All Comments (29)

Religion and spirituality is a very natural part of life, 90% of people in the US believe in a God and most people at the very least can identify with the spiritual side to our existence! So, it is only logical to conclude that while the atheist doctor may technically be providing the same type of care, will this doctor connect to the patient who values his/her religion or spirituality as a factor in overall health and well being? My vote goes to the doc who acknowlegdges his own beleifs and is honest enough with himself to know that spirituality is important not only to patients health, but to his as well!

Fleischhauer
Many of us do not believe that religion and morality are separate things.

Good commentary for all the non-believers at:

http://draggedfromthebottom.blogspot.com/

The doctor is a medical professional who is knowledgeable. She should provide the expertise of the science she knows to your problem but letting the patient ultimately make the decision. As in any profession a doctor should have a professional side and a personal side. They can believe or not-believe in whatever so long as the information they provide is scientifically sound. I think the professor's mistake making the doctor responsible for the families job of emotional support. I don't want a doctor who comforts me, I have loving family for that, I don't want her reasoned advise tapered by sentiment. This is an unfair burden on the doctor.

Can anyone of sound mind imagine that a doctors treatment e.g. type of treatment / non-treatment of you would be based on his religious beliefs.

If this occurs, then we might as well kiss our freedoms goodbye, and make peace with the radical Islamics, because what is the difference between our society and theirs?

If this sort of thing really occurs, then we are falling into a garbage pit where religion - based on stories from an age of almost universal ignorance, which has been either the reason or the lie or generated the mentality for justifying most wars has truly become the nightmare of our lives.

And if you wonder how these things come about, all you have to do is look at the involvement of the White house and their lockstep republicans in the Schiavo affair. That sad scene was simply a question of whether the husband or the parents were the legal guardians of a brain dead for many years woman. Of course while we talk about the right to lifers, lets remember our almost 3700 soldiers killed in a war based on lies. Lets remember the estimated many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would have been alive under Saddam, monster that he was, whose lives were stolen by the same right to life people in the white house and congress who set off that conflagration.

Can anyone deny that we, Iraq, freedom of and from religion has been hurt terribly by the high crimes and misdemeanors of the white house and the right wing American Taliban wannabees? And now are they invading the privacy of the doctor patient relationship and the oath one takes when they become an MD.?

I'm not exactly sure of the author's thesis, but morality, to me, supercedes religion of any faith--no matter what the circumstances.

I'm not exactly sure of the author's thesis, but morality, to me, supercedes religion of any faith--no matter what the circumstances.

" california condor:

"An erudite essay and 20 comments and interminable mumbo-jumbo about "faith" and "art" and "healing" and no one so much as mentions "placebo effect". Miracles can be wrought by pills or shamans or witches or even doctors if they have the talent of bamboozling the patient sufficiently so that the placebo effect can kick in. Patients themselves can achieve self-cures if only they delude themselves artfully enough."

The 'placebo effect' is a crude encapsulation of accidental manifestations of *exactly* what yer 'witch doctors' *do.*

Placebo effect is good. Placebo effect is our friend. Placebo effect will not set a broken arm or replace a fubared gall bladder. But it's very powerful.

'Placebo' is Latin for 'I will please.' Placate.

It's greeted with contempt, as trickery or manipulation, by people who really think the rational mind understands what keeps us alive.

It's part of what keeps us alive.

We're social creatures. Wired that way. We are not islands. We live together. It's important for the sick to have someone *communicate that they're worth saving.* This is something often used to try and coerce people into believing certain interpretations of certain things.

But we're not just thinking people, our experience does not really come from a book of laws. Where we touch the spirits is *not* rationally-reducible, as much as I think that *especially* means we ought to get the reason right.

I'd be the last one to say that the spirits are merely figments of our minds, but, I'm nowhere near above palming some gristle out of someone's navel and then sending em right to a Western doctor.

It's definitely about our minds. No doctor with experience would dispute that.

This doesn't mean that a particular dogma can interpret what's much more simple.

We need to care for each other. We can. We do.

Any other religious crap that tries to interpret it into scorning the 'unclean' just gets in the way of both spirit *and* medicine.

You wanna talk about placebo effect, well, how bout the 'Damnabo' effect? Some doctor decides someone really doesn 't deserve to live, or it's an act of charity to 'let' them?

What effect do you think *that* has on patient health?

Even, as one columnist said, 'You're unclean, but I'll condescend to keep your meat body alive?'

People pick up on more than they think.

Funny thing is, Christians 'In the sh--' as we call it, don't much care for orthodoxy. What they need to know is, 'Help exists.'

Credit that to praying on metric tons of Bibles if you like, but *that* is everyone's birthright.

Or we're no humans at all, and in that event, spirits can't help us.

An erudite essay and 20 comments and interminable mumbo-jumbo about "faith" and "art" and "healing" and no one so much as mentions "placebo effect". Miracles can be wrought by pills or shamans or witches or even doctors if they have the talent of bamboozling the patient sufficiently so that the placebo effect can kick in. Patients themselves can achieve self-cures if only they delude themselves artfully enough. Was that what Jesus was talking about when he was walking on water and Peter tried it and sank, "O ye of little faith". Mindsets affect measurable physical parameters like blood pressure and presumably immune systems as well. No one knows how much. Cases of multiple personalities in a single human body affect that body in different ways, but no one does research on how that happens.
And no one puts the "placebo effect" on an altar and worships it. Surely it's worth both research and worship.

This isn't to say that there aren't good doctors of any and all faiths, and if they do take something good out of it, maybe it helps them be better doctors.

But in public discourse, this isn't about that... It's about people using their positions as doctors or even pharmacists, to impose their ways on people they don't even know... and get them to pay for the damage. (or be a captive audience)

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that this is *right.* They simply try to say it's a 'greater good.'

The nice thing about doctors' professional oaths is that there *is* no greater good on the job than caring for patients according to professional guidelines.

I say 'Informed Consent' and full disclosure.

If they say, 'Your Sex Life Up For Judgement And Possible Deceit or Denial of Care Here,' then great.

For the disclosure to people of my religion, who have their religious rights, too, add, 'Oathbreaker.'

Jewish chicken soup? He should try my Italian. :)

Can't put it in a can. The garlic should be fresh. :) (My recipe has temporary medicinal value which can really give someone a leg up on an illness by getting them ahead of dehydration and getting some nutrients into the system. :) )

Personally, I find the Professor's perspective a welcome change from the persistent issue, 'Should radical Christians be able to deceive patients and bar them from getting the care they want, claiming 'moral objections.' '

As someone who's often been called upon to work the *spiritual* end of caring for people who may have real medical or mental health issues, I would find it *utterly unethical in the extreme* if I didn't apprise people who came to me for help of the possible medical help and refer them to such care when possible.

This is only complicated by a scenario when people may be presumed insane if they believe in the Gods or spirits while having, say, a thyroid crisis, or, Gods forbid, real mental health issues:

It's not uncommon for them to be presumed schizophrenic (or in fact possessed) *for* their religion by Christians who think anything but Christianity *is* insanity and medicate people with medical conditions that go undiagnosed because of a presumption they're crazy. ...and needing proselytization, which is often the last thing someone needs when having trouble.

Not that uncommon, really. In the underclasses where I've worked, all too often people are there from a combination of some form of disability combined with rejection and ostracization, usually combined with outright abuse from their families simply for seeing the world a different way: being queer, finding the Gods, or rejecting the abuse in the first place.

I often find myself in a position where I have to refer people to professionals, not knowing if some well-meaning or fanatical Christian is going to end up doing more harm than good.

But not telling them their options is not on the table.

It should be at least as clear to doctors, who, let's face it, aren't *there* for whatever spiritual foo they think they have. They're there cause they're supposed to be licensed professionals.

Period. Be professional, or get out of the profession.

When 'medical professionals' blithely take it upon themselves to presume that pushing their religion on the sick can't possibly be harmful, even to people who may have been abused with the very same imagery, then we're getting pretty far from 'first do no harm,' whatever someone's idea of their religion is supposed to give them permission to do.

These are biases which all too often can lead to malpractice.

Violations, abuse, misdiagnosis, and a lot of human misery.

Guess who gets to help people cope with the effects of *that.*

Jay: **It is the summer BBQ season, and there are several good recipes in the Jon Swift cookbook.**

And we can eliminate the problem of poverty at the same time.

It is the summer BBQ season, and there are several good recipes in the Jon Swift cookbook.

Bit of indigestion from all those burnt baby offerings, eh, Ba'al?

This is one of the more appalling essays that the Professor has written.

sorry about the double post. I've never had that problem with my macs, just this pc. Hmmm...

"Another way of formulating this question is to ask, “Is an atheistic doctor better than a religious one -- just because he or she is an atheist?”

I agree with you Jay, this is not a reformulation of the question at all. Mr. Stevens-Arroyo is side-stepping the issue, giving himself license to talk airily about the artfulness of medicine.

The real issue, the only issue here, involves the rights of the patient. Should patients be empowered with the most complete set of information and full decision-making power over their own fate? Or is it ok to manipulate those decisions by withholding information from them, at the whim of others?

Personally, I can’t imagine a physician attempting to manipulate my right of self-determination, for any reason (let alone a religious or moral one). Some may object to the word “manipulation,” but an intentional omission is exactly that.

"Another way of formulating this question is to ask, “Is an atheistic doctor better than a religious one -- just because he or she is an atheist?”

I agree with you Jay, this is not a reformulation of the question at all. Mr. Stevens-Arroyo is side-stepping the issue, giving himself license to talk airily about the artfulness of medicine.

The real issue, the only issue here, involves the rights of the patient. Should patients be empowered with the most complete set of information and full decision-making power over their own fate? Or is it ok to manipulate those decisions by withholding information from them, at the whim of others?

Personally, I can’t imagine a physician attempting to manipulate my right of self-determination, for any reason (let alone a religious or moral one). Some may object to the word “manipulation,” but an intentional omission is exactly that.

As a Christian Humanist of the Roman Catholic variety, I think Secular Humanist or Naturalist should be just fine.

Viejita -- I agree ... To me, atheist is a term of convenience because everyone recognizes it (and I use it myself for that reason), but it's just not very precise about the philosophies that are atheistic, so that's a problem when you are discussing the nuances of belief systems. I prefer naturalist for myself, but not everyone knows what that means. Secular humanist is another alternative for some. I refuse to use the coined term "Bright".

Think of the word "gentile". Jews use it for non-Jews and Mormons use it for non-Mormons ... it's a handy term for "the others not like us". Would a Presbyterian, Catholic, Shia Muslim, Wiccan, or Buddhist use the term "gentile" to describe themselves? Or would they use the precise term that actually decribes their belief system? That's kind of how I feel about "atheist".

Jay
You are absolutely right. You are not the only one who is troubled by those on this site and elsewhere who lump "all religious people" and "all non-religious people" into just two fantastic and amorphous categories. I, too, would appreciate the use of more specific terms than "atheist," "believer" and even "humanist." In the case of Stevens-Arroyo it may just be an inconvenient shorthand, but I know for a fact that some here lump those groups together because they really don't see a difference.
What I meant about being boring is that it is often the use of imprecise language that gives the rest of us a "hook" to delve into what is really at stake.

Hello Mr. Arroyo, et al;

"I" + "i" = LIFE/PHOTONS! Or;

I+i= G-D + You in a System of the Holy Cosmic "Fiat-Lux", a/k/a "Let There Be Light/Photons!

Before I begin, Please know that GENISIS 1: 1,2,3. is in agreement with Eclati-On Philosophy. But to read any further than lines genesis #1:3 is fatal error!

Moses, the Satan, in his Story creation & those Christian & Islamic Copy cat Idiots, a/k/a Abrahamics, are zero G-D/Eclat made. And so We Eclati-Ons know that this "Let there be Light" was a Coinsidence. But that does not mean it is all True or all REAL!

Note: All Pre-Apocalyptic religions mention LIGHT! All Pre-Apocalypic religions mention "Heavenly Bread" [MANNA on what to do next]. All Pre-Apocalyptic Faiths mention Salvation [ones own] All Pre-Apocalyptic Belief System(s) mention APOCALYPSE/REVELATION [end of Time] etc... But None are or is REALITY or True Science!

Biblical ancient Morality is Dead! And Modern-Secular-Morality is In forever until Earth dies. But Apocalyptarian Holy Cosmic feelers never die.

Note, only Pre-Apocalyptic thinkers Die in their immaginations for they have no understanding of TRANSFINITY Philosophy & the knowledge of IT (G-D) in such a Holy Cosmic Awared System of Miracles & never Pre-Apocalyptic man made Sins! Note: SIN is a Man made Word. G-D/Eclat/LORD/CREATER/HOLY-NO-MAN knows of NO SIN, only man knows Sin. We was never born in Sin! Only Jews, Christians, Islamics, Hindu's, Buddhists et al, Never Apocalyptarions! BEHOLD:

IT (G-d) or "ITSELF" made the "Sound" First then begot the "Flash" second that made the "Bang" third & then coalesced into "Magmatic-percolation" fourth via the Holy Cosmic Absolute Hot & Cold Balancing universe Machine or Quantum Entanglement Phenomonon!

Hence; Life is a miracle & zero bible/scripture Man Made Story's. a/k/a MYTH (opposite of Truth) faith based, not Eclat (Creater of the Fiat Lux that is of ITSELF , Eternity avoiding loneliness in, and of US-ALL via All Animate & inanimate things & stuff & Laws of IT's own innate Nature that WE are part) made System(s) together forever with Source-One. So;

The Creater is an "IT" or "ITSELF" that's simply just following IT's own innate Holy Cosmic "LAW(s) & ORDER" as self via US-ALL! This is in fact a Mirscle! So biblical & man made Sin is dead! So;

OUR TRANSFINITY, your unique immortal Reality on the "HOLY COSMIC MOVE, is Contrary to Man Made Pre-Apocalyptic Faith Systems which sais IT (g-d) is a sin? And those man made Biblical religious systems are Never "ECLAT" made (Eponymous name for Allah/G-D/Allah/Yawah/Krishna/Buddha/Guru et al).

Eclati-On's are Made in the Universe (Pre-Baptized & Pre-Confirmationed at the Due-To-Be nongravity realm zero sinned so to speaketh), And we are not made in Mid East (Jerusalem/Mecca), China (Tibet), India (Delhi) or Rome (Vatican) or even on Space-Ship planet Earth! We Come from Momma Poppa NEBULA. And

Nebula comes from the Holy "ENTROPY" (an idea you once wrote about) of the invisible/Dark Matter, not energy, that Condensed or Coalesced ITSELF (G-D) or miraculously transformed ITSELF (G-d stuff) into Gases & Dust as "TIME" (a/k/a "Temperature" that's Absolute Hot & Cold Nebulaically balancing US via ITSELF). And

Invisible/Dark Matter , not energy invisilbe/Dark Energy comes from the Holy Cosmic Black Hole's fecis or Cosmic ka ka so to speaketh. And

this invisible Matter or Cosmic Ka Ka, not invisible Energy (this invisible Energy is omnipresent in all universes innately & instantaneously and so without this invisible matter cannot possibly exist) fecis or ka ka was once digested Galaxy's from somewhere some TIME and hence we are from another life or planet or World from past somewhere & some TIME, not clock time or space time! And;

Black is begot via the "Let There Be Photons" a/k/a the FIAT-LUX of ourselves via ITSELF [G-D] of which We are Part & never Man Made Biblical Craparino! Ya Ya.

Behold: The Universe is our genuine innate "Constitution"! And The innate "Clauses" of our Transfinity in Eclat + "i" awarenes is our Law(s) of NATURE to uphold and make Honorable, together dorever with Source-One!

Hence: Those HUMATES [Citizenz of Space-Ship Momma Poppa Tellus/Earth/Gaia] who uphold & make Honorable the Man Made Bibles instead of Genuine G-D (Eclati) are Psychotic, because they are in DENIAL of their own "Immortal Transfinity" in such a system of miracles! And;

for these license holders To believe, via "Biblical Morality" & Contrary to Secular/Innate "Modern Morality" Philosophy or Thinking , that "Birth is a Sin" (We never asked to be Born) And that We should be Guilty and ashamed of our Naked Body's , and thus foolishly (naively) belief such, are bonofide Nut Cases & they are PSYCHOTIC individuals! Includes those who push or promote such Pre-electric superstitious "wingythingy" idiotology and Eclati-Ons, a/k/a APOCALYPTARIANS do not care what kind of licenses they hold!

We see them as Superstupid folk who hold a License having closed minds never open even though they look normal! Ya Ya.

In Eclati-on lingo, these folks are known as Pre-Apocalyptarian, a/k/a Superstupidstitious folk whom are in constant denial of their genuine immortal Transfinity, a/k/a non Normal humate beings or Dangerous folks with a license to practice Secular science zero biblical sciense!! And;

They are controlled by others or hide behind biblical Word merchants & manmade religious Novel-Stars & they [Christians] committ Organized & individual Vampireism & Cannibalism rituals, acts & they thank a Half Man Half Beast Pagan relic a/k/a the AMON-ra or AMEN-re or AMEEN in all three Abrahamic religions! And;

They all have Blood on their hands!

Note: If one or two folks cannot take care of their kids then give them away to those who will care for them (State or Private). And If a couple does not Plan a Birth but the girl is preagnant then decide, between man & all families, not doctors or Priest to have the fetus or abort the heuristic! And

If one is raped or has incestal fetus then Abort! If one does not want baby ever [It is not advised in Eclati-on Law for reasons of MEMETICS] then get tied!

Remember: Today & for the imminent future, On Space-Ship Earth, that unchecked "Population Explosion" awareness is more deadly then calculated "Atomic bomb explosion"! And;

There is LIFE in PHOTONS and thuis We appear in a Eternity avoiding Loneliness Phenomonon & Never Sin! GENE-POOL CONTROL is the Future! And Our gene-pool is Limited.

Note: The Prophecy & the Apocalypse & Revelation is this: Space-Ship Earth, Sister Luna, Brother Mars, Cousin Titan et al & our "Star System will also DIE! in +/- 7 Billion years! Zero Man Made Bible speak or Talk or write!:

AlL Pre-Apocalyptic Man Made, never Eclat made religious MYTH (opposite of TRUTH) CHARACTERS via like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Vyasa, Gutama, Guru et al are all DEAD! Never never never ever can any HUMATE go to the "Non-Gravity Place" via entrusting ones TRANSFINITY to such Inferior Humates, not G-d(s)!! So;

I + i in the scheme of birth production is a miracle awareness of IT's own, and thus REALITY never is or was a sin. So Eclati-On(s) are Superior Humates & Eclati-Off(s) are inferior!

Important: In ALL situations always Use your head, not you heart. Same goes for Love & respect for Life using your head not heart & never abuse the power of sex for selfish reasons. So if One makes them (kid) , then raise each of them according to your situation. Do not be quick to abort & do not be quick to get preagnant!

Thank the Scientist(s) for Contraception options! Sex via miraculous HORMONES is a Beautifull second fact of "TRANSFINITE CIVILIZATION" & never believe what those EVILIZING Pre-apocalyptic man made writen bibles tell you!

All Five Major religions treat LIFE [Photons} as if LIFE is a SIN. Or being Born or reborn in a System or Cycle of Holy Cosmic fecis or Ka Ka placed on the ether, as mentioned above, is a SIN? Ha! Such Inferior PreApocalyptic Thinkers Humates can be and proven in fact!

So unbollix your selves now APOCALYPTICALLY, It's FREE of charge, or you will have a "Eclati-OFF Death" instead of a beautifull "Eclati-ON Death' which is not real dead like Biofinite death but is 'TRANSFINITE eternity avoiding loneliness" in another Holy Cosmic Eschatological possibility of Our Immortal Heuristical [Spirit] move via Planet Hoppings phenomonon.

HARK: Eclati-On(s) know that WE was never created nor can or have We ever been destroyed ,because WE come From past Worlds possesing "Frontal lobes", and Eclati-on appear, in Biocarbon based frontal lobes now in Miracle, zero biblical philosophy, and we again appear in future hosts via Frontal lobes & continue through the Elements Of beyondness via Eclat's + "i" Holy Cosmic System of OUR Eternity avoiding Loneliness together forever with source-One LORD/GOD/ECLATi.

P.S. This fall I Will host the APOCALYPTIC "NEW-SONG" Coming from our PRE-APOCALYPTIC "OLD-SONG(s)". You will see how you once was forced to believe, no fault of your own, that you are a Caterpillar (Ancient thinker) instead of Being a Butterfly (Apocalyptic thinker) and more good Tidings!

VOTE: In the U.N., ONE-UNIVERSAL-RELIGION system book! a/k/a creation of the "O.U.R.-BOOK" or "The Book Of OUR". Thgis will also double as a HUMANITY DOCTRINE & will be like another "Wonder of the World" that will be Both "G-D-Made" & Man-Made via the Mandated WORLD FAITH EXCHANGE assembly. Notice how religion Plurality is Eleminated & the OUR-BOOK will become the ultimate genuine Singularity Religion, belief & Faith based System! Have a nice Summer!

Praise the Holy No Man Eclat + "i". Ya Ya.

Viejita del Oeste:

True, the definition problem comes up often, but I don't get tired of pointing it out. Well, maybe a little. I don't find precision in language boring at all. Maybe it's the scientist in me.

Is a doctor who believes in philosophical naturalism better than a religious one? Again, I say no, not necessarily. One could argue that naturalism might make a medical researcher a better scientist, but again I think that you can't generalize too much.

However, I want naturalism to be front and center when a doctor is trying to diagnose and treat my malady. Even a deeply religious person would likely agree with me on that, que no?

Jay, we have run into this definition problem before. There are people who merely do not include a deity in their view of the world, and there are those who firmly believe in the non-existence of G-d.
On the one hand it would be nice if we all used language the same way all the time, on the other hand it would probably be boring.
Mary Cunningham, thanks for the clarification. I thought I might be getting mixed up, which happens more and more frequently.

"Another way of formulating this question is to ask, “Is an atheistic doctor better than a religious one -- just because he or she is an atheist?” My answer is: “No.” Two issues need to be resolved about obligations to patients, and neither of them is dependent on whether the doctor believes in religion or atheism."

I don't think that is really a reformulation of the question, it's a separate question. But I agree with the answer of "no." As an atheist, I don't seek out atheistic doctors. I want a doctor who will give me the best medical care and advice possible, and his beliefs are beside the point. If his beliefs get in the way of providing medical care or information, then we have a problem.

By the way, I question that anyone "believes in atheism." Atheism is an imprecise decription of a worldview which is not theistic and (usually) rejects supernaturalism, but is not itself a belief system.

Prof Stevens-Arroyo has written that he is a Catholic. IMO he seems comfortable in his Catholicism--about the only panalist who is. It is possible to be both deeply spiritual *and* Catholic--it's called charismatic. The 'Christian' & 'Evangelical' category at the end of his post was a mistake.

Is Stevens-Arroyo evangelical? The site categorizes him that way. If so, I give him credit for his strong cultural understanding of the Catholic mind-set.
On this post, I have nothing to add. You all have said what needs saying (at least so far).

Faith and science are worlds apart.
Science is about learning and discovering and searching
for the best way to understand reality,
and how best to put that information to good use.
Religion is afraid of knowledge and change and progress,
because its ideas are rooted in antiquity.
The great surge of scientific knowledge
which has revolutionized our world since the Enlightenment,
happened despite objections by the pope and other supernaturalists,
who fought science tooth and nail for hundreds of years.
and are justifiably threatened by progress of any kind
which eventually creates doubters and atheists
and signals the eventual demise of superstition,
the churches,the mosques,the temples,and the gods.

That is all fine and dandy, Professor, but I think any doctor who has placed restictions on him/herself based on his/her personal religion should be forced to explain those to his patients upfront.

I prefer a physcician who will explore, introduce, and explain ALL treatment options available, so that I, the patient, can make an informed decision.