Science degrees ‘unwelcoming’ to religious students

If I want to research the architectural principles on which the dome of St Pauls Cathedral was constructed, why is it a problem to know that a person, Christopher Wren, was behind the design? Similarly if I want to research the principles on which the Universe works, why is a problem if there is a Designer, God, behind it all, rather than it being a random phenomenon. In fact the 'sky-blue swan' argument proves there IS a 'Designer'. Ask, has there ever been a sky-blue swan (naturally coloured). No, you say. But you haven't seen all the world's swans, let alone all that have ever lived. No, because such an animal is just too improbable. Like a coin I say is fair, you toss it 20x, 20 heads, OK 1 in a million, now you toss it 60, 80, times, all heads. At some point we invoke the Standard Deviation argument, that coin cannot be fair, even though the next time we toss that coin it might have been tails. For the Universe, if we change the ratio between any of the 4 basic forces (weak nuclear=stellar fusion, strong nuclear=atomic structure, gravity, electromagnetic) by even 0.01% we might have no stars, no planets, no atoms, or no molecules. So no life. How were the electron shell values (2, 8, 8....) set BEFORE the Big Bang, without that, no element with 4 bonds, carbon, no complex molecules that life needs. If the resonance energy of helium fusion inside stars was slightly different, we'd have a Universe of hydrogen, helium., some lithium and beryllium, rather than hydrogen, carbon, oxygen as now, again no life. I have no problem with stydying these physical attributes and knowing that a Designer has to be behind it all. And Life has an interesting function in the Universe, reversing Entropy, and human life can create information that truly creates 'negative entropy'.....but that's another story.

Of course non religious view dominate courses. we deal with observable verifiable facts, not mythology. If you want to bring mythology into courses which would you choose? the Greek view, Norse, Pacifica islanders views or are you only concerned about the various mythos of bronze-age goat herding tribes from in the middle east? So if you want to mark religious holidays how many adherents to a view do you require before interrupting the study term of everyone else? Does the failure of the social science or theology faculty to include discussion on quantum mechanics create a sense of diversion between the scientifically iterate and those who are not? "The reply from Digging Deeper" is deeply depressing and article the intellectual stupor into which "THE" is falling.

For "DiggingDeeper". The historical authenticity of Sir ChristopherWren is not in any doubt. His life is well recorded. You can even find his grave and if you were so minded his remains. Once you start on about a "Designer" you are digging yourself a hole. which one Zeus, Jupiter Odin etc. Problem is we have not one piece of evidence that any of them existed. If you do then the onus is on you to prove it - should give you a 4* REF paper :-/. As to entropy I suggest you consult a book on physics before going down that rabbit hole and in particular the difference between open and closed systems.

Claims are being made about the levels of religous belief amongst students, but has anyone looked at STEM academics? That is going to be more of an influence on how the subject is delivered. You also have to consider that faith is not the correct tool for studying STEM subjects. Just as STEM subjects are not designed to study religion or seek for the existence of any deities... I see it this way: The believing scientist says, "By my work and that of my fellow scientists, we learn more about how the universe works. Isn't God clever?" The non-believing scientist says, "By my work and that of my fellow scientists, we learn more about how the universe works, who needs a God now?" (For 'God' substitute the name of the deity of your choice.)

I am a STEM academic and a believer in God. Some of the finest minds in science with whom I have worked are also believers. It is naive and immensely short-sighted to suggest that science and faith in God are mutually exclusive.

The issue isn't the belief of staff - who hold and are usually welcome to hold a range of believes provided that they do not compromise their ability to perform their duties. The article was discussing whether the content of STEM courses could somehow be more accommodating to the beliefs of students, to which I think the answer must be NO. you cannot twist reality to fit the brliefs of students.. If that makes some students uncomfortable, perhaps they are on the wrong programme of study.

Unfortunately most of both the “pro” and “anti” religious comments here are rather depressing, and make clear the extent of the very issue the article highlights. Just as fallacious logic tricks and misuse of scientific concepts are poor arguments in favour of religion, so too are childish comments about Bronze Age sky gods poor substitutes for religious literacy. Absolutely no one is claiming that religious beliefs ought to be taught or accommodated at the level of course content. The issue the article raises is that of department cultures - how people are treated. In other words, don’t be an asshole to others based on beliefs and cultural backgrounds that are irrelevant to their scientific work. This is an incredibly easy request to fulfil.