Character flaw

[OldGit]

Please don't be discouraged, we do appreciate you being here.

I agree, you're a valued and respected member here.

I know for a fact that some of them are committed Christians and believe in the basic Christian message regarding Jesus. How they feel about hell, I wouldn't know, but you seem to have a very limited understanding of why people become Christians. Some people have an experience of God and their encounter with religion is very positive. It presents no conflict with their reason or their ability to practice medicine or any other profession.  I'm beginning to think that the brainwashing is as much on the atheist side as it is among theists.

We're not brainwashed, Bruce.  I, for example, came to see myself as an active atheist as I began to realise how much harm religion does.  Off my own bat, not in response to any stimulus by others.

OK, we all know plenty of sane, balanced Christians.  My issue with them is that they make it respectable to be religious, while I'd like to see the whole business laughed out of court.  

[The Magic Pudding]

OK, we all know plenty of sane, balanced Christians.  My issue with them is that they make it respectable to be religious, while I'd like to see the whole business laughed out of court.  

You know Git that line can be construed as a bit odd but I'm awake when I should be waking so I can't challenge it.

[xSilverPhinx]

OK, we all know plenty of sane, balanced Christians.  My issue with them is that they make it respectable to be religious, while I'd like to see the whole business laughed out of court.

I agree with this. It can be a blurry line where people and their beliefs are concerned. I respect some of the people, but not their beliefs. I usually see the two as separate, but I guess many of them don't.  

I think I saw a statistical study in which it showed that doctors are more likely to be theistic. I'm guessing it has more to do with the kind of work than any inherent character flaw.

What exactly do you see as a character flaw, Pharoah Cat?  

[Tank]

I work in a hospital. Some of the most brilliant surgeons and other specialists here are theists of one sort or another.  There is no question about their competence. I don't have a problem with their theism, of course, since I'm one myself. But if you considered that a character flaw (which you apparently do), then the question would be whether you felt that particular flaw was sufficiently compartmentalized to allow the physician to have rational competence in his/her profession.  Again, we all have illusory beliefs, whether in romance or sports preferences or whatever.

Interesting.  If I were conducting a scientific study, one question I would want to explore is how many of these brilliant surgeons really believe and how many pretend they do for social acceptance.  I would also be interested in what precisely the believers believe.  Are they Deists?  Or do they honestly believe Jesus died for their sins so that if they believe, they won't go to hell for doing what they can't help wanting to do?  I would also be interested in whether they believe because they were brainwashed as children before they'd erected their shields of reason.

I know for a fact that some of them are committed Christians and believe in the basic Christian message regarding Jesus. How they feel about hell, I wouldn't know, but you seem to have a very limited understanding of why people become Christians. Some people have an experience of God and their encounter with religion is very positive. It presents no conflict with their reason or their ability to practice medicine or any other profession.  I'm beginning to think that the brainwashing is as much on the atheist side as it is among theists.

I don't think it's brainwashing as much as jumping on the bandwagon of an idea that allows people to stick two fingers up at perceived historical authority. If one were to draw a Venn diagram with two overlapping circles one theist, one atheist and an overlap of 'undecided' I'm sure the undecided group is growing smaller and movement is towards atheism. I think this is the case because the atheist camp simply didn't have sufficient critical mass to be considered a plausible world view for non-intellectuals. In the past to be an atheist was something you really had to want to be nowadays it's OK in many places and trendy in others.

To my mind as long as a person does their job efficiently and effectively I don't care what their world view is. It only becomes a subject for discussion if they raise it or it affects their routine work performance. In the medical profession the key issue would be the extension of a poor quality life where the patient wishes to die. Then one could end up walking through an ethical minefield where the doctors view could be diametrically opposed to that of the patient.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

In the medical profession the key issue would be the extension of a poor quality life where the patient wishes to die. Then one could end up walking through an ethical minefield where the doctors view could be diametrically opposed to that of the patient.

Fortunately, that issue is usually taken care of by Advance Directives that tell the physicians what the wishes of the patient are regarding end-of-life issues.  I'm on the ethics committee here at my hospital, and we attempt to respect patient autonomy with respect to those decisions. I'm not aware of any Rambo-doctors here who want to keep a terminal/irreversibly ill patient alive at all costs.  Generally the problem comes from family members who want momma alive no matter what, or who have some legal/financial interest in keeping her alive.  In palliative care situations such family members are sometimes referred to as "sea gulls": they fly in from the coast, make a lot of noise, and crap on everyone.  While the sanctity of life is generally observed here, it appears to me that when it's a person's time, no one here wants to go against that person's wishes to be allowed to die in peace.

[Pharaoh Cat]

My thinking on this topic has very suddenly forked in two different directions at once, each tine of the fork a quantum leap, as represented by two new threads, one of which I started, the other of which I was fortunate enough to encounter and be enlightened by:

In the Media section: Theists should see this.
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8860.0

In the Philosophy section: What do you value more than happiness?
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8973.0

[Tank]

In the medical profession the key issue would be the extension of a poor quality life where the patient wishes to die. Then one could end up walking through an ethical minefield where the doctors view could be diametrically opposed to that of the patient.

Fortunately, that issue is usually taken care of by Advance Directives that tell the physicians what the wishes of the patient are regarding end-of-life issues.  I'm on the ethics committee here at my hospital, and we attempt to respect patient autonomy with respect to those decisions. I'm not aware of any Rambo-doctors here who want to keep a terminal/irreversibly ill patient alive at all costs.  Generally the problem comes from family members who want momma alive no matter what, or who have some legal/financial interest in keeping her alive.  In palliative care situations such family members are sometimes referred to as "sea gulls": they fly in from the coast, make a lot of noise, and crap on everyone.  While the sanctity of life is generally observed here, it appears to me that when it's a person's time, no one here wants to go against that person's wishes to be allowed to die in peace.

My son in law is a nurse and spent a couple of years on geriatric wards and witnessed at first hand many deaths. He has a very pragmatic view of death now and has expressed similar thoughts to yourself as far a 'sea gull' families are concerned.

[The Magic Pudding]

OK, we all know plenty of sane, balanced Christians.  My issue with them is that they make it respectable to be religious, while I'd like to see the whole business laughed out of court.  

I suppose that's an ideal but it's not very practical.
Atheists get pretty annoyed when we're told we can't have morals without god.
Do we say if you are sane and balanced you shouldn't be a christian?
Don't sane and balanced christians provide a way for other christians to give up the craziest, ugliest aspects of religion?
Reasonable christians said evolution, a sun centric solar system, contraception was OK, they helped dispel fear.
There's the cherry picking arguement, I don't push it because mostly I just want theists to avoid the dangerous stuff.
We could leave religion to the extremists, this may well reduce its respectability but not necessarily it's popularity, it sounds a bit dangerous.  Could a few sane and balanced christians please take it as your duty to be the last to abandon ship?

[Sandra Craft]

Is it a character flaw to believe because it feels good?

As long as there was no real harm coming of it, I'd say no, it isn't a character flaw to believe something because it makes you feel good.

Here's the implied question.  Are 3A wrong to respect other 3A more than we respect born again Christians, all else being equal?  Is being a born again Christian simply one more instance of diversity?  Or does it imply a lack of some virtue or strength, rightfully triggering disrespect on our part, and a proper distrust due to an accurate assessment of some sort of incompetence?

I don't think I'd call it wrong, just a instance of natural bias for someone like-minded.  I'm not sure all things can be equal in this instance tho, since it leaves out things like chemistry (of the "those two actors in that buddy movie have great chemistry" kind) which can skew in reality things that on paper are equal.

[Gawen]

Character flaw? If one looks up the definition of (literary) "character flaw" and "flaw" one may deduce that the three main religions god itself suffers from both. Those that do not see this gods' character flaws and flaws and rather see it as "perfect", well, what can one deduce from that?

Just askin'...

[Gawen]

Would - not using critical thinking faculties be a character flaw?
From wiki:
"A character flaw is a limitation, imperfection, problem, phobia, or deficiency present in a character who may be otherwise very functional. The flaw can be a problem that directly affects the character's actions and abilities, such as a violent temper. Alternatively, it can be a simple foible or personality defect, which affects the character's motives and social interactions, but little else."

Again...just askin"...

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Would - not using critical thinking faculties be a character flaw?
From wiki:
"A character flaw is a limitation, imperfection, problem, phobia, or deficiency present in a character who may be otherwise very functional. The flaw can be a problem that directly affects the character's actions and abilities, such as a violent temper. Alternatively, it can be a simple foible or personality defect, which affects the character's motives and social interactions, but little else."

Not using critical thinking faculties might result more from ignorance or lack of education than character.  People of minimal education can have good character, unless we depart from the normal use of that term.  But assuming, arguendo, that not using critical thinking skills is a character flaw, are you assuming that all religious faith results from the failure to think critically?  Just askin'.

[Gawen]

From wiki:
"A character flaw is a limitation, imperfection, problem, phobia, or deficiency present in a character who may be otherwise very functional. The flaw can be a problem that directly affects the character's actions and abilities, such as a violent temper. Alternatively, it can be a simple foible or personality defect, which affects the character's motives and social interactions, but little else."

Not using critical thinking faculties might result more from ignorance or lack of education than character.  People of minimal education can have good character, unless we depart from the normal use of that term. 

It would seem the ignorance or minimal education would fall under one or more of the attributes above.

But assuming, arguendo, that not using critical thinking skills is a character flaw, are you assuming that all religious faith results from the failure to think critically?  Just askin'.

Possibly. A persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary or no evidence at all or non-corroborated evidence seems to me to be a character flaw - if critical unbiased, unprejudiced thinking will assuage that belief. If not a character flaw, then some other flaw.

[Gawen]

It's a difficult but fascinating topic, really.
If a God wants adulterers and/or homosexuals (the suspects are otherwise upstanding individuals) stoned and the community stones them, is this a character flaw? What if the community does not stone them?
If a person in this day and age supports slavery because (amongst other reasons) his god condones it but does not hold a slave, is this a character flaw?
If a person rabidly supports a head of state that has killed hundreds of thousands of individuals but the person hasn't lifted a finger to kill anyone because his god says killing is wrong, except in the case of adultery, is that a character flaw? What if a person supports the head of state but does not think the killings are necessary?

"A character flaw is a limitation, imperfection, problem, phobia, or deficiency present in a character who may be otherwise very functional. The flaw can be a problem that directly affects the character's actions and abilities, such as a violent temper. Alternatively, it can be a simple foible or personality defect, which affects the character's motives and social interactions, but little else."

Interesting isn't it?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

A persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary or no evidence at all or non-corroborated evidence seems to me to be a character flaw - if critical unbiased, unprejudiced thinking will assuage that belief. If not a character flaw, then some other flaw.

Religious faith in general is not classified as psychotic under the standards set forth in the DSM IV, so I'm not seeing how you get from "religious faith" to "character flaw" under the above analysis.  Are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist?  This analysis suffers from the same flaw as Egor's argument about consciousness/reality.  It attempts to establish a point by definition and assumption.  There is no basis currently to categorize all religious faith as psychotic.