Church and State: The "Sacramental Engineering" Case

Sam Martinez9 said:The whole point of a College of Arts and Sciences education is learning not to take anyone’s word at face value, including your own. Every philosophical or scientific authority is subject to scrutiny. When we discuss a specific philosopher, the goal isn't just to praise their insights, but to examine where they fell short. Scientific theories aren't sacred texts; they are tools provided to researchers specifically so they can be tested—and ultimately dismantled.

I have to say, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what philosophy actually is. It isn't a tragedy, though; it's all something that can be learned, especially nowadays with the internet at our fingertips.

If the internet has taught me anything, it's that it just makes smart people smarter and makes idiots even more clueless...😉

electricdriver33 said:If the internet has taught me anything, it's that it just makes smart people smarter and makes idiots even more clueless...😉

I used to believe that knowledge actually changed a person—that it could take someone lacking insight and turn them into a thoughtful individual. Lately, though, I’m starting to think you might be right.

I actually see it quite differently; I truly believe that research is a deeply creative endeavor. Why am I so convinced of this?

If you look at history, every great thinker and groundbreaking innovator relied heavily on their own imagination. Do we really think the General Theory of Relativity was established purely through rote logic? Or that the Big Bang is an absolute, settled fact? Most scientific breakthroughs begin as a spark of intuition before they are ever proven.

The real issue lies within our education system, which rarely encourages students to actually think outside the box. Take this student, for instance—she might possess a vast amount of technical knowledge in mechanical engineering from her coursework.

At the end of the day, the thesis itself isn't the core issue; it’s essentially just a formality. After successfully passing fifty different exams, one single paper shouldn't be treated like a total disaster, no matter how much the journalists try to sensationalize it. Her specific department might be under scrutiny, but the engineering program certainly isn't. If she lacks fundamental engineering skills, she'll struggle to find, land, or keep a job regardless of this one paper.

Sam Martinez9 said:The whole point of a College of Arts and Sciences education is learning not to take anyone’s word at face value, including your own. Every philosophical or scientific authority is subject to scrutiny. When we discuss a specific philosopher, the goal isn't just to praise their insights, but to examine where they fell short. Scientific theories aren't sacred texts; they are tools provided to researchers specifically so they can be tested—and ultimately dismantled.

I have to say, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of what philosophy actually is. It isn't a tragedy, though; it's all something that can be learned, especially nowadays with the internet at our fingertips.

My personal take on philosophy is mine alone and doesn't really have anything to do with this specific point. What I was actually trying to get at is that a huge number of graduates from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences hold these pretty terrible views that mirror the irrational and immoral attitudes currently spreading throughout the world.

Lawrence Rodriguez11 said:My personal take on philosophy is mine alone and doesn't really have anything to do with this specific point. What I was actually trying to get at is that a huge number of graduates from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences hold these pretty terrible views that mirror the irrational and immoral attitudes currently spreading throughout the world.

That’s your assessment of modern society, not necessarily a critique of the discipline itself. Philosophy and science both teach us that everything warrants scrutiny, so perhaps you should turn that lens inward. Question how you arrived at these convictions, whether they truly hold water, and make an effort to engage with opposing perspectives. Try to understand why others see things differently, who shaped your worldview, and who shaped theirs...

Anthony Perez9 said:Funny how there weren't any outspokenly atheist scientists back during the days of the Holy Inquisition and when churches ran everything. ☕
Nowadays, you see fewer and fewer followers of the Blessed Virgin among the top-tier scientists...

I suppose you're suggesting that Faraday and Maxwell really felt the heat from the Holy Inquisition, and maybe even Kepler did too...

Honestly, your claims are so wild they might actually make an FBI interrogator blush.

crimsonorca42 said:I suppose you're suggesting that Faraday and Maxwell really felt the heat from the Holy Inquisition, and maybe even Kepler did too...

Honestly, your claims are so wild they might actually make an FBI interrogator blush.

Look, Faraday and Maxwell were working way after the Holy Inquisition lost its teeth. Plus, they were in the United Kingdom, where that whole Inquisition thing was dead and buried long before they could even touch Newton a century earlier.

But hey, even in the 1800s, those old-school reactionary types still basically banned atheism at universities.

Seriously, you should be embarrassed for throwing out such half-baked arguments.

Lawrence Rodriguez11 said:You could probably draw a similar parallel with the students over at the College of Liberal Arts. They follow Goldstein and Josipovic blindly, only to come out the other side demanding equality and tolerance—but strictly for people who already agree with them.

Look, Ivo Josipović is a professor at the Law School.

And as for prof.dr.sc. Ivo Goldstein—trust me, he’s not out there teaching students to follow him like sheep.

What about that Raspudić couple, also professors over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences? You think they’re demanding total blind obedience from their students too? 🤔

You simply cannot claim to be studying astrophysics while simultaneously insisting that nothing exists beyond mere coincidence or random physical phenomena. We talk about the Big Bang, yet so many theories regarding black holes remain nothing more than educated guesses rather than established facts. Doesn't that inherently suggest there is a deeper mystery waiting to be uncovered? In school, we are taught to accept certain things as absolute truth, but is that really the whole story?

I constantly run into atheists who insist on clinging strictly to "the evidence," yet when I turn the tables and ask them where the definitive proof lies that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, they just stare at me blankly, completely lost.

Whether someone identifies as an atheist or a believer—and let’s be clear, it doesn't even have to be about religion—everyone seems to love throwing around the phrase "scientific fact" as if it were an unbeatable shield. I see it in the news all the time; it's as if journalists have suddenly become world-class experts in every single field imaginable😁 At this point, we have to realize that the word "fact" itself has been turned into a bit of a joke.

Charles Ross3 said:You were listening to Marxism because it was a mandatory requirement (even if they called it something else), but you were studying Marxism within an engineering program, not "Engineering Marxism" or "Marxist Mechanical Engineering."

The reality is that under the socialist system, subjects like Marxism or sociology were integrated into almost every major. It's also true that, for the most part, they served as tools for indoctrination. However, people weren't sitting in "Sociology of Mechanical Engineering" or "Marxism for Electrical Engineering"; rather, the idea was that students of engineering, electrical tech, or agriculture needed to grasp the broader social landscape they lived in. Of course, that brings us right back to the question of how much of that was genuine social insight versus pure indoctrination.

But regardless, when we are talking about the hard sciences, these were two entirely separate spheres: you studied your engineering because you had to, and you sat through some Marxism or sociology just to check a box—likely doing the bare minimum to pass—but it existed as a distinct entity. You wouldn't go looking for electrical schematics inside Marx's *Capital* or Engels' *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

What we are seeing now, with this supposed 'introduction of the Bible into engineering,' is a completely different beast. The Bible, as a collection of texts with diverse origins and eras, can certainly be analyzed through the lens of the humanities—looking at historical context, literary merit, dramatic structure, or its inherent messaging. But it simply cannot serve as the foundation for exact, empirical research. A collection of texts that claims to be dogma and eternal truth cannot be the basis for the hard sciences and rigorous scientific inquiry—which is precisely what an original, technical engineering paper ought to be.

I mean, what follows this: Catholic Dentistry?

Yeah, luckily I didn't grow up in China or Cambodia to experience the true joys of actual communism, where you'd get taught "engineering Marxism"... where engineers get humiliated and forced to quote Marx just because their machines or blueprints didn't turn out quite right...

Anyway, I recall my father—who was an atheist, though a very tolerant one—getting quite worked up when an older neighbor, maybe fifteen years my senior, wrote her thesis at the state business school on the spread of Christianity throughout Europe.
Back in the socialist era... early 1970s...
(He was annoyed because it had nothing to do with economics, not because he hated faith or believers like many of the forum users here might)

this whole thing now, with what’s being called the 'introduction of the Bible to engineering,' is a different beast: the Bible, viewed as a collection of freely interpreted texts from various origins, regardless of when they were written, can be analyzed within the humanities through historical context, or as literary value via its dramatic structure and messages, etc., but it cannot serve as a foundation for exact sciences. A collection of texts that claims to represent dogma and eternal truth simply cannot be the basis for empirical research—and that is precisely what an exact, original engineering thesis ought to be.

I'm not so naive that I can't see the forest for the trees.

This entire topic seems designed to further the ideological indoctrination of the academic community, serving as a final stand for common sense against various globalist mercenaries and their 'useful idiots.' They've intentionally picked some obscure thesis just to use it as a smokescreen to attack the supposed lack of indoctrination in perhaps the last STEM department that hasn't been fully infiltrated by 'modern values.'

Why not just rename the topic "Ideological indoctrination of the academic community"?

That way we could write about the endless stream of other nonsense found in supposedly 'scientific' papers...
Or, heaven forbid, suggest actually interesting topics for legitimate scientific papers in the social science departments...

lonetrucker4 said:Look, Faraday and Maxwell were working way after the Holy Inquisition lost its teeth. Plus, they were in the United Kingdom, where that whole Inquisition thing was dead and buried long before they could even touch Newton a century earlier.

But hey, even in the 1800s, those old-school reactionary types still basically banned atheism at universities.

Seriously, you should be embarrassed for throwing out such half-baked arguments.

The Inquisition wasn't actually out to get science or scientists, I suppose. It was more about hunting down heresy and heretics, if you look at it that way. Maybe people just conflate the two, but they weren't really the same thing... I guess.

Back then, you had people using the Inquisition to settle petty scores—just pure spite or greed, really. They’d throw out these baseless accusations just to grab whatever they could get. I guess it's not much different from when some local commissar would label Mark a "kulak" just so he could seize his property and toss him into a labor camp. Or maybe it's like when Joe reported Paul as a "collaborator"—even though all Paul did was work at the local mill grinding grain for everyone—simply because Joe had eyes for Paul's wife and wanted to move in once Paul was executed. It's all the same pattern, I suppose. Just people using power to steal what isn't theirs.

Even back in the 1800s, I suppose you could say the reactionary forces essentially maintained a functional ban on atheism within the halls of academia. It was always there, lurking... that sort of unspoken rule keeping certain ideas out of the universities.

It feels like we’re seeing this growing wave of militant anti-theism within the academic community lately, and it’s getting harder to ignore. It isn't just about targeting people who follow traditional religions, either. It seems more like an outright spread of hostility toward anyone who doesn't subscribe to those endless, ever-shifting "progressive" values. It just feels like there's no end to it, I guess. Maybe it's just how things are heading now, but it's definitely noticeable.

Honestly, one really ought to feel some level of shame for rushing through such pointless arguments. It’s all just noise, I suppose.

Can you actually look yourself in the mirror and say that out loud?😁

placidnomad87 said:You simply cannot claim to be studying astrophysics while simultaneously insisting that nothing exists beyond mere coincidence or random physical phenomena. We talk about the Big Bang, yet so many theories regarding black holes remain nothing more than educated guesses rather than established facts. Doesn't that inherently suggest there is a deeper mystery waiting to be uncovered? In school, we are taught to accept certain things as absolute truth, but is that really the whole story?

I constantly run into atheists who insist on clinging strictly to "the evidence," yet when I turn the tables and ask them where the definitive proof lies that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, they just stare at me blankly, completely lost.

Whether someone identifies as an atheist or a believer—and let’s be clear, it doesn't even have to be about religion—everyone seems to love throwing around the phrase "scientific fact" as if it were an unbeatable shield. I see it in the news all the time; it's as if journalists have suddenly become world-class experts in every single field imaginable😁 At this point, we have to realize that the word "fact" itself has been turned into a bit of a joke.

That isn't what physics is about. Physics deals with physical phenomena and laws. Whether God exists or not simply isn't within the scope of physics.

placidnomad87 said:You simply cannot claim to be studying astrophysics while simultaneously insisting that nothing exists beyond mere coincidence or random physical phenomena. We talk about the Big Bang, yet so many theories regarding black holes remain nothing more than educated guesses rather than established facts. Doesn't that inherently suggest there is a deeper mystery waiting to be uncovered? In school, we are taught to accept certain things as absolute truth, but is that really the whole story?

I constantly run into atheists who insist on clinging strictly to "the evidence," yet when I turn the tables and ask them where the definitive proof lies that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, they just stare at me blankly, completely lost.

Whether someone identifies as an atheist or a believer—and let’s be clear, it doesn't even have to be about religion—everyone seems to love throwing around the phrase "scientific fact" as if it were an unbeatable shield. I see it in the news all the time; it's as if journalists have suddenly become world-class experts in every single field imaginable😁 At this point, we have to realize that the word "fact" itself has been turned into a bit of a joke.

Schools ought to be teaching children the actual definition of a scientific theory. If they aren't doing that, then our education system is in a truly dire state.

placidnomad87 said:You simply cannot claim to be studying astrophysics while simultaneously insisting that nothing exists beyond mere coincidence or random physical phenomena. We talk about the Big Bang, yet so many theories regarding black holes remain nothing more than educated guesses rather than established facts. Doesn't that inherently suggest there is a deeper mystery waiting to be uncovered? In school, we are taught to accept certain things as absolute truth, but is that really the whole story?

I constantly run into atheists who insist on clinging strictly to "the evidence," yet when I turn the tables and ask them where the definitive proof lies that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, they just stare at me blankly, completely lost.

Whether someone identifies as an atheist or a believer—and let’s be clear, it doesn't even have to be about religion—everyone seems to love throwing around the phrase "scientific fact" as if it were an unbeatable shield. I see it in the news all the time; it's as if journalists have suddenly become world-class experts in every single field imaginable😁 At this point, we have to realize that the word "fact" itself has been turned into a bit of a joke.

Of course they stare blankly. That's a question you can only answer by talking to someone who has spent decades researching climate science—someone deeply versed in physics, mathematics, and countless other disciplines. Only the completely uninformed believe that scientific expertise can be acquired with a few mouse clicks and then debated over a beer at a local pub.

placidnomad87 said:You simply cannot claim to be studying astrophysics while simultaneously insisting that nothing exists beyond mere coincidence or random physical phenomena. We talk about the Big Bang, yet so many theories regarding black holes remain nothing more than educated guesses rather than established facts. Doesn't that inherently suggest there is a deeper mystery waiting to be uncovered? In school, we are taught to accept certain things as absolute truth, but is that really the whole story?

I constantly run into atheists who insist on clinging strictly to "the evidence," yet when I turn the tables and ask them where the definitive proof lies that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, they just stare at me blankly, completely lost.

Whether someone identifies as an atheist or a believer—and let’s be clear, it doesn't even have to be about religion—everyone seems to love throwing around the phrase "scientific fact" as if it were an unbeatable shield. I see it in the news all the time; it's as if journalists have suddenly become world-class experts in every single field imaginable😁 At this point, we have to realize that the word "fact" itself has been turned into a bit of a joke.

Journalists are experts in one thing: journalism. They are not scientists, nor are they experts in the sciences. And naturally, this version of "science" has become a mockery because it isn't even science. But the real joke is the person who actually believes it is.

True knowledge, true science, and genuine expertise in any field cannot exist without years of daily, dedicated immersion in that specific area of study.

I cannot speak to the specifics of this particular case, though I might offer a broader observation: the state effectively suppresses religious expression until one reaches their mid-teens, primarily through an educational system designed to stifle any burgeoning spiritual development (and by that, I certainly do not mean irrational superstitions or unprovable dogmas).

wearyharbor41 said:I cannot speak to the specifics of this particular case, though I might offer a broader observation: the state effectively suppresses religious expression until one reaches their mid-teens, primarily through an educational system designed to stifle any burgeoning spiritual development (and by that, I certainly do not mean irrational superstitions or unprovable dogmas).

The state isn't banning anything. Seriously, I'm telling you this as a believer. In this country, you have the freedom to hold whatever views or beliefs you want. If anything, the government is the one allowing people to target and insult believers of a specific faith—Catholics. Everything else is just a hard NO and straight-up hate speech.

As for those core values being drilled into you? That’s on your family, not the government.

lonetrucker4 said:Look, Faraday and Maxwell were working way after the Holy Inquisition lost its teeth. Plus, they were in the United Kingdom, where that whole Inquisition thing was dead and buried long before they could even touch Newton a century earlier.

But hey, even in the 1800s, those old-school reactionary types still basically banned atheism at universities.

Seriously, you should be embarrassed for throwing out such half-baked arguments.

Now, I happen to know history quite well—specifically where and when Maxwell and Faraday actually lived.

Perhaps you might consider reading the actual post I was referencing before you start handing out moral lectures by pulling my words out of context and twisting them to suit your needs, all in the spirit of that 19th-century philosophy you seem to enjoy so much.

If you had done that, maybe you would have caught the sarcasm in my response.

But I suppose it was more important for you to defend your ideological comrade, whom I was merely quoting, by ignoring and failing to point out his ignorance, opting instead to immediately attack the "class (or what they call 'ideological' now) enemy." 🤔 ☕

Sam Diaz2 said:The state isn't banning anything. Seriously, I'm telling you this as a believer. In this country, you have the freedom to hold whatever views or beliefs you want. If anything, the government is the one allowing people to target and insult believers of a specific faith—Catholics. Everything else is just a hard NO and straight-up hate speech.

As for those core values being drilled into you? That’s on your family, not the government.

They don't ban things openly; they do it subtly. I'm saying the exact same thing to you as a person of faith.
Kids are being taught they evolved from monkeys, that everything came from nothing, and how to use condoms.

Claiming that this kind of education in a country where the vast majority are Catholic isn't a "ban" just because it isn't written in a law book is incredibly naive.
It’s a calculated attempt to wipe out traditional values and promote degeneracy. 😠

Rebecca Diaz said:They don't ban things openly; they do it subtly. I'm saying the exact same thing to you as a person of faith.
Kids are being taught they evolved from monkeys, that everything came from nothing, and how to use condoms.

Claiming that this kind of education in a country where the vast majority are Catholic isn't a "ban" just because it isn't written in a law book is incredibly naive.
It’s a calculated attempt to wipe out traditional values and promote degeneracy. 😠

None of that stuff is actually in the school curriculum. Now, whether creationists are intentionally twisting what's really being taught or if they just can't wrap their heads around the material... well, that's a whole different conversation.

Rebecca Diaz said:They don't ban things openly; they do it subtly. I'm saying the exact same thing to you as a person of faith.
Kids are being taught they evolved from monkeys, that everything came from nothing, and how to use condoms.

Claiming that this kind of education in a country where the vast majority are Catholic isn't a "ban" just because it isn't written in a law book is incredibly naive.
It’s a calculated attempt to wipe out traditional values and promote degeneracy. 😠

Nobody is actually claiming humans descended directly from monkeys; I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the concept, much like so many others. Biological evolution is a remarkably straightforward, logical theory, and frankly, I find it baffling that people struggle to grasp it. It seems our public school system is in a state of total failure if it can't even convey these basic principles to students effectively.

Rebecca Diaz said:They don't ban things openly; they do it subtly. I'm saying the exact same thing to you as a person of faith.
Kids are being taught they evolved from monkeys, that everything came from nothing, and how to use condoms.

Claiming that this kind of education in a country where the vast majority are Catholic isn't a "ban" just because it isn't written in a law book is incredibly naive.
It’s a calculated attempt to wipe out traditional values and promote degeneracy. 😠

The United States is a secular nation, and schools, as government institutions, are required to remain secular. If we were to ban the teaching of evolution in classrooms, we wouldn't have biologists, zoologists, doctors, or biochemists left.

Rebecca Diaz said:They don't ban things openly; they do it subtly. I'm saying the exact same thing to you as a person of faith.
Kids are being taught they evolved from monkeys, that everything came from nothing, and how to use condoms.

Claiming that this kind of education in a country where the vast majority are Catholic isn't a "ban" just because it isn't written in a law book is incredibly naive.
It’s a calculated attempt to wipe out traditional values and promote degeneracy. 😠

And yet, here you are, advocating for the suppression of science within our schools—all while posting on the internet in the 21st century. What absolute chaos.

Rebecca Diaz said:They don't ban things openly; they do it subtly. I'm saying the exact same thing to you as a person of faith.
Kids are being taught they evolved from monkeys, that everything came from nothing, and how to use condoms.

Claiming that this kind of education in a country where the vast majority are Catholic isn't a "ban" just because it isn't written in a law book is incredibly naive.
It’s a calculated attempt to wipe out traditional values and promote degeneracy. 😠

No, that’s just not what kids are taught... not in any school, period. Not once.

Besides, there isn't a more proven theory than evolution... there are literally countless examples. Even the Catholic Church accepted it quite a while ago (in its own way), and there are official stances stating that evolutionary theory doesn't clash with church doctrine—so your whole rant about being a Catholic nation is totally off base. I don't even see how that connects to anything. You really need to realize that TE isn't some ideological or value-based thing (unlike "condom use" and sexuality, which are to an extent), but just a plain old fact.

And the condom stuff and all that (which I haven't heard much about here in the States, though high schoolers definitely need guidance on certain things... unless you'd rather just close your eyes and pretend stuff isn't happening) —it has absolutely zero to do with the theory of evolution. It's pretty stupid to try and throw it all into one bucket like so many people attempt to do.
Sex ed is largely a personal matter to a certain degree, but evolutionary theory isn't... just like teaching multiplication tables or division or whatever.

placidnomad87 said:You simply cannot claim to be studying astrophysics while simultaneously insisting that nothing exists beyond mere coincidence or random physical phenomena. We talk about the Big Bang, yet so many theories regarding black holes remain nothing more than educated guesses rather than established facts. Doesn't that inherently suggest there is a deeper mystery waiting to be uncovered? In school, we are taught to accept certain things as absolute truth, but is that really the whole story?

I constantly run into atheists who insist on clinging strictly to "the evidence," yet when I turn the tables and ask them where the definitive proof lies that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change, they just stare at me blankly, completely lost.

Whether someone identifies as an atheist or a believer—and let’s be clear, it doesn't even have to be about religion—everyone seems to love throwing around the phrase "scientific fact" as if it were an unbeatable shield. I see it in the news all the time; it's as if journalists have suddenly become world-class experts in every single field imaginable😁 At this point, we have to realize that the word "fact" itself has been turned into a bit of a joke.

There it is. Classic psychological projection right there. 🤣

Five hundred years ago, people were asking "where's the proof Earth is orbiting the Sun" too.

The proof is sitting right there in dozens of IPCC reports over the last 35 years. We're talking hundreds of climatologists per report—people who literally spent their entire lives studying this stuff—all based on thousands of peer-reviewed papers. Every single one has a "non-technical summary" designed specifically for any educated person to wrap their head around.

But nah, that’s way too much work. People just want a simple answer like "well, it says so in the Bible." 😵

Anyway, you're veering off topic.

A paper like that shouldn't have even made it past the first round of review in an engineering department. It shows how broken the standards are. Look: I could probably scrape together a paper on "pandemic apocalypses in 20th century Sci-Fi," but that’s literary theory, not medicine.