I haven't really ever considered the theism or lack thereof of a doctor, and nor do I think I would want to. I think it is a rather daft way of deciding their competence, as I in no way or form think it is what decides their competency.

My case has only been that if I know nothing else, then the odds favor the atheist doctor. This is a very special case, and not necessarily one that is very relevant when it comes to choosing doctors. I think some people in this thread struggle to see what I mean by this.

I agree that a doctor who expressed something about my condition being in the hands of "god" would make me doubt his capability as a doctor. That is, however, not necessarily something a theist doctor would do. That last point is very important to this discussion.

This is pretty much the definition of prejudice. You have no evidence to back you up, you are going on a gut reaction, and discriminating against someone solely on the basis of how they make you feel.

Not really if we take his words at face value no. Prejudice is judgment before knowing relevant facts, but all MB is doing here is stating a preference.

His preference might stem from prejudice or result in prejudice, but that would be your inference. As MB has described it, he feels uncomfortable with people (or rather health professionals) who engage in superstition and ascribe supernatural causes to phenomena.

I personally don't think that is unreasonable, even though liberal to moderately religious doctors would not phase me personally.

Well possibly. Mb has pretty clearly said that he knows of no facts or evidence that support him, so it seems like he is making a judgement before knowing the relevant facts.

were the people who didnt want gays in their B and B just stating a preference?

Possibly, but I doubt it. Regardless, there is also a difference between customer and business owner. We are generally more lenient, both ethically and judicially, when it comes to allowing customers to follow their preferences.

That will of course lead to situations others can find distasteful, and it is difficult to rule out prejudice. I would say that prejudice as simply "negative preference" loses some value as a term however.

I don't know anyone who is using the religious views of a doctor to decide on their competence, do you?

I have said, ITT, 'all other things being equal'.

Agreed.

No, I'm going on what I know about them making me feel uncomfortable because there's the possibility, no matter how small, that they might treat me differently because of their beliefs.

Atheist doctors are, apparently, more likely to take decisions that speed up death for terminally ill patients. Now, regardless of your moral stance on this, it certainly alleviates suffering. A theist doctor is much less likely to do this and would therefore cause the patient to suffer more than is perhaps necessary.

Survey on physicians’ religious beliefs shows majority faithful

I for sure don't want to be treated by someone who is looking to god for guidance. Do you?

I do know a fact, I know that they believe in the supernatural. Frankly, there's an argument that anyone who believes in the supernatural probably shouldn't be practicing modern medicine, an entirely empirical and scientific activity, in the first pace.

Depends on whether or not you think their actions were 'just' or without good reason.

No, not in regards to making judgment regarding the competency a specific individual no. Though I have certainly made a case regarding choosing between two doctors where nothing else is known.

I see that as similar to choosing who is the tallest of two people based on who eats moderately and who eats a lot. I don't see that as making individual judgment, but more as using a simple and perhaps not the most relevant facts to play odds. Others might not agree.

I'm not looking for proof I am looking for evidence beyond some vague observations you've made. About doctors like not just people being in or getting into higher education.

Where is the evidence to suggest that Theists may be worse doctors?

You ended up previously having to disparage ordinary doctors to make the point you still can't make well.

You want to advocate for empirical analysis being important but then deny it's of any import to the point you are making. It's nonsense.

I am going on what I know about blacks making me feel uncomfortable, because theres the possibility, no matter how small, that they might rob me.


As you have said yourself, you know of no doctors that do this, and have no evidence to back your fears up. Yes, if a doctor came to me and said, well, I m not actually going to treat you, I am going to pray, and god will heal you, then I wouldnt be happy about it. But that doesnt happen. If a doctor doesnt treat you properly, he will be struck off.

I do know a fact . I know they are black/gay/whatever.....

Perhaps if you could actually show some facts that show that the behaviours you are critical of exist, and come from their beliefs in the supernatural, that would be a "fact" that applied to this discussion. But as you have admitted yourself, there are none.

I have stated ad nauseum: Atheists as a trend are more intelligent, atheists atheists as a trend are better at reasoning, and atheists as trend do better at higher education - and have even cited these claims. They are not very controversial claims either. I infer from these trends that atheists as a trend make better doctors. My personal observations of medical students also confirm this.

Calling what I say nonsense, especially when the sole source you bring to the table seems to support the notion that very religious doctors let their their religious views influence medical decisions in a manner not recommended by branch organizations, is rather dubious. If anything that source seems to imply that religion might actually be the independent variable, a far stronger claim than I have made.

Credit and insurance are based off of many data points. Racial profiling and MB's argument are based off of a single data point. It takes a certain threshold of information (or the use of known strong indicators) to reach a level of confidence that it becomes useful.

Dare I ask you to cite something?

I won't bore you with biblical stories, but there are countless examples where this is true, including where God decides that someone is going to die of an illness, but then is convinced otherwise by a faithful man's prayer.

When you say "God knows" it is kind of a tautology, because you're looking at the final result. "If God knows someone is going to die tomorrow, then can they not die tomorrow?" That's like saying, "if someone is going to die tomorrow, can they not die tomorrow?" Obviously not, you've already stated they would die. The point is that whatever God knows about the future, does not interfere with your free will today. God knows whether you're going to pick vanilla or chocolate, but the choice is independent of God knowing it. God only knows it, because you choose it to begin with, he's not forcing vanilla on you by knowing it.

All that aside, biblically, God is pleased by faith, and there is reason to believe that he may not always be able to interfere with situations unless there is faith present. If he could, we'd all be in heaven.

Again, this does not differentiate the religious from the fatalist determinist. You're refusing to apply the logic of your position in a uniform manner.

You can't really play this game. Upon inspection of your comments, you are saying that there are tangible things:

This is a classic Mightybooshian move. You want to have it both ways. You want to defend that you're not really being bigoted because you want to characterize your observation as being just a personal opinion and that the evidence (or lack of it) doesn't matter. But then you want to try to cite evidence that pushes out beyond personal opinion because it helps to bolster your case.

One hasn't been presented yet, and I'm doubtful of its existence and its chances of being a successful argument.

Furthermore, it's clear that modern medicine as it's actually practiced is not an entirely empirical and scientific activity. (Not that you care how things are actually practiced. You've demonstrated on multiple occasions that you are more focused on what you perceive is the way things "should" be and not the way things actually are.)

There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that theists are over represented in doctoring, this isn't a controversial claim either. In order to be a doctor one needs to have done well in higher education need to be intelligent enough to get top marks to qualify for medical school and need to be good at reasoning. What you aren't doing is telling me why their theism is a greater indicatior of their ability to reason or ability to evaluate evidence than their doctoring.

Let me be specific what I am calling nonsense is the position that atheists have more respect for empirical analysis while denying that this difference is measurable when it comes to doctoring and yet somehow this immeasurable difference will make atheist doctors more competent.

If you want to refer to the source that I introduced you should at least do it fairly,

There is no doubt in my mind that profiling works. My concern is the fallout to the quality of society in general. Just because black people are statistically higher to commit crimes in many parts of the US that doesn't give us blanket permission to be prejudice.

On a personal level we have a social responsibility to give the individual the benefit of the doubt IMO.

No.

Maybe. The point is don't make assumptions. I know plenty of Christians who are angry with God or disappointed with him etc. We don't know what people think until we ask them.

Skin color doesn't tell us much just like belief in the supernatural doesn't tell us much. If you are black then you probably like fried chicken...

Do you see why making those assumptions is a poor choice?

You don't know everyones reasons for believing.

I dunno

Yes

Join the club

This is an important distinction. If I felt someone was fanatical about their belief or pushy about it then I would be uncomfortable even it was a Christian person.

OTOH I agree I would not be phased by moderately religious doctors regardless of their affiliation.

...

Extremely and very religious are also relative terms, a person can be very religious without proselytising so I would only become uncomfortable with their beliefs in the event that they did. This would be the same for any non medical opinion they were trying to impress upon me.

Again there has been a single report in the UK of a doctor referred for pressing religious beliefs upon a patient. He was condemned by the GMC, the case in the OP is over 5 years old.

You know another fact, they are qualified as a doctor.

It's also noticable that you are stressing the importance of empiricism in doctoring while relying on the strength of your reasoning. But you aren't reasoning from any evidence that religious affiliation even correlates to doctor competence.

Your use of good reason here stands somewhat in contradiction to the demands you were making of Naked Rectitude when he was explaining the reasons for his beliefs. This seems you set yourself a much lower bar for "good reason" than you allowed him.

If you aren't reasoning from actual evidence then your reasons should be self evident, but they aren't, you are assuming the validity of your reasons a priori but a priori knowledge is subject to constraints and none of those constraints are apparent in your posts. As has been said before you can learn about the world by actually looking at it rather than reasoning from assumptions that may not reflect it.

So god can be influenced? How does that work, is it whimsy? Is it a numbers game, or a level of faith exhibited, or the nature of the request itself? Does god know that he's going to change his mind? I think that last has some interesting implications.

You're saying that a lack of faith inhibits the power of god? If no one at all believed in god, would he simply cease to exist in any meaningful way then?

Well it really should LZ. I'm an atheist, my world view wrt to the effect that gods have on our lives is ... I don't believe in gods. So, if believing in gods and the effect that they have on our lives was important, I'd be a bad person to choose, and you don't need to know anything else about me for that.

But it's not an assumption, I know something about how they think.

Do you see why knowing something about how someone thinks, tells you something about how they think?


I know that none of them are good enough to be considered incontrovertible proof for anything that's currently considered supernatural. What's pertinent for me is that they believe in something for which there is no incontrovertible evidence.


Then why do it?


Do you also believe that you can influence god?


I know, this one is really confusing.

Then you are doing better with how they think than you are with how you do.