Best degrees for atheists who want to debate creationists?

[Kwayera]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by Cookie182

So bio...is there much work along the lines of macroevolution, zoology etc (my uni seems to encourage you to go down this strand or the micro strand). In combination with a commerce degree and obviously hnours/masters, would you look at say careers in environmental consulting or something?

For environmental consulting you need to have a background in geoscience - not just geology, but also geography (human and physical). For example, my degree (Marine Science) encompasses mostly biology and geoscience, and I'm majoring in both. But to get into consulting, you generally have to have a background in GIS to be hireable.

[Cookie182]

Originally Posted by Kwayera

For environmental consulting you need to have a background in geoscience - not just geology, but also geography (human and physical). For example, my degree (Marine Science) encompasses mostly biology and geoscience, and I'm majoring in both. But to get into consulting, you generally have to have a background in GIS to be hireable.

Ok cheers. Perhaps I should look at a geography major then, I loved geography in highschool.

We have two GIS subjects at my uni. A geography major would also prob combine well with economics. The problem is I only have about 90 credits I can add on.

Is a science degree without any chemistry or physics worth much?

I could take intro geology units, 3 bio units (upto 2nd yr ecology), env physics, biogeography, GIS, Remote Sensing etc and fit it all, but would this be a worth while major?

I'm guessing it would at the very least give me breadth and begin to give me answers to my materialist ponderments.

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

I guess in some perfect world we could both not have to work and take up a BA in philosophy. Now thats when our critical skills would sharpen (I guess I also have that option against doing Bsc, but I think a Bsc is more respected).

My personal opinion is that surface level philosophy is very useful for challenging god and the typical creationist arguments. However, I have found that truly critical philosophy has made me somewhat more cynical towards the conception of reason as the 'ultimate arbitrator' and leaves me unable to rule out god entirely.

[Cookie182]

or I could begin the law degree I'm enrolled in...lol

[KFunk]

Also, I find it interesting that your approach to education in this case is to work towards justifying a personal conviction (similar to many entering a theological seminary?), compared to an exercise in open discovery.

[Cookie182]

Originally Posted by KFunk

My personal opinion is that surface level philosophy is very useful for challenging god and the typical creationist arguments. However, I have found that truly critical philosophy has made me somewhat more cynical towards the conception of reason as the 'ultimate arbitrator' and leaves me unable to rule out god entirely.

Hmm and as a med student, your understanding of evolutionary bio would also be up there...

After reviewing this thread, should philosophy then be the second degree that I should take up? I have considered it, its just that in many ways I think you can read a lot of it yourself. In hindsight do you ever regret paying to do it at a tertiary institution? Is it worth the formal uni study is basically what im asking as oppossed to being an "amature"?

Also do you think it would be even more complimentary then science to my finance/economics studies?

[Cookie182]

Originally Posted by KFunk

Also, I find it interesting that your approach to education in this case is to work towards justifying a personal conviction (similar to many entering a theological seminary?), compared to an exercise in open discovery.

aye, my presuppositionalism is evident...

Having said that, I would not resist to believe in a well defined "god concept" if it satisfied my logic...

Really I'm just seeking further knowledge about the universe and don't know where to turn lol

I thought Hawkings and Dawkins, but now your making me think Kant and Hume have the answers...

...or Socrates.

*The problem is "living" in the meanwhile. Our socio-economic system only rewards those fields of enquiry which add to corporate value>> vocational degrees/education. Studying liberal arts & science is beautiful (and in my eyes the highest attainment) yet many grads do and then take their reasoning skills to the firms where they can actually "apply it" just to earn a wage...

Oh the sadness of the system, theres some philosophy here in itself!

[Cookie182]

Originally Posted by KFunk

Also, I find it interesting that your approach to education in this case is to work towards justifying a personal conviction (similar to many entering a theological seminary?), compared to an exercise in open discovery.

Further, should I just do law?

Could you infer that law is an applied philosophy degree that actually pays??

Or is this an over-simplify and cynical statement?

(words of a friend)

[Kwayera]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

Ok cheers. Perhaps I should look at a geography major then, I loved geography in highschool.

We have two GIS subjects at my uni. A geography major would also prob combine well with economics. The problem is I only have about 90 credits I can add on.

Is a science degree without any chemistry or physics worth much?

I could take intro geology units, 3 bio units (upto 2nd yr ecology), env physics, biogeography, GIS, Remote Sensing etc and fit it all, but would this be a worth while major?

I'm guessing it would at the very least give me breadth and begin to give me answers to my materialist ponderments.

Well, I did the required single course of physics and single course of chemistry and left it at that

[Cookie182]

There's a field of evolutionary economics

[Cookie182]

Also, Kfunk when you say "not rule out god entirely" I'm assuming your definition of "god" here is quite unique. I'm smug enough to assume it ain't Allah or the Christian god?

btw, have u critically read George Smiths "The Case Against God" (1979), forwarded a fairly basic +ve case for atheism

Also another question (I could seriously write you a 10 pg letter), what is your thoughts on a political science/theory major? Looks very interesting as well in our BA degrees, seems a little more softer then philosophy in terms of critical theory and more "applied" so to speak. Is philosophy more respected and regarded as more rigorous? I'm guessing a philosophy major would have no problem critiquing a political theory anyway...

[Cookie182]

Originally Posted by Kwayera

Well, I did the required single course of physics and single course of chemistry and left it at that

Ah k sweet. I guess there is no room for everything anyway.

[jennyfromdabloc]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

...

Would first year geology and biology be suitable?

Logic for first graders should be sufficient.

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

After reviewing this thread, should philosophy then be the second degree that I should take up? I have considered it, its just that in many ways I think you can read a lot of it yourself. In hindsight do you ever regret paying to do it at a tertiary institution? Is it worth the formal uni study is basically what im asking as oppossed to being an "amature"?

Also do you think it would be even more complimentary then science to my finance/economics studies?

Philosophy suits me at the tertiary level because (1) I am earning a professional degree anyway, (2) BA(hons) in philosophy opens up the possibility of later higher research if I choose to do so, (3) a background in philosophy may help me to engage with the ethical and philosophical aspects of medicine (ethics committees, biotechnology, definition of mental illness, termination of life in ICU, the experience of the 'body' in sickness and in health). No doubt I could have taught myself much of what I have learnt at uni, but university has been very engaging and lecturers serve as fantastic guides through the material. Assessments also force you to hone your skills.

Originally Posted by Cookie182

Further, should I just do law?

Could you infer that law is an applied philosophy degree that actually pays??

If I thought I could answer this for you I wouldn't be a good student of philosophy. Certainly I don't think that law has a monopoly when it comes to developing one's ability to construct arguments (compared to, say, philosophy, mathematics, formal systems like logic) --> I will say that philosophy and (meta)logic are particularly useful in this domain, especially when it comes to fallacies, use/mention and semantics/syntax distinctions, interpretation of quantification in different forms of logic (classical/modal/epistemic/computational), etc. It is perfectly possible to teach yourself such things (I certainly haven't taken courses in any of these specific areas).

[KFunk]

Originally Posted by Cookie182

Really I'm just seeking further knowledge about the universe and don't know where to turn lol

I thought Hawkings and Dawkins, but now your making me think Kant and Hume have the answers...

...or Socrates.

*The problem is "living" in the meanwhile. Our socio-economic system only rewards those fields of enquiry which add to corporate value>> vocational degrees/education. Studying liberal arts & science is beautiful (and in my eyes the highest attainment) yet many grads do and then take their reasoning skills to the firms where they can actually "apply it" just to earn a wage...

Oh the sadness of the system, theres some philosophy here in itself!

If you have a lot of smarts on your side then you can make a(n) (academic) career in the liberal arts. You can always compromise: lately I have been considering a split career --> finish medicine, specialise in a field which is potentially conducive to part time work (e.g. shift work in intensive care or private psychiatry) and then attempt a split between clinical practice / academic humanities. There are a number of people around universities who manage combined professional/academic carrers.

Also, the likes of Kant/Hume simply offer different kinds of answers to Dawkins/Hawking. What I will say in favour of philosophy is that the range of answers is exceptionally broad, such that 'theistic creationism' and 'scientific realism' stand as but two views within the multitude. Both science and religion will tend to leave a number of things assumed and untouched (as will much philosophy, of course).