Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Enemies of Reason
Comments
-
The Atheist Delusion
Answering Richard Dawkins
© By Greg Taylor
There is no more esteemed debunker and denouncer of all things religious than British intellectual Richard Dawkins. In his latest book, The God Delusion, Dawkins makes a frontal assault on not just religious fundamentalism, but religion in general. To quote the name of the accompanying television series, Dawkins appears to see it as “the root of all evil.”
There is much truth in Dawkins’ criticism. One only has to look at human tragedies occurring around the world to see the effects of unquestioning faith and religious righteousness. And not just in recent years; consider the Albigensian Crusade, the witch-hunts of the Middle Ages, right up to the troubles in Northern Ireland. Belief in a dogma, without doubting the actions that arise out of that faith, can be the foundation upon which horrors grow. Millions have died fighting for, and against, particular religious ideas.
Dawkins is a gifted thinker, and some of his questions and insights about religion are certainly worthy of contemplation. For instance, Dawkins queries the righteousness of any particular religion in the following passage:
If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place.
Also insightful is his concern for political representation. In The God Delusion, Dawkins points out that religious groups can form powerful lobbies, able to effect large-scale changes in government policy which rule all of our lives. One of the more prominent examples is the Bush administration’s stance on stem cell research, a strand of science which perhaps offers the most profound steps forward in medicine for decades (suggested as a possible treatment for spinal injury paralysis, Parkinson’s Disease and Alzheimer’s).
Current US leaders rely far too heavily on ‘heartland’ support by the large Christian voting blocks to allow research into stem cells – even if the arguments against seem to be at best scare campaigns based on faulty logic. This situation, in which non-believers like Dawkins are at the ‘democratic’ mercy of religious groups able to exert political pressure, must be a particularly troubling one for him – and I must confess, it is to me as well.
The Most Dangerous Delusion
However, in his attacks on all religions, regardless of individual philosophies, as being the source of all ills in the world, Dawkins goes too far – and it is astounding that someone of his obvious intellect could err so badly. Religious writer John Cornwell summed up the major problem with Dawkins’ vitriolic stance towards religion in these words:
If there is a dangerous delusion in the world, it is not so much moderate religion, as Dawkins would have it, but fundamentalism in all its forms – ideological, scientific and religious – as the imposition of dogma that brooks neither doubt nor respect for disagreement.
Cornwell’s comment is incisive. Dawkins’ attack singles out the very worst elements of religion – fundamentalist, non-thinking faith, and intolerance of others outside the ‘flock’ – while ignoring the large-scale charity work carried out by many religions, both large and small, as well as the profound morality teachings found in each, from the parables of Jesus Christ through to the Buddhist doctrine of protecting all life.
Professor of English Literature Terry Eagleton, himself no defender of fundamentalist religion, was quick to point out this massive flaw in The God Delusion.
“In a book of almost 400 pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false,” Eagleton wrote. “The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history – and this by a self-appointed crusader against bigotry.”
So too, in characterising religious believers as “faith-heads” (his words), gullible believers of nonsensical stories, does Dawkins paint with a broad and superficial brush. While it is true that most believers grow within their religion of birth, many eventually connect with a more universal sense of deity, rather than continuing with a blind faith in the particular godly identity defined by their religion. Dawkins also does not delve into the worldwide mystical traditions closely tied to each religion, such as the Jewish Kabbalah, Islamic Sufism, and Hindu teachings of yoga, all of which speak more to a personal, wondrous gnosis than the blind worship of an autocratic, vengeful god that Richard Dawkins appears to take umbrage with.
Dawkins, in his inimitable style, once eloquently asked, “If there is only one Creator who made the tiger and the lamb, the cheetah and the gazelle, what is He playing at? Is he a sadist who enjoys spectator blood sports?... Is He manoeuvring to maximise David Attenborough’s television ratings?” While on the surface it is a humorous and insightful quote, it also betrays the lack of depth to Dawkins’ own conception of deity. In Eagleton’s words, “He seems to imagine God, if not exactly with a white beard, then at least as some kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how this chap can speak to billions of people simultaneously, which is rather like wondering why, if Tony Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms.”
Indeed, the ‘God’ that Dawkins argues against is actually the ‘non-God’ of the unintelligent “faith-heads” he so despises – and one can only be struck by the ridiculous realisation that the acerbic Oxford professor, one of the intellectual giants of our time, is engaging religion on the same philosophical level as ‘Bubba’ from the deep South of the United States of America. Dawkins is directing his antipathy toward the white-bearded grandfather figure sitting in the sky, patiently listening to all our prayers on his intercessory answering machine – the same ‘God’ that many of us left behind with our childhood. And yet the most profound teachings of the mystics through the ages are consigned to the same dark definitions that Dawkins foists upon all religious beliefs, universally.
Returning to Cornwell’s comments, it is worth pointing out that as many atrocities have been carried out in the name of religious disbelief as in blind faith. Stalin was an atheist who brutally attacked priests under his regime, let alone the horrors he visited upon the general populace. Fundamentalism isn’t the exclusive domain of religion it seems. Indeed, as the evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr said, atheism must be held to the same standards as religions when judging their comparative flaws and benefits. And, to quote Orr directly:
Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual fact that (1) the 20th century was an experiment in secularism; and (2) the result was secular evil, an evil that, if anything, was more spectacularly virulent than that which came before.
In political ideology, this fundamentalism has mixed with an ugly dualism to create overly simplistic and ultimately useless categories – liberal or conservative, commie or capitalist – with a complete disregard for the true spectrum of political ideas. In the words of George W. Bush: “You’re either with us or against us.” It is therefore the polarising elements of ‘ideology’ which we need to be fearing, far more than any particular religious belief. Especially the ideology of ‘us’ being somehow better, more intelligent, more moral, than ‘them’ – ironically, a trait which Dawkins describes as a particular Darwinian adaptive trait known as the “kin-selection principle.” Again, the Oxford professor seems not eager to find the quite obvious “evils” of science, technology and Darwinism.
Fundamentalist Scientists
Dawkins would be apoplectic at the suggestion that science is as close-minded and vicious as the religions he despises so much. But one doesn’t have to travel far to find examples of true fundamentalism.
Last September, at the British Association for the Advancement of Science conference, there was uproar after ‘fringe’ scientists Rupert Sheldrake, Peter Fenwick and Deborah Delanoy were allowed to present their research into ideas such as telepathy and after-death states. The apostate scientists were not welcome in this church of science – “it’s quite inappropriate to have a session like that without putting forward a more convincing view,” said geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer. “I know of no serious, properly done studies which make me feel that this is anything other than nonsense,” said media darling Lord Winston. Perhaps Lord Winston had the same level of knowledge as Dr. Peter Atkins, whose interview (with Rupert Sheldrake) spoke volumes about whether the uproar was based in science or belief:
Dr. Atkins: Well, you can’t rely on any of these experiments... there is no serious work done in this field. The samples that people use are very tiny, the effects are statistically insignificant, the controls are not done in a scientific way.
Dr. Sheldrake: Well I’d like to ask him if he’s actually read the evidence? May I ask you Professor Atkins if you’ve actually studied any of this evidence or any other evidence?
Dr. Atkins: No, but I would be very suspicious of it.
And then there’s the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (recently renamed – in what can only be seen as a blatant marketing move – to ‘CSI’), the supposed guardians of the paradigm, an organisation that Robert Anton Wilson described as “one of the most dogmatic, fanatical, and crusading of the atheistic religions around now.” One has only to read through the writings of James Randi or Michael Shermer to see through the veneer of their ‘science delusion’, and glimpse the zealot within.
To be fair to Richard Dawkins – in contrast to his polemics against religion – he does not seem to be overeager to vilify parapsychology. He has warned James Randi of his belief that Randi’s infamous million dollar prize for exhibition of a paranormal ability may one day be claimed, due to the existence of what he described as the ‘perinormal’. The term is scientific legalese to allow Dawkins to mention the possibility of the paranormal, without being accountable for it, but all the same it is worth noting to Dawkins’ credit that he believes we are not at ‘the end of science’ just yet.
Further, Dawkins has gone on record as saying “the popularity of the paranormal, oddly enough, might even be grounds for encouragement... I think that the appetite for mystery, the enthusiasm for that which we do not understand, is healthy and to be fostered. It is the same appetite which drives the best of true science, and it is an appetite which true science is best qualified to satisfy.”
In contrast, most materialists and Darwinists warn of the outright danger of studying anything but physical, orthodox science. In a now infamous hit job, the BBC’s flagship science program Horizon dedicated a feature to the theories of alternative historian Graham Hancock (titled “Atlantis Uncovered”), in which they portrayed ‘fringe’ thinking as a descent into irrational thought, and ultimately (of course!) National Socialism.
Similarly Michael Shermer, in Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of our Time, states “today’s paranormal beliefs probably seem relatively harmless. They are not. The reason is that if someone is willing to accept such claims on nonexistent evidence, what else are they willing to believe?”
This sort of thinking is nonsensical, as similar outcomes can be assigned to nearly any type of human endeavour. As the physicist Henry Stapp has argued, physicalist science on its own is also dangerous, because it leaves “no rational basis for anything but self-interest... the collapse of moral philosophy is inevitable.”
Indeed, while Dawkins warns us of the dangers that religion poses, we might ask whether it is worth being concerned about a world with no religion. Are large populations truly capable of living without a moral compass? It is easy enough to pronounce from a nice office at Oxford University that morality comes from within, not from religion. But for those on the breadline, fighting for their very survival, is it as easy to not transgress moral guidelines if one feels they are arbitrary, rather than rules set in stone? On that arbitrariness – where is the line drawn; who, in effect, sets the morals? Oxford professors, politicians, perhaps corporate leaders? Certainly, there is an arbitrariness to religious morals as well, depending on where you were born, and the problem of morality does not rebut Dawkins’ queries against religion – but if he wishes to change a flawed system, he must also be able to propose a working alternative.
Challenging Science
While Dawkins can be credited with being open to a ‘widening’ of science via inclusion of the ‘perinormal’, the same cannot be said of his faith-like defence of Darwinian evolution. In recent years, he and others have attacked the “Intelligent Design” movement vociferously – sometimes on very good grounds. However, orthodox science appears to have constructed their own dualism in the evolutionary debate, with the new strawman of “Intelligent Design” being a helpful tool in their fight. By this, I mean there seems to be a conscious over-looking of the ‘intelligent design’ propounded by individuals of the standing of Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, and a physicalist himself).
Instead, in terms of debating the theory of evolution, these days you’re either for Darwin, or you are labelled a religious nutter. No mention of Crick’s idea of intelligent design, or mathematician Charles Muse’s suggestion of hints of conscious evolution (in which our consciousness is guiding our evolution), or even the disapproval of a number of high-profile scientists to the core tenets of neo-Darwinism. In the words of Deepak Chopra, who has joined in the debate over Dawkin’s assault against religion, “To say that Nature displays intelligence doesn’t make you a Christian fundamentalist.”
Witness the recent book Biocosm, by complexity theorist James Gardner, which proposes that life and intelligence have not emerged in a series of Darwinian accidents but are essentially hardwired into the cycle of cosmic creation, evolution, death, and rebirth. Why is there not more debate and discussion of these theories by Dawkins, rather than taking on the easy target of evangelical leader (and sometimes indulger in gay prostitute sex) Ted Haggard?
Instead of the Biocosm ideas of James Gardner, or of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose’s intriguing theory of quantum mechanical processes in the brain, and numerous other truly scientific discoveries and theories pointing at some sort of transcendent ‘other’ aspect to our reality, Dawkins instead wants the debate to be between physicalist Darwinism, and dogmatic faith in the childish notion of ‘God the bearded grandfather figure’.
There is no doubt a need for concern about the dangers of fundamentalist religion. There is a rising tide of violent conflict around the world growing from irrational faith, so Dawkins is correct in raising the alarm and should not be faulted or pilloried for doing so. The only problem is that he is throwing a baby out with that bathwater.
Orthodox science is a wonderful tool for understanding the physical aspects of our existence. But we should doubt it as well. Not just guarding against dogmatic belief in the current scientific paradigm, but also any moves to enshrine physicalism and logical thought as the only way to frame the world. Metaphor, art, and emotion are all part of the human experience which should not be denied, and there is an argument that religious experience should be included in there as well.
Philosopher Thomas Nagel, who describes himself as an ‘outsider’ to religion, eloquently mirrored these thoughts in his critique of The God Delusion: “The fear of religion leads too many scientifically minded atheists to cling to a defensive, world-flattening reductionism,” he said. “We have more than one form of understanding… the great achievements of physical science do not make it capable of encompassing everything, from mathematics to ethics to the experiences of a living animal. We have no reason to dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis as ways of discovering the truth just because they are not physics.”
Richard Dawkins once argued against a quote by John Keats: “Do not all charms fly at the mere touch of cold philosophy? There was an awful rainbow once in heaven: we know her woof, her texture; she is given in the dull catalogue of common things. Philosophy will clip an angel’s wings, conquer all mysteries by rule and line, empty the haunted air, and… unweave a rainbow.”
Dawkins thought that the scientific truth behind the rainbow was even more beautiful – a worthy comment, but one that disregarded all the other various ways of seeing and knowing due to a belief that his way was the only way – and that is the very definition of Fundamentalism. It is an ideology which seeks to replace all other thoughts and philosophies, and if Dawkins thought with a clear mind on the topic he would see that this is exactly his real concern.
Let us attempt to understand the rainbow in all its beauty – physical, emotional and spiritual – without dogma and prejudice, and allow all others to find their own way freely.
© Copyright New Dawn Magazine. Permission to re-send, post and place on web sites for non-commercial purposes, and if shown only in its entirety with no changes or additions. This notice must accompany all re-posting.0 -
It's quite hard to scientifically measure to "people feel well about themselves".Scofflaw wrote:Not at all. After all, the placebo effect has been well tested. A standard double-blind test would do, with people offered a placebo purporting to be an alternative therapy or conventional medicine.
Mood is very grey area and difficult to measure. Questions can give a general idea but mistakes are often made and one reason why so many people are on anti-depressants when they probably don't need them. You can measure serotonin levels in blood but these aren't always useful as you can low levels for natural reasons.0 -
I remember hearing on the radio that a lot of private schools got on average lower points than many public ones
I went to private schools and one of them, we must have been the worst class ever
So I wouldn't say you necessarily get higher points from being at a posh school
I don't even know what the rugby thing is about...0 -
Interesting. What's your own opinion?nacho libre wrote:The Atheist Delusion
Answering Richard Dawkins0 -
Tim Robbins wrote:Positive thinking is a lack of stress.
I deliberately made a distinction between the two (even though of course they are two sides of the same coin) because it is more accurate to say to some people that they should relax, not get stressed out, take some time out, etc rather than just think positive about something which I think even though it may work is disingenuous, someone could be stressed out and fooling themselves with delusional happy thoughts for instance, or end up not really dealing with problems.
But I'm being a bit pendantic here probably because I really dislike all this new age crap with emphasis on positive thinking which is just standard advice that any doctor could give you about dealing with stress, but just dressed in this positive thinking slogan, also often this positive thinking new age stuff goes well too far into the land of spiritual crap.0 -
Advertisement
-
MoominPapa wrote:One thing that gets me is how does you average homeopath know that hes got one part brussels sprout extract (or whatever) to 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
parts water? Who makes their equipment and how are they calibrated? What if they get it wrong? Would this help explain why it doesn't work?
Let's not exaggerate here, it's only this number
1,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000 :1
The obvious question here is, well one of them anyway, how did they find that much water to dilute it with...0 -
Most private schools play rugby.bluewolf wrote:I remember hearing on the radio that a lot of private schools got on average lower points than many public ones
I went to private schools and one of them, we must have been the worst class ever
So I wouldn't say you necessarily get higher points from being at a posh school
I don't even know what the rugby thing is about...
Belvo, Blackrock, Michaels, Mary's Terenure, Clongows.
Also:
Andrews, CUS, High School, KH, Wesley
Although more and more schools are now playing rugby and are public, which is great to see. But the term Rugby school usually means private school.
Although perhaps I should have said Rugby / Hockey school. As Loretto and all them play Hockey.
(One of the most expensive schools is Sutton Park and don't play Rugby. For some strange reaons this school gets very poor leaving cert results.)
Most of these schools you can't go to unless your parents can afford 4K a year. If you look at statistical information of those going to third level, the top schools are the private schools and irish schools.
The private are good for networking with people who are going to be influential in society.
For example, half of RTE went to Blackrock college.
In fact, I remember seeing a documentaty on the Jesuits who run some of these schools who categorically stated that their their intention was to educate the elite because they wanted to educated those who were going to be influential in society so they themselves could have more influence on society.
It's quite a clever technique actually and has helped them prolonged their own status and their Memes and that of Catholism in general in this state.
John Bruton went to Clongows (Jesuit) and some of his political decision were based on a political thinking sometimes refered to as Christian democrat.0 -
You are missing the point. Most doctors are incapable of giving advice on positive thinking, dealing with stress etc. Look at all the people on prozak for flips sake.lookinforpicnic wrote:But I'm being a bit pendantic here probably because I really dislike all this new age crap with emphasis on positive thinking which is just standard advice that any doctor could give you about dealing with stress, but just dressed in this positive thinking slogan, also often this positive thinking new age stuff goes well too far into the land of spiritual crap.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote:You are missing the point. Most doctors are incapable of giving advice on positive thinking, dealing with stress etc. Look at all the people on prozak for flips sake.
Well I haven't been to the doctor in over 15 years so I'm afraid I can't remember what they are like, do they not have leaflets then for dealing with stress, maybe people should pick them up:D0 -
That's odd, I could have sworn I heard otherwise on the radio. Can't find anything on it at the moment though.Tim Robbins wrote:If you look at statistical information of those going to third level, the top schools are the private schools and irish schools.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Sunday Times have published a few surveys of how many students from each school go on to third level.bluewolf wrote:That's odd, I could have sworn I heard otherwise on the radio. Can't find anything on it at the moment though.
One year Gonzaga, (private, rugby playing and Jesuit) got about 98% for going on not just to third level but to University i.e. not a DIT but a Trinity or a UCD. I played rugby and you meet a much higher percentage of doctors and lawyers (particular lawyers actually) then any other activity I have ever done. It's a major problem with the game is traditionally is that it has been difficult to play unless you go to one of these schools. But that's going off topic.0 -
Giblet wrote:The obvious question here is, well one of them anyway, how did they find that much water to dilute it with...
Well considering the summer we've had I say they just stick a few buckets out in the back yard0 -
Um, my point was I don't want social skills - I want medical skills.Tim Robbins wrote:Great. But I think you are naive if you think Doctors in general have high social skills and empathy skills.
Man do you have a chip on your shoulder. I went to one of your schools for 12 years and I assure you the only doctors that came out of my class were the ones that busted their ass studying for points. And if you bust your ass, you deserve a place. Medicine is the one "Daddy's Business" that you cannot walk into without a huge amount of effort.Tim Robbins wrote:There's a quasi ruling class culture in society:
Go to a private rugby school
=>
Mix with the "right" type, get the best teachers with a much lower teacher / pupil ratio
=>
Be a doctor or lawyer or if you've no brains an auctioner or work in insurance.
=>
Don't worry too much about the common man, because you don't even have to associate with him.
I think if you did a statisical analysis of CAO options filled out by students. You would find quite a high correlation between Medicine and Law, even though these careers are complete different they are both "prestigious".
I'd also agree with bluewolf in that the points earning in private schools are not anything to shout about.0 -
-
That's a poor argument. It's an just immature personal attack.The Atheist wrote:Man do you have a chip on your shoulder.
If you believe in equality of educational opportunity which mainy people, believe it or not do, you are bound to disagree with private schools. You rubbish my point because I am critical of inequalities in Irish education and the type of society it creates.
Either you are in favour of inequalities in education or you are against them.
You completely omit intent and do not consider consequence fully.And if you bust your ass, you deserve a place.
Are they busting their ass because their intention is to have a prestigious high €€€,€€€ career or is their intent to do good?
You only consider the consequence to the person busting their ass, (they deserve the place) and not the consequence to society. Now,
does "busting your ass" have any relation to the probability of a doctor being caring or not? It clearly does not.
So, either the scenario of a doctor being caring is unimportant to you or your "busting your ass deserves place" needs to be modified.
I think your analysis is cursory and facile. It's an insult and an argument that requires more thinking.
Well statistically, The Sunday times survey indicates that most of the ones in Dublin (except Sutton park) are far higher than average..I'd also agree with bluewolf in that the points earning in private schools are not anything to shout about.0 -
I think he is rubbishing your post because he has pointed out that he has familiarity with that system and it clearly (in his experience of course) doesn't work like that. You seem to be ignoring this and continuing your rant against the snobbery of doctors (and bizarrely auctioneers, one of the smartest guys I know is an auctioneer)Tim Robbins wrote:That's a poor argument. It's an just immature personal attack.
If you believe in equality of educational opportunity which mainy people, believe it or not do, you are bound to disagree with private schools. You rubbish my point because I am critical of inequalities in Irish education and the type of society it creates.
Either you are in favour of inequalities in education or you are against them.
Do you actually have anything to back up your idea that doctors come from private upper class schools and because of this culture care little for the "common man"
Because I know a number of doctors and none of them fit that description, so I second Atheists puzzlement at where all this is coming from.0 -
Actually, I am arguing the low empathy rating for some Doctors and this was even supported by Richard Dawkins last night.Wicknight wrote:Do you actually have anything to back up your idea that doctors come from private upper class schools and because of this culture care little for the "common man"
Do you agree with that?
Secondly, I am suggesting one reason for the low empathy is the system can attract the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
The system is based on first achieving an extremly high number of points to get into medicine. This is fact. You need about 550+ points to do a course I think anyone who got 480 points could do.
(This is a problem irrespective of private schools or not.)
Now the percentage of people in medicine that come from a private school, I don't know. I would suggest it's much higher than 10% which is the percentage of people who do the leaving that went to a private school. I am suggesting you have a better chance of getting into medicine if you go to a private school, not if you are more empathetic person. (The Institute for example is simple an edifice for people to get as many points as possible in the leaving cert and attracts many people chasing medicine).
This is wrong.
I am not saying people who go to a private school have a low empathy rating because, they grow up in an enviroment that excludes members of society who they therefore find difficult to relate to if they have to deal with them. Although I think that is also a possibility. In fact, I remember Fr. McVerry saying once this was a problem with the private Jesuit schools. But at this stage, I think we are side tracking away from the debate which is of course:
Should Doctors in general have a higher empathy rating? Is empathy important in medicine? I argue it is and medicine does not put enough emphasis on it. I think that people who critise alternative medicine overlook this point.0 -
Wicknight wrote:You seem to be ignoring this and continuing your rant against the snobbery of doctors (and bizarrely auctioneers, one of the smartest guys I know is an auctioneer)
Being smart and snobbish are not mutually exclusive. So it is entirely possible for an auctioneer to be both smart and snobbish.
If you were talking about a righteous auctioneer, of course, that would be a different kettle of fish altogether.
0 -
Tim Robbins wrote:That's a poor argument. It's an just immature personal attack.
Not really. If correct, it suggests that you would be unable to analyse the matter in any objective way. For example, you don't actually have figures to show that medicine is dominated by the privately educated, but are nevertheless sure that it is - a bad sign.Tim Robbins wrote:If you believe in equality of educational opportunity which mainy people, believe it or not do, you are bound to disagree with private schools. You rubbish my point because I am critical of inequalities in Irish education and the type of society it creates.
Either you are in favour of inequalities in education or you are against them.
One can be against inequalities in education while disagreeing that you have identified them correctly.Tim Robbins wrote:You completely omit intent and do not consider consequence fully.
Are they busting their ass because their intention is to have a prestigious high €€€,€€€ career or is their intent to do good?
You only consider the consequence to the person busting their ass, (they deserve the place) and not the consequence to society. Now,
does "busting your ass" have any relation to the probability of a doctor being caring or not? It clearly does not.
So, either the scenario of a doctor being caring is unimportant to you or your "busting your ass deserves place" needs to be modified.
Again, that's not so. "Busting your ass" is necessary to be good at medicine, and goes on being necessary throughout a medical career. A student who shows aptitude for the kind of memorisation-and-application work involved in the leaving has exactly what it takes, intellectually, to keep up in medicine (or law, hmm, interesting).
This is necessary because medicine advances all the time, and the doctor will need to keep up throughout their career in order to give their patients the benefit of the latest advances. Medicine also involves learning huge quantities of material initially.
You are quite correct, of course, that the (Irish) system takes no account of the emotional aptitude of students for dealing with patients - however, that's a general failing of the CAO system, which contains no such provision, and presumably the whole system would require revamp to make this possible - not that such a thing isn't long overdue.Tim Robbins wrote:I think your analysis is cursory and facile. It's an insult and an argument that requires more thinking.
JC would say "touche", but then he doesn't know what that means.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
5uspect wrote:Interesting. I wonder how they'll do it? It would be good to have some good hard debates rather than just have Dawkins sit there with a bemused look on his face.
I'm watching the astrology one now, it's dawkins being bemused and patronising so far
I'm getting awfully sick of him
lol!scofflaw wrote:JC would say "touche", but then he doesn't know what that means.0 -
Advertisement
-
.. and if it's not correct it's entirely irrelevant.Scofflaw wrote:Not really. If correct, it suggests that you would be unable to analyse the matter in any objective way.
Now, how we determine if it's correct without entering into a subjective paradigm. We can't. So essentially your point about lack of objectively can only be derived from subjectively which is non sensical and makes this point moot.
Please read my posts properly. I said:For example, you don't actually have figures to show that medicine is dominated by the privately educated, but are nevertheless sure that it is - a bad sign.
"Now the percentage of people in medicine that come from a private school, I don't know."
Of course. So instead of saying the obvious, point out where and why they are mis-identifications.One can be against inequalities in education while disagreeing that you have identified them correctly.
Straw man. My point was not "busting your ass" was not necessary, it was that it was not the only thing necessary.Again, that's not so. "Busting your ass" is necessary to be good at medicine, and goes on being necessary throughout a medical career.
Please read my posts.
An irrelevant contribution to this discourse.JC would say "touche", but then he doesn't know what that means.0 -
Can I ask, Tim, how you propose to measure a student's 'probability of being caring'? I won't weigh in on the question of whether or not it's even particularly important for a doctor to be especially caring or empathetic, but I think the above question is relevant no matter what you conclude in that regard.
A potential doctor's intelligence and ability to 'bust his/her ass' are easily measurable in an exam (the Leaving Cert is neither the ideal nor the worst exam in this regard, but it is probably reasonably effective in determining these things, particularly the latter), but caringness? Interview? Charity work? Psychological testing? Certainly, I can see nothing that couldn't be manipulated very simply by your rugby/hockey-schoolers in search of status.
What you seem to be suggesting is that people from lower class backgrounds are more likely to be caring than those who can afford private education, which is a huge assertion without any supporting evidence and certainly no reason to disturb a system that is otherwise reasonably effective at finding good doctors.0 -
Good question.Attractive Nun wrote:Can I ask, Tim, how you propose to measure a student's 'probability of being caring'?
1. If we increase the supply of 3rd level places for medicine, it would lower the college points. It would also increase the supply of doctors and mean that instead of them getting 150K a year they get paid 80 - 90K a year.
This would decrease the probability of people only doing it for the money and increase the probability that they are doing because they really want to be a Doctor.
2. Another idea would be if the state took more control here and instead of GPs being private they were all public and worked for a flat salary similar to other essential services such as ambulance drivers. This means the state controls the salary and the terms and conditions so that people get more than 8 minutes with their GP and GPs instead of getting paid 150K get, 100K.
3. We could have in place an interview system. Now such a system of course wouldn't be bullet proof but it would make people think that this profession isn't all about money and that society thinks being Doctor is a vocation.
4. Pharmacutical (sorry I can't spell) companies should be banned from buying Doctors skiing holidays. This sort of stuff is very unethical and can lead to Doctors feeling they have to repay the pharm. companies.
I don't know if you know about the golden cards fiasco. But IMO this would be strong evidence that a lot GPs are motivated by money. Similar the resistance of consultants and IHCA who get paid 250K a year to reform is more evidence of their greed.
When I look at the health service, I see human greed being the root problem for the the mess that it is. This is one issue where I really respect Christian philosophy as I see it as doctrine that tries to reduce greed and increase compassion. I think that if more us reflect on teachings of the Gospel and thought about the message of compassion, we could learn something useful even if we don't believe in the supernatural aspects of it. I guess this is one reason why I am more sympathetic to theology than some of the other atheist posters.0 -
No what I am suggesting is that we should value caring in the medical profession more than we do.Attractive Nun wrote:What you seem to be suggesting is that people from lower class backgrounds are more likely to be caring than those who can afford private education, which is a huge assertion without any supporting evidence and certainly no reason to disturb a system that is otherwise reasonably effective at finding good doctors.
Right now, the system ignores caring and has a huge points requirement which will naturally favour people from wealthier backgrounds. What it should be doing is favouring people who are more likely to be caring not more likely to be from a wealthy background.0 -
Gettin a bit off topic are we not...........
Anybody know if part 2 is online yet? I've been looking all day but no sign of it!0 -
Tim Robbins wrote:.. and if it's not correct it's entirely irrelevant.
Now, how we determine if it's correct without entering into a subjective paradigm. We can't. So essentially your point about lack of objectively can only be derived from subjectively which is non sensical and makes this point moot.
Well, one could look at it as The Atheist simply saying what he's thinking - all of us here are, I think capable of making up our minds. Certainly his comment hasn't lowered my opinion of you.Tim Robbins wrote:Please read my posts properly. I said:
"Now the percentage of people in medicine that come from a private school, I don't know."
It's good that you acknowledge that you don't know the statistics, but it certainly hasn't prevented you building quite a large thesis on the basis that this is the case.Tim Robbins wrote:Of course. So instead of saying the obvious, point out where and why they are mis-identifications.
Mostly, I was pointing out that you'd just used a phrase that no-one can disagree with, even if they entirely disagree with you, and used it in such a way that it appeared to support your position. That's sloganeering.Tim Robbins wrote:Straw man. My point was not "busting your ass" was not necessary, it was that it was not the only thing necessary.
Please read my posts.
Again, I haven't disagreed with you. I'm strongly in favour of interviews and character assessments for prospective medical students.
I sometimes wonder if the reason you see so many of what you take to be 'straw men' is that you are not really aware of what you appear to others to be arguing?Tim Robbins wrote:An irrelevant contribution to this discourse.
You may well say so...I could not possibly comment.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
damnit, as soon as I find streaming divx of that 70's show.
ah, I'll save it for tomorrow morning. Bit of debunking is as good for the body as a bowl of porridge, half a banana and a cup of sugarless decaf coffee.0 -
My main theisis is that the alternative medicine if anything is evidence that people are not getting the personal empathy they should be getting from mainstream medicine.Scofflaw wrote:It's good that you acknowledge that you don't know the statistics, but it certainly hasn't prevented you building quite a large thesis on the basis that this is the case.
You seem to agree with this:
So what do we actually disagree on?I'm strongly in favour of interviews and character assessments for prospective medical students.
I elaborate into why mainstream medicine may have some empathy problems, with no hard data, but some a priori logic, Sunday Times evidence and my anecdotal evidence containing my own sample set which I would guess is quite large, especially after being long term sick. I also have some friends who went the private school root and friends who did medicine / law but came from a public school.
What phrase? This sort of comment is difficult to understand. You say: "no-one can disagree with" but "even if they entirely disagree with you", you are appear to talking in nonsensical riddles.Mostly, I was pointing out that you'd just used a phrase that no-one can disagree with, even if they entirely disagree with you, and used it in such a way that it appeared to support your position. That's sloganeering.
In this case I made the argument, you tried to rebutt it by misunderstanding my argument or else you didn't try and rebutt and were going off on a tangent. I think you need to be clearer:I sometimes wonder if the reason you see so many of what you take to be 'straw men' is that you are not really aware of what you appear to others to be arguing?
are you rebutting a specific argument or are you going off onto another one?
It is very unclear when you are sticking to the point, or moving to another one because you don't make it clear in your posts.
The other problem right now, I think is the theisis elitism in private school although related to this discussion is a separate debate as even if there were no private schools at all, it is still possible to have a medical elite who have empathy problems.0 -
Advertisement
-
The system favours those who work the hardest to gain a place in medicine.Tim Robbins wrote:What it should be doing is favouring people who are more likely to be caring not more likely to be from a wealthy background.
What's your mate Mary Harney doing about this anyway, Tim?
0
Advertisement