just wanted to put it there to refute pascals wager to say its not as simple as just choosing anything.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

But you can certainly narrow it down. Has to be One single creator, not greek mythology or anything else that was made by man that is incoherent with reality. Really only leaves monotheistic faiths. But what messages do they have? Which one believes in a sole creator and has a book unchanged with a message no more than believe in One God, nothing in return for the human(prophet/ messenger) that facilitated it to be brought to people? That was my method of thinking, just wanted to put it there to refute pascals wager to say its not as simple as just choosing anything.

Wait, why does it only leave monotheistic faiths? If one creator can be true, why can't multiple Gods? I have a bunch of Hindu friends. I don't have any friends who believe in Zeus, granted, but there are plenty of smart Greek philosophers who I look up to, who did.

 

[hfdoc]

Well this pre-supposes a belief in a supernatural creator first, so everything we see is created. Everything created is not eternal. So to not be created means one is eternal. otherwise it was creation as well. Multiple gods indicates that one ‘God’ is incompetent of certain acts or moreover he is also ignorant or not capable of the other Gods’ powers, duties, functions and responsibilities. So logically, there cannot be an ignorant and incapable God.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Well this pre-supposes a belief in a supernatural creator first, so everything we see is created. Everything created is not eternal. So to not be created means one is eternal. otherwise it was creation as well. Multiple gods indicates that one &#8216;God' is incompetent of certain acts or moreover he is also ignorant or not capable of the other Gods' powers, duties, functions and responsibilities. So logically, there cannot be an ignorant and incapable God.

Why does it indicate that? Why can't there be multiple Gods who are capable of creating?

 

[judasreznor]

I am just pointing out that if they are still trotting out the first cause nonsense, they simply need to get caught up on the latest science.

From what I've read, serious theist academics are very well aware of quantum fluctuations and how they factor into cosmological arguments, as well as other theories regarding time. These are not slouches. The debate about the existence of God(s) rages on as it has forever.

Also, I would like to point out that the argument of infinite regress is at least debatable. An application of the paradox of Hilbert's Hotel proves arguments against the existence of God on the grounds of infinite regress when applied to cosmological arguments to be logically shaky. As I've said, these things aren't as "settled" or certain as they appear. I am under no delusion that I'm changing anyone's mind about this issue. It's fun to debate, though.

 

[hfdoc]

2 or more makes less sense than 1. If you trace your existence and everything that wasn't eternal, your back to one sole creator. He possesses the quality of All powerful because He originated everything. There is only indication of One creator for our existence, and another would remove Him from being All-powerful, a logical fallacy. Hinduism I would say is the other polytheistic faith you brought up, but I don't want to bash any other religions, to each his own as long as were all truth seekers.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

2 or more makes less sense than 1. If you trace your existence and everything that wasn't eternal, your back to one sole creator. He possesses the quality of All powerful because He originated everything. There is only indication of One creator for our existence, and another would remove Him from being All-powerful, a logical fallacy. Hinduism I would say is the other polytheistic faith you brought up, but I don't want to bash any other religions, to each his own as long as were all truth seekers.

I'm asking why there can't be multiple creators, or why a being must be "all powerful" to create the universe and not merely "very powerful". And whether he is all powerful or not, that there can't be more than one being with such a power. If being all powerful is not in itself a logical fallacy (can he create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?) then having two beings that are that powerful is also not a logical fallacy.

 

[hfdoc]

if you believe there is a God, the only logical thing is to believe in One
had there been multiple, the interests of each would conflict. For there to be harmony in creation, points to One. one would say, it will be sunny, the other would say, no, cloudy. one would say, this person shall be punished, the other would say no, he is one of my worshipers, he is to be forgiven. one would say it is time for him to die, the other would say no, he deserves a longer life; causing much chaos. So having One would be logical.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

if you believe there is a God, the only logical thing is to believe in One
had there been multiple, the interests of each would conflict.

If they were all perfect, then by definition they wouldn't conflict. If they were imperfect, then it doesn't matter if they did conflict. Again, if you ignore the logical paradox that comes with having one all powerful creator, then there is no logical reason for there not to be two, or four, or five hundred.

For there to be harmony in creation, points to One. one would say, it will be sunny, the other would say, no, cloudy. one would say, this person shall be punished, the other would say no, he is one of my worshipers, he is to be forgiven. one would say it is time for him to die, the other would say no, he deserves a longer life; causing much chaos. So having One would be logical.

So what you're saying is having more than one creator makes more logical sense considering the world we live in.....cause what you described regarding who gets punished and who dies and chaos is pretty much a description of life.

As Epicurus said: if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent. If God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good. If God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

 

[Daedra22]

if you believe there is a God, the only logical thing is to believe in One
had there been multiple, the interests of each would conflict. For there to be harmony in creation, points to One. one would say, it will be sunny, the other would say, no, cloudy. one would say, this person shall be punished, the other would say no, he is one of my worshipers, he is to be forgiven. one would say it is time for him to die, the other would say no, he deserves a longer life; causing much chaos. So having One would be logical.

If gods are perfect and whole and infallible, why do they need trillions of souls throughout the millenia to bow down and worship them? Why does a god need me to act a certain way or perform certain actions, if in reality it doesn't effect this perfect being at all? It seems to me that a perfect being who likes to create things would not need anything else to keep it satisfied. In fact, such an incomprehensible thing as a god probably wouldn't have anything we could identify as emotions or wishes (especially if it is "perfect," implying that it would not have needs/wants/wishes at all). There is no way for us to have knowledge of something that is completely beyond the human experience.

Just a thought.

 

[SFO-IST]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-63cTYJDCA[/YOUTUBE]

I found this video to highlight some of the problems with the ten commandments.

 

[A is A]

 

[drctother]

I definitely do not believe in god, I am more of a science based fact person. However that doesn't mean Im going to tell someone they are wrong for believing something. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as some religious person isnt throwing their religion in my face and trying to convert me etc

 

[Minaman]

Very interesting thread...an argument I've had over and over again with many people. A couple of things that I think are poorly thought through though.

1. If there is a God, then that God MUST exist within physical laws of science. Though those laws would be millions of times better understood than the human race does currently. If he were not bound by those laws, then in fact, they would not be laws, natural laws would not exist and the universe would only be bound by chaos (both a philosophical and scientific definition of chaos), and if this were the case, we would likely not exists and we certainly, in what little we know of these natural laws, would have consistent contradictions, which they seem to not have. Therefore, it is extremely likely that if God exists he exists bound to some sort of law.

2. Christians really need to get a better understanding of faith. Cause it is really quite embarrassing to see people thing that faith is blind belief...IT IS NOT. Hebrews 11:1 - "EVIDENCE of things not seen." In other words, faith can be compared to talking to you mom on the phone and knowing it is her by the evidence that it sounds like her, the conversation is like one you would have with your mom, and she knows things about you that others would not know. But you don't see her, and therefore it is faith. Or, another example, when you leave in the morning to go to school you believe your school will be there...why? cause you have been there every day for the last 6 months or 6 days or w/e and it's been there every time. That is evidence.

3. This one is for both those who believe and those who don't. Why are you so worried about being right? The fact is, you have evidence that makes your belief one way or the other...but that evidence may be wrong. You may be wrong. No matter how powerful the evidence is...it may be wrong. So why do you spend so much time defending your own point of view instead of understanding others'? If you open your mind to the possibility of the opposite being true, you open your mind to possibilities you have never before thought of and likely will come to better conclusions. I recommend stopping your comments that dig yourself further into your position and instead start asking each other questions...you will be enlightened instead of arguing.

4. Lastly, the scientific method is a powerful tool. But it has severe limitations. The evidence that those of you on this forum seek is evidence that is bound by the scientific method. But out of necessity the scientific method ignores the individual and only studies the population. Therefore, even if one person has enough evidence to substantiate a belief in God, unless he is able to show others that same evidence, he will be ignored by the scientific method. We see this in a real world example with eastern medicine, let's look specifically at acupuncture. As a population, acupuncture demolishes western medicine in the controlling of pain. But the scientific method cannot explain why. It can't get any more precise then just the fact that it is helpful because the treatment differs so much for the individual. Those who receive treatment know it works, those who are married to the scientific method as the only source of truth say it is placebo (even though the statistical significance of the difference is astronomical).

God seems to behave in just this way. That is to say, on the basis of the individual. If God exists, he either wants us to know him or he doesn't. If he wants us to know him, he must give us a way to know him. Every major religion and every set of scriptures in the world portray of God that manifests himself/itself (I don't know of any major religions that believe in a female god) to the individual. Prayer, meditation, divine experiences. These are all in the norm. They are similar to the the experience that the person with chronic back pain has. "I can't really describe why or how...but it really works" likewise "I can't explain how I know beyond these experiences, I only know that he exists." Those experiences act as evidence, that evidence is a basis for faith. It isn't about seeing, it isn't about knowing everything. It IS about having experiences that bring you to a belief that can eventually become as strong as knowing that your heart beats inside you.

I know God exists. I know it with the same power as I know I have a left hand. Could I be wrong? Yeah, I could also be nothing but a battery used by artificial intelligence used only as a bat of energy, and therefore not have a left hand. But all evidence of both points to the existence of both. When I die and I touch the marks on the hands and feet of Jesus Christ himself, I will know no better then as I know now that he is indeed the Savior of the world. Why? Because I have experienced that truth enough in my life, that the evidence for me personally backs it up. It is not blind belief nor is it provable through the scientific method...yet...but it is true. I'm sure I'll be flamed for this post, and that is ok. However, for me, I have all the evidence I could have ever wanted. As Christ said to Peter, "man has not revealed these things unto you (logic), but my father which is in heaven (personal contact with God to the INDIVIDUAL)." You don't have to believe in God, it doesn't take anything away from me one way or the other. But, IF you do want to know if God exists, start asking him. If you ask him every day for a year and still have no answer, all the while learning about God and trying to understand him. You'll get an answer too. But hey, the same goes for evolution and the scientific method too right? Investigate a problem until you get an answer.

Now I should apologize cause this is way too long of a post for a forum. But feel free to shoot some holes in the logic. I'm always open to learning more. I'll check back tomorrow though likely not much more after that due to school schedule. Thanks all of you for your posts, many of them have been very well thought out and presented.

 

[shaggy alfresco]

Lastly, the scientific method is a powerful tool. But it has severe limitations. The evidence that those of you on this forum seek is evidence that is bound by the scientific method. But out of necessity the scientific method ignores the individual and only studies the population. Therefore, even if one person has enough evidence to substantiate a belief in God, unless he is able to show others that same evidence, he will be ignored by the scientific method. We see this in a real world example with eastern medicine, let's look specifically at acupuncture. As a population, acupuncture demolishes western medicine in the controlling of pain. But the scientific method cannot explain why. It can't get any more precise then just the fact that it is helpful because the treatment differs so much for the individual. Those who receive treatment know it works, those who are married to the scientific method as the only source of truth say it is placebo (even though the statistical significance of the difference is astronomical).

True and false. Acupuncture has been shown to be better than a placebo but studies done where a group got actual acupuncture and another group got needled poked in random places...they both had equal effect. There are actually hypothesis on why poking needles in nerves can help ease pain.

Secondly, as has been mentioned multiple times, 'I don't know at this moment' is the most fundamental question in science - that's how you learn new things. That does not imply 'I don't know at this moment so it must be supernatural xyz'.

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

All that that video illustrates is that Richard Dawins is mean-spirited. His response pre-supposes that he is the final arbiter of the experiences of all individuals. How can he know what that man experienced? What does his opinion that the man is hallucinating matter? Notice that I did not necessarily establish what God one would experience, only that experience cannot be denied. Empirical evidence is a wonderful tool, but is not the de facto best tool for every subject. As stated earlier, if we keep science where it should be and religion where it should be, they are both useful and meaningful. One cannot, in a wholesale manner, completely disregard the existence of God because there is not necessarily empirical evidence for the existence of such a being. There are other systems of logic that support belief in a God. It is my understanding that those who state with assurance that there is absolutely no God (and, remember, empirical evidence is not the only defensible means of discussing the issue) are as misguided (and faith-based) as those that say without doubt that God does exist. One must have faith in either position.

That is not mean spirited at all that is just something people say to to rule out Dawkins and I'm not an atheist. There are tons of more ministers who are more arrogant and condescending than dawkins

 

[judasreznor]

That is not mean spirited at all that is just something people say to to rule out Dawkins and I'm not an atheist. There are tons of more ministers who are more arrogant and condescending than dawkins

I'm sure there are. However, that has nothing at all to do with my opinion that Dawkins is making a claim in a mean-spirited way that he has absolutely no way of verifying. I'm not ruling out Dawkins based upon what he said in that clip. I'm ruling out a lot of what Dawkins says because he often incorrectly uses empiricism to denigrate people who believe in a god.

 

[jmanpatsfan]

Not only am I an atheist but I am an anti-theist. I get much amusement out of hearing people try to say, "I don't believe in god, but hey whatever makes you happy." It never stops at one.
I grew up in an extremely oppressive religious atmosphere and after many years I am still feeling the effects of breaking free. And the consequences don't end there. I can't go back to my community, express my opinions and expect not be excommunicated.
If someone approaches me with religious sentiment, they will sure enough know they confronted the wrong person.

With that being said, I understand the the field I am in for which there is no place for this type of bitterness. People will need their faith to get through hard times and I have accepted that.

 

[kittywampus]

"This just in: People are afraid of death. They have created their own coping mechanisms," such as the study of medicine.....


To try and “prove” that “GOD” (whatever you believe him/her to be) exists is fundamentally flawed (but so is trying to "prove" that he doesn't exist). With that being said, just because you can’t prove something, doesn’t mean it isn’t so. And just because a good deal of information might suggest one conclusion to be correct, also doesn’t make it so. We are all science minded people who must understand that in science (and religion both) there are no absolutes. To suggest otherwise of either is a mute point.

 

[neuromaniac]

I think that part of being a physician is respecting people's beliefs even if they're not your own. I, personally, have been skeptical about God's existence for a long time now. With knowledge of genes, chromosomes, immunology, congenital anomalies, microbiology, and evolution it makes it difficult for me to believe in a caring God. Why these subjects? Well, they symbolize our existence and struggle within this world. Genes with accumulating knowledge of inheritance patterns, allelic variations, and mutation rates shows us that natural selection is a logical process. Immunology is a basic study of why we are able to defend ourselves against pathogens--animate or inanimate.

The power of faith has always kept me thinking about the possibility of God. Without getting too personal, I think faith has some merit within the medical community. It will be a continuing struggle with me for a long time. It's hard for me to believe it's all random--I need to look more into what experts believe when it comes to the cosmos and their existence. The study of the universe is the last frontier in our struggle

 

[muhali3]

The immune system is still being figured out. Intense research in that area. It is very difficult to grasp how such an intricate system developed.

 

[kittywampus]

The immune system is still being figured out. Intense research in that area. It is very difficult to grasp how such an intricate system developed.

I do believe in god, so take this with a grain of salt. But, above in this thread, this very issue is discussed quite well. Just because something is too complex for us to understand at this point, does not mean that it must be some supernatural entity that is responsible for it. I do believe that humans are sort of internally programmed to think like this. Consider the pyramids in Egypt for a minute. We build infinitely more complex buildings than this today, in a very complex manner. Yet, to people today, a lot want to look towards either alien or supernatural means for people in that day to have done something so complex. Complex problems can be solved; while they are difficult, just because something is complex does not mean that it shows proof of god. I'm a firm believer that god is not something we will EVER be able to prove or disprove; you just either believe or not, for whatever reason you choose.

On a side note, please, any and all pre-current-post medical students should read Atul Gawande's book "The Checklist," as well as any of his other works. Discusses the complexity of things quite well, as well as MANY medically related issues that should be interesting for any of us to read.

 

[muhali3]

I do believe in god, so take this with a grain of salt. But, above in this thread, this very issue is discussed quite well. Just because something is too complex for us to understand at this point, does not mean that it must be some supernatural entity that is responsible for it. I do believe that humans are sort of internally programmed to think like this. Consider the pyramids in Egypt for a minute. We build infinitely more complex buildings than this today, in a very complex manner. Yet, to people today, a lot want to look towards either alien or supernatural means for people in that day to have done something so complex. Complex problems can be solved; while they are difficult, just because something is complex does not mean that it shows proof of god. I'm a firm believer that god is not something we will EVER be able to prove or disprove; you just either believe or not, for whatever reason you choose.

On a side note, please, any and all pre-current-post medical students should read Atul Gawande's book "The Checklist," as well as any of his other works. Discusses the complexity of things quite well, as well as MANY medically related issues that should be interesting for any of us to read.

I agree with you. I do not believe nor intended to imply that complexity = necessity of a designer.

 

[kazuma]

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.

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

 

[Inkoate]

I am religious, but I don't think that evolution and God's plan have to be mutually exclusive. Also, I think the evolution versus creationist debate creates too much unneeded controversy between religious people and less religious people. Personally I do not think that the idea of creationism holds up to scrutiny. Even though evolution is based on random chance mutations, my belief is that what seems like lack of control is God's plan. Obviously, atheists and other may believe that evolution disproves religion. My answer is that the theory of evolution does not have to contradict religion because God's plan is beyond what we can understand. Who says that God needs to physically create everything? He can do things His way.

I wonder whether there are other folk who think this way too. Just curious...

 

[Kevin Baker]

I was very surprised to find how many students at my school not only believe in God but also want to use Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics to dictate medical protocol and restrict actions, such as medically assisted suicide.

I've come across people like this in high school and college but I'd say a good 5-10% of the students in my class are the above, whereas these students were much more in the minority during college and high school.

Personally, I flow between deism and agnosticism, but don't in any way, shape, or form believe private religious ideals should dictate public ethics.

 

[Rollo]

I was very surprised to find how many students at my school not only believe in God but also want to use Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics to dictate medical protocol and restrict actions, such as medically assisted suicide.

I've come across people like this in high school and college but I'd say a good 5-10% of the students in my class are the above, whereas these students were much more in the minority during college and high school.

Personally, I flow between deism and agnosticism, but don't in any way, shape, or form believe private religious ideals should dictate public ethics.

Then you should be pissed at our forefathers who used Judeo-Christian principles to enforce the expression of free speech and freedom of religion and liberty and all that religious nonsense that pretty much developed the Constitution.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Then you should be pissed at our forefathers who used Judeo-Christian principles to enforce the expression of free speech and freedom of religion and liberty and all that religious nonsense that pretty much developed the Constitution.

I didn't know the ancient Greeks & Romans were Jews. Regardless the Forefathers derived most of the laws from English common law and antiquated Greek and Roman beliefs, not to mention the more prominent ones were far from Christians.

 

[Rollo]

I didn't know the ancient Greeks & Romans were Jews. Regardless the Forefathers derived most of the laws from English common law and antiquated Greek and Roman beliefs, not to mention the more prominent ones were far from Christians.

Where do you think the English common laws were derived from? Look at the authors and the thinkers who were influential in forming these laws and then come back and try to retort...

 

[ICanDoAllThings]

Very interesting thread...an argument I've had over and over again with many people. A couple of things that I think are poorly thought through though.

1. If there is a God, then that God MUST exist within physical laws of science. Though those laws would be millions of times better understood than the human race does currently. If he were not bound by those laws, then in fact, they would not be laws, natural laws would not exist and the universe would only be bound by chaos (both a philosophical and scientific definition of chaos), and if this were the case, we would likely not exists and we certainly, in what little we know of these natural laws, would have consistent contradictions, which they seem to not have. Therefore, it is extremely likely that if God exists he exists bound to some sort of law.

2. Christians really need to get a better understanding of faith. Cause it is really quite embarrassing to see people thing that faith is blind belief...IT IS NOT. Hebrews 11:1 - "EVIDENCE of things not seen." In other words, faith can be compared to talking to you mom on the phone and knowing it is her by the evidence that it sounds like her, the conversation is like one you would have with your mom, and she knows things about you that others would not know. But you don't see her, and therefore it is faith. Or, another example, when you leave in the morning to go to school you believe your school will be there...why? cause you have been there every day for the last 6 months or 6 days or w/e and it's been there every time. That is evidence.

3. This one is for both those who believe and those who don't. Why are you so worried about being right? The fact is, you have evidence that makes your belief one way or the other...but that evidence may be wrong. You may be wrong. No matter how powerful the evidence is...it may be wrong. So why do you spend so much time defending your own point of view instead of understanding others'? If you open your mind to the possibility of the opposite being true, you open your mind to possibilities you have never before thought of and likely will come to better conclusions. I recommend stopping your comments that dig yourself further into your position and instead start asking each other questions...you will be enlightened instead of arguing.

4. Lastly, the scientific method is a powerful tool. But it has severe limitations. The evidence that those of you on this forum seek is evidence that is bound by the scientific method. But out of necessity the scientific method ignores the individual and only studies the population. Therefore, even if one person has enough evidence to substantiate a belief in God, unless he is able to show others that same evidence, he will be ignored by the scientific method. We see this in a real world example with eastern medicine, let's look specifically at acupuncture. As a population, acupuncture demolishes western medicine in the controlling of pain. But the scientific method cannot explain why. It can't get any more precise then just the fact that it is helpful because the treatment differs so much for the individual. Those who receive treatment know it works, those who are married to the scientific method as the only source of truth say it is placebo (even though the statistical significance of the difference is astronomical).

God seems to behave in just this way. That is to say, on the basis of the individual. If God exists, he either wants us to know him or he doesn't. If he wants us to know him, he must give us a way to know him. Every major religion and every set of scriptures in the world portray of God that manifests himself/itself (I don't know of any major religions that believe in a female god) to the individual. Prayer, meditation, divine experiences. These are all in the norm. They are similar to the the experience that the person with chronic back pain has. "I can't really describe why or how...but it really works" likewise "I can't explain how I know beyond these experiences, I only know that he exists." Those experiences act as evidence, that evidence is a basis for faith. It isn't about seeing, it isn't about knowing everything. It IS about having experiences that bring you to a belief that can eventually become as strong as knowing that your heart beats inside you.

I know God exists. I know it with the same power as I know I have a left hand. Could I be wrong? Yeah, I could also be nothing but a battery used by artificial intelligence used only as a bat of energy, and therefore not have a left hand. But all evidence of both points to the existence of both. When I die and I touch the marks on the hands and feet of Jesus Christ himself, I will know no better then as I know now that he is indeed the Savior of the world. Why? Because I have experienced that truth enough in my life, that the evidence for me personally backs it up. It is not blind belief nor is it provable through the scientific method...yet...but it is true. I'm sure I'll be flamed for this post, and that is ok. However, for me, I have all the evidence I could have ever wanted. As Christ said to Peter, "man has not revealed these things unto you (logic), but my father which is in heaven (personal contact with God to the INDIVIDUAL)." You don't have to believe in God, it doesn't take anything away from me one way or the other. But, IF you do want to know if God exists, start asking him. If you ask him every day for a year and still have no answer, all the while learning about God and trying to understand him. You'll get an answer too. But hey, the same goes for evolution and the scientific method too right? Investigate a problem until you get an answer.

Now I should apologize cause this is way too long of a post for a forum. But feel free to shoot some holes in the logic. I'm always open to learning more. I'll check back tomorrow though likely not much more after that due to school schedule. Thanks all of you for your posts, many of them have been very well thought out and presented.

I agree 100%. Thanks for this post.

 

[Gnomes]

I'm a scientific instrumentalist and think the question "Is evolution true?" is simply not the right question to ask.

The question is "is the theory of evolution useful for making predictions?" and the answer is certainly "yes" in many cases. It doesn't follow that you should base your morality on it, and "evolution by means of natural selection is a very useful theory" does not imply "God does not exist." (For that matter, I don't think evolution being true necessarily implies it either, but that's beside the point.)

That said, I do believe God exists, but not that He magicked the world out of the void in six days a few thousand years ago. I don't even think that that's what the Bible conclusively implies:

1:11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

How is "and the earth brought forth grass and herb &c &c" in any way inconsistent with accepted scientific theory? Are interpreters of this scripture focusing on the "after his kind" business and thinking that it rules out any kind of change, rather than describing the situation at any moment? I don't get it.