This is a very ironic non-response.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want about how nurses should operate. I'm going to assert in no uncertain terms that there is a need for nurses to relate to their patients as people, and that everything from general small talk to conversations about their religious perspectives matter.

http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenu...-of-Ethics.pdf

Decisions about such conversations fall well within the purview of the nurse's professional code of conduct, and it is all part of the determination of what good and what harm is done to patients in what is said to them.

I'm starting to wonder what it is that you think I think.... If you believe in god, that tells me something about you and your world view, does it not? Surely my atheism tells you something about me?

Yeah, I wondered when this would come up. It's not the same LZ. My knowledge that someone who believes in a god is therefore someone who is capable of believing in the supernatural is not the same as your presumption that being 'bad' is an inherent property of being black. It's a false analogy. If you believe in the supernatural, I'm going to question your judgement. This is clearly not the same as me questioning your character because of your skin colour.

People who believe in the supernatural cause me concern (to varying degrees), I think religion specifically is a form of severe self delusion. So is my concern prejudice or quite understandable? Maybe a better counter argument would be that there are many forms of self delusion and why are they any less worrying?

Why would it 'convolute' things? Is there a reason why you don't want to publicly state what you pray for? You have to be specific, the general gist will do. Do you pray for yourself? For others? To change god's mind? What?

This is not what I'm saying at all so the rest of what you said is wrong. I simply said that you can't change god's mind or what he knows is going to happen, so what's the point of trying? God knows whether or not you'll recover or die, so you can't change that by talking to him. And, that since we're talking about illness and injury here, Free will plays no part.


No, it's actually a good reason for prayer, even if it does make me wonder why god let's us spin like that, why not just help us when we need it without us having to ask? Why allow that situation develop when it needn't have. I really don't see the same god you do, he seems petty, fickle and vain to me.

No, I'm looking at this in a practical, pragmatic sense and it seems to me that prayer is almost entirely really about the effect it has here on earth. If god really needs to hear you state your faith, when he already knows your heart better than you do, then he's needy and insecure. If you can't change god's mind or mood then there's no point trying. Or, you could be asking for help that we needn't have to ask for at all, which makes god cruel.

It tells us you're an atheist. What type of atheist you are requires further questioning. And the consequences of your atheism also require further question. (If there are any consequences at all -- this depends on your mental construction of atheism.)

Violence. Incarceration rates. Speculative attempts at correlations.

The counter argument is to make empirical observations. But given that you reject empirical observations about the behaviors of religious persons and the mental processes of religious persons, where does that leave us? It leaves us at the level of bigotry. You are expressing an obstinate prejudicial intolerance of others.

Evidence doesn't sway you. Argumentation doesn't sway you. There's no place else to go.

MB: here is a thing I think you are missing. Even if theism was correlated to being a worse doctor statistically (which there is no evidence for) it would still be prejudicial to reject a doctor solely on account of her theism.

When prejudice speaks of a judgement without relevant experience, it means experience of the individual, not of the statistics of the class. I'm sure I'm repeating what someone else has already said but I've just been skimming.

Clearly, the higher a correlation between the property you are evaluating and its statistical relevance to the class, the more reasonable your evaluation would be. The problem is that in reality there is no more reason to believe that theism predicts poor doctoring skills than there is to believe that being black predicts poor doctoring skills. Both judgements would be prejudicial. Not equivalently prejudicial! The second would be worse for a variety of reasons, but you are still being prejudicial.

To remain on topic, I'll only address this for now.

You seem to be saying that because God knows what the final outcome is, that nothing else matters, and that nothing can be changed. This is simply wrong.

Assume that if someone prays about a certain situation, that it will change. Now, God knows whether or not you will pray about it, and whether or not it will change, but that has no relevance on whether or not you choose to pray or not. That's why free will matters. You are free to pray, or not to pray, and simply because God knows what you will end up doing, had absolutely no effect on your free will to pray or not to pray.

God's omniscience does not equal determinism.

The only thing your atheism tells me is that you don't believe any gods exist. To learn more about you I would have to get to know you and find out what you believe which is the point. I should not just lump you in with all atheists and then make general negative descriptive statements about you that (I think) apply to all atheists.

You could be reasonable or unreasonable. You could be rude or hospitable. You could be peace loving or militant.... you get the picture. Telling me you are an atheist really only tells me (1) thing about you and even then there are subsets to that belief

I think it is a good analogy but okay

What if the supernatural does exist and some people have good reasons for believing this is the case?

EDIT:

In short, I don't really know what I believe so I don't want to discuss what is not even clear to me.

I don't think I have an obligation to publicly state what I pray for....It is a personal thing which I don't necessarily want to discuss openly with someone that is hypercritical of religion to begin with.

We could discuss in another thread though. I pray for myself, others, safe trips, but mostly lunch and dinner.

Thanks, wn.

Boosh, that was basically what I was going to write. The only bit that I disagree with is that both cases aren't equally prejudicial. They are equally prejudicial, but one is somewhat more problematic due to the whole disadvantaged thing being an important consideration.

If it is prejudicial depends solely on the available information. For example; if all you know about two people in the US is that one is black and the other is white, and you have to make a bet on who is a criminal, then you should choose the black person.

That is not prejudicial, that is just demographical odds.

The problem arises when you say this to people who translate it into "tame_deuces is saying that blacks are more inclined to be criminals" or similar rubbish.

I believe the difference is that these are not just two people off the street you are randomly comparing from the general population where the statistic is based from, but they are doctors who have been approved. A doctor has already shown that he is capable, and thus exempt from the lower IQ/religiosity correlation, where his theism or atheism is now irrelevant.

To me it's like supposing that a black superior court judge is more likely to commit a felony than a white superior court judge - the correlation becomes meaningless at a certain junction.

You are saying they are more likely though?

In any case having to bet on who is the criminal is one thing, extrapolating from that to treat people differently based on the non individual specific information you have is where the problem is.

I hate when I reply to someone and don't quote them, thinking my post will be next in line, and then someone posts ahead of me. Irksome.

Profiling is a tough ethical discussion, but it does actually work even when you go onto the individual. The world of credit and insurance can testament to that.

And yes, I'm saying they are more likely. But in hinges on many things, for example "what is a criminal?".

These are tough discussions, and they are usually impossible because people get very emotional in them.

heh I thought that when I noticed I'd been slow ponied but I think you made the point well enough that I didn't need to be more specific.

I reckon tame will have worked it out

I thought for a minute you might ninja-edit your post to include his quote, and make it look like I'm insane.

It is a very tough discussion and there is some counter intuitive stuff I've learned fairly recently, actuaries when determining insurance premium know that a person is more likely to make a second claim after making a first even when the initial accident is not their fault. Insurance premiums reflect this.

But we are talking more generally I think making broad brush assumptions about potential for criminality or competence as a doctor is something non specialists should be very wary of generalising about. Especially when profiling is based on the very empirical evidence that is lacking in this discussion.

You have claimed that before, and I don't agree. I think the empirical evidence is both there and relevant, and my own observations of medical students confirm it.

I'm not sure what constitutes a "non-specialist". I certainly have experience as a scientist in the social sciences, but I do not hold a PHD.

I didn't say that knowing I'm atheist immediately tells you all that there is to know about me, but it gives you a pretty good clue as to my world view wrt to the effect that I think gods have on our lives, doesn't it. Conversely, if I know that someone is a theist, to the point that they pray for other people or wear some kind of religious symbol, then it gives me a pretty good idea how they regard the effect that gods have on our lives.

I don't because the colour of someone's skin doesn't tell you anything about how they think, but knowing that they're a theist does, especially if they just offered to pray for you.

An interesting 'what if' but that's all it is. None of those good reasons have ever turned into actual convincing proof, otherwise we'd all believe in the supernatural, except it wouldn't be supernatural anymore, it would just be natural.

ok. And what effect do you think that those prayers have? When you pray for others, are you trying to effect the outcome of something? I'm struggling here to discern between a Deterministic outlook where you can't change anything, and the unlikely possibility that god could be influenced.

Ok, but I've never actually claimed that being theistic makes someone worse doctor, only that people who have supernatural beliefs make me uncomfortable and that I'd choose someone who didn't believe that a greater power is at work. I think they're wrong, in a very serious way, and that causes me to question their judgement. Doctors may in fact be a case where it simply has no effect at all due to rigorous training and monitoring of performance but generally speaking, 'God willing' is not a phrase, or sentiment, that inspires confidence in me.

I'm sure you're aware of the arguments surrounding the efficacy of prayer, I read about a study once that showed that the group selected for intercessory prayer actually performed worse than the other two groups in the study, presumably because they felt under pressure to show improvement which actually resulted in stress and only made the problems worse. In the specific case of prayer, should a medical practitioner who offers a form of healing that is not officially sanctioned, has never been shown to be effective, is no different from Homeopathy or Reiki or burning Hazel and chanting, be allowed to do so?

I won't lie, I'm struggling to reconcile this myself. I don't see how Free will has anything to do with catching pneumonia, for example. But, simple question, do you think you can influence god's will? If god has decided (or just 'knows') that you will die of an injury or illness, can praying actually change that? When can prayer actually change anything in terms of influencing god's will?

Where is the record of it, is it measurable? If you are relying on your observations of medical students to confirm it I think you have a low bar on confirmation but whatever, if Theist doctors are worse doctors where is the evidence?

An actuary when deciding an insurance premium is a specialist, a profiler trying to determine how best to prevent crime is a specialist, you and me talking on this board aren't.

The data says atheists as a trend are better at reasoning and are more intelligent on average than theists. They are also vastly over-represented in doctorates, which supports a notion that as trend they are better at academia. I personally suspect this means that atheists as a trend make better doctors, and my observations of medial students confirm this notion.

But the result is a most certainly a personal opinion and a qualified guess, not something that would stand up to scientific rigor.

You have sounded throughout this thread as if such opinions must stand up to scientific peer review to be sound, which I find absurd and I suspect it is a view you reserve for opinions you don't agree with or don't want to consider.

It has already been discussed that doctors are likely already selected for these traits, where is any evidence that theist doctors are less competent than atheists?

Like if you want to defend the use of profiling you need to be able to leverage some data that actually points to what you want to support. There isn't any and you don't actually even select against theist doctors.

I am also pointing out that it's kind of ridiculous of you to make the claims regarding respect for empirical evidence being a reason atheist doctors will be better while denying the lack of actual measurable evidence is of any relevance.

Yes, you keep stating that, but I happen to disagree with you. There is plenty of evidence to suggest atheists not only are over-represented in getting into higher education, but also that once they are in they do better, chiefly among which is the fact that the higher the level, the more over-represented they are.

As for supporting specifically what I say, that is an inference.

But I think this discussion is moot, because it is obvious that you are looking for proof, not evidence. There is no proof in science.

Alternatively, only the smartest most rational theists make the grade as doctors and are no more or less competent than their atheist counterparts.

My concern has never been about the measurable competence of theist doctors per se, it's more about the fact that lurking at the back of their minds might be the idea that ultimately it's all in god's hands. It's an intangible thing, but it's but nevertheless something that makes me uncomfortable. this might not be the best illustration but in January I made a business arrangement with someone from Morocco, a Muslim, who had invited my wife and I over to Casablanca. As we parted, I said that I was very much looking forward to seeing him in Casablanca and he replied 'Insh'Allah, Insh'Allah'. God willing. This caused me to doubt his commitment to the deal, and sure enough, it never happened. 'God willing' is an extreme example of what I'm talking about and doesn't inspire great confidence in me.

Perhaps I am prejudiced but there's a part of me that refuses to give up on the idea that there's a rational reason why I should be made uncomfortable by 'god willing' even when it's being firmly suppressed by someone in the carrying out of their duties, it's still there somewhere.