Posted on 03/28/2011 1:05:51 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
To have foolish beliefs or superstitions does not make one a fool.
Finding the best possible professional in the area of concern, that is unrelated to other disconcerting areas of knowledge or belief, is the rational pursuit of self interest not hypocrisy.
To your salient point: Hitchens clearly does not believe this physician is a fool, however he feels about his beliefs.
People are capable of being logical on some issues and illogical about others. If the guy has enough medical credentials to be considered an expert about cancer, rejecting his advice would be religious bigotry.
I know many of you happily post without reading the article upon which the thread is based, but you end up looking like fools. You commit a mistake common to us all, you assume based on past knowledge of the subject and in this case, as is often true, you assume wrong.
Hitchens has not changed his mind and he did not choose the doctor because of his Christianity. He and the doctor know each other well and have debated many times. They are friends. The doctor has been doing research on the human genome. He chose the doctor because the doctor has a new experimental cancer treatment which deals with the differences in the DNA of the healthy cells and the cancerous ones in a person’s body. Hitchens says he hopes the treatment works because if it doesn’t he doesn’t know where else to turn, but he has not changed his religious views.
Let's say Hitchens said 'population X' makes lousy plumbers. Then he hires someone from population X to do some plumbing. Explaining that his plumber has some new technique would not change the fact that Hitchens was a hypocrite.
Science is founded on the belief that nature obeys laws because there is a Lawgiver over nature. It has always been modernist atheists who are irrational regarding their beliefs about science; this is why postmodernist atheists are more consistent in denying the laws of nature, because they deny the Lawgiver.
From your reply I am assuming that Hitchens said Christians make lousy doctors. I have not been following him enough to know that. If he said there is a contradiction between Christianity and science then he is wrong. However, I don’t see that that makes him a hypocrite. It simply makes him wrong. I also don’t think that him going to a doctor who has an experimental treatment after all other treatments have failed makes him a hypocrite. The fact the doctor is a Christian is immaterial.
You may enjoy this thread:
New World Order, New Age Religion
My first comment is at post # 52. The thread is about 550 posts strong and counting.
And Amen!
Wouldn’t it be a wonderful blessing for the family that they can know that whatever happens, they will all be together again in Heaven? This must be very painful on all levels for his Christian loved ones.
I read the article.
but you end up looking like fools.
The only one looking like a fool is the person claiming others did not read an article when they have no idea if they did or not.
You commit a mistake common to us all, you assume based on past knowledge of the subject and in this case, as is often true, you assume wrong.
I assumed nothing. You are the one who admitted to not following him well enough to know the statements he has made in regards to Christians and science etc. As far as assuming...isn't that what you just did to me about whether I read the article or not? You assumed wrong.
Hitchens has not changed his mind and he did not choose the doctor because of his Christianity.
Show me where I said he choose the doctor because of his Christianity. As for changing his mind, I have no idea what you mean by that.
He and the doctor know each other well and have debated many times. They are friends. The doctor has been doing research on the human genome. He chose the doctor because the doctor has a new experimental cancer treatment which deals with the differences in the DNA of the healthy cells and the cancerous ones in a person’s body.
None of which has anything to do with the point I made.
Hitchens says he hopes the treatment works because if it doesn’t he doesn’t know where else to turn, but he has not changed his religious views.
Show me where I said he changed his religious views or be more careful who you call a fool.
I think Lefties are fools when it comes to politics, but if I'm in need of the best Cardiologist in town who also happened to also be a leftie, I'd go to him. (I just wouldn't let him know I'm a 'heartless' conservative. ;~))
Take talent and skill where you can find it. IMHO, it is foolish to do otherwise.
Many people are wise or skilled in some things and all people are foolish or ignorant in many things. No one has it all and no one is even close to having it all.
After re-reading your posts, it is my understanding that your very narrow point is that Hitchens is a hypocrite. You base that, as I understand it, on his choosing a doctor who is a Christian. Is that correct so far?
We had a goofy leftist local talk show host, Kevin Lynn, who said that he wouldn’t go to a creationist doctor b/c he wouldn’t use “science”. What a fool! Bob
Very funny. Thanks for a laugh! Bob
Hahaha, stop yer killin me!
Hitchens said religion "poisons everything". "Everything" includes physicians and medicine.
Hitchens' style: So many names are dropped you need an umbrella. Hitchens rubs elbows with glamorous people; he reads famous writers. On the other hand, Hitchens refers, repeatedly, to anyone who believes in God as a "yokel." This patina of sophistication shielded by venom intimidates some into deferring to Hitchens as a great mindpeople of faith are stupid, hypocritical, and evil; scapegoat this other as the cause of all the world's problems,
Then Hitchens voices, about this undifferentiated "other," bigoted stereotypes, using the classic imagery of prejudice that associates the scapegoated "other" with subhuman life forms. In an appearance with David Horowitz promoting this book, Hitchens equated persons of faith with plague-bacilli-ridden, sewer-breeding rats.
Why aren't atheists horrified by the anger and hatred you find in this book? Do they all just not notice it because they are that way themselves?
Evidently you have little experience with hyperbole.
It is the rhetorical use of exaggeration for effect.
Your argument would make him anti-science because he is anti-religion.
This makes no logical sense.
With more “scientific” evidence coming along that prayer, love and caring are an important component of healing, you would think that even atheist would seek believers instead of avoiding them. But, as we see in most areas of Liberalism, the need to erase God blocks their thinking in a lot of areas.
Hitchens said that "mockery of religion is one of the most essential things." Is now a bad time to mock Collins's religion? Perhaps, according to the atheist way of handling things, it is best to mock someone's religion when you don't need their help, or when their back is turned.
It is the rhetorical use of exaggeration for effect.
Or, to go a bit further, his present relationship with Collins is a way to say that everything he previously said about Christians was a load of lies and slander.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.