From Brian Palmer's Slate article subtitled "Should we worry that so many of the doctors treating Ebola in Africa are missionaries?" Palmer is an atheist who admits to a milder sort of skepticism about missionary doctors. Who's keeping track of the quality of care? There's no oversight. There's no medical malpractice law. They might be proselytizing, which for Palmer includes even just revealing that they are doing what they're doing — to quote one doctor — "because of what God has given me and his love for me." Palmer experiences a "visceral discomfort with the mingling of religion and health care."
If you were a vulnerable patient — poor and horribly ill — would you rather be attended to by those who are inspired by the love of God or those who are doing the dangerous, onerous job because the world health care system had provided adequate pay to motivate a person who responds to financial incentives?
Palmer ends his article with a puzzle of a paragraph:
As an atheist, I try to make choices based on evidence and reason. So until we’re finally ready to invest heavily in secular medicine for Africa, I suggest we stand aside and let God do His work.I read this to mean that missionaries only have to beat the better-than-nothing standard, so fans of secular medicine can just shut up.
But on a more cynical level, the notion of God's work is sarcastic. There is no God, thinks the atheist, but if there were, He'd be responsible for this disease.
In that light, when the atheist says "let God do His Work" he might mean: Let God continue his scheme of dragging Africans into early, painful death. And: If a few of His very best friends see this horror show as an opportunity to demonstrate their fealty to Him, who's to say that's not in the plan?
Posts
137 comments:
If you were a vulnerable patient — poor and horribly ill — would you rather be attended to by those who are inspired by the love of God or those who are doing the dangerous, onerous job because the world health care system had provided adequate pay to motivate a person who responds to financial incentives?
I'd be indifferent between the two. But I'd be very glad that the doctors inspired by the love of God are there, as it improves my chances of being attended to by someone.
So now Ebola is going to kill our humanity?
Christians--doing the nasty jobs that liberal atheists won't do.
"Oh, it's fine for them to be Christians, I suppose. It's just that they express it. Out loud. So gauche."
If you were a vulnerable patient — poor and horribly ill — would you rather be attended to by those who are inspired by the love of God or those who are doing the dangerous, onerous job because the world health care system had provided adequate pay to motivate a person who responds to financial incentives?
The third option,
laying in your own sweat, vomit and blood in the triaged "expectant" group. (expected to die) because your third world country is overwhelmed....
"It's fine to help people. But why tell the people why you help? If you had cool reasons, I could see it, but your reasons are so embarrassing!"
Just lie back and try not to think about England's flight restrictions.
Perhaps the Slate author thinks Ebola will help wipe out faith. That could be his fervent wish to help remake a "better" world.
"Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead."
I suggest we stand aside and let God do His work.
Isn't this just a nice way of saying "kill them all, and let God sort them out"?
"If you were a vulnerable patient — poor and horribly ill — would you rather be attended to by those who are inspired by the love of God or those who are doing the dangerous, onerous job because the world health care system had provided adequate pay to motivate a person who responds to financial incentives?"
Obviously the latter. Better treated by an intelligent scientist than a superstitious moron.
"It's important to be tolerant of people's religious views. That's why we'd rather the doctors weren't Christians."
The problem with being an atheist is Atheists.
Note that this atheistic scum does not suggest an Atheist Medical Brigade to, you might say, help sick people. a typical academic scrote trying to pump himself up by making himself superior to men whose boots he is not worthy to lick.
Christian missionaries come bearing stethoscopes, Islamic missionaries come bearing suicide vests.
Does this guy walk around with blinders on? Has he any knowledge of history? In western society, care for the sick, until recently, has been the province of religion. Does he not wonder why so many urban hospitals are prefaced with "St. ___" or "Presbyterian Medical Center." The lack of historical understanding on the part of this guy, and the people he is writing for, is appalling.
Liberal atheist journalists hate conservative Christian missionaries so much that they are willing to see thousands of Africans die because the Africans might not be able to sue medical missionaries. I bet Palmer thinks he's a particularly tolerant free-thinker.
The lack of historical understanding on the part of this guy, and the people he is writing for, is appalling.
But he's a honcho at Slate!
I read this to mean that missionaries only have to beat the better-than-nothing standard, so fans of secular medicine can just shut up.
Yes, that's obviously how it was intended. I'm not sure how it is possible to object to that position, but undoubtedly people will.
Whether implicitly or explicitly, some missionaries pressure their patients, at moments of maximum vulnerability and desperation, to convert. That troubles me.
I wonder if the author is also troubled by programs funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development that tie family planning (including sterilization) to child health care.
I'm in favor of volunteer missionaries and stop sending the US military to be exposed to that menace.
The military is designed to defend us from military aggression. The more we waste it on nonsense like this, the less prepared we are to perform that mission.
I didn't sign up to help incompetent people perform basic hygiene and disease control.
Note that this atheistic scum does not suggest an Atheist Medical Brigade to, you might say, help sick people.
Er, except that he suggested exactly that in the passage Ann quoted.
"Whether implicitly or explicitly, some missionaries pressure their patients, at moments of maximum vulnerability and desperation, to convert. That troubles me."
What should trouble him more is his ignorance of the fact that sub-Saharan Africa is Christian by a large majority. In Liberia, where the biggest Ebola outbreak is, the population is over 85 percent Christian. No conversion necessary.
One of the things that astonished and surprised me when I took an extended tour of Ethiopia in 1998 was the presence of American missionaries, mostly from small churches or sects who might be looked at disdainfully as fundamentalists by some lefties. I spent only a few days in Addis, home of the African Union and of a significant UN presence, all housed in modern buildings with fat (literally) bureaucrats who ate at good restaurants and buzzed around Addis in limos. Addis had the worst slums I ever want to see, and it was very disturbing, especially since it was unclear what the African Union was doing there other than convening.
I spent the rest of my trip in rural areas and smaller towns, many quite remote, and here I encountered the missionaries. The preponderance were from smaller towns and cities in the south and midwest, many were older than me (I was 55 at the time) and typically they were persons who spent extended time in the country year after year. I encountered some people who had been coming for 40 years to the same places for 3-6 months every year, and others who stayed for several years at a time.
These people were bringing construction and agricultural skills, sanitation and basic medical techniques, education, books and clothing, companionship and caring and of course the Word of God. I have always considered myself a respectful (and perhaps slightly envious) nonbeliever, but these people impressed me like very few have in my lifetime. It was truly a selfless and caring effort, financed (as far as I could tell) with little or no government money.
I also encountered some Swiss and German people, many of them younger, who were doing similar things. One Swiss group had created a magnificent farm, tended pretty much with traditional Ethiopian techniques, but they had overlaid knowledge in soil conservation, irrigation, crop and seed selection, fertilization and other techniques to create an oasis where everything else was parched and marginal. This place cared for and educated hundreds of orphans at a time, teaching them basics of the hospitality industry, which was one of the growing sources of employment at the time.
The plague of the moment there was HIV. Ethiopia was not supposed to be one of the hot spots, but along the highways from the coast, the truckers were spreading the disease. One French clinic required a HIV test as a condition for treatment for other diseases, and was finding a very high rate of infection.
For this and other reasons I have no use for Americans who look down upon the supposed ignorance of the Fundamental Christians and the Pentacostals. There are many people doing wonderful things in those communities with little fanfare. It also made me realize that my little adventure was nothing beside the work of these missionaries.
As a descendant of missionaries,I also question the whole project..it seemed like they neglected their own families in pursuit of improving third world peoples. But it has always been missionaries on the front lines in all these horrid places. I supposed Doctors Without Borders is secular, but that's the exception that proves the rule.
And these guys are sooo worried about proselytizing. So worried that religious-based soup kitchens can't breathe a word of the Gospels or have their grant funding cut off. (teach 'em to take it in the first place)
"Better treated by an intelligent scientist than a superstitious moron."
Or, rather, not be treated by an intelligent scientist (waves at you from a different continent). Keep your messes over there, thanks!
"except that he suggested exactly that in the passage Ann quoted."
He did? Only if read very charitably, I think.
Campy said:
"Better treated by an intelligent scientist than a superstitious moron."
What a foolish statement, as if the Christian doctors did not have medical degrees. And to call them morons instead of heroes, how arrogant.
Freeman Hunt is owning this.
He did? Only if read very charitably, I think.
In the sense that commenters here tend to think "charitable" treatment of atheists consists of accusing us of only being *indirectly* responsible for Communist genocide. :)
But the only reasonable reading of the last two paragraphs in the article is "we ought to massively invest in African medicine, but until that happens missionaries are better than nothing".
Wow, just wow...
I guess you could say that Fen's Law can be applied here.
I'm always amused by the people on the left and/or atheists who lecture about compassion, but the most action they will personally take is to do a selfie holding a hashtag sign.
I've worked in the non-profit sector for over 35 years and I'm constantly humbled by the service and self-sacrifice shown, sometimes with significant personal risk, by these faith-based groups.
These groups and individuals get positive results in some of the least desirable parts of our nation and world for a fraction of the investment made by inefficient government programs.
We've become a sad and sick culture when volunteers of this type receive this level of criticism.
Some reader's digest article long long ago said that you want for a doctor somebody who loves medicine over somebody who loves people.
I think it doesn't matter. You probably can't get an appointment with either of them.
Yet another example of the atheist syllogistic logic:
1. Religion is evil.
2. Missionaries are religious
3. Therefore, missionaries are evil.
In short, it's better for the poor to die than to get infected with faith.
I care not about the motivation of the man trying to save Mr life, I coven myself only wkth his competence.
And typing skills.
And typing skills.
I have a dilemma.
On the one hand this fellow admits his prejudice and seems to at least pretend to struggle with it. Not that common.
On the other hand his article is a window into a thoroughly bizarre worldview. Its not him, but the implication that there may be so many like him. I have lived in and among many cultures, but none seem so constrained and fanatical. Not even the conservative Muslims (the ISIS gang may be different) I knew had such a default inability to appreciate virtue in those of a different culture. I knew things were bad but not this bad.
I don't understand saying a word against those of faith who undertake these difficult tasks. I don't get it. But there's a lot about those who are militantly anti-religious that I don't get.
"While the medical care is nice, they are setting the cause of forcing Africans to confront the hopeless abyss of materialist existence back twenty years."
Even a slightly condescending "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din" would be the minimum one should expect.
But thats not in this piece.
If they were helping wealthy white people in Europe he wouldn't have said a word.
Optics matter. We have "Neo-Isolationism" (in both foreign policy and immigration) pitted against "No-Borders" people like the current administration. The average American is struggling with how much of each extreme to allow into their hearts.
As an atheist I think missionaries are ridiculous. But as an American I will defend to the death their right to be ridiculous.
And I don't see what's wrong with volunteering to help people, no matter the motivation. Personally I think people should pay attention to the world and improve their own circumstances but I don't object if someone tries to help even if that help is often misguided and ineffectual.
Alan N wrote:
If they were helping wealthy white people in Europe he wouldn't have said a word.
I doubt it. It's just that the Slate author realized that his ass might be on the line because of contagion. It's self-interest. It's kind of like the only person Obama ever fired was the one in charge of protecting him. Don't try to complicate things so.
Liberians are a very religious people (and mostly Christian). I believe most would be very comforted by a missionary doctor or nurse.
I watched the whole Kent Brantley interview on Discovery channel a couple weeks ago. Very interesting. I have nothing but respect for him and his fellow missionaries.
To answer Althouse's question, I'll take the religious person any day. The one who takes the money could be some third rate hack who barely made it through med school and is motivated solely by money.
"I don't object if someone tries to help even if that help is often misguided and ineffectual."
We have close family friends in their late twenties who just returned from Sierra Leone (due to the Ebola concerns). They are missionaries. He aids small communities in how to drill for and maintain safe drinking water. She, when not doing full time mother of two work, provides dental care as a dental hygienist. Both are well trained in their professions. Both proselytize but agree that the most important thing is to establish friendship relations, live in the community and most important of all, do your work well.
If that's "misguided" we need a lot more of that, and not just in Africa.
People who say things like "where are the atheist charities" are confused about atheism.
For example, my mom belongs to a quilting club. They do charity work, among other things.
However, if one of them tried to claim that they were morally superior to people who dislike quilting, because "where are the anti-quilting charitable groups???", I'd have to question her intelligence. People who dislike quilting but want to be involved in charity... simply work with one of the many non-quilting-related charities.
Only people whose seething hatred of quilts is so extreme that they cannot tolerate the concept of performing charitable acts *without* spreading the word about how much quilting sucks, would form an anti-quilting charity.
Even among the minority of atheists who passionately hate religion, people who hate it so much that they can't bring themselves to do things that don't involve hating religion are extremely rare.
The idea that missionary doctors there might need oversight made me laugh out loud.
Yes, let's get the UN to come in and start issuing regulations. That'll help!
The conflict between atheists and theists ebbs and flows. Two faiths competing for hearts and minds.
That said, I prefer the faith tempered by morality. Although, it can swing leftward just as wildly. People are notoriously egocentric and materialistic.
John Cunningham said...
Note that this atheistic scum
Let try that with:
this Catholic scum
this Jewish scum
this Mormon scum
this Methodist scum
this Presbyterian scum
They don't have the same ring do they. Why does atheism inspire such anger in believers? It would seem to me that true believers should view atheists with pity, not anger.
"And I don't see what's wrong with volunteering to help people, no matter the motivation."
Maybe you should read Ann Coulter's column on the subject. Basically, she notes that Brantley's selfless devotion to his third-world patients ended up costing a couple million dollars to fly his silly ass back here when his vacation went sideways.
Coulter is no atheist, of course. She goes on to note that if he wanted to help people, he did not need to get on an airliner to find people who could use some help.
I am an atheist, but I was trained in Christianity as a boy. I don't recall that the Good Samaritan arrived on a jet. Or left on one, either.
That article ranks up there as the douchiest article I have read all year and Brian Palmer wins the douchebag of the year award.
Jupiter, Kent Brantley went to Liberia before the Ebola outbreak, not after.
Are you suggesting no one should go to a country like Liberia to help at all?
See, I think what pissed Coulter off is, this Brantley can't content himself with giving free medical care to the numerous children within a few miles of his spacious mansion who would benefit from it. No, Brantley has to fly off to Africa! To help people with Ebola! In the Third World! He reminds me of the "Christian" in the White House, who just sent 3000 American soldiers to Liberia on a pointless expedition that may well cost many of them their lives, simply in order to satisfy his own vanity.
ARM: It's because so-called christians are really just islamassists who are free to eat bacon, drink beer and have a get out of jail free card (John 3:16)
"Are you suggesting no one should go to a country like Liberia to help at all?"
Well, yes, actually. I don't say that one *should not* go to a country like Liberia "to help". I am saying that if what you want is "to help", you don't need to go to Liberia. On the other hand, if what you want is to go to Liberia, then yeah, you will need some kind of ticket. And no, you are not a hero for doing what you want, instead of what might be more helpful.
Atheists have their own faith, and like other fanatical believers, will tolerate no disagreement. They want to suppress other beliefs, are only mildly concerned about collateral consequences of doing so, and are not shy about it. At least they don't go in for head-chopping.
As for this fellow's comment about letting "God do His work," no harm in assuming that he was trying to be big-minded. Even a jackass sometimes is, you know.
ARM,
Perhaps it would have been better to call him a scummy atheist than atheist scum.
I did not read the statement as condemning all atheists. I read it as condemning the author as scum. Having read the article, I think there is a case to be made that the guy is scum and his atheist beliefs are the reason he is scum.
He seems to be in favor of letting people die rather than letting them be treated by religious people. That makes him a scum that is also atheist.
And is is objection to them being treated by Christians? Would he have the same objection to them being treated by Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Buddist, etc missionaries?
Is his objection to religious missionaries of only to Christian missionaries?
John Henry
Don't worry campy, Doctors treat bigots too.
I suspect that this fellow probably also objected to Mother Teresa because she was motivated by Christian beliefs.
In the 50's and 60's the equivalent of Mother Theresa was Albert Schweitzer. He was regarded as a saint for his work with the sick in Africa.
He too did it out of a sense of religious faith or obligation.
I guess all the folks whose lives she and he made better should have just died.
When we start seeing atheists, or even non-religious folk doing what the missionaries do to help people, he will have something to talk about.
Until then he can go fuck himself.
John Henry
Talking about athiest scum. I remember boozy, smoked-out, Lets kill a Iraqi kid, Chris Hitchens sneering at "Mother Teresa" for helping the poor in India.
The doctor has done more humanity, then "Hitch" did in his entire, worthless life.
Richard Dolan said...
"Atheists have their own faith, and like other fanatical believers, will tolerate no disagreement. They want to suppress other beliefs, are only mildly concerned about collateral consequences of doing so, and are not shy about it. At least they don't go in for head-chopping."
Actually, I am an atheist because I have very strong doubts, not because I have any faith. The idea that the universe was created by Something it would be correct to refer to as "Him" strikes me as far-fetched in the extreme. I would very much like to suppress Islam, but I am usually fairly comfortable around Christians. I generally prefer them to atheists, truth be told. Hindus and Buddhists are nice too. Jews can be a bit strenuous, but rewarding. Mormons I can do without. I am deeply concerned about the consequences of the current campaign to suppress Christianity, I doubt that America is possible without it. And I can think of some heads I wouldn't mind seeing chopped. Quite a few.
The doctor has done more humanity, then "Hitch" did in his entire, worthless life.
Hitchens turned a good phrase. He sat for a chirbit too before he passed and discussed the "other" side of religion: link
One would think that an atheist would be indifferent to religion. To the beliefs of others.
But like n.n. mentioned, atheist concern is more like proselytizing.
I'm agnostic and the atheists are pissing me off. So is Ann Coulter.
rcocean said...
Talking about athiest scum. I remember boozy, smoked-out, Lets kill a Iraqi kid, Chris Hitchens sneering at "Mother Teresa" for helping the poor in India.
This doesn't seem any different than the screed by that non-denominational scum Coulter.
This doesn't seem any different than the screed by that non-denominational scum Coulter.
Screedom of speech is protected under the law. It's good that we don't discriminate on the basis of race, color or screed.
You know what I like about ARM, he is always so "reasonable."
This writer should look up Dr. Leo Lagasse. He was head of the gynecological cancer center at Cedars Sinai and in his retirement is the co-founder and President of Medicine for Humanity that treats the underserved in Africa. I had the privilege of having Dr. Lagasse oversee a medical issue in my life 24 years ago. So much good is being done by those that recognize an allegiance to God. This writer has no clue.
Rebel Scum.
He is angry at the believers in the Judeo-Christian God. Most people are. Because that belief takes away from men's desire to be on their own in an accidental life governed by accidental forces, accidentally and by money power.
Even among the Christian denominations you will find a split between believers in performing of active loving outreach to others, and believers who do not.
A word of wisdom. When you are in trouble, you too will need active Christian love givers.
traditionalguy said...
He is angry at the believers in the Judeo-Christian God.
I think that should be Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. The three religions of the Abrahamic faith.
Bitter people ask 'Why did God allow this to happen?"
But I ask, "why did mankind allow this to happen?"
For you see, God gave man FREE WILL. Free to choose.
All the misery brought upon man, was brought by man.
God does not judge by human standards, but by God's. Life on earth is temporary and it must be viewed as that.
Yes God has a plan, and in the end it will all work out. But it's us who makes HELL on EARTH, not God.
Atheist are just jealous that we see this and people like Missionaries are willing to go where even Atheist fear, all cause we have faith it will all work out in the end and we are part of His plan.
Palmer wrote:
As an atheist, I try to make choices based on evidence and reason. So until we’re finally ready to invest heavily in secular medicine for Africa, I suggest we stand aside and let God do His work.
Fuck You Palmer, you cunt.
I bet Palmer was demanding that we DO SOMETHING when his gay friends were dying in the AIDS epidemic. What if someone said, we should let god do his work.
in other words, screw those people dying of AIDS.
Frankly, if it' missionaries who are helping people with Ebola, even if its just to give them hope before dying, its a hell of a lot more than Palmer and his secular doctors are doing.
So Palmer doesn't like it. What does he suggest as an alternative? Investing heavily in healthcare in Africa. Adding a couple or ten layers of bureaucracy to medical efforts will help how, exactly?
He should stop worshipping bureaucracies.
And Ann Coulter can screw herself too.
ARM... Wrong again. There is only one Abrahamic Faith and it is found in Moses'writings.
The nasty little rug thief from Mecca plagiarised Judeo-Christian scriptures 2,000 years later and added his own demonic twist that he says he got from an angel in a cave to make all men and women miserable.
Heaven forbid that someone risk being converted by the words and good deeds of a Christian missionary! That might antagonize the nice folks in Boko Haram, who prefer converting people by sword and fire.
What is Palmer and his atheism going to offer someone dying of Ebola who is scared and desolate. "Sorry, but you're shortly going to be worm food. There is nothing else, and you are going to die in pain. And no doctor is going to help you because, frankly, we don't really care that much."
I think that should be Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. The three religions of the Abrahamic faith.
That's way too Dickensian sounding: The Past, Present, and Future of the Holy Spirit. And that future is not a future I wish to be a part of.
Palmer wrote So until we’re finally ready to invest heavily in secular medicine for Africa, I suggest we stand aside and let God do His work.
First, obviously Palmer discounts the cost of the military mission to Africa, probably because it's a military mission. Am I putting words between Palmer's thoughts?
Obviously, the people who gave Albert Schweitzer the The Nobel Peace Prize were seriously deluded and only wised up in 2008 when Obama came along to show how a real hero acts. Also, none of the religion crap.
"I think that should be Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. The three religions of the Abrahamic faith."
I strongly suggest you tell that to a Wahhabi imam, preferably at noon Friday in front of the local mosque.
If you were a vulnerable patient — poor and horribly ill — would you rather be attended to by those who are inspired by the love of God or those who are doing the dangerous, onerous job because the world health care system had provided adequate pay to motivate a person who responds to financial incentives?
Everyone with a choice, i.e. money, chooses the latter.
Skyler said...
I'm in favor of volunteer missionaries and stop sending the US military to be exposed to that menace.
It's Obama's "do something".
Skyler said...
As an atheist I think missionaries are ridiculous. But as an American I will defend to the death their right to be ridiculous.
I don't know that they're ridiculous, even though all religious ideas about the nature of the universe, mankind, etc, are certainly ridiculous.
Although...
And I don't see what's wrong with volunteering to help people, no matter the motivation.
I'm quite convinced that peoples' ideas and motivations don't count for jack, what counts is their physical actions.
As for the missionaries, they might be making things slightly worse in the long run:
The prospect of so rapid a rise has triggered a host of Malthusian fears, on the continent and elsewhere. If Africa is struggling to feed a billion people, it is hard to see how it could feed 4 billion in future."
The United Nations recently upped its population estimates. The population of Africans will go from 1 billion at present to 4 billion by the end of this century. With the help of Christian missionaries, we can hit the 4 billion target even sooner.
Regarding the final paragraph, I suggest that Mr. Palmer is just being rhetorical thoughtless. It is a match for the moral and logical thoughtlessness of the whole of the essay.
jr565 said...
"Palmer wrote:
As an atheist, I try to make choices based on evidence and reason. So until we’re finally ready to invest heavily in secular medicine for Africa, I suggest we stand aside and let God do His work.
Fuck You Palmer, you cunt."
I'm not defending Palmer, who seems like an execrable sack of something, but I *think* that what he means by "let God do his work" is, let the missionaries do what we won't. That being "God's work", which, in their own estimation, as, apparently, in Palmer's, they are doing.
I suppose Coulter could, in fact, fuck herself. As could you. I don't see how that affects her argument, that people who fly off to Africa to "do good", when they could do just as much good without flying off to Africa, do not deserve especial admiration from those who end up paying the price for their decision. Please explicate. Time may be short.
Slate journalists should be grateful there are no regulations governing the quality of journalists.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy.
And this chap and Ann Coulter aren't really the philosophers, nor the doers, just 'spokespeople' for a set of ideas.
----Er, except that he suggested exactly that in the passage Ann quoted.----
You might be fantasizing that… I read nothing along the lines of calling for Atheist charitable medical missions in the above excerpts.
---But the only reasonable reading of the last two paragraphs in the article is "we ought to massively invest in African medicine, but until that happens missionaries are better than nothing”.---
The “only reasonable reading’? Not at all the only interpretation. My interpretation is …’here’s another liberal advocating throwing big money at a problem’
… while the problem is best addressed at the level of one-to-one prevention and treatment.
You didn’t do very well in reading comprehension exams did you?
----I think that should be Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. The three religions of the Abrahamic faith. ----
Be sure to say it just that way to a muslim.
Ya know, I'm gonna stick my neck out here and suppose that most atheists aren't extremists. Same for most people following any sort of religion.
Bigots!
"As an atheist I think missionaries are ridiculous."
Literally, as in subjects of ridicule, seems to be the creed of many atheists.
I have never understood why a non-belief in God must be marked by contempt for those who do believe.
"If a few of His very best friends see this horror show as an opportunity to demonstrate their fealty to Him, who's to say that's not in the plan?"
Are you saying that a believer would delight in another's suffering, because that would present an opportunity to demonstrate faith?
St. Camillus
Ezekiel J. Emanuel
I have no trouble picking between the two.
"I have never understood why a non-belief in God must be marked by contempt for those who do believe."
Because they have been alive for approximately 3 or 4/100 millionths of 1/15 billionth of the history of the universe (assuming there's only one) and have occupied approximately 2/61,000ths of 1/156 billionths of the area of the universe so they've seen it all and know everything. How could they be wrong?
I'm not a churchgoer, don't have any particular beliefs, and would say I would stop short of calling myself anything, including an agnostic or atheist. That's more belief than I have in anything. But still I find the obnoxiousness of people declaring they know the entire nature of the universe, beyond a reasonable doubt, based on our occupation of our tiny little blip in time and space to be absurd. It's not hard to image that's exactly how the residents of the Western hemisphere believed before Columbus appeared on their shores.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Based on past experience, nothing is more true of the history of intellectual activity than this. Arrogance is not becoming on anyone.
I used to live in Liberia. I knew Christian missionaries in Liberia. Hey, guess what? Some were great, some less so. Wow, just like most humans, including Liberians. Some were great, some less so. But as far as I could tell, they were all human beings. And as I recall, I don't believe Jesus ever said, "Blessed are those who only help people in their own country." So if Christians want to travel the world helping people it's totally within the bounds of their faith as I understand it. In fact, I remember a story about Dr. Brantly saying he'd wanted to do what he was doing since he was a boy. So it's not some Johnny-come-lately vacation he jetted off to on a whim. I wonder if we should force Ann Coulter to follow someone else's dream instead of her own. After all, if she can't choose a career responsibly shouldn't we choose one for her?
Philosophes like Voltaire wrote witty essays explaining how it was impossible for one man to own another man's soul. Their slave owning friends were amused by their brilliance. Quakers freed their slaves and forbade members of their congregations from owning or trading in slaves. They were motivated to do this by their religious beliefs. They, not the philosophes, were the first to do this. Sometimes people do the right thing because of their understanding of God.
Some time back, on the John Oliver show, he presented a transsexual from some African nation. The transsexual claimed that persecution of the LGBT community had increased after some American preacher had visited the country and inveighed against homosexuality. Right. The poor simple African people would have been unable to formulate any homophobic thoughts or actions without the promptings of white missionaries.....Anyway, that's pretty much how Palmer and Oliver view missionaries. They're not for gay marriage so how could any of their days and works be any good.
Righteousness is a full-time job. And it's all about you.
Contract it out to an outfit with an infinite supply and you have all kinds of spare time for mischief like building houses, feeding the poor, fighting slavery and curing the sick.
Downside? The wardrobe is rarely stylish, you do your own cooking, and the only servant in the room is you.
How gauche.
"I have never understood why a non-belief in God must be marked by contempt for those who do believe."
It doesn't, I consider myself a Christian Atheist who is currently observing by fasting a Jewish holiday with my wife's family.
I think what is happening here is the transferred fear of the death cult of Mohammed onto Christians.
I think we should never forgive Ann Coulter for words she said two days after her good friend, Barbara Olsen was killed in the name of Islam.
Ebola is a serious disease, of course. On the other hand, it has killed about 1200 people, total, since 1976 including the current outbreak. That is less than 40 per year. Worldwide.
For perspective, 30,000 or so die in the US every year of flu.
A million or more die every year of malaria (worldwide)
100-120,000 die of cholera
and so on.
On the scale of things it is not that big a deal as diseases go. It has the potential to be a big deal but it is not yet.
In the meantime it has pushed a lot of other news off the front page. IRS, ISIS, fast and furious, economy etc. All those things that, if people were thinking about them, might be harmful to Obie and the demmies and their chances of holding the Senate.
Ebola outbreaks always burn out fairly quickly. I am going to predict that this one will burn out by, say, about mid-November.
John Henry
Whether religion or something else motivates someone to alleviate human suffering is immaterial. Alleviation of human suffering is, or should be, an independent value. How churlish must you be to think otherwise?
Ah, Those Crazy Chistians.
kcom said...
Because they have been alive for approximately 3 or 4/100 millionths of 1/15 billionth of the history of the universe (assuming there's only one) and have occupied approximately 2/61,000ths of 1/156 billionths of the area of the universe so they've seen it all and know everything. How could they be wrong?
I gather you're speaking of religious believers.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
"Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." said the biologist.
Based on past experience, nothing is more true of the history of intellectual activity than this. Arrogance is not becoming on anyone.
The real arrogance is thinking, er, believing, that a bunch of old fables and ghost stories can explain anything other than the portion of human psychology that seeks out fables and ghost stories for easy, self-serving explanations.
"My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment* I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world." said the same biologist.
*experiment = admits ignorance and wants to be less ignorant.
I rarely hear of religious people running experiments to test their religious beliefs.
John said...
Ebola is a serious disease, of course. On the other hand, it has killed about 1200 people, total, since 1976 including the current outbreak.
True, so far it hasn't killed very many people, but there are (supposedly) 3,286 deaths so far in the current outbreak.
3439.
Check out the slopes on those graphs.
(Warning! Wikipedia alert!)
"Ya know, I'm gonna stick my neck out here and suppose that most atheists aren't extremists. Same for most people following any sort of religion."
Yes, you are correct. But notice that an extremist Christian is one who takes seriously the teaching, that one should love his enemies as he loves himself. An extremist Muslim is one who takes seriously the teaching that you should cut off the heads of the infidels. And while the majority of their coreligionists are not willing to follow their examples, neither are they willing to criticize them for their zeal.
tim in vermont said...
"I think we should never forgive Ann Coulter for words she said two days after her good friend, Barbara Olsen was killed in the name of Islam."
I don't think Coulter is pining for your forgiveness. As I understand Christian belief, she has been forgiven.
John: On the scale of things it is not that big a deal as diseases go. It has the potential to be a big deal but it is not yet.
[...]
Ebola outbreaks always burn out fairly quickly. I am going to predict that this one will burn out by, say, about mid-November.
Yeah, probably (one hopes), but it would be nice if Our Experts (like Frieden) would stop making moronic pronouncements - one part straw man to one part gobbledygook - about sensible quarantine procedures: (E.g.: “The fact is that if we tried to seal the border, it would not work because people are allowed to travel..." Lol. Nothing instills confidence like public health officials who sound mentally retarded.)
Sounds like he thinks Christians should get out of the way and let evolution take its course. Don't help the untermenschen.
"In fact, I remember a story about Dr. Brantly saying he'd wanted to do what he was doing since he was a boy. So it's not some Johnny-come-lately vacation he jetted off to on a whim."
No indeed. On the other hand, it appears that Thomas Eric Duncan had not been planning to visit family in the US until he realized he had been exposed to ebola. At that point, he decided to follow Brantly's example, and head for the USA. After all, it worked for Brantly.
Fernandinande wrote:
I'm quite convinced that peoples' ideas and motivations don't count for jack, what counts is their physical actions.
As for the missionaries, they might be making things slightly worse in the long run:
The prospect of so rapid a rise has triggered a host of Malthusian fears, on the continent and elsewhere. If Africa is struggling to feed a billion people, it is hard to see how it could feed 4 billion in future."
Well if we let ebola take it's course maybe they'll only have to feed half a billion people. Is this a variation of the Population Bomb argument?
Maybe THAT"s the reason the secularists are not particulary worried about the poor blacks dying. Beacuse if someone's got to go better them than us.
And as for physical actions counting. What physical actions are Palmer and any of his bodies doing to help? Nothing. so then get out of the way and let those who put their convictions where their actions are administer to the sick.
"For perspective, 30,000 or so die in the US every year of flu.
A million or more die every year of malaria (worldwide)
100-120,000 die of cholera"
But those are treatable diseases. Meaning doctors are actually helping people with them, but despite such help people are dying. Not so with ebola. If you catch it, unlless you ware one of the lucky few you will die.
If this were a case of a new strand of influenza that was killing thousands, we'd at least have a potential to deal with the threat.
With ebola, our advantage was that it wasn't here so we didn't have to worry about an outbreak here. But now we do. Lets just hope it doesnt' become airborne.
Jr565 said...
"Maybe THAT"s the reason the secularists are not particulary worried about the poor blacks dying. Beacuse if someone's got to go better them than us."
That's exactly what is going on for a certain segment of the concerned handwringers. Those Africans are just animals in a zoo, like Amazonian tribes, for us to study and observe as they die, not treat like fellow human beings.
Fernandenande,
Quite right, my bad. I was working with info from a month or two ago.
Around 3500 for the current outbreak seems to be more correct.
I stand by the point of my note, though. If this were happening in Oct 2013, instead of 2014, would there be as much of a fuss being made?
As a great leader once said "Never let a good crisis go to waste." By driving everything else off the news, I think the Ebola helps the Demmies politically.
John Henry
JR365 said:
But those are treatable diseases. Meaning doctors are actually helping people with them, but despite such help people are dying. Not so with ebola. If you catch it, unlless you ware one of the lucky few you will die.
1) I do not see what difference treatability or non-treatability make. One disease kills millions, another (so far) kills thousands. Which one should we be devoting resources to?
Malaria used to be endemic in the first world. Tens of thousands used to die of it in the US alone. One estimate that I have read is that half of all human deaths in the past 10,000 years have been from malaria.
Now it mostly affects poor brown people and who gives a shit about them. Certainly not Palmer and his ilk.
2) Because Ebola kills pretty quickly, people do not live long enough to spread it. Hence the very small historical number of deaths.
It occurs to me that this might be like the AIDS epidemic in Africa. A lot of it was not AIDS but by calling it AIDS, it got westerners upset and sending money. Africa is a pretty unhealthy continent with all sorts of nasty, endemic, non-ebola diseases. Might there be some mis-identification going on to help pump up the funding?
If it is just killing Africans, who gives a shit? Nobody in Madison or the rest of the US will get excited.
3) I have been reading some accounts that ebola is actually survivable, though still nasty as Hell, if caught early and treated with IV fluids. I'm not a doctor so don't know the details. Perhaps one of the docs here can tell us more about treatment.
At the moment, I worry more about the hysteria than the risk of the disease itself. I also worry about the lack of willingness to take certain precautions such as closing the southern border, controlling travel from infected countries and so forth.
John Henry
A couple of people have commented on what Ann Coulter said about Barbara Olsen.
I do not remember what she said.
Can someone refresh my memory?
John Henry
I am not a doc, John Henry, but I seem to recall a 40-50% survival rate in Africa. I suspect that percentage will increase a great deal here. Both American missionaries brought here survived. One advantage to having them here would be learning how to treat Ebola in a first world environment. I suspect we will learn a lot that will eventually help treatment in Africa.
John: A couple of people have commented on what Ann Coulter said about Barbara Olsen.
I do not remember what she said.
Can someone refresh my memory?
You can read the entire column here.
What she said about Ms. Olsen wasn't the problem, it was what she said about Muslims. The first sentence of the last paragraph - "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" - was what caused the most panty-bunching.
Palmer wrote:
As an atheist, I try to make choices based on evidence and reason. So until we’re finally ready to invest heavily in secular medicine for Africa, I suggest we stand aside and let God do His work."
There is nothing sacred about an atheist.So therefore they are expendable. Palmer is an atheist therefore he is expendable so lets send him to do his part for secular medicine.
I'm not a churchgoer, don't have any particular beliefs, and would say I would stop short of calling myself anything, including an agnostic or atheist. That's more belief than I have in anything. But still I find the obnoxiousness of people declaring they know the entire nature of the universe, beyond a reasonable doubt, based on our occupation of our tiny little blip in time and space to be absurd. It's not hard to image that's exactly how the residents of the Western hemisphere believed before Columbus appeared on their shores. "
Kcom you do realize that your argument also works just as well against conventional science and the belief the universe and ultimately everything that ever was and will ever be came in to being out of nothingness in an instant called the big-bang.
And the truly funny part is that without the jews and without the catholic church western civilization as we know it would never have happened.
Cheers
Read the article. Not as bad as expected, but this is Slate so my expectations were pretty low.
Still it comes across as a person of no particular importance busy at tasks of no particular significance criticizing people who make personal sacrifices and take on personal risk to try and do something. It is amusing in the blackest of ways to spot the useless complaining about the useful. He could have a bright future as a government bureaucrat. NASA probably has an opening.
I also find it amusing that he is uncomfortable by the lack of statistics for missionary medicine. Yes, having statistics has done so well in so many fields. No one ever fudges numbers or uses them out of context for their own agendas. No, sirree. Most certainly not the UN or the government or anyone like that!
I suppose if he was truly concerned he could take a flight to Africa or wherever and find out first hand, but I suspect that would be too much like work or perhaps journalism. Can’t have journalists doing journalism these days. They are too busy instructing us on how to think.
On the plus side, at least he does realize his own bigotry and, implicitly, his lack of giving a hoot to give the subject his begrudging approval. It’s something. It more or less makes the article pointless, but it is something.
I know, you see, I KNOW that the second the secular media leaves they make the patients stop dancing *sarc off*
Fernandinande: I rarely hear of religious people running experiments to test their religious beliefs.
Science is a terrific tool, but like other tools it is only useful for subjects to which it applies. The universe is full of things that are beyond experimentation. Where did I come from? (If you insist, I will tack on “ultimately” to the end.) What is the meaning of life? How should I treat my fellow human beings? These are big and extremely important questions that elude the test tubes and Bunsen burners. Alas, science is ill equipped to study such matters, but the questions cannot be ignored. Yet you demand the application of science to things that cannot be studied by science. You have taken the hammer to the screw and then declared something is wrong with the screw!
I do not grudge you for adopting a philosophy that jettisons “fables and ghost stories” in favor of what you can prove and perceive. But please do not call it science. Your philosophy may be logical given your assumptions, but many of the assumptions to these big questions will necessarily be arbitrary, which by extension makes your philosophy arbitrary. Of course, this applies all human philosophies and religions, including my own. There is a reason why religions are also referred to as “faiths.”
I am also baffled that you think that religious people do not test their beliefs or have doubts. Have you ever inquired with the faithful about such matters? I believe if you do you will find that your views on this matter are, dare I say it, ignorant. Let me relieve that malady. As a Christian I have had doubts. I have questioned. I have pondered the big questions. Yet in the end I came to the conclusion that I still believe that this Jesus fellow is who He says He is. Perhaps the logic was not to your liking, but I assure you that logic was involved. Alas, I failed to use science, but using science in such a matter was quite impossible as well as inappropriate.
What I do find most amusing is how some atheists – perhaps not you – ridicule the “absurdity” (and its various synonyms) of religious stories, yet fail to apply the same standard to their own scientific beliefs. Let us take the Big Bang and put it in the context of something a 5th century peasant could understand. “The entire universe was concentrated at one point. No, I don’t know where that point came from or what happened before, but that’s not important. Then there was a gigantic explosion and for key moments the laws of physics did not apply in any way that we would understand, and then everything spread out, cooled down, and became the universe.” Frankly that sounds ridiculous, at least as ridiculous as “Let there be light!” For that matter from a narrative perspective the scientific explanation is not that different from Atem masturbating the universe into existence. This does not mean the scientific theory is wrong, but it makes it no less absurd. Life, the universe, and everything is, at its very essence, absurd. It is what makes life wondrous, awesome, and terrifying all at the same time. There is no escape of this in logic, science, or religion.
Static Ping said...
Fernandinande: I rarely hear of religious people running experiments to test their religious beliefs."
At the core of it the religious don't have to since there is plenty of historical evidence that evil that is wide spread and continuing leads to disaster. If Crack were here he would point out slavery in the US and on that he would be right. The Civil War was certainly a disaster and the legacy of slavery was a disaster as well.
I am an atheist, and while I understand that what I am going to say could be interpreted as a hedge on that belief, I do not intend it that way, I have been an atheist since I first thought about the issue as a child, even though I have devout siblings and went to church every Sunday as a kid.
Many atheists amuse me because they have so little appreciation of the limits of human reason. It really is "turtles all the way down" even if "all the way down" means what lies beneath the limits of observation as defined in quantum mechanics.
It's interesting that atheists insist they can develop a coherent set of moral principals without religion and yet they jettison compassion as one of those principals.
Compassion being one of the glues that binds humanity together.
Post a Comment