Am i disgracing my scientific career by taking a course?

[apolytos]

Hello, I'm studying for a physics bachelor degree in college. In order to graduate in time, i have to take several general ed courses, and I've chosen religious studie 100 course because i thought i know/like ancients myths that related to greek, roman, norse gods, and etc, and because of that, i thought, course would be easy. But now i feel like i disgraced my scientific career by taking that kind of course. What if scientific folks see my diploma and make fun of me for taking religious studies in future? Sorry for the stupid question, but i have ocd and this kind of thoughts discouraging me.

 

[tionis]

What if scientific folks see my diploma and make fun of me for taking religious studies in future?

You mean your CV? Your physics diploma doesn't say anything about other courses you've taken.

 

[Borek]

Religious studies as in "history of religion", or as in "theology"? One of them is a serious science, the other is not.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but i have ocd

Then you need to get that taken care of. Based on your posting history, it's clearly interfering with your path forward.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hello, I'm studying for a physics bachelor degree in college. In order to graduate in time, i have to take several general ed courses, and I've chosen religious studie 100 course because i thought i know/like ancients myths that related to greek, roman, norse gods, and etc, and because of that, i thought, course would be easy. But now i feel like i disgraced my scientific career by taking that kind of course. What if scientific folks see my diploma and make fun of me for taking religious studies in future? Sorry for the stupid question, but i have ocd and this kind of thoughts discouraging me.

I'm sorry. I looked and looked, and looked. I scoured around every inch of your post, and I still can't find a problem here.

Zz.

 

[apolytos]

You mean your CV? Your physics diploma doesn't say anything about other courses you've taken.

I mean the courses that will be on my diploma, including that religious studies. Won't it appear odd?

 

[apolytos]

Religious studies as in "history of religion", or as in "theology"? One of them is a serious science, the other is not.

I'd say mix of two, the course includes all religions

 

[tionis]

I mean the courses that will be on my diploma, including that religious studies. Won't it appear odd?

Odd to who lol? The scientific community doesn't care what your beliefs are or what religious courses you've taken. Just try to be the best at being a physicist and the rest won't matter. There are many physicists that are religious/have theological degrees and are admired and respected. Juan Maldacena comes to mind, Don Page, too.

 

[jtbell]

I don't know what things are like in your country, but in the US it's common for undergraduates to take courses outside of their major field. When I was an undergraduate, my roommate was another physics major who also took several religion courses.

There are even respected colleges and universities that require all students to take some religion/theology courses, e.g. the University of Notre Dame. (not just fundamentalist Christian schools like Bob Jones University or Liberty University)

 

[Choppy]

But now i feel like i disgraced my scientific career by taking that kind of course. What if scientific folks see my diploma and make fun of me for taking religious studies in future?

No one is going to make fun of you for taking a course - at least, not in any way that will affect your scientific career.

You take courses to learn more about a subject. Taking a religious studies course does not mean that you have adopted the values or beliefs of a specific religion. It does not make you anti-science. It means that you opted to learn more about those beliefs, their history, arguments used to support them, and their/or influence on society.

 

[vanhees71]

I don't know what "ocd" is, but I don't see any problem with choosing any course at a university/college you find interesting. At least in my environment (German university, and I've also been in the US for some years), I've never heard that anyone is interested in ones personal believes or what courses you have listened to. In my university it was even in the curriculum to listen to a non-scientific lecture. I've chosen a philosophy lecture on Kant. Nobody ever asked about it ;-)).

 

[atyy]

These people have done more religious things than take a course - they've actually claimed to be religious.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/69/7/10.1063/PT.3.3238
"Physics Today readers may find the details of Lemaître’s religious training less fascinating than his uncanny knack for being in the right place at the right time for the intellectual adventure of cosmology."

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1979/salam-bio.html
"Abdus Salam is known to be a devout Muslim, whose religion does not occupy a separate compartment of his life; it is inseparable from his work and family life. He once wrote: "The Holy Quran enjoins us to reflect on the verities of Allah's created laws of nature; however, that our generation has been privileged to glimpse a part of His design is a bounty and a grace for which I render thanks with a humble heart."

http://islam-science.net/science-in...erview-with-nobel-laureate-ahmed-zewail-2706/
"I think it is a composite of things. First of all, God created me with a passion for whatever I do. If I read a book, I have the passion to finish it. The other thing is my background, as you said. When I came to the United States, I was challenged. As I mention in my book, there were political barriers, there were cultural barriers and scientific barriers. So I was challenged to show that somebody with my background, someone who is a Muslim and grew up with mosques and everything like that can achieve something.
Nowadays, I also try to go beyond the Nobel Prize, and I ask myself if I can help people and if I can help science in general. Perhaps also because of my upbringing and the mosque, I have faith. So I think it’s that kind of faith in life, in the universe, in myself, and in God, of course-all of this makes me who I am."

https://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/phillips.pdf
"I am a physicist. I do mainstream research; I publish in peer-reviewed journals; I present my research at professional meetings; I train students and postdoctoral researchers; I try to learn from nature how nature works. In other words, I am an ordinary scientist. I am also a person of religious faith."

 

[russ_watters]

I mean the courses that will be on my diploma, including that religious studies. Won't it appear odd?

Since the courses you take will not appear on your diploma...and you don't need to show anyone your diploma anyway, no, there is no problem here.

And I agree with the others that you may want to talk to a psychologist about whatever it is that is making you so paranoid about nothing.

 

[George Jones]

Echoing atty, I don't see how just taking such a course can hurt you, when there are examples of openly religious scientists.

These people have done more religious things than take a course - they've actually claimed to be religious ...

Stephen Hawking is an atheist. Stephen Hawking took on the devoutly religious Don Page as a PhD student (they published several papers together), and Stephen Hawking collaborated with theist George Ellis on a very famous relativity book (Hawking and Ellis!). Hawking only cared about the quality of the science that Page and Ellis produced.

Also, theoretical phyicist Chris Isham is a practising Christian, and this hasn't hurt his career,

 

[micromass]

Hello, I'm studying for a physics bachelor degree in college. In order to graduate in time, i have to take several general ed courses, and I've chosen religious studie 100 course because i thought i know/like ancients myths that related to greek, roman, norse gods, and etc, and because of that, i thought, course would be easy. But now i feel like i disgraced my scientific career by taking that kind of course. What if scientific folks see my diploma and make fun of me for taking religious studies in future? Sorry for the stupid question, but i have ocd and this kind of thoughts discouraging me.

You know, going on a random forum and asking insane questions won't help your OCD at all. It makes it even worse. You need to go to a psychologist and get it checked out. There are many good medications that can help you.

 

[Mark44]

I don't know what "ocd" is

OCD = Obsessive/compulsive disorder

 

[Student100]

Hello, I'm studying for a physics bachelor degree in college. In order to graduate in time, i have to take several general ed courses, and I've chosen religious studie 100 course because i thought i know/like ancients myths that related to greek, roman, norse gods, and etc, and because of that, i thought, course would be easy. But now i feel like i disgraced my scientific career by taking that kind of course. What if scientific folks see my diploma and make fun of me for taking religious studies in future? Sorry for the stupid question, but i have ocd and this kind of thoughts discouraging me.

You really need to manage the OCD as everyone else is saying, seeking reassurance from others isn't a coping strategy that will work long term.

I have what they call hit and run OCD. I don't know what caused it, but I would constantly do checks and redrive routes (which only made things worse) to make sure I hadn't indeed hit anyone. It got so bad I refused to drive without someone else in the vehicle who could reassure me that I hadn't ran anyone over.

I know it sounds insane, and I know it is crazy, but I ignored it for a long time until it got to that point. If you keep ignoring your OCD it will negatively impact your life, because it only gets worse, not better.

If you're just throwing out the term OCD because it's part of the common vernacular, stop doing that.

Regardless religion and science are not incompatible.

 

[OCR]

OCD = Obsessive/compulsive disorder

OCD looks to be rather complicated... IMO.

It seems to belong to a classification of what's known as a spectrum disorder ... that is, O-C disorders can represent a range of severity.

Obsessive–compulsive disorder ...
Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder ...
Obsessive–compulsive spectrum ...

Conditions described as being on the spectrum are sometimes referred to as obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorders.

OCPD, basically runs all the way back to Sigmund Freud ...

I have what they call hit and run OCD.

That's interesting... I've never heard of it, but I can understand it...

It got so bad I refused to drive without someone else in the vehicle who could reassure me that I hadn't ran anyone over.

That's the rub ... when OCD starts making a person dysfunctional.

Personally, I think we all can develop a bit of obsessive-compulsive behavior, and some small amount might even be a benefit...
Take for example... doing preflight, take off, and landing check lists in an aircraft ... that's pretty compulsory.[COLOR=#black]..[/COLOR]

 

[symbolipoint]

Hello, I'm studying for a physics bachelor degree in college. In order to graduate in time, i have to take several general ed courses, and I've chosen religious studie 100 course because i thought i know/like ancients myths that related to greek, roman, norse gods, and etc, and because of that, i thought, course would be easy. But now i feel like i disgraced my scientific career by taking that kind of course. What if scientific folks see my diploma and make fun of me for taking religious studies in future? Sorry for the stupid question, but i have ocd and this kind of thoughts discouraging me.

Just this single course? Do not list it on your resume. If you enjoy the course or if it helps you learn and expand your mind, then this is good. At some point someone will review your course transcripts, and those personnel would be less interested in your one religious studies course than in your Mathematics, Physics, and computer-related courses and grades.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

OCD looks to be rather complicated... IMO.

It seems to belong to a classification of what's known as a spectrum disorder ... that is, O-C disorders can represent a range of severity.

Obsessive–compulsive disorder ...
Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder ...
Obsessive–compulsive spectrum ...

OCPD, basically runs all the way back to Sigmund Freud ...That's interesting... I've never heard of it, but I can understand it...

That's the rub ... when OCD starts making a person dysfunctional.

Personally, I think we all can develop a bit of obsessive-compulsive behavior, and some small amount might even be a benefit...
Take for example... doing preflight, take off, and landing check lists in an aircraft ... that's pretty compulsory.[COLOR=#black]..[/COLOR]

I think it is important not to confuse OCD and OCPD. The former is an anxiety disorder, the latter a personality disorder.

Recently, I have seen quite a number of posts mentioning OCD on the forum. While I am certain that you (OCR) did not mean any harm with your post, I do think that the best response is simply to refer the (possible) OCD patient to a qualified health care professional and leave it at that.

This is not because I do not feel for people with OCD, but (1) because I know from experience that most of these posts are indirect ways of seeking reassurance, making OCD symtoms worse (also see micromass' post above) and (2) because it is difficult (even for a professional) to provide accurate information and help online.

If the step to a doctor is too big (which it often is, because of shame), perhaps some of the books of Lee Baer (currently at the Massachusetts General Hospital and a well-known expert on OCD) can provide first steps towards improvement.

 

[Dishsoap]

I guarantee they won't care. When you apply for graduate school, you are required to send transcripts from all places where you've received secondary education. For me, this included courses in Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek that I took for fun. Not only that, but those were the only courses that appeared on the transcript from that school. Even more so, my school had "Christian" in the name. There's no possible way that I was looked down upon for that (unless there was a true jerk on the admissions committee), and on the contrary it probably made me look interesting having an interest in theology/Biblical languages. But a single religious studies course? No one will even know/look, and if by chance they do, they won't care. Guaranteed.

 

[micromass]

Personally, I think we all can develop a bit of obsessive-compulsive behavior, and some small amount might even be a benefit...
Take for example... doing preflight, take off, and landing check lists in an aircraft ... that's pretty compulsory.[COLOR=#black]..[/COLOR]

NO NO NO NO. We don't all have a bit of OCD. And a small amount of OCD is not beneficial. This is very insulting to people actually suffering a lot from this disease. Sadly, a lot of people say it, but it couldn't be further from the truth. It's like saying "Personally, I think we all have a bit of cancer, and some small amount of cancer is beneficial". It's nonsense. If you don't know what you're talking about, then I prefer you don't say anything about this at all.

 

[clope023]

Hello, I'm studying for a physics bachelor degree in college. In order to graduate in time, i have to take several general ed courses, and I've chosen religious studie 100 course because i thought i know/like ancients myths that related to greek, roman, norse gods, and etc, and because of that, i thought, course would be easy. But now i feel like i disgraced my scientific career by taking that kind of course. What if scientific folks see my diploma and make fun of me for taking religious studies in future? Sorry for the stupid question, but i have ocd and this kind of thoughts discouraging me.

You know one of the original authors of the theory of the expanding universe was a Catholic priest, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Lots of scientists are atheists and are in general anti-religion, I happen to be both myself, but that doesn't mean it's a requirement to be a good scientist nor does it lower your scientific efficacy by having interests in mythology and spirituality.

 

[OCR]

We don't all have a bit of OCD.

I didn't say that!
I said...

Personally, I think we all can develop a bit of obsessive-compulsive behavior...

If you can't see a difference, then...

I prefer you don't say anything about this at all.

... carry on.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Some of us fundamentalist Christians have even managed to have pretty good careers as physicists.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

There are even respected colleges and universities that require all students to take some religion/theology courses, e.g. the University of Notre Dame. (not just fundamentalist Christian schools like Bob Jones University or Liberty University)

I'm not sure I would give short shrift to fundamentalist schools like Bob Jones, Liberty, or Grove City. These schools offer a variety of ABET accredited engineering degrees and ACS approved Chemistry degrees. There is no reason why a combination of good GPA, good GRE scores, and documented research experiences at one of these schools won't provide graduates with comparable opportunities with students from secular schools in the same tier (such as comparable national rankings in a discipline.) Grove City College has a highly regarded engineering program, and I know several graduates who had no problem securing excellent offers. Likewise, their graduates in Biology have no problem securing admission to med school with good MCAT scores.

I think the fear mongering regarding the value of course credit or degrees from fundamentalist Christian schools is unwarranted. Sure, biases exist in any field, and there is always the possibility of unlawful discrimination. But this is relatively rare, and I would expect graduates to receive equal treatment based on the national rankings of the school in the discipline, a student's track record for undergraduate research, and independent assessments such as standardized test (GRE, Engineering exams, ACS exam, MCAT, PCAT, etc.)

 

[symbolipoint]

OCR said in post number 18,

Personally, I think we all can develop a bit of obsessive-compulsive behavior, and some small amount might even be a benefit...
Take for example... doing preflight, take off, and landing check lists in an aircraft ... that's pretty compulsory...

Why do you try to support that? Try to understand the difference between Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Attention to Detail.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Your question isn't stupid. You aren't disgracing anything. You are taking the course for enjoyment, which can result in self-improvement. That is nothing to be ashamed about. Nobody should be making fun of anyone on account of the courses on their transcripts, as long as the required courses for the program have been taken then I doubt anybody will judge you for it in the end.

As for your OCD, this could have a serious impact on your college experience. Therefore, this falls under the domain of the office of student affairs. I advise you to make a visit if your university has one (if they do not, then contact local mental health services). They should place you into contact with appropriate counselors, campus support groups dealing with OCD may be available, and they should have an abundance of resources to help you deal with your OCD. I myself, began counseling and medication, as a sort of, uh, agreement between faculty and a dean at my university, the result of a horrible, horrible blow-up over a year ago I'm just now starting to get past. You have to make them aware of your mental issues, that way they can know to and how to help you if something ends up happening and you seriously overreact to things...

 

[ShayanJ]

Scientists are just humans. Its not like scientists are Elves in the middle-earth and other people are other lesser species! So like all other humans, there are variations in all aspects of personality among scientists too. There are atheist scientists and there are religious scientists and they also span the whole spectrum in terms of the magnitude of their faith. You can have an atheist scientist who is tolerant of religious people and also an atheist scientist who is not. The same goes with the religious kind. So if its OK for a non-scientist to know about religions or even be religious, its OK for a scientist too!

As for the OCD\OCPD. I remember myself overthinking every single little bit of my interactions with other people and sometimes it created problems out of nothing. After sometime I diagnosed myself with OCD or OCPD. I don't know which one because I don't completely understand their difference. I never went to a doctor but nothing got worse. The point is, after my realization of my condition, I tried to gradually stop immediately acting according to the obsessive thoughts and also stopped feeling bad because of them. I managed to turned the situation in a different direction. Now I just use that to think everything thoroughly and understand every situation in its finest detail and then throw the obsessive feeling away and act logically and reasonably. Now I understand that if treated and guided well by yourself, it can actually be a personality trait rather than a disorder.

But of course it depends completely on you. If at some point you realize that you can't handle it, or maybe you can handle it but you just don't like the result(yeah, you don't end up being like other people and you may not like it, but well, no two people are the same anyway and people have different personalities!), then its better to seek professional help.

Whatever route you choose, the important thing you should understand is that you're not deeply flawed, you're not of lesser value, you're not doomed, you have all the rights other people have and you definitely have the right to be treated well by others. Also what micromass said is true, its not like all people have a bit OCD\OCPD, but its true that all people think about their social interactions and sometime worry about them. Its just that they can dismiss those thoughts easier. But for some people this ability of dismissing those thoughts easily also means that they don't think enough about them and that may cause them problems in their relationships. So its not just "too-hard-dismissal" that is a problem, but also "too-easy-dismissal". But because "too-easy-dismissal" doesn't result in stress but only problems that they can blame others for, its not usually called a mental situation.

 

[clope023]

I'm not sure I would give short shrift to fundamentalist schools like Bob Jones, Liberty, or Grove City. These schools offer a variety of ABET accredited engineering degrees and ACS approved Chemistry degrees. There is no reason why a combination of good GPA, good GRE scores, and documented research experiences at one of these schools won't provide graduates with comparable opportunities with students from secular schools in the same tier (such as comparable national rankings in a discipline.) Grove City College has a highly regarded engineering program, and I know several graduates who had no problem securing excellent offers. Likewise, their graduates in Biology have no problem securing admission to med school with good MCAT scores.

I think the fear mongering regarding the value of course credit or degrees from fundamentalist Christian schools is unwarranted. Sure, biases exist in any field, and there is always the possibility of unlawful discrimination. But this is relatively rare, and I would expect graduates to receive equal treatment based on the national rankings of the school in the discipline, a student's track record for undergraduate research, and independent assessments such as standardized test (GRE, Engineering exams, ACS exam, MCAT, PCAT, etc.)

When 'Fundamentalist' is applied to Christianity that usually implies that said Christian is a Biblical Creationist/Literalist; ie 6 day creation, light before stars, no evolution, animals and humans are of a different order and were put on the Earth with the properties they now have, actual world wide flood, etc. All of the above are anti-science, so people are right to look at science degrees from fundamentalist institutions with a weary eye.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

All of the above are anti-science, so people are right to look at science degrees from fundamentalist institutions with a weary eye.

In the US, what matters the most is that the institution has acquired regional accreditation. If a religious educational institution is accredited to award science degrees then that means the courses required in the programs are equivalent to others in the region that passed. That isn't to say all the courses from a religious educational institution can be transferred, it usually means the courses required for the program have been evaluated and found credible. I imagine that these universities take maintaining accreditation quite seriously, as they are probably more at risk of losing the status than others. However, from what I know, many are not accredited, but the ones that are shouldn't be discounted.

I believe it's incredibly important to keep an open mind regarding the topic of religious educational institutions. I'm not religious myself, but love many people that are, being from the bible belt. Many people are raised in denominations that discourage their young from attending non-religious higher-educational institutions. Oftentimes, that is all they can strive towards. I had two young men from the Jehovah's Witness faith visit my home a while back, I eventually got around to the topic of education with them. One told me about how he was obsessed with History & American politics and that he was anticipating reading The Federalist Papers; well, what would you know, I had an edition that was at least a century old (I rescued it for $1). He left my sidewalk clutching that book. My nephew is also being raised in that faith and I've always had a hard time trying to find material for him that doesn't get thrown away. Ultimately, people are people regardless of their faith, sometimes religious experience does give people good qualities that are very compatible with excelling in academics. We cannot be so judgmental here or children being raised in certain denominations will not have access to higher education. Imagine growing up knowing that you cannot attend college because there aren't any institutions around that are approved by your faith (community)? People shouldn't be ostracized on account of following a religious path that they were born into.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

When 'Fundamentalist' is applied to Christianity that usually implies that said Christian is a Biblical Creationist/Literalist; ie 6 day creation, light before stars, no evolution, animals and humans are of a different order and were put on the Earth with the properties they now have, actual world wide flood, etc. All of the above are anti-science, so people are right to look at science degrees from fundamentalist institutions with a weary eye.

Given the rapidly declining academic rigor in many US universities, I think most knowledgeable people are right to look at science degrees from ALL institutions ranked below about 100 or so with a weary eye. Why worry about the 5-10% or so of disputed "science of origins" so much, when such a poor job is being done by the majority of institutions with the other 90-95%? If a student scores in the 90th percentile on the GRE (or applicable exam) and has a good record of research and peer-reviewed papers, why would a disagreement with the degree granting institution about 5-10% of science be cause to discriminate against the student?

What next, shall we discriminate against students whose advisers are well known deniers of quantum mechanics or relativity? I had a close colleague at the Air Force Academy who did not believe Newtonian Forces existed. Maybe USAFA should have put an asterisk student transcripts from his classes, even though his students outperformed the department average on common exams and the final.

Physics has a long and noble history of not having litmus tests for other physicists who may be skeptics or outright deniers of the prevailing consensus in significant areas of physics. As long as they excel in their chosen subfields and understand the areas they may disagree with well enough to teach the consensus view accurately when required by their departments, there has never been a subfield of physics with which a competent physicist could not disagree and have a long and productive career. What is so different about the consensus theories of origins that they are a litmus test for scientific orthodoxy such that dissenters must be disparaged more so then dissenters in any other subfield?

And what of Euclidean geometry? I must admit, I am a denier. Euclid was wrong. Sure, it's a self-consistent system. Beginning with the postulates, I can prove all the theorems and solve all the problems. My students do very well in Euclidean geometry also. But I have to admit, several times each semester, I tell them Euclidean geometry really isn't true and there is a higher and more true representation based on better axioms. Am I any less qualified as a math or physics teacher? If a student can ace all the tests, does it matter if they do not really believe some details of the subject matter?

 

[micromass]

And what of Euclidean geometry? I must admit, I am a denier. Euclid was wrong. Sure, it's a self-consistent system. Beginning with the postulates, I can prove all the theorems and solve all the problems. My students do very well in Euclidean geometry also. But I have to admit, several times each semester, I tell them Euclidean geometry really isn't true and there is a higher and more true representation based on better axioms. Am I any less qualified as a math or physics teacher? If a student can ace all the tests, does it matter if they do not really believe some details of the subject matter?

I doubt you'll find any mathematician nowadays who would disagree with you. It's pretty obvious Euclid was wrong, on multiple counts even.

 

[symbolipoint]

I doubt you'll find any mathematician nowadays who would disagree with you. It's pretty obvious Euclid was wrong, on multiple counts even.

Amazing. Some of us have not reached a level of sophisticated knowledge to find fault with Euclidean Geometry, if this is what is taught as the remedial course in college or the "college preparatory" course in high school. I have reviewed the material four times and spent some time teaching it. This course seems excellent, supplying wonderful knowledge about geometric figures, triangles, angles, lengths of identifiable segments, several proofs and theorem. We just do not know what we're missing at this lesser level.

 

[micromass]

Amazing. Some of us have not reached a level of sophisticated knowledge to find fault with Euclidean Geometry, if this is what is taught as the remedial course in college or the "college preparatory" course in high school. I have reviewed the material four times and spent some time teaching it. This course seems excellent, supplying wonderful knowledge about geometric figures, triangles, angles, lengths of identifiable segments, several proofs and theorem. We just do not know what we're missing at this lesser level.

And you think that it describes the universe accurately?