Science can't destroy Religion

[Alberti_Devoveo]

This study referenced from 2007 showed the numbers to be roughly the same - with scientists involved in physics, chemistry and biology only slightly ahead at 37% level of disbelief, of other academics involved in sociology, psychology, economics and political science who come out at 31% level of disbelief.

That’s still a very high number though, at about a third. And I think it shows that the true level of atheism, especially in the United States where other studies have shown people would trust just about anyone else other than an atheist and were open about their blatent discrimination against them, are hidden, because people fear the consequences of ‘coming out’ as an atheist.

Sarah x

I would like to point out that the study you reference concludes with

Instead, particular demographic factors, such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household, seem to explain some of the religious differences among academic scientists… Most important, respondents who were raised in religious homes, especially those raised in homes where religion was important are most likely to be religious at present

It is not that the scientists are atheistic by nature of their work and education, but atheistic due to lack of religious up-bringing.

 

[atheistgirl]

It is not that the scientists are atheistic by nature of their work and education, but atheistic due to lack of religious up-bringing.

And those that are religious, for the most part come from a religious family

Which we already know.

And it kinda falls into that old assertion of ‘‘you’re only a Christian because you were born into a Christian family - if you were born in Pakistan you’d be a Muslim, defending the Muslim faith.’’

Sarah x

 

[LogisticsBranch]

SAO/NASA ADS
Title: God in the lab
Authors: Toumey, Chris
Affiliation: AA(Chris Toumey is at the University of South Carolina NanoCenter.
Publication: Nature Nanotechnology, Volume 4, Issue 11, pp. 696-697 (2009).
Publication Date: 11/2009
Origin: NATURE
DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2009.321

Abstract
Surveys have found that almost half of all scientists in the US are religious. Chris Toumey explores what this might mean for nanotechnology.
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009NatNa…4…696T

 

[Sair]

And those that are religious, for the most part come from a religious family

Which we already know.

And it kinda falls into that old assertion of ‘‘you’re only a Christian because you were born into a Christian family - if you were born in Pakistan you’d be a Muslim, defending the Muslim faith.’’

Sarah x

The most prominent indicator of a person’s religious affiliation is the religious affiliation of their parents, which in turn largely reflects their socio-geographic location and parentage. Scientific education cuts across all of this.

 

[Lochias]

I’ve been fascinated now for a time with '‘miracles’ especially those required to confirm someone a saint. They are almost invariably of a medical nature.

What I don’t know is if the medical reports from these independent doctors say ‘‘we can’t explain it’’ or ‘‘this is most unusual’’ or of they use the word miracle or any reference to the Divine. The Vatican then take this as ‘proof’ of a miracle - as the doctors can’t explain it.

The cures have to meet certain criteria, one of which is the cure has to be permanent.

The only way to know if that criteria was met is to wait until the person who had the cure, died, and more independent doctors confirmed the cause of death had nothing to do with the ailment that was miraculously cured.

But that doesn’t happen.

The cure of Sister Marie Simon Pierre is being attributed to John Paul II - yet how could they know this cure is permanent until she dies, and her death is in no way related to Parkinson’s disease.

Sarah x

There’s just no pleasing some people. If science can explain it, then it can’t possibly be divine, and if science can’t explain it, well, purple monkey dishwasher too-ra-loo-ra-loo.

There are also other miracles that you’re leaving out of the equation; the Eucharistic miracles in which the Host turns to actual flesh and blood, the incorruptible bodies of the saints; these have been examined and re-examined.

It just goes to show that there are some people who really, truly, don’t want to believe. Given the human capacity for deluding ourselves in many walks of life, it doesn’t surprise me, to be honest.

 

[atheistgirl]

There’s just no pleasing some people.

Oh, I’m easily pleased really.

If science can explain it, then it can’t possibly be divine, and if science can’t explain it, well, purple monkey dishwasher too-ra-loo-ra-loo.

No it just means processes are going on that science hasn’t yet got to grips with.

There are also other miracles that you’re leaving out of the equation; the Eucharistic miracles in which the Host turns to actual flesh and blood, the incorruptible bodies of the saints; these have been examined and re-examined.

I think there’s some questions raised about these miracles. I watched this video some time ago. I must admit, I didn’t find the chain of events secure for a start - but I’m wondering, can a coroner tell if someone was beaten up by looking at their heart tissue? Because this guy '‘claims’ the lab tech he gave the sample too exclaimed it was heart muscle tissue, and the person it was from, was tortured! Could a coroner, never mind a lab tech, make such a claim from such a tiny tiny tiny amount of sample?

It just goes to show that there are some people who really, truly, don’t want to believe.

Or, people who just don’t buy into certain claims without evidence

Given the human capacity for deluding ourselves in many walks of life, it doesn’t surprise me, to be honest.

This I actually agree with

Sarah x

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh, I’m easily pleased really.

No it just means processes are going on that science hasn’t yet got to grips with.

I think there’s some questions raised about these miracles. I watched this video some time ago. I must admit, I didn’t find the chain of events secure for a start - but I’m wondering, can a coroner tell if someone was beaten up by looking at their heart tissue? Because this guy '‘claims’ the lab tech he gave the sample too exclaimed it was heart muscle tissue, and the person it was from, was tortured! Could a coroner, never mind a lab tech, make such a claim from such a tiny tiny tiny amount of sample?

Or, people who just don’t buy into certain claims without evidence

This I actually agree with

Sarah x

Sarah,

Pathologists are MD or DO…and Pathologists cannot make a diagnosis of trauma or anything else from a dead piece of heart…there is a series of articles in the New England Journal of Medicine, Harvard University…I think it is called “Grand Rounds”…I organized one at UCSF…it involves a case of a death or misfortune with information given to the Internist, by a Pathologist and other experts.

The Internist tries to solve the problem by asking the experts questions…usually, say for the heart…questions would be asked about other findings and when the puzzle is assembled…all the information is put together to solve the problem…

The Pathologist usually says something like…“heart muscle showing evidence of infarction” or something like that and based on all the rest of the data…concludes that this was caused by…such and such…The Internist then asks questions like…“was there any evidence of trauma to any other part of the body” and the Pathologist will answer…

I am not a Pathologist, however, based on this experience and reading, and looking at this big book “The Pathologic Basis of Disease”…the end point of damage to an organ is usually explained by some specific causes as in the case of lets say…“syphillis” but does not exclude other causes and may say, could be caused by a list of things…etc…

 

[atheistgirl]

Sarah,

Pathologists are MD or DO…and Pathologists cannot make a diagnosis of trauma or anything else from a dead piece of heart…there is a series of articles in the New England Journal of Medicine, Harvard University…I think it is called “Grand Rounds”…I organized one at UCSF…it involves a case of a death or misfortune with information given to the Internist, by a Pathologist and other experts.

The Internist tries to solve the problem by asking the experts questions…usually, say for the heart…questions would be asked about other findings and when the puzzle is assembled…all the information is put together to solve the problem…

The Pathologist usually says something like…“heart muscle showing evidence of infarction” or something like that and based on all the rest of the data…concludes that this was caused by…such and such…The Internist then asks questions like…“was there any evidence of trauma to any other part of the body” and the Pathologist will answer…

I am not a Pathologist, however, based on this experience and reading, and looking at this big book “The Pathologic Basis of Disease”…the end point of damage to an organ is usually explained by some specific causes as in the case of lets say…“syphillis” but does not exclude other causes and may say, could be caused by a list of things…etc…

Thanks CC.

So there is no way a simple lab tech, knowing no other information what so ever and simply asked to examine a tiny piece of tissue, could exclaim ‘‘this is from someone who was tortured’’.

Just as I suspected.

This is why I’m skeptical of all these miraculous claims.

I stopped listening to the video at that point because there really was no point in listening further.

The guy was making claims that simply were not credible. Of course, if these claims confirm something you already believe, then you’re possibly going to be quite open to them without even thinking about what the guys saying.

Sarah x

 

[Lochias]

Thanks CC.

So there is no way a simple lab tech, knowing no other information what so ever and simply asked to examine a tiny piece of tissue, could exclaim ‘‘this is from someone who was tortured’’.

Just as I suspected.

This is why I’m skeptical of all these miraculous claims.

I stopped listening to the video at that point because there really was no point in listening further.

The guy was making claims that simply were not credible. Of course, if these claims confirm something you already believe, then you’re possibly going to be quite open to them without even thinking about what the guys saying.

Sarah x

Just as you are open to the claims of someone who is not a pathologist, giving his opinion on pathology? Hmmm…what faith indeed! (No offense, CC…)

 

[atheistgirl]

Just as you are open to the claims of someone who is not a pathologist, giving his opinion on pathology? Hmmm…what faith indeed! (No offense, CC…)

- CC is in the field and explained the process.

Since none of these highly trained and skilled medical people, who’s job it is to deal with cause and process of death, could possible declare a person was tortured, simply by looking at a tiny piece of heart tissue, there is simply no way a lab tech could.

CC as a doctor, so does have credibility, even if he’s refering to an area that his expertize does not lie in.

So no way did a lab tech make such a declaration - because he couldn’t possibly have known from the evidence he was asked to look at - a tiny sample of alleged heart tissue.

Sarah x

 

[Lochias]

- CC is in the field and explained the process.

Since none of these highly trained and skilled medical people, who’s job it is to deal with cause and process of death, could possible declare a person was tortured, simply by looking at a tiny piece of heart tissue, there is simply no way a lab tech could.

CC as a doctor, so does have credibility, even if he’s refering to an area that his expertize does not lie in.

So no way did a lab tech make such a declaration - because he couldn’t possibly have known from the evidence he was asked to look at - a tiny sample of alleged heart tissue.

Sarah x

And the fact that it’s still verifiable as heart tissue does nothing for you?

Sorry, Sarah…I like ya, but every last thing you say can be cut exactly the opposite way. Science will never be able to prove everything there is, because there are just some things that transcend science.

 

[CopticChristian]

Just as you are open to the claims of someone who is not a pathologist, giving his opinion on pathology? Hmmm…what faith indeed! (No offense, CC…)

Lochias,

The practice of medicine is simply stated as thus…

SOAP…

Subjective
Objective
Assessment
Plan

It covers all practice. Pathologists unfortunately cannot do a Subjective…but the Subjective includes a history…what does the patient tell you…or what to the paramedics, police, others that are a witness to the incident tell you…

Objective, is what the information yields

Assessment usually includes what is called a differential diagnosis

Plan, is what do I do or what is the cause…

Death. That is pretty clear. So, brought to a hospital by paramedic assist, fell in the field with a history of cardiac disease, fell on a fence that puntured the chest

Objective, history of cardiac disease, with a accidental puncture…heart shows evidence of death, infarction, old and new with a hole as a result of the accidental puncture.

Assessment, cause of death is cardiac arrest as a result of recent infarct, causing probable hypotension, loss of balance and unsuspected puncture of the heart causing immediate tamponade and death…

Plan…death, accidental complicated by recent infarct, with history of Cardiac disease…accidental death, no evidence of homicide, etc

How can you offend what you do not understand.

Looking at a piece of heart tissue will tell you it is dead, infarcted, recent and remote and it will tell you other things…but a Pathologist is a Physician that examines the history and then determines the cause…

CSI as you know starts with the dead body, then gathering of evidence and then doing special tests to see what happened, as everything is put together…

It is like the mechanic…hey…bob, my engine is making this funny sound…what do you think it is?..bring it in…lets look…Have you listened to the “tap it brothers on NPR” talking about why a car does a certain thing…they always ask…how old is your car…what else have you done…does it do this…does it do that…Docs are like that too…

 

[Lochias]

Lochias,

The practice of medicine is simply stated as thus…

SOAP…

Subjective
Objective
Assessment
Plan

It covers all practice. Pathologists unfortunately cannot do a Subjective…but the Subjective includes a history…what does the patient tell you…or what to the paramedics, police, others that are a witness to the incident tell you…

Objective, is what the information yields

Assessment usually includes what is called a differential diagnosis

Plan, is what do I do or what is the cause…

Death. That is pretty clear. So, brought to a hospital by paramedic assist, fell in the field with a history of cardiac disease, fell on a fence that puntured the chest

Objective, history of cardiac disease, with a accidental puncture…heart shows evidence of death, infarction, old and new with a hole as a result of the accidental puncture.

Assessment, cause of death is cardiac arrest as a result of recent infarct, causing probable hypotension, loss of balance and unsuspected puncture of the heart causing immediate tamponade and death…

Plan…death, accidental complicated by recent infarct, with history of Cardiac disease…accidental death, no evidence of homicide, etc

How can you offend what you do not understand.

Looking at a piece of heart tissue will tell you it is dead, infarcted, recent and remote and it will tell you other things…but a Pathologist is a Physician that examines the history and then determines the cause…

CSI as you know starts with the dead body, then gathering of evidence and then doing special tests to see what happened, as everything is put together…

It is like the mechanic…hey…bob, my engine is making this funny sound…what do you think it is?..bring it in…lets look…Have you listened to the “tap it brothers on NPR” talking about why a car does a certain thing…they always ask…how old is your car…what else have you done…does it do this…does it do that…Docs are like that too…

Thanks for the info, CC. Certainly, I didn’t mean to belittle you or the like. I still don’t understand how the folks doing the test on the heart tissue aren’t able, by looking at it, to determine whether or not it was under stress at the time of tissue death.

 

[atheistgirl]

And the fact that it’s still verifiable as heart tissue does nothing for you?

Nope.

Because the original dropped Host was placed in a Tabernacle and left there for 6 days before being looked at by the guy in the video, who then took it to the lab.

Chain of custody???

Anyone could have switched anything at any time in that time line.

If that was a piece of evidence in a criminal case, the defence would drive a train through it.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

TI still don’t understand how the folks doing the test on the heart tissue aren’t able, by looking at it, to determine whether or not it was under stress at the time of tissue death.

Under stress at the time does not equal being tortured.

Going for an interview, signing a contract, fighting with some one, literal and verbal, going for a run, skydiving, listening to your car die on the interstate will all put your heart under stress.

Saying the heart was under stress at the time - even if you could - is a long way away from proclaiming this person was being tortured at the time, simply by looking at a tiny piece of tissue.

Sarah x

 

[Lochias]

- CC is in the field and explained the process.

Since none of these highly trained and skilled medical people, who’s job it is to deal with cause and process of death, could possible declare a person was tortured, simply by looking at a tiny piece of heart tissue, there is simply no way a lab tech could.

CC as a doctor, so does have credibility, even if he’s refering to an area that his expertize does not lie in.

So no way did a lab tech make such a declaration - because he couldn’t possibly have known from the evidence he was asked to look at - a tiny sample of alleged heart tissue.

Sarah x

A tiny sample of live, beating heart tissue.

Gonna adjust those blinders anytime soon?

 

[CopticChristian]

Thanks for the info, CC. Certainly, I didn’t mean to belittle you or the like. I still don’t understand how the folks doing the test on the heart tissue aren’t able, by looking at it, to determine whether or not it was under stress at the time of tissue death.

Lochias,

It is sometimes what you don’t know that causes a problem.

Pathology specimens can be in many forms…fresh, fresh frozen, in preservative…if you watch the video, at about 1:33…the specimen is placed in water…

Now this is a miracle. Any tissue placed in water will swell and become distorted and die…the other thing as to the tissue examine…there can be evidence of trauma from the stains…and what you see in the video is what is called H & E or Hemotoxylin and Eosin stain…you can see evidence of trauma and conclude that it was external…beaten, possibly…trauma yes.

Now the other thing is who did this work…notice that the Dr. referred to is…Dr. Fredericke Zugibe, he says is a Cardiologist, Pathologist and Biochemist…

e-forensicmedicine.net/

So, if it was a specimen in water, it is a miracle that it has survived…if it was examined by Dr. Zugibe, then he is not just some Pathologist…and when the video says the tech evaluated…he probably meant the Pathologist…OK

 

[atheistgirl]

A tiny sample of live, beating heart tissue.

So he claims.

Yet the priest who called the guy in the video, and the guy in the video himself who took the sample never noticed.

I respect to believers this is important.

But to me, it’s just not credible at all.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Gonna adjust those blinders anytime soon?

I have no problem adjusting them if there’s a good reason

Sarah x

 

[Lochias]

So he claims.

Yet the priest who called the guy in the video, and the guy in the video himself who took the sample never noticed.

I respect to believers this is important.

But to me, it’s just not credible at all.

Sarah x

The movement and life was at the cellular level, underneath a microscope, red blood cells still doing their thing. If a priest or other person had microscopic vision, that, too, would be a miracle!