Comments on: Religion and PhDs http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:05:37 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Kcadle http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/comment-page-3/#comment-30882 Kcadle Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:04:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/#comment-30882 This is an interesting line of conversation and I realize this post is late in the day, so to speak, but what of the other side of the the coin? I'm only a lowly little undergrad majoring in microbiology and biochemistry but I see this problem in my classes all the time. In Biology 151 Dr. Keller explained to his class that belief in creationism didn't exclude belief in science and vice versa do to the simple fact that the facts are in exclusion of faith, and if we didn't understand the meaning of the word faith then to look it up. Simply put, no matter what the beliefs of someone is that in itself should never deter or take away the right of that person to study the facts. For all we know, carbon dating is flawed in some way and the Earth is a lot older or younger than we thought. Proof is what I want and until time travel is established for people to provide proof please don't blur the line between theory and fact. So far in about four or five classes I have been made to memorize different "ages" of the Earth, the normal is 65 BYA, but pick up a text book, these are only estimates people. Most of my professors believe in God and in science, not me, but they do. I have yet to have a major problem with their teaching methods. If anything it strengthens my beliefs in science that these people of religion can teach science in a very abstract and straigtforward way. The facts and only the facts. This is an interesting line of conversation and I realize this post is late in the day, so to speak, but what of the other side of the the coin? I’m only a lowly little undergrad majoring in microbiology and biochemistry but I see this problem in my classes all the time. In Biology 151 Dr. Keller explained to his class that belief in creationism didn’t exclude belief in science and vice versa do to the simple fact that the facts are in exclusion of faith, and if we didn’t understand the meaning of the word faith then to look it up. Simply put, no matter what the beliefs of someone is that in itself should never deter or take away the right of that person to study the facts. For all we know, carbon dating is flawed in some way and the Earth is a lot older or younger than we thought. Proof is what I want and until time travel is established for people to provide proof please don’t blur the line between theory and fact. So far in about four or five classes I have been made to memorize different “ages” of the Earth, the normal is 65 BYA, but pick up a text book, these are only estimates people. Most of my professors believe in God and in science, not me, but they do. I have yet to have a major problem with their teaching methods. If anything it strengthens my beliefs in science that these people of religion can teach science in a very abstract and straigtforward way. The facts and only the facts.

]]> By: Darin Schindler http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/comment-page-3/#comment-30881 Darin Schindler Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:33:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/#comment-30881 Christian: Is it allowable for an individual to have two apparent contradictory points of view in his own mind and then decide to gather all the information he can by enrolling in a PhD. Program at the local university in the field of study specific to his differing points of view? Then after acquiring as much knowledge as he can, that supports the one point, work on (over a lifetime) reconciling the two differing points of view for himself. Could anything of any value come from a person who has a contradiction that they try to solve? I think you will find throughout history that many great theories, building blocks and principles have come from men and women attempting to reconcile internal conflict. Now I don't know if this young man will ever do anything that will one day have historical significance, but I am not afraid to let him try. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing we want from our students and professors? Do we really want universities policing their applicants to determine if they fit a preconceived set of beliefs? Christian:
Is it allowable for an individual to have two apparent contradictory points of view in his own mind and then decide to gather all the information he can by enrolling in a PhD. Program at the local university in the field of study specific to his differing points of view? Then after acquiring as much knowledge as he can, that supports the one point, work on (over a lifetime) reconciling the two differing points of view for himself. Could anything of any value come from a person who has a contradiction that they try to solve? I think you will find throughout history that many great theories, building blocks and principles have come from men and women attempting to reconcile internal conflict. Now I don’t know if this young man will ever do anything that will one day have historical significance, but I am not afraid to let him try. Isn’t this exactly the kind of thing we want from our students and professors? Do we really want universities policing their applicants to determine if they fit a preconceived set of beliefs?

]]> By: wwitzke http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/comment-page-3/#comment-30828 wwitzke Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:16:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/#comment-30828 wwitzke: “Ross published his thesis, which was compiled based (I assume) on facts, and in publishing it was claiming it as fact, even though he seemed to believe it was fiction. Just because he believed it was fiction, is that really fraud?” Amanda: He published something as fact that he “knew” was fiction. That fits your definition of fraud, no? The point is not that what he thinks is fiction *is* actually fact, it’s that he published something *he* knows to be false as fact in order to get a degree. --- That's an interesting point, Amanda... Seeing as I've already changed my mind on my former position (thanks again Irishman :-) ), I agree with you completely. The me before Irishman's post would not have agreed with you, however, because I was going by a very literal/legal interpretation of the word "fraud." What can I say? I was wrong. Amanda also said: It would be like me going to Liberty University to get a PhD in young Earth science, knowing it to be false. Yes, I could do it, but it would wrong. (and it would make me feel dirty) It'd make me feel dirty, too (blech). wwitzke: “Ross published his thesis, which was compiled based (I assume) on facts, and in publishing it was claiming it as fact, even though he seemed to believe it was fiction. Just because he believed it was fiction, is that really fraud?”

Amanda: He published something as fact that he “knew” was fiction. That fits your definition of fraud, no? The point is not that what he thinks is fiction *is* actually fact, it’s that he published something *he* knows to be false as fact in order to get a degree.

—

That’s an interesting point, Amanda… Seeing as I’ve already changed my mind on my former position (thanks again Irishman :-) ), I agree with you completely. The me before Irishman’s post would not have agreed with you, however, because I was going by a very literal/legal interpretation of the word “fraud.” What can I say? I was wrong.

Amanda also said: It would be like me going to Liberty University to get a PhD in young Earth science, knowing it to be false. Yes, I could do it, but it would wrong. (and it would make me feel dirty)

It’d make me feel dirty, too (blech).

]]> By: Daniel Pekar http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/comment-page-3/#comment-30827 Daniel Pekar Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:09:32 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/#comment-30827 First I would say that an education is what you learn and not necessarily what you believe. What I'm mean is one is tested by how well that person knows the subject at hand. What you do with what you learn is your business. lf you pay for your education, study hard, & get a passing grade what you do with the knowledge is up to you. Who has the right to tell someone what to think? Secondly,you can look at glues and guess, but unless you can see what happened when it happened, it's a guess. It may be a good one but it's still a guess. In other words...what one believes to be true "aint neccessarily so". Thirdly, science should be viewed with an open mind. This would apply to both the young earth believer and the ancient earth believer. Truth is often a moving target. I can't help but think some people really believe everything they think is the truth. I guess many were wrong once but found out they were mistaken. First I would say that an education is what you learn and not necessarily what you believe. What I’m mean is one is tested by how well that person knows the subject at hand. What you do with what you learn is your business. lf you
pay for your education, study hard, & get a passing grade what you do with the knowledge is up to you. Who has the right to tell someone what to think?
Secondly,you can look at glues and guess, but unless you can see what happened when it happened, it’s a guess. It may be a good one but it’s still a guess. In other words…what one believes to be true “aint neccessarily so”.
Thirdly, science should be viewed with an open mind. This would apply to both the young earth believer and the ancient earth believer. Truth is often a moving target. I can’t help but think some people really believe everything they think is the truth. I guess many were wrong once but found out they were mistaken.

]]> By: Christian Burnham http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/comment-page-3/#comment-30823 Christian Burnham Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:52:23 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/#comment-30823 Mark Martin- You're wrong. The guy is free to do research anywhere he wants. He chose to do it at an established university- which unfortunately for him requires that the research be evidence (not fantasy) based. He was free to study at a non-accredited Biblical institution which would have let him explore his Biblical fantasies as much as he wanted. Not sure where the Nazi persecution comes into it. If you don't base your beliefs on evidence- then don't go looking for a degree which requires evidence-based research. Mark Martin-

You’re wrong.

The guy is free to do research anywhere he wants. He chose to do it at an established university- which unfortunately for him requires that the research be evidence (not fantasy) based.

He was free to study at a non-accredited Biblical institution which would have let him explore his Biblical fantasies as much as he wanted.

Not sure where the Nazi persecution comes into it. If you don’t base your beliefs on evidence- then don’t go looking for a degree which requires evidence-based research.

]]> By: Christian Burnham http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/comment-page-3/#comment-30826 Christian Burnham Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:46:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/#comment-30826 Darin: I'm not sure why I'm replying to your comment. The guy in question was free to put any theory he liked in his thesis. However he knew that he couldn't successfully defend the Biblical account to his committee. That's not due to any prejudice on part of the committee. That's because there's no evidence to support the Biblical account (because it's false). The upshot is that the student lied in order to get a PhD. He wrote a thesis he believed to be untrue just so they would pass him. Darin:

I’m not sure why I’m replying to your comment.

The guy in question was free to put any theory he liked in his thesis. However he knew that he couldn’t successfully defend the Biblical account to his committee.

That’s not due to any prejudice on part of the committee. That’s because there’s no evidence to support the Biblical account (because it’s false).

The upshot is that the student lied in order to get a PhD. He wrote a thesis he believed to be untrue just so they would pass him.

]]> By: Ruth http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/comment-page-3/#comment-30824 Ruth Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:39:31 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/20/religion-and-phds/#comment-30824 I hardly think comparing a geology dept to a concentration camp is really a good argument. Isn't there an old newsgroup rule about long discussions always ending up mentioning Hilter ;o) By any sensible, everyday standard of integrity he doesn't have any. Only some serious mental gymnastics can allow him to tell himself that he did no wrong, that speaking and worse still publishing what HE believes to be lies is not a big no no (Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD) I hardly think comparing a geology dept to a concentration camp is really a good argument. Isn’t there an old newsgroup rule about long discussions always ending up mentioning Hilter ;o)

By any sensible, everyday standard of integrity he doesn’t have any. Only some serious mental gymnastics can allow him to tell himself that he did no wrong, that speaking and worse still publishing what HE believes to be lies is not a big no no (Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD)

]]>