Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
A thought experiment...
So, here's a little thought experiment, in two parts. I would appreciate your comments on each part, as you see fit. And whatever you say in response, also consider your initial reaction (which you don't have to disclose).
Here's the scenario: You need to have a brain tumor removed. It's a tricky operation, but there's generally a 90% success rate across the medical field with it. There is also the usual 3 - 4% chance of developing a post-operative infection, and something like 1% chance of complications due to anesthesia. Your insurance will cover the entire cost of the procedure and hospitalization regardless of which choices you make to the questions below, so expense is not a factor (hey, I didn't say this was realistic).
Here's the initial question: You have a choice of two surgeons to perform the procedure. Each was a top student, and went through a prestigious training program, is fully certified. Surgeon A has done about twice as many of these procedures than Surgeon B (though Surgeon B has done a fair number and is perfectly competent). Surgeon A is an Atheist. Surgeon B is a Believer, staunch in his/her faith, and has explained that prayer will be used before, during, and after the procedure to help minimize complications. Which do you choose?
Here is the second part of the thought experiment: Would it make any difference to your initial answer whether Surgeon B was a Muslim, Hindu, Jainist, Wiccan, New Age Mystic, et cetera?
Have at. I'll weigh in with my answers after a few other people have taken a crack at this. Maybe we can get Brent to put up a poll on the left there...
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Surgeon A, obviously.
Did I miss something?
Surgeon A has more experience than Surgeon B, and Surgeon B does some wacky extra superstitious stuff which Surgeon A doesn't. While the wacky extra stuff probably doesn't hurt, it doesn't help, but the main thing is Surgeon A has more experience.
Clearly surgeon A is the better choice.
Of course, if I actually had a brain tumor, I'm not sure my thinking would be as clear as that.
/ had a beloved uncle die horribly from a brain tumor not too long ago.
// What the surgeon believed or didn't believe never came up.
People are always praying for me
I'd have to go with #1. Christians are annoying because we rub up against them so often. I'm sure constant nattering from Wiccans would get on my nerves just as much.
Experience
I had thought "Surgeon A" even before I read about "Surgeon B," simply because of the greater experience. After scanning a couple of the other answers above and letting a few other thoughts float around in my mind, I began to think that, if I had had an equal amount of time to talk to both surgeons and get a sense of their personality, I might shift my answer. If the atheist were a jackass and conveyed that I was to be one more notch in a perfect record, I might be inclined to go with Surgeon B if he or she saw me as a human being in need of care. The reverse would also apply; if B conveyed that I was to be one more hole punched on a ticket to wherever, I might be more inclined to go with the atheist, even if he or she were an egotistical jackass.
Frank Moorman, skeptic
The most experienced
... is Surgeon A, so that'd be my preferred choice.
Surgeon B's belief and prayer would not bother me because the record of outcomes is excellent.
I'd likely rationalise the predilection for prayer as an aid to focusing on the task.
Well, obviously...
... surgeon A. He's more experienced, and should complications occur, will hopefully not waste time praying, but will actually do something about it - it's the prayer during the procedure I'd be worried about. I don't want him pausing to say a quick few words of benediction or whatever while he's poking round in my head. Just open it up, take it out, seal it back up again please. And I wouldn't care which non-existent being he was mumbling words to.
I don't know about the US,
I don't know about the US, but here in Denmark, if life-threatening complications arose and the surgeon started praying instead of, you know, DOING HIS JOB, he'd get fired for gross incompetence. Not too long ago, a Danish psychiatrist lost his job because he suggested exorcisms to his patients, and claimed they were possessed by demons.
I'd choose the more experienced surgeon, myself, regardless of his or her beliefs. Even if the surgeon was Christian, Muslim, Asatrú or whatever weird magic he believed in, if his track record showed he got the job done well, I'd probably feel safe.
Assuming I was able to get
Assuming I was able to get the information, I would first look at the percentage of success for each surgeon, and take the one with the higher percentage. Otherwise, I would choose surgeon A because he has performed the procedure most often. I'd choose the one I felt was the most competent based on his/her experience. Their religion or lack thereof is irrelevant to me. I really don't care if someone were to pray, chant, cast a spell, whatever - if he really thinks it helps him do a better job (and he actually is better at it), then have at it.
What did I tell ya', Jim?
Look at both posts below. The Christian is insane. This was, nearly word for word, the approach the Soviets took toward Christians in the 1960s and 1970s. Since they don't believe in a magical fairy cosmos, they must be insane. Right. :-)
-Col.
Leave your persecution complex at the door...
...and just reply to the experiment, if you would, Col.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I thought it was a tumor
...not a complex.
Well, all other stuff to one side (such as usually not getting to choose, particularly when in a solialist nation like what I've lived in for part of my life and, yes, had surgery there), I'd likely choose surgeon B, but not by a large margin. If surgeon A was a significantly better surgeon (outcome based) I may well choose him. If it is only based on number of surgeries, it would be a close call. But, for the record, I've had three surgeries in my life and have never asked what the worldview was of the surgeon, even when I could have switched.
Persecution complex. That's too funny.
-Col.
I'm curious...
...how you would make the calculation about which one to choose. (I'm honest about that.) At what point does your faith - your belief in the power of prayer - get over-come by other factors? On one end we have those who simply say "go with the best qualified, most experienced", on the other end of the spectrum would be not having the surgery at all, and just relying on prayer and divine intervention. Where do you draw the line, and why?
I am very serious about this, because I think that it demonstrates several important factors in judgment and world view. For an atheist, everything which includes the prayer component just doesn't make sense - it all seems to be random noise. We don't "get" why you would go that way, or how you choose to factor in just how important prayer/belief is. And I know I, and a number of other atheists with whom I have discussed such things, tend to see that when push comes to shove most believers actually don't put a lot of faith in their faith - they go with medical science over prayer, saving money rather than giving everything away to the poor and trusting to God, and so forth. This is why I came up with this thought experiment - to see how you (and others) approach this issue.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I don't really have one.
A formula, that is, if that is what you were thinking of. Obviously, this isn't of paramount importance to me, or my own medical history would be different.
Miracles are, by their very nature, rare, or they wouldn't be miracles. However, the vast, vast (read here many more vasts) amount of the time, God does allow the cosmos to run on without interruption. All theists that I know of hold to this. Therefore, we don't attempt flying without aircraft, yada, yada. And most of the time, doctors are just another part of that world. Jesus Himself used doctors in an illustration in a positive light, so there is no depreciation of them in Biblical Christianity. It is very likely that Luke was a physician, and clearly Paul told Timothy to use wine in a medicinal way for his frequent stomach problems.
To a consistent theist, it wouldn't really matter what the doctor's worldview was; what's wrong with the patient's own prayers? A side-light would be financial considerations. I personally try to buy American products as often as I can, and that for national support reasons. The same would enter my mind in your scenario. If the theist was going to give some of the money for saving HIV orphaned kids in Africa, and the atheist was not (an assumption for the sake of argument), why not choose the theist? [Oh, right. Because he should be in an asylum! :-) ]
Actually, I appreciate the real seriousness with which you ask the question. A fair one, I might add. I think that it is this kind of genuine exchange of thought (truly free-thinking) that advances both knowledge and understanding. The flight toward epithets or ignoring (ignorance?) other views only calcifies mindsets, some of which may well be errant. I know I have a different view of atheists since being here. Had some of the more recent exchanges been all I'd had seen, however, I likely would have still been of the same mind.
-Col.
Thanks, Col.
Yeah, that was the kind of 'serious' answer I was hoping for. Thanks for playing along!
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I sympathize.
The truth be known, Jim, I sympathize with you. What I mean is that there are Christians out there that make it tough for those of us who do try to use the brain that we have.
I never watch "Christian" TV, because I just can't stomach so much of what passes there. Therefore, I tend to forget what you may have in mind when you envision a Christian (or what Dirk or Hank or the others do). But just out of interest I turned it on a few minutes the other night. I have to say, it's no wonder many posters here think you have to jettison your brains to be a Christian. I am very sorry that such an image mars all the rest of us. My hope is to live this down, as much as a solitary finite man can.
I hope my answer to your exercise was adequate. I can try to clarify if it wasn't. I think one point I'd try to convey is that many of the Christians I have matriculated with and circulate with now probably wouldn't select a surgeon in much of a different manner than you would. Perhaps it goes back to a post of a couple weeks ago: we really are all human. There is no doubt we have differences that affect our actions--differences that are sometimes very large. But both of us bleed when cut, and both of us have known the joy of, say, doing something beyond ourselves like taking care of a mother-in-law. Moreover, in my opinion, both of us have two feet on the ground. In other words, I admire your acumen and hold you to be someone with whom I can relate and from whom I can even learn. It's part of what so utterly frustrates me here. When I am trying to be faithful to that interaction it so easily gets railroaded into some Jr. High level of blame game or spin. I don't see our worldviews as somehow excluding our mutual humanity or aptitude, and therefore serious intersections like this last one are a welcome thing. Thank you for being genuine.
-Col.
An important insight.
I think that is a very important insight, Col. We - all of us - will naturally respond to what we think is typical and the biggest personal threat to our interests (or ourselves).
That was why I made the comment about the persecution complex. Those of us here are no more like the Stalinists who persecuted believers than you are like the Inquistors who tortured heretics and killed Jews. Trying to equate one with the other in either case does not progress understanding or tolerance.
As I've said many times, most of my friends - scholars, surgeons, lawyers of considerable repute - are people of faith. I do not think of them when I rant against the stupidity of faith. No, I'm mostly appalled by the sort of unthinking, uncritical, blind faith such as you do indeed see on Christian TV. And I do honestly worry about what that kind of rhetoric and political power does to pervert our country, and am more than a little concerned that such toxic demonization of people like me, or gays, or people of other faiths is an actual threat to my health and well-being. There are a whole lot of those people, Col., and many of them are not above using either personal violence or state-sanctioned violence in the name of God.
Many atheists also see other, more 'rational' people of faith as providing cover for the excesses of the kooks, and I think you get splattered with some of that. My own view is a little more complex, as I will outline here in a moment. Not for the first time I am sorry that you don't read fiction, because I think you would be perhaps intrigued to see how I deal with such matters at some length in my novel.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I just might get it done.
You never know--I might get your book read yet. It does intrique me.
Thanks for your other thoughts as well. I think the "splatter" problem goes two-ways; I know I've had preconceived ideas. But be assured I do not see you as a "Soviet" or some archaicommie, and certainly hope you don't see me as one of the TV stage-madeup plastic faces. I could wish that ideas and evidences would always be weighed on their own--without extraneous lenses--but, alas, I guess there is a negative side to that human thing I've been talking about.
As for Dreams, maybe it would be good for me to get outside my norm. You'd probably rather blog with my brother than me. He's one of the reasons I hate to read, since he was always doing it! Plus, he's a science fiction addict, whereas, if I were to read fiction it would be more along the lines of Shakespeare or Hawthorne or even Poe. For a change-up I'd maybe maybe take in some Tom Clancy. However, I'd much prefer to get to Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind, or Gilmore's Alice in Quantum Land. I know, I know. What a bore.
-Col.
Hmm. Interesting. I would go
Hmm. Interesting.
I would go with A for two reasons. One... he is sane. And secondly... he has alot more experience.
The question would have been harder if the end was switched. To make it so that the more experienced doctor was a Christian. And the atheist was less experienced.
Yet again... the current incarnation of the question makes it harder on Christians (because they have to decide between their faith and experience whereas we get both in the same person). The alternate version would make it harder on us heathens (because we would have to decide between sanity and experience, and the believers get both in the same person).
SerTyrion: 2 Questions
I don't know you, but suspect you have a good sense of humor. I like that. However, just for my own grins:
1. Do you genuinely believe everyone on earth that isn't an atheist is clinically insane?
and
2. Do you believe most or all other atheists genuinely believe all non-atheists are insane?
-Col.
haha, I was being sarcastic.
haha, I was being sarcastic.
The answer to both questions is... no.
However, consider this. Let's imagine someone worshiping a being who was invisible, all powerful, who talked to them, who was the creator of the universe, who answered prayers (continue the list of everything the Christian God is said to do). Now, this person lived their life by all of the "teachings" of this God. And they talked to their god and took their god's thoughts into mind every time they made a decision. Eh, doesn't sound to different than a lot of the Christians I know. Oh, did I forget to mention... that god mentioned above is Buhm, the mighty God of the Rat People from the sixth dimension. Oh no, they must be insane.
As silly as that may seem (and I just made it up)... what may pass for "desired" (at least by Christians) may be considered clinically insane if you are not worshiping the Christian God. Belief in Buhm makes you insane... however, belief in the Christian God (with the exact same characteristics) is glorified. Whats the difference?
I'm not saying believers are insane. However... I honestly have a hard time seeing the difference in the above situations. Is a delusion any less a delusion if its a mass delusion? I don't know the answer to this question, as I it just dawned on me the other day.
Thanks, SerTyrion
I'm glad you were kidding. Sarcasm is cool, too--in fact with my buddies we try to hone it to a fine art form.
I agree with much of what you seriously wrote, as well. However, I think it is more complicated. Mormons, for example, have believed that the 10 Lost Tribes were living at the North Pole, and that people dressed like Quakers lived on or in the moon. Now I think this is clearly ludicrous. I also think you have to be a fideist to be a Mormon, since the other evidence is so against it. But I've known a lot of people who were Mormons that weren't one bit mentally disturbed. Misinformed? Yes. Uninformed? Mostly. Lacking in evidential grist? Wholly. But sane, nonetheless.
Further, belief in Buhm may not be that different from some Hindu teaching, with its millions of gods. Yet I venture that most Hindus are in their right minds. Also, we used to think that this was a 3-dimensions-of-space universe (plus 1 dimension of time), but we now posit there were/are at least 9 spatial dimensions (see quark studies). So, who knows?--believing in 16 dimensions may one day be the test of an orthodox scientist!
It's interesting to kick around. Ideas are that way. I always want to be careful, though, when its people--and evidently you do, too.
Thanks~
-Col.
Colonel
I see what you mean, Colonel. However, if someone had a crazy belief of a deity that wasn't a recognized religion... his sanity may be doubted even though the characteristics of his god match countless others. Even if they aren't considered insane because of it, I do suspect that a mental health professional may consider Buhm or some other odd deity to be "less sane" or a "sign of an underlying problem." I really don't feel that one is "worse" than the other, assuming that the Buhm believer doesn't have other mental health issues.
I don't personally know of anyone who is in a mental institution for belief in a God. But, I do know of some people that are in there (at least in part) for a belief that they communicate with some higher race of being (maybe aliens) that have similar characteristics gods. Now, sure, I grant that there are undoubtedly other reasons they may be in there (Antisocial behavior, paranoia, et cetera).
It is not a dichotomy of either sane or insane. It is a much more a continuum with sane and insane at either end and various "shades" in between. But, isn't the belief in a god (or higher being) that you believe breaks the laws of physics at will, that talks to you, that you feel inside you, who sends angels to protect you and other irrational beleifs at least slide you down the continuum somewhat towards insanity. It interferes with your ability to make rational decisions. Maybe not all rational decisions are affected, such as "What type of Corn flakes should I buy?" is unlikely to be affected by what God you believe in. But does affect the rational decisions of: what groups should I support, who should I dislike/hate/distrust, how should my kids be schooled, what should I tell my children about the world around them, and others.
Affected decisions
Yep. It certainly does. Worldview colors everything. However, for one to place one end of the spectrum at "unbalanced" and the other end at "atheism" is the very nadir of peering through a particular worldview as well as epistemology. Particularly so when so very, very few people, percentage-wise, are cognitively impressed with atheism's evidences.
-Col.
Easy Question
I'd rather have the sane one do it, the one who DOESN'T think a magical sky fairy will be backing him up, fixing his mistakes and oversights.
No question: Surgeon A. The atheist.
Surgeon B as a Muslim, Hindu, Jainist, Wiccan, etc. -- no difference.
However, if Surgeon B was a hot lesbian Unitarian who usually teamed with Surgeon C, an unselfconscious, body-aware Wiccan, I'd at least like to confer with them about my case.
An obvious choice for me.
I'd choose Surgeon A. The fact that Surgeon B is willing to consider prayer as a preventative against complications would really trouble me. How could I be sure that he would try real modern medicine before prayer if something did go wrong? If I have a brain infection, I want treatment first, prayer second (or not at all).
And no, it doesn't matter what deity Surgeon B is praying to. It's the fact that they'd be doing it that would make me go elsewhere.
Jim's take on the experiment.
OK, enough people have commented that I feel comfortable in adding my thoughts without 'directing' the course of the thought experiment.
SerTyrion's post at 11:21 gets nicely to the heart of the matter: what if the qualifications of A and B were switched? Would that change anything?
For me, no. Because I honestly do not care what the beliefs are of the surgeon, so long as s/he is competent, trained, and with a proven track record. Our culture is just too steeped in religion at this point for me to dismiss anyone who professes a faith, or says that they use prayer as an adjunct to otherwise good practices. Simply, they may be making such a claim purely as 'cover' in order to get along with the bulk of the population. I would take the comments of Surgeon B in my scenario to mean nothing more than that they will use whatever means or tools they have in order to insure the best outcome for my case.
It is something like how I react when someone says "God Bless You" when I sneeze - it isn't an affront to my atheism, it's just an expression of heartfelt good will on their part.
Sure, I would rather our society was not in thrall to magical thinking. And if a surgeon I went to said that they were going to pray my tumor away rather than perform a routine operation, I'd beat feet out of there. But we're not there yet. So long as the surgeon has the competence and experience, what they believe or not is entirely between them and their conscience as far as I am concerned. If they want to discuss those issues as a separate matter sometime, then they can come here or we can sit down over a beer/coffee and have at it.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Totally easy
I'd pick whichever one had an appointment open for me first. If I were being rational about it I'd also consider which one had better rehab treatment records after the fact (although truthfully for rehab I'd prefer the atheist, since they won't give me the "Believe in god and you'll get better faster" crap). It doesn't matter to me how much experience the doctor has as long as they're good enough that I don't have to worry (well, any more than I usually do which is, "eh.") about dying or worse, being paralyzed and not able to play video games anymore. I've seen enough of life (and played enough RPGs) to know everyone's got to start somewhere, it's unfair to assume that a newbie doesn't have the skills of a great surgeon just because they haven't had as many patients as a surgeon that's been practicing longer.
For the second part, would religion make any difference? I think I'd probably be more at ease if the religion was non-Christian (certainly I'd be less likely to snap at them) but all in all it wouldn't make any difference. There's one exception though, I can't abide smoke, makes my lungs feel sore, so if you're going to have an incense burning session to clear the room of evil spirits I'll be the first to go.
"If there is evil in this world, it lurks within the hearts of men" ~Edward D. Morrison, Tales of Phantasia
A prayerful operation
I have always found prayer to be a very odd activity and I don't think that most Christians (and others) have really thought out the implications of what they are doing.
If God has a plan for humankind then by praying and asking God to make a change in that plan (like saving a relative who very much looks like they will die) the person praying is essentially saying:
"You know God. I know you had this spiffy deific plan where you have like all the complications thought out and our best interests in the long run over centuries and millenia and stuff, but I have a better idea and you should do 'X' instead."
Who is the servant and who the master here? Sometimes I think they forget.
Now it is one thing to think that you have a better plan than God or that your needs matter more than any others that would be affected by the change that you are praying for (either now or in the millenia to come) and it is quite another to actually expect that it will happen. Asking the supremely knowledgeable creator being to change its mind to suit your needs has got to be the very zenith of hubris. You can't think much of your god if you think it is so poorly informed or so weak willed that it will alter decisions to suit you.
To be fair there is an alternative. God might not have a plan and just be absent minded or have a short attention span. In this case you would have to constantly pester god (by praying) to remember what you were asking for and bring it back to the task at hand. Alternatively god might be considered to grant favor just to have people stop bitching like a parent in the checkout line with a toddler whining for candy. This is a poor strategy though since granting one request will simply invite more. Just think about how many requests for favors god gets while granting no more than chance might dictate (except for healing amputees of course. Not one of them is worthy of a restorative miracle it would seem).
So by praying you accept that God is a poor planner when compared to people; God is a wuss subject to having its mind changed by focused begging/pleading; God is unfocused and needs constant reminders to stay on task; or God is exasperated and thus pliable. And yes, I think that anyone expecting material change from prayer is a few cards short of a full deck. If you are just going to pray to make yourself feel better and not expect material changes then that is a different story.
As to the scenario. Certainly Surgeon A. If for no other reason that while praying surgeon B 's mind is (if nothing else) distracted and not focused on the task at hand. This applies equally to any other non-helpful distractions. I'd rather not have him thinking about his taxes or talking about the latest sport's scores during my surgery either.
The not so obvious reason
From what I've seen, it seems everyone is addressing the original question but assuming a successful surgery. In order to make a complete decision we also need to consider which surgeon we would prefer assuming things go wrong.
Now mind you, I'm being a bit snarky by suggesting the following.
Assuming things go wrong and you survive and feel the need to sue, from which doctor do you expect to get the most cash? Due to my mental picture of the world, I imagine a sympathetic jury awarding me less money, even though I'm the victim, because a Christian surgeon prayed for me before, during, and after the operation. So when things went wrong, it must be God's Will because everything had been done. Therefore, I get less money for pain and suffering.
I didn't express that as well as I'd like but I'm guessing you all get the picture.
Choose the atheist because of a less sympathetic jury and I get more money assuming things go wrong.
Here's another thought experiment that I'd also like to run past everyone including the Colonel. What if it's a Muslim surgeon who prayed for me before, during and after the surgery and still things went wrong. Would a Christian jury be as sympathetic to my claims against the Muslim doctor as they would be to a Christian doctor? Would a Christian jury consider a Muslim doctor who prays for his patients to be practicing good medicine or would they consider his prayers as evidence of incompetence and desperation?
I'd go with Surgeon A.
I'd go with Surgeon A. Surgeon B is out (1) less experience; (2) because I wouldn't want a "scientist" who firmly believed that some sort of voodoo magic was going to do me any good while simultaneously purporting to be skilled at his/her craft; and (3) prayer makes things worse. (see http://www.slate.com/id/2139373/ Patients who knowingly received prayers developed more post-surgery complications than did patients who unknowingly received prayers—and patients who were prayed for did no better than patients who weren't prayed for. In fact, patients who received prayers without their knowledge ended up with more major complications than did patients who received no prayers at all.)
How did the subject of belief even come up ?
I would shy away from any physician who made a big show of either belief or non-belief. In both cases, it's NOMB (None of My Business) and my belief or lack thereof is not the physicians.
That said, the atheist since I would feel more comfortable with them.
I would have to go with #1.
I would have to go with #1. I believe that religion is a mental illness and I would not want a mentally ill surgeon getting anywhere near my noodle.
Myqlkc
Pooh.
IF "Surgeon B ... has explained that prayer will be used before, during, and after the procedure to help minimize complications."
... he ain't touching me.
Perhaps ESPECIALLY if I knew HE knew I was an atheist.
An alternate interpretation
Is that by and large the life of any given human matters so little to the cosmic plans of this hypothetical God that this god doesn't have any reason to care what becomes of that individual as long as they don't impact the future significantly. I suppose in that case the question of "To give a damn or not to give a damn?" might be swayed by enough pestering. On the other hand, considering that this is a god who, in the old testament at least, was a fan of genocide I'd probably not want to annoy him/her/it too much.
"If there is evil in this world, it lurks within the hearts of men" ~Edward D. Morrison, Tales of Phantasia
I'm with Hank...
...on that angle of it. The surgeon's qualifications would probably be my first consideration, but if the doc started telling me that 'praying' crap (or anything about his belief system), he'd be history. I certainly can't afford the hand of gawd guiding the surgeon, blasphemer that I am! (Can I hear a 'Suck it, Jeebus' anyone?)
As for the qualifications being reversed, that was my first thought on reading your proposal Jim...why favor the atheist with twice the experience? I think I'd choose the atheist no matter what--at least he'd be more inclined (perhaps) to be more confident in his own abilities and less reliant on divine intervention.
Kudos
A well-balanced wrap-up, Jim. Thanks.
-Col.
For the sake of argument, it
For the sake of argument, it might also be in God's plan to get you to pray. Wheels within wheels and all that.
Also, I'd choose Surgeon B, because Surgeon A now has a 6 month waiting list due to everyone choosing him :)
The peril of the pendulum
Scott, I actually think that Americans very frequently go past center on many things. This includes jurys and court decisions. We tend to be people of the underdog. So, no, my guess would be the Muslim would likely be more protected than just about anyone, due to the geo-politics of the day.
If the trial was heard in the heartland, perhaps not. But if it were heard in Hollywood, you can bet every dollar you have that the Christian won't have a chance.
-Col.
The subject of belief is assumed in the question
... but it isn't that unlikely for it to come up anyway. I see people bring up their religion in the workplace all the time, and the patient might have noticed an FSM magnet on surgeon A's car.
But for the question to be at its most meaningful, we assume that the success rate is not known. Otherwise most people would just pick the surgeon with the highest success rate and hardly give it another thought. (Maybe surgeon B, in addition to being a religious nut, also ties his own fish lures and has awesome dexterity)
Suppose surgeons A and B have done the same number of operations? Suppose surgeon A is Gregory House and you just don't like him? (Or conversely you find him entertaining and like him very much?) Suppose surgeon B is Ned Flanders and you just can't stand him? (or the reverse) The decision isn't likely to be entirely rational.
I would give a very slight edge to surgeon A, because he doesn't think a mistake will be balanced out in the afterlife. Otherwise, wouldn't matter to me at all if he was wiccan, muslim, etc.
...
Huh?
Ground zero.
Spot on. Not one chance.
What planet are you on? O'Donnell. Scorsese. Letterman. Redford. Stone. Pitt. Schrader. Allen. Cruise. Lee. Nicholson. Barr. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. It is non-Christians themselves that have repeatedly highlighted Hollywood's hateful notoreity on this subject.
Of the thousands of names in Hollywood, Hank, how many would declare themselves to be Biblically committed Christians? How often do you hear the Name of Christ blasphemed in almost any movie? How often do you see a film like Last Temptation of Christ with Muhammed as the brunt? What movie in the last 20 years places Christians in a positive light? What would be the scene if homosexuals were treated to the same hatred and painted in a similar light as what Scorsese does to Christians in nearly all his "films"?
Wow. You're more insular than I thought.
-Col.
"Christian" Films
What movie in the last 20 years places Christians in a positive light? Mind you, I haven't seen most of these so I could be wrong: 1) Evan Almighty; 2) The Nativity Story is currently on DVD starring that girl from Whale Rider; 3) Oh God but not in the last 20 years; 4) Chronicles of Narnia; 5) Transformers I understand is an allegory where Optimus Prime died for our sin/mistakes; 6) Jesus Camp; 7) Expelled starring Ben Stein will be coming out touting creationism; 8) The Privileged Planet; 9) Idiocracy is another allegory where the lead character "dies" for 500 years and then comes back to save mankind; 10) The Lion King is blatantly Christian allegory; 11) How about that Christmas movie with the train and Tom Hanks? Does that count?; 12) How about Dear God starring Greg Kinear?; 13) Seung-Hui Cho made a short film with many references to Christ but that wasn't made in Hollywood and it doesn't place Christians in a positive light.
There are some.
Scott, you've obviously put thought into this. There are some. A couple of the films you've listed I'm unfamiliar with, so can't comment. Some others your list, however, were actually offensive to Christians, though Hollywood may not have known or intended such.
For the other side, I'd commend to you Hollywood vs. America written by the former chief film critic for the Washington Post.
Thanks!
-Col.
Christians in Hollywood
To the roster of Christian movies, I'll add the not-very-successful Naturally Native.
There have also been several TV shows that had a Christian theme.
I almost don't want to count The Flying Nun, because it was silly, but also because Sally Field's nun-ness was secondary to the flying adventures, but there was a constant Christian overtone to the thing in the fact that she was doing the good things she did because she was a Christian -- there were constant references to God, and good works, etc., for instance -- and there were several sympathetically-dealt-with characters whose character WAS to be overt Christians.
There was that thing with Michael Landon, Highway to Heaven, that was purely Christian, and that ran for five years.
There was a show with Della Reese, Touched By An Angel, that ran for almost 10 years, and was the same kind of soppy, Jesus-y chaff.
Good list.
The last two are very good points. I was thinking more of feature films, but your point is still well taken. The Flying Nun was in the '60s. I did get a kick out of it, and often wished as a kid that I could fly.
-Col.
Gibson?
Seriously, Mel Gibson (or do Christians not consider him a real Christian because he forgets to hide the antisemitism when drunk?), then there's whoever decided to do The Omen, that's a Christian movie. But seriously, with the exception of a few guys like Cruise and Gibson how many Hollywood actors advertise their religion? Because they have to advertise pretty damn loudly for me to notice (heck if you're an actor you've got to do a lot to get me to notice you period). Also, at the "whatever the hell award goes to movies" award what percentage of the people are thanking God or Jesus for their award? What percent are thanking Allah, FSM, Jehovah, the Great Spirit, Buddha any of the Hindu gods, the Goddess and/or whatever the hell Scientologists thank? Heck how many of them use the "Many thanks to whichever one of you did this." line?
I don't know, how often do you hear real Christians blaspheme the name of Jesus? I assume by "blaspheme" you mean swear "Jesus Christ!" or "Jesus Hairy Christ!". Round here that's basically everybody, except for a vocal minority. And trust me, that minority aren't the only Christians around here.
"If there is evil in this world, it lurks within the hearts of men" ~Edward D. Morrison, Tales of Phantasia
Your point?
Col, as you well know, the USA is predominantly Christian. This is known as a majority. It defies explanation how a majority tries to portray itself as victims. The reason that Christians are "fair game" in the ways you describe is because they are an overwhelming majority. It's also why liberals tend to stand up against anti-Muslim sentiments, not because we love Islam, which we don't, but because we are concerned about what Jefferson called "the tyranny of the majority". Secularists, at times, are natural allies with minorities of all sorts.
Comedians make fun of everything under the sun. Hollywood would exploit their own mothers if it made money. Nothing is sacred. I just don't get why Christians are so thin skinned about it.
And PS, homosexuals are still routinely beaten up, physically, in some parts of the USA. Literally get the shit kicked out of them. Boo fucking hoo that Christians have to take a little shit every now and then.
The point
...was quite self-explanatory; it depends on where in the US the trial would be held as to whether it would be with or without prejudice. Further, even if one is in the majority, if he does not get due civil process, then he's a victim--it has nothing to do with numbers. Further still, I didn't just mark off comedians; most are not. E.g., Scorsese is not a comedian (nor a very successful director, for that matter), but one of the most ludicrous offenders. Finally, pick any other group you want, it doesn't have to be homosexuals. Hollywood goes after no other group like it goes after Christians. Period. So am I crying? Nope--Hollyweird isn't worth my emoting for them. But in America, real America, open and blatant hatred isn't something that is esteemed or to be defended and even championed as you appear to be doing. Jefferson would have been first in line to explain that to you.
-Col.
Censorship? No thanks Colonel.
Colonel-
You are not very good at science or logic but, you do a great job of playing victim around here.
So that means in Hollywood, fair trials for Xian's are not possible and in the bible belt or the Midwest they are? How would you know? Just because people in Hollywood aren't a majority of bible banging religious kooks doesn't automatically mean they would give an unfair trial to religious people or matters. That was a pretty blatant stereotype on your part, based on what?...Movies you don't like. Sheesh! Talk about paranoid.
What the hell do you mean by "ludicrous offenders?" Offenders of what? I am so sick of religious kooks expecting their precious religions to be off limits to criticism or ridicule. Sorry, but that taboo may work in your neck of the woods, but I refuse to respect religion of any flavor.
Pretty strong words against Hollywood there. Not enough anti-Semites like Mel Gibson making movies for your taste? And "Hollyweird?" You whine every time I use the word "kook" now you are calling them names. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
So now your people are "real Americans" and the citizens who live in LA are what? Somehow they are less valuable or not "real" Americans? And you are lecturing about hatred? Wow. I hear Bush and Cheney talking the same way as if only Xian's are to be considered "real Americans" as they compare their fellow citizens to terrorists. You sure have some crazy ideas. I hope all of your people aren't that intolerant.
-------
I have been trying to hold my tongue for the past few days, but since the dam has been broken, I might as well continue with the rest of your comments I object to in this thread.
Your previous comment to Hank you stated:
Are you seriously expecting me or Hollywood to sensor our language and not "blaspheme the name of Christ?" As Kathy Griffin would say, "Jesus can suck it!" How dare you presume to decide how I exercise my freedom of speech.
And this goes all the way back to Sept 15 in your reply to SerTyrion:
These statements confirm just about every one of my stereotypes about you. You live inside a bubble of delusion that allows you to willingly suspend disbelief of your own fairy tales, yet you can clearly see how crazy another's religion sounds. In your eyes, it is perfectly rational to believe in resurrection, virgin births, demons, and other various miracles that defy the laws of nature. However, you actually poke fun at other religions and consider them fideists for doing the exact same thing! I wish we were face to face so you could see how hard this makes me laugh. Since I don't live inside of either of your bubbles of delusion, I don't believe in either one of your fairy tales.
Don't know where to start
...with all of the various twists, so won't. The chronology of the strings and what the questions and the specific responses were are clear in context.
Dirk, have you ever been in a formal debate where there is a regimented form with conventions that require attention to certain foci and a supercession of ad homina? They're very helpful.
-Col.
Liberals are more fair when it comes to judgement
Dear Col. and others,
I pointed out in a previous post a book called The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. He's conducted a study that compares punishments given out by Authoritarians and non-Authoritarians (read liberals). See pages 81 - 83 under section 3 "Double Standards". It gave a hypothetical crime of inciting a riot where the agitator was found guilty and the subject had to decide on the length of the punishment. He found:
I gather from this Christians would be judged more fairly in Hollywood than a Muslim or Atheist in the heartland. The Col. MAY be right that a Christian in Hollywood would be treated unfairly but I think it safer to say it would only SEEM unfair compared to the usual deference paid to those professing a Christian faith (see Michael Vick).
Post new comment