Church and State: The "Sacramental Engineering" Case

For years now, people have been sounding the alarm about the crisis in higher education here in the States, pointing to the slipping rankings of major institutions like the University of California, Berkeley (which is actually a topic being discussed right here), questioning the actual quality of various programs and whether the graduates coming out of our universities are truly becoming academic citizens.

But lately, all eyes have been on a bizarre situation involving a senior thesis at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—a field we all know is incredibly demanding—and everyone is asking: is this even an appropriate topic for a mechanical engineering degree?

The thesis topic from a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bible, titled "A Technical Review in the Bible," is what has everyone talking.

According to the introduction, the entire subject was suggested by her assigned faculty advisor.

Looking at the first source:
Quote:>

According to the definition provided by the Encyclopædia Britannica, mechanical engineering is a professional field and scientific discipline encompassing the design, production, and operation of energy, work, and tool machines, etc., where its theoretical principles are rooted in scientific disciplines such as mathematics, mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and materials engineering.

Some of the specific excerpts taken from the paper include:

Quote:>

"In the Bible, sulfur is mentioned 15 times, and its mention is always linked to divine judgment, the underworld, and death: 'Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah...' (Genesis 19:24)

As references in a thesis completed after five years of rigorous engineering study, they cite sites like ziva-rijec.online, studentlesson.com, bible-govori.hr, christiananswers.net, and quora.com...

So, where does the Bible fit into this story?
Quote:>>

The advisor for this Bible-themed engineering thesis was actually on Oprah Winfrey's list.

A philosopher and theologian commented on the topic, calling this case "sacramental engineering," and used it to touch upon the broader issue of secularization:

Quote:>

In a democratic society—meaning a society that has successfully moved past these old ways in America—the principle of secularization must hold true. Secularization is vital because it prevents a nation and its people from sinking into a total loss of freedom by identifying too closely with religious institutions and religious content. When you claim a country is defined solely by one religion, you aren't really describing a sovereign state anymore. A state that identifies itself through religious content becomes a place where freedom and diversity are punished. Our current situation, as those students of "sacramental engineering" might put it, seems to be constructed from two primary materials: misfortune and nonsense. It feels like we’re living in this unfortunate country that just can't seem to handle true freedom; we talk about liberty so incessantly that we've practically forced it into a military uniform and draped a rosary around its neck.

Good grief 😲
Look, I didn't go to...

but seriously, what on earth?

"The Bible mentions sulfur 15 times, and every single time it’s tied to God's judgment, the underworld, or death:

'Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah...' (Genesis 19:24)

What does any of this have to do with mechanical engineering?

Chloe Martinez7 said:Good grief 😲
Look, I didn't go to...

but seriously, what on earth?

"The Bible mentions sulfur 15 times, and every single time it’s tied to God's judgment, the underworld, or death:

'Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah...' (Genesis 19:24)

What does any of this have to do with mechanical engineering?

Look, the topic here is technical materials, and sulfur pops up all the time in the Bible.
(even the Encyclopædia Britannica mentions that little detail)
It’s highly likely they were already using sulfur to sterilize barrels and containers back then... so it was actually incredibly useful. The reason people connect sulfur to hell is probably just because they overindulged in wine and woke up feeling like death the next morning... ☕

Imagine getting a degree from MIT just to write a thesis on how Noah built his ark. Honestly? Seems pretty legit to me.

Charles Ross3 said:For years now, people have been sounding the alarm about the crisis in higher education here in the States, pointing to the slipping rankings of major institutions like the University of California, Berkeley (which is actually a topic being discussed right here), questioning the actual quality of various programs and whether the graduates coming out of our universities are truly becoming academic citizens.

But lately, all eyes have been on a bizarre situation involving a senior thesis at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—a field we all know is incredibly demanding—and everyone is asking: is this even an appropriate topic for a mechanical engineering degree?

The thesis topic from a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Bible, titled "A Technical Review in the Bible," is what has everyone talking.

According to the introduction, the entire subject was suggested by her assigned faculty advisor.

Looking at the first source:
Quote:>

According to the definition provided by the Encyclopædia Britannica, mechanical engineering is a professional field and scientific discipline encompassing the design, production, and operation of energy, work, and tool machines, etc., where its theoretical principles are rooted in scientific disciplines such as mathematics, mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and materials engineering.

Some of the specific excerpts taken from the paper include:

Quote:>

"In the Bible, sulfur is mentioned 15 times, and its mention is always linked to divine judgment, the underworld, and death: 'Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah...' (Genesis 19:24)

As references in a thesis completed after five years of rigorous engineering study, they cite sites like ziva-rijec.online, studentlesson.com, bible-govori.hr, christiananswers.net, and quora.com...

So, where does the Bible fit into this story?
Quote:>>

The advisor for this Bible-themed engineering thesis was actually on Oprah Winfrey's list.

A philosopher and theologian commented on the topic, calling this case "sacramental engineering," and used it to touch upon the broader issue of secularization:

Quote:>

In a democratic society—meaning a society that has successfully moved past these old ways in America—the principle of secularization must hold true. Secularization is vital because it prevents a nation and its people from sinking into a total loss of freedom by identifying too closely with religious institutions and religious content. When you claim a country is defined solely by one religion, you aren't really describing a sovereign state anymore. A state that identifies itself through religious content becomes a place where freedom and diversity are punished. Our current situation, as those students of "sacramental engineering" might put it, seems to be constructed from two primary materials: misfortune and nonsense. It feels like we’re living in this unfortunate country that just can't seem to handle true freedom; we talk about liberty so incessantly that we've practically forced it into a military uniform and draped a rosary around its neck.

Back when I was a student, during the old socialist era, we had this one course in our first year—I can't quite recall the exact name... but the core was basically Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory... at the time, those terms felt a bit strange to me, certainly different from the usual slogans like Marshall or the Democratic Party... but looking back, I suppose it was just a subtle way of ideologically conditioning the newer generations.
So, I don't really see why anyone is acting surprised now... every era pushes its own ideology, and I guess the pendulum just swings back sometimes...

Besides, didn't Elizabeth Warren get her doctorate with a paper called "The mythical aspect of ecofeminism"? If you actually bother to read it, you'll see just how much nonsense is packed in there... something along the lines of "women are connected to Mother Nature and the cosmos through menstruation"... if I recall correctly.
If that qualifies as a doctoral thesis, then I don't see why a paper analyzing the statistics of material mentions in the Bible is suddenly considered unacceptable...

On that subject:


An interesting comment:
This was funny 7 years ago....
7 years later.... It's literally becoming reality

Just another instance where reality ends up overtaking what used to be mere satire...

Timothy Nelson5 said:Back when I was a student, during the old socialist era, we had this one course in our first year—I can't quite recall the exact name... but the core was basically Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory... at the time, those terms felt a bit strange to me, certainly different from the usual slogans like Marshall or the Democratic Party... but looking back, I suppose it was just a subtle way of ideologically conditioning the newer generations.
So, I don't really see why anyone is acting surprised now... every era pushes its own ideology, and I guess the pendulum just swings back sometimes...

Besides, didn't Elizabeth Warren get her doctorate with a paper called "The mythical aspect of ecofeminism"? If you actually bother to read it, you'll see just how much nonsense is packed in there... something along the lines of "women are connected to Mother Nature and the cosmos through menstruation"... if I recall correctly.
If that qualifies as a doctoral thesis, then I don't see why a paper analyzing the statistics of material mentions in the Bible is suddenly considered unacceptable...

On that subject:

An interesting comment:
This was funny 7 years ago....
7 years later.... It's literally becoming reality

Just another instance where reality ends up overtaking what used to be mere satire...

Holly earned her degree in the humanities, not engineering. Also, if I recall our old debates correctly, the dissertation is about ecofeminism rather than being an ecofeminist work itself, and it includes plenty of critiques of the subject. This means those quoted statements could easily be taken out of context; they represent someone else's views, not necessarily the author's own position.

Timothy Nelson5 said:Back when I was a student, during the old socialist era, we had this one course in our first year—I can't quite recall the exact name... but the core was basically Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory... at the time, those terms felt a bit strange to me, certainly different from the usual slogans like Marshall or the Democratic Party... but looking back, I suppose it was just a subtle way of ideologically conditioning the newer generations.
So, I don't really see why anyone is acting surprised now... every era pushes its own ideology, and I guess the pendulum just swings back sometimes...

Besides, didn't Elizabeth Warren get her doctorate with a paper called "The mythical aspect of ecofeminism"? If you actually bother to read it, you'll see just how much nonsense is packed in there... something along the lines of "women are connected to Mother Nature and the cosmos through menstruation"... if I recall correctly.
If that qualifies as a doctoral thesis, then I don't see why a paper analyzing the statistics of material mentions in the Bible is suddenly considered unacceptable...

On that subject:

An interesting comment:
This was funny 7 years ago....
7 years later.... It's literally becoming reality

Just another instance where reality ends up overtaking what used to be mere satire...

Actually, I disagree. In a healthy society, you might find all sorts of ideologies, but they aren't forced down our throats from the top—especially not in fields where they have zero business being, like at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It isn't just ridiculous; it's pathological. When this kind of thing starts creeping into a society that used to be free from it, it means something is broken. Though, honestly, we probably wouldn't even recognize what "healthy" looks like since we've never actually been in a functional state to begin with.

Timothy Nelson5 said:Back when I was a student, during the old socialist era, we had this one course in our first year—I can't quite recall the exact name... but the core was basically Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory... at the time, those terms felt a bit strange to me, certainly different from the usual slogans like Marshall or the Democratic Party... but looking back, I suppose it was just a subtle way of ideologically conditioning the newer generations.
So, I don't really see why anyone is acting surprised now... every era pushes its own ideology, and I guess the pendulum just swings back sometimes...

Besides, didn't Elizabeth Warren get her doctorate with a paper called "The mythical aspect of ecofeminism"? If you actually bother to read it, you'll see just how much nonsense is packed in there... something along the lines of "women are connected to Mother Nature and the cosmos through menstruation"... if I recall correctly.
If that qualifies as a doctoral thesis, then I don't see why a paper analyzing the statistics of material mentions in the Bible is suddenly considered unacceptable...

On that subject:

An interesting comment:
This was funny 7 years ago....
7 years later.... It's literally becoming reality

Just another instance where reality ends up overtaking what used to be mere satire...

So, did anyone actually choose that for their senior thesis?

A truly super
idea, I suppose. It’s almost as if the church decides to get involved whenever they need some help from those folks over at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology regarding sacramental engineering or sacred architecture and such.

bluemason3 said:Holly earned her degree in the humanities, not engineering. Also, if I recall our old debates correctly, the dissertation is about ecofeminism rather than being an ecofeminist work itself, and it includes plenty of critiques of the subject. This means those quoted statements could easily be taken out of context; they represent someone else's views, not necessarily the author's own position.

I actually read that dissertation. Well, I didn't exactly study it, but I skimmed through it pretty quickly. And, honestly, I noticed some of the most... interesting choices she made.
It was available online back then, so you can go ahead and dig through it yourself if you feel the need.

And maybe you, or anyone else, could explain something to me—what does it mean that the humanities can just push through any kind of nonsense, while something like MIT can't?
Why isn't that the case?

Timothy Nelson5 said:I actually read that dissertation. Well, I didn't exactly study it, but I skimmed through it pretty quickly. And, honestly, I noticed some of the most... interesting choices she made.
It was available online back then, so you can go ahead and dig through it yourself if you feel the need.

And maybe you, or anyone else, could explain something to me—what does it mean that the humanities can just push through any kind of nonsense, while something like MIT can't?
Why isn't that the case?

Because machines don't run on stupidity.

Engineering is just more precise. In the humanities, things get a bit fuzzy. Some subjects have a pretty solid methodology, while others are basically just a bunch of rambling nonsense 🤷

If you ask me, this whole situation was totally predictable, and I’d bet my life it won't be the last one we see. This is the kind of person who hangs on every single word Damir Stojić says. They'll end up marrying some guy just like them—probably someone working for the FBI or an engineer from MIT—who spends his Saturdays kneeling in a public square. Both will have high-end salaries, a big family, and they'll think life is perfect, provided everyone else in Rhode Island starts living exactly according to their moral compass.

Chloe Martinez7 said:Good grief 😲
Look, I didn't go to...

but seriously, what on earth?

"The Bible mentions sulfur 15 times, and every single time it’s tied to God's judgment, the underworld, or death:

'Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah...' (Genesis 19:24)

What does any of this have to do with mechanical engineering?

There's that old biblical line about how God can't stop the turning of iron wheels.

Isn't that right up an engineer's alley?

But our resident religious fanatic didn't even bother mentioning it in her paper.
She was probably too scared of bruising 😂God's reputation
.
☕It’s just pathetic how our education system lets this kind of "work" pass through.

At this rate, we might as well expect creationists teaching biology at MIT.

Karen Doyle72 said:Because machines don't run on stupidity.

If they’re just nonsense—then why are people actually studying them?
Why on earth are we footing the bill for degrees that teach nothing but fluff?

And by the way—there’s this constant push for everyone to get paid the exact same amount for the same job.
As if we're all somehow "equally valuable."
The idea that a person with an engineering degree from MIT should earn the same paycheck as someone with a gender studies degree.

So, I guess it doesn't really matter if the machinery actually works when it's being designed by people who don't know what they're doing, right?
It's all about feelings and good intentions now, I suppose.

🍿

Anthony Perez9 said:There's that old biblical line about how God can't stop the turning of iron wheels.

Isn't that right up an engineer's alley?

But our resident religious fanatic didn't even bother mentioning it in her paper.
She was probably too scared of bruising 😂God's reputation
.
☕It’s just pathetic how our education system lets this kind of "work" pass through.

At this rate, we might as well expect creationists teaching biology at MIT.

I suppose there are actually some legitimate scientific papers out there that attempt to find references to modern technology within biblical texts. It’s not all just nonsense, I guess. At the very least, you have to admit they’re... interesting. Intrigued, maybe? They certainly provide food for thought if you're into that sort of thing.

It’s just so typical, really. And honestly, pretty pathetic. The way our entire education system handles this kind of "work"... it’s just sad.

So, what exactly makes that undergrad thesis "subpar"? I mean, if we're looking at it through that lens, then why wouldn't a doctoral dissertation on the mitski aspekt ekofeminizm be considered acceptable? It’s all a bit subjective, I guess. Maybe.
I mean, I guess you’d think a doctoral dissertation would actually require... well, more than this. It feels like there's a baseline expectation for depth, isn't there? Or maybe I'm just being cynical. Either way, it feels a bit thin.
I mean, honestly... a bachelor's thesis? That's mostly just a formality at this point. You check the boxes, you follow the rubric, you move on. But a PhD dissertation? That’s an entirely different beast altogether. It's not just paperwork.

I suppose we might even see creationists showing up in the natural sciences department... maybe. It feels like one of those inevitable shifts, doesn't it? Everything seems to be blurring lately.

If you sit down and actually compile a list of those massive names in scientific history—you know, the heavy hitters from Europe and beyond—you start to notice a pattern that most modern textbooks tend to gloss over. It’s a bit unsettling, I guess, when you realize that the vast majority of them were actually creationists. They weren't looking to tear down the idea of a Creator; they were often trying to understand the mechanics of how He put everything together. It makes you wonder if we've lost some perspective along the way.
If the architects of the natural sciences were all creationists, does that mean we should just toss the whole field out the window? I guess it’s an interesting thought, if a bit heavy. Maybe. It makes you wonder about the foundation of everything we claim to know. If the people who laid the groundwork were operating under a completely different set of assumptions than what we teach in schools today, does that invalidate the math? Or the physics? I don't know. It feels like a slippery slope, honestly. It's a messy question, and I suspect there isn't a clean answer to be found anywhere.

Even now, I suppose most scientists fall somewhere into the agnostic camp.
A true scientist should probably be an agnostic—not quite a believer, yet not strictly an atheist either. I mean, looking at the way today’s "activists" act, they aren't even really atheists; they're more like anti-theists. It's all a bit messy, I guess.

Karen Doyle72 said:Because machines don't run on stupidity.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. 👍

It’s probably why the humanities keeps peddling all sorts of nonsense to us—right from the top levels of the Department of Education. 😬

Timothy Nelson5 said:I suppose there are actually some legitimate scientific papers out there that attempt to find references to modern technology within biblical texts. It’s not all just nonsense, I guess. At the very least, you have to admit they’re... interesting. Intrigued, maybe? They certainly provide food for thought if you're into that sort of thing.

It’s just so typical, really. And honestly, pretty pathetic. The way our entire education system handles this kind of "work"... it’s just sad.

So, what exactly makes that undergrad thesis "subpar"? I mean, if we're looking at it through that lens, then why wouldn't a doctoral dissertation on the mitski aspekt ekofeminizm be considered acceptable? It’s all a bit subjective, I guess. Maybe.
I mean, I guess you’d think a doctoral dissertation would actually require... well, more than this. It feels like there's a baseline expectation for depth, isn't there? Or maybe I'm just being cynical. Either way, it feels a bit thin.
I mean, honestly... a bachelor's thesis? That's mostly just a formality at this point. You check the boxes, you follow the rubric, you move on. But a PhD dissertation? That’s an entirely different beast altogether. It's not just paperwork.

I suppose we might even see creationists showing up in the natural sciences department... maybe. It feels like one of those inevitable shifts, doesn't it? Everything seems to be blurring lately.

If you sit down and actually compile a list of those massive names in scientific history—you know, the heavy hitters from Europe and beyond—you start to notice a pattern that most modern textbooks tend to gloss over. It’s a bit unsettling, I guess, when you realize that the vast majority of them were actually creationists. They weren't looking to tear down the idea of a Creator; they were often trying to understand the mechanics of how He put everything together. It makes you wonder if we've lost some perspective along the way.
If the architects of the natural sciences were all creationists, does that mean we should just toss the whole field out the window? I guess it’s an interesting thought, if a bit heavy. Maybe. It makes you wonder about the foundation of everything we claim to know. If the people who laid the groundwork were operating under a completely different set of assumptions than what we teach in schools today, does that invalidate the math? Or the physics? I don't know. It feels like a slippery slope, honestly. It's a messy question, and I suspect there isn't a clean answer to be found anywhere.

Even now, I suppose most scientists fall somewhere into the agnostic camp.
A true scientist should probably be an agnostic—not quite a believer, yet not strictly an atheist either. I mean, looking at the way today’s "activists" act, they aren't even really atheists; they're more like anti-theists. It's all a bit messy, I guess.

Fair point, but so what? Einstein was a Jew, but the theory of relativity isn't exactly *Jewish physics*.

There is no such thing as Christian agriculture, no Islamic economics, and certainly no Catholic mechanical engineering. Religion eventually retreated from those fields because it simply wasn't effective there. Prayer won't end a drought; irrigation solves a drought.

A scientist might belong to a religion, but faith—be it their own or anyone else's—has absolutely no business interfering with science, least of all the specific field they are currently working in.

Sam Martinez9 said:Fair point, but so what? Einstein was a Jew, but the theory of relativity isn't exactly *Jewish physics*.

There is no such thing as Christian agriculture, no Islamic economics, and certainly no Catholic mechanical engineering. Religion eventually retreated from those fields because it simply wasn't effective there. Prayer won't end a drought; irrigation solves a drought.

A scientist might belong to a religion, but faith—be it their own or anyone else's—has absolutely no business interfering with science, least of all the specific field they are currently working in.

Sam Martinez9 again—a Strawman par Excellence.

Modern science owes a massive debt to the Greeks. By extension, you could argue science itself was built to support slavery. 🧐

#logic

Look, let's be real—we aren't tossing out creationists themselves, just creationism. If a creationist makes a contribution that actually holds up scientifically, fine. But don't expect that breakthrough to land in evolutionary biology.
Even Newton spent more time obsessing over religion and alchemy than he did on actual physics, so most of that stuff is just noise at this point.