religious Doctor

sionnach

Húrin wrote: »

So religion can only ever have negative effects? What about the possibility that religion could improve the doctor's relational skills? I suppose your worldview demands that you dismiss this possibility.

As I see it, a doctors job is to diagnose, treat and interact with the patient. Religion certainly cannot improve a doctor's performance in diagnosis or treatment, so religion can only have no effect or a negative effect in these areas.

As for patient interaction, religion might (although in my opinion doesn't really) help a shy or uncaring doctor improve their relational skills, but it can't improve them past the point of an atheist doctor. Being religious doesn't give you an edge in interpersonal skills. Being religious doesn't make you a more caring person.

So yeah, religion might have a positive effect for certain doctors who start out with poor interpersonal skills but it certainly doesn't make them better than atheist doctors.

Dades

MatthewVII wrote: »

Well what I saw was

- There is an amazing doctor who is incredible

- He is very religious

To me, this implies that PDN is drawing a link between these two points. That he believes his patients receive a better quality of care because he prays for them is just icing on the cake.

Well the OP questioned whether a religious doctor would be as effective, and PDN supplied anecdotal evidence of a highly regarded surgeon who happens to be quite religious.

Seems fair enough to me.

lostexpectation

i didn't see anything more worthy in pdn's post did you, anything other then asserting that the addition of faith added something when it clearly doesn't

philologos

lostexpectation wrote: »

i didn't see anything more worthy in pdn's post did you, anything other then asserting that the addition of faith added something when it clearly doesn't

If you object to PDN's post it might be helpful to give some reasons why? Why is it so clear that it doesn't?

Húrin

MatthewVII wrote: »

I don't really see a link between religion and relational skills. I see a link between being a caring person and relational skills. I don't think this comes from religion.

I agree that relational skills are determined by personality factors and environmental factors, but religion, whether it is true or a placebo, can produce a moral improvement in an individual.

sionnach wrote: »

As for patient interaction, religion might (although in my opinion doesn't really) help a shy or uncaring doctor improve their relational skills, but it can't improve them past the point of an atheist doctor. Being religious doesn't give you an edge in interpersonal skills. Being religious doesn't make you a more caring person.

So yeah, religion might have a positive effect for certain doctors who start out with poor interpersonal skills but it certainly doesn't make them better than atheist doctors.

Who is this mythical atheist doctor who has reached the apex of relational development? I am not saying that religious doctors are always better with people than atheist ones. But I think that religion can improve people's relational skills no matter what stage they start at.

sionnach

Húrin wrote: »

Who is this mythical atheist doctor who has reached the apex of relational development?

I'm sorry if my post was unclear, what I meant was that an atheist doctor doesn't have less capacity with regards to relational skills than a religious one.

Húrin wrote: »

I am not saying that religious doctors are always better with people than atheist ones. But I think that religion can improve people's relational skills no matter what stage they start at.

Can you give examples of how becoming religious could boost a doctor's relational skills in a manner that couldn't be achieved without religion?

CerebralCortex

sionnach wrote: »

Can you give examples of how becoming religious could boost a doctor's relational skills in a manner that couldn't be achieved without religion?

Probably not but that won't stop him trying.

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

But I think that religion can improve people's relational skills no matter what stage they start at.

I'm quite offended by this sentiment. You suggest that a doctor who is the same as me in every respect except that he is religious means that I can never be as good as him at relating to patients?

At the end of the day you can be religious and still be cold, judgemental, unempathetic and unreassuring. Having faith does not give you interpersonal skills. It doesn't make you any better at reassuring people or putting people at ease. To suggest so is to suggest that all atheist doctors are strictly inferior to their hypothetical religious counterparts.

Atheists don't need a religion or a code to be good, kind people. We do it because people seeking the medical profession are vulnerable and the outcomes for everyone are better when patients are confident in their doctors.

Húrin

sionnach wrote: »

I'm sorry if my post was unclear, what I meant was that an atheist doctor doesn't have less capacity with regards to relational skills than a religious one.

This was an assumption that YOU made about my argument without reading my argument.

Can you give examples of how becoming religious could boost a doctor's relational skills in a manner that couldn't be achieved without religion?

It seems a pointless discussion. I find it implausible that a religion would cause any moral disimprovement. Religions say that believers should be kind, charitable, etc. I don't think that "atheism" has any equivalent with the same moral force.

MatthewVII wrote: »

I'm quite offended by this sentiment. You suggest that a doctor who is the same as me in every respect except that he is religious means that I can never be as good as him at relating to patients?

At the end of the day you can be religious and still be cold, judgemental, unempathetic and unreassuring. Having faith does not give you interpersonal skills. It doesn't make you any better at reassuring people or putting people at ease. To suggest so is to suggest that all atheist doctors are strictly inferior to their hypothetical religious counterparts.

Atheists don't need a religion or a code to be good, kind people. We do it because people seeking the medical profession are vulnerable and the outcomes for everyone are better when patients are confident in their doctors.

That's clearly not what I said, if you include the line before:

Húrin wrote: »

I am not saying that religious doctors are always better with people than atheist ones. But I think that religion can improve people's relational skills no matter what stage they start at.

I'm not saying that anyone needs a religion to be kind. However I think it is unlikely that conversion to a religion will produce a moral disimprovement in anyone. It is not relevant whether the religion is true or not.

It is quite possible that you have better relational skills than some of your religious counterparts. Is this not clear in my post? However, I think that if you converted to a religion it is probable that your relational skills would improve. Remember, this is not dependent on whether the religion is true or a placebo.

sionnach

Húrin wrote: »

That's clearly not what I said, if you include the line before:

It effectively is what you said and you repeat it in your last post:

Húrin wrote: »

if you converted to a religion it is probable that your relational skills would improve.

You're saying it's probable that his atheism is holding him back

MatthewVII

Húrin wrote: »

It is quite possible that you have better relational skills than some of your religious counterparts. Is this not clear in my post? However, I think that if you converted to a religion it is probable that your relational skills would improve. Remember, this is not dependent on whether the religion is true or a placebo.

There is quite a difference in saying that religion can hardly cause a disimprovement and that religion will likely cause an improvement.

What my abilities are in relation to my real colleagues is unimportant, as we all start from different baselines. What's important is that you believe I will always be subpar to what I am capable of because I am atheist. That is what I find objectionable about your argument. You suggest atheism is a handicap to compassion, which is simply not true.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

It seems a pointless discussion. I find it implausible that a religion would cause any moral disimprovement. Religions say that believers should be kind, charitable, etc. I don't think that "atheism" has any equivalent with the same moral force.

Yes, because atheists aren't good because we're told to be, unlike many theists. When atheists good, they're good for the sake of being good.

ChocolateSauce

Just so long as they're a competent doctor who is willing and able to perform any procedure I need, and so long as I can see her face in the event of a female doctor (meaning specifically I don't mind the hijab, but the niquab abd burka are out of the question), I have no problem with them. However, I also think that to be a truly exceptional doctor, one must be an scientist who studies medicine, and the greatest scientists are usually not very religous. 600 pointers who memorise vast tomes on biology don't impress me on the whole.

Rev Hellfire

If you're bothered about the religious views of your GP get a new one. Simple as.

And if they're not prescribing three hail mary's and two our fathers twice daily I can't see the issue.

Húrin

sionnach wrote: »

You're saying it's probable that his atheism is holding him back

That is what I mean, but that's not what Matthew thought I said. I didn't say that his atheism made him worse at his job than any particular other doctor.

MatthewVII wrote: »

There is quite a difference in saying that religion can hardly cause a disimprovement and that religion will likely cause an improvement.

What my abilities are in relation to my real colleagues is unimportant, as we all start from different baselines. What's important is that you believe I will always be subpar to what I am capable of because I am atheist. That is what I find objectionable about your argument. You suggest atheism is a handicap to compassion, which is simply not true.

That is what I think. Unsurprisingly, here is where we disagree. It would probably be beyond the scope of this thread to argue the point further.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, because atheists aren't good because we're told to be, unlike many theists. When atheists good, they're good for the sake of being good.

Surely when using this tired argument, you do not believe that theists lack a conscience do you? No, our consciences are reinforced (and occasionally corrected) by external values by which we know that what we intuitively feel is good, is in fact good. Atheists cannot legitimately know this because you cannot believe in an objective, universal morality. You cannot rebuke immorality because it doesn't exist for you outside what is at best determined by contemporary society.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Surely when using this tired argument, you do not believe that theists lack a conscience do you? No, our consciences are reinforced (and occasionally corrected) by external values by which we know that what we intuitively feel is good, is in fact good.

So your conscience occasionally tells you something is good, but the bible overrules it?

Húrin wrote: »

Atheists cannot legitimately know this because you cannot believe in an objective, universal morality. You cannot rebuke immorality because it doesn't exist for you outside what is at best determined by contemporary society.

Atheists have faith in their own conscience without needing to legitimise what they think with reference to the words of men long dead, who lived in a different time and place.

Ultimately knowing "wrong and right" is only a small factor anyway. It's how you act in that knowledge that matters. There's proportionately less atheists in the prison system, despite the religious inmates supposedly having a 'legitimised' morality.

pH

Dades wrote: »

So your conscience occasionally tells you something is good, but the bible overrules it?

Nice spot, I too would be interested in the list of things that his conscience allows but his belief in God prevents him from doing. However I have a feeling it will be very similar to the interview question "What's you biggest fault" ... "Well I work too hard". That said it could go the other way (I think PDN did) and he'll happy to admit what a wretched sinner he is as it glorifies his God's power even more.

dvpower

mukki wrote: »

if i saw a doctor entering a church* i'd be worried that he might think that their is some other force controling the world and that we have no control over destiny and all that bull.

My advice to you is to go home. Go into your bedroom and get under your bed. Stay there. Its not safe to go out. The world is teeming with churchgoers who at moment could decide to take the fast track route to Heaven, taking you with them. /s

deleriumtremens

Personally, I'd prefer for my doctor to be an atheist. Any person who understands fully the workings of the human body and understands as much as is possible about the processes of embryology and genetics in the causation of disease, surely couldnt beleve in a god. Nature is often ruthless and careless with regard to who gets what disease, and, with this is mind, it is, in my opinion, impossible without compartmentalising in ones mind, to include god in any picture of how disease are caused.

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

So your conscience occasionally tells you something is good, but the bible overrules it?

Yes. That's because all of us are swayed by sin, and by the values that are encouraged by society.

Atheists have faith in their own conscience without needing to legitimise what they think with reference to the words of men long dead, who lived in a different time and place.

But I find it remarkable that most of the moral convictions of myself and you agree with the morality taught by Jesus and his followers of long ago. That's not alien to us.

It's not a difference of having faith in conscience. It's recognition that we are not pure individualists. Most of us humans have similar moral ideals no matter where or when we have lived.

If atheists believe that each of us has a divergent conscience, how can anyone claim what is right or wrong? How can you know that say, George Bush (or other historical villain), created policies that were wrong, if he was guided by his conscience? All you have is your own conscience to measure him against.

Also, don't you ever think that characterising religious people as needy, and atheists as strong and independent, is condescending?

Ultimately knowing "wrong and right" is only a small factor anyway. It's how you act in that knowledge that matters. There's proportionately less atheists in the prison system, despite the religious inmates supposedly having a 'legitimised' morality.

Atheism is most widespread among the privileged classes, which is also the least represented class in prison.

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes, because atheists aren't good because we're told to be, unlike many theists. When atheists good, they're good for the sake of being good.

Doing good is not the same as doing no harm. Most people do not do much good, other than in a "doing yer bit" sense. There is obviously no atheist "spirit" (or evolutionary argument :rolleyes: ) that the adherent internalises, that drives them to do good deeds. Religion tends to involve such a spirit somewhere along the line.

I think that if you are viewing religions are merely sets of rules that claim divine authorship, you won't get much out of discussions like these.

the_syco

Húrin wrote: »

But I find it remarkable that most of the moral convictions of myself and you agree with the morality taught by Jesus and his followers of long ago. That's not alien to us.

And every other religion before and since then. I'd say the Jews had a similar thought process.

Húrin wrote: »

Surely when using this tired argument, you do not believe that theists lack a conscience do you? No, our consciences are reinforced (and occasionally corrected) by external values by which we know that what we intuitively feel is good, is in fact good. Atheists cannot legitimately know this because you cannot believe in an objective, universal morality. You cannot rebuke immorality because it doesn't exist for you outside what is at best determined by contemporary society.

Húrin wrote: »

Also, don't you ever think that characterising religious people as needy, and atheists as strong and independent, is condescending?

We're condescending?

Húrin wrote: »

Religion tends to involve such a spirit somewhere along the line.

Religion involves promises of an after life. Be good here, have a good afterlife. Does doing good out of fear of your God make you good, or a bottom-licker? Just as the Vikings believed that to die in battle, they're guaranteed to battle, drink, and be king for the rest of their life, christians believe being good to others guarantees a good life when they die.

Atheists are good... as they can be good. They may have no God to fear repercussions, but they still do good.

=-=

As for the religious doc: meh. Don't care, as long as they don't work by their religion. ie: not giving contraception out as it's against some stupid bible law.

Fanny Cradock

the_syco wrote: »

christians believe being good to others guarantees a good life when they die.

No we don't. If you presume to speak for Christians it would be wise to first figure out what it is we actually believe. Salvation is through Jesus and Him alone. It's not through being a nice bloke or helping old ladies carry their shopping home.

the_syco wrote: »

Atheists are good... as they can be good. They may have no God to fear repercussions, but they still do good.

While I don't deny that there may be some people out there who are a type of nominative Christian through fear, such cases seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Again, you seem to misunderstand why many (most?) Christians become Christians. In my experience, Christians become Christians because of a desire to build a love-relationship with a loving God, not enter into a relationship rooted in fear.

the_syco wrote: »

As for the religious doc: meh. Don't care, as long as they don't work by their religion. ie: not giving contraception out as it's against some stupid bible law.

I'm not sure what 'bible law' you are talking about. The RCC's opposition contraception, for instance, is based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is no direct condemnation of contraception in the bible, and this is why denominations such as the Anglican Church are not opposed to the use of contraceptive devices such as condoms.

Bottle_of_Smoke

deleriumtremens wrote: »

Personally, I'd prefer for my doctor to be an atheist. Any person who understands fully the workings of the human body and understands as much as is possible about the processes of embryology and genetics in the causation of disease, surely couldnt beleve in a god. Nature is often ruthless and careless with regard to who gets what disease, and, with this is mind, it is, in my opinion, impossible without compartmentalising in ones mind, to include god in any picture of how disease are caused.

I don't see how you've come to that conclusion. What if someone believed in a creator of the universe but not in the bible/quran etc? Religious people don't just believe God makes the world a super duper happy place for everyone

Doctor I went to in Dublin was a Muslim, how that affected his medicine skills never even occured to me.

kove

Sounds like there's a certain amount of demand out there for atheistic doctors (a niche market possibly). Would doctors be allowed advertise themselves as "atheist doctors" under Irish law and ethical codes?

Bottle_of_Smoke

kove wrote: »

Sounds like there's a certain amount of demand out there for atheistic doctors (a niche market possibly). Would doctors be allowed advertise themselves as "atheist doctors" under Irish law and ethical codes?

I really don't think putting "no pope here" on their info sheets is gonna make any difference to their level of customers. They'd be the laughing stock of the profession I'd imagine