A nationwide survey of the religious beliefs and practices of American physicians has found that the least religious of all medical specialties is psychiatry. Among psychiatrists who have a religion, more than twice as many are Jewish and far fewer are Protestant or Catholic, the two most common religions among physicians overall.
The study also found that religious physicians, especially Protestants, are less likely to refer patients to psychiatrists, and more likely to send them to members of the clergy or to a religious counselor.
Although Protestant physicians were only half as likely to send the patient to a psychiatrist, Jewish physicians were more likely to do so. Least likely were highly religious Protestants who attended church at least twice a month and looked to God for guidance “a great deal or quite a lot.”
A man walks into a psychiatrist’s office wrapped in clear plastic wrap. The doctor took one look at him and said, “Clearly I can see your nuts.”
>>So if Dawkins, f’rinstance, were to mention that he’s
>>extremely intelligent the act of making that statement
>>would magically render him stupid, right?
No. By the same token, if Einstein had said “I”m as smart as Einstein”, he would still be as intelligent pre-utterance as post. However, being intelligent, neither one would be likely to say such a thing. Those who DO blurt out such self-aggrandizing bursts of verbal diarrhea….well, you already know my opinion about their intelligence.
You’re confusing cause and effect here, my little codpiece. What I said was that “the smarter someone proclaims themself to be, the more ignorant they invariably are.” You would do well to keep that in mind, if only for appearance’s sake.
>>You always evade facts like “why do the dumbest people all
>>believe in God, and so few of the smartest?”
For a self-proclaimed “smart” fellow, you might want to look into the veracity of your “facts” before you proclaim them to be such. If you can find published proof of your “fact” in a peer-reviewed publication, and one that does not make profound statistical blunders in the data sets analyzed, the scales used, or the conclusions drawn, I would be most interested in reviewing them. Until that time, you might want to consider S’ing TFU.
Say, the stock market opens in five hours. Shouldn’t you be preparing for a busy day of trading that single stock?
>>But they’re all ridiculously IMPROBABLE, and that’s why you round
>>off that 0.0000000000001% chance to ZERO – because that
>>difference is NO difference.
Well, as to the likelihood that Carmen Electra would deign to climb into bed with you, I’m willing to round that one off to zero. And every one of your other straw men are similarly dismissed by virtually everyone as being roundable to zero.
EXCEPT for the existence of a higher power, or some sort of spiritual essence that transcends the wearing of hair shirts, the fasting on High Holy Days, the detonation of dynamite vests, the aversion to the flesh of cloven-hooved beasts, and all the rest of the silly accoutrements that have been used as forms of control and/ or money-making schemes by the purveyors of tax-exempt relgion.
Somehow, generation after generation, age after age, eon after eon, as notions of a flat earth fall away, this belief continues unabated. How do you explain that, Neptune? Is it truly just another example of “everyone is wrong, and I am right”? Or is it possible, no, let’s even go so far as to say PROBABLE, that there may just be something to this notion that has been with humanity since time immemorial, and shows no sign of disappearing in the foreseeable future? Might that just be? Or are you so rigid in your thinking that if you don’t read about it in “Quantum Physics for Dummies”, you assume it must be scifi fantasy? Hmmm?
#80 – Lauren,
Interesting take on the 7%. With how many of them are you close personal friends? Do they really all fit such a nice neat mold? I think that might be oversimplification of the human mind, especially for cases where we know we are actually talking about rocket scientists, so to speak.
As for your distinction between psychiatrists and psychologists, I think you are making some very strange statements. First and foremost, remember, I used the generic term psychology, for the study of the psyche.
Second, a psychiatrist is a psychologist who happens to be an MD rather than a PHD. Therefore, from a psychological training perspective, many are LESS well trained than psychologists. The latter did not spend time in med school learning anatomy, and so were able to concentrate more heavily on psychology. Psychiatrists, on average and by training, would probably average worse as actual psychotherapists since they often just fall back to prescribing medication. Of course, this is not 100%; I’m sure the overlap is huge.
Other than that, you make an interesting point about rational thought and all psychotherapists whether MD or PHD. Now you’ve made me curious where psychologists would rank among other PHDs.
#81 – 86 Lauren and Mustard,
It would probably help both of you to remember that we don’t even know how to measure smart. We have no usable quantifiable definition of either smart or intelligent. So, we can’t really rate people. It’s probably a fair assumption that the scientists that have made it all the way to the NAS are, on average, amazingly smart. But, scholarship is not the same as intelligence. One can certainly get through school by rote and memorization without really grasping fundamental concepts. So, even to say that in general, higher education leads to lower religiosity, does not necessarily show a real correlation with intelligence or smarts.
I think sticking with Lauren’s rationality argument is probably a better point of discussion as, I expect, even Mr. Mustard will grant that religious beliefs, including his own, are irrational.
BTW, Mustard, a few of your comments about not knowing everything lead me to believe that your beliefs may stem from the sort of god-of-the-gaps type argument. Is that correct? I wouldn’t have expected that from you.
>>I expect, even Mr. Mustard will grant that religious beliefs,
>>including his own, are irrational
If by “irrational”, Scottie, you mean I don’t find them in “Quantum Physics for Dummies”, you’re correct. However, I still find there’s something to be said for personal experience, enlightenment, and the spiritual, as long as it’s not forced on others.
>>god-of-the-gaps type argument…I wouldn’t have expected that
>>from you.
Not really. I don’t seek to explain why an apple falls, or evolutionary biology on the basis of God. Going back to Pete Seeger (and Ecclesiastes), there’s a time for every purpose under Heaven. And I think there are just some things that cannot be understood with technology, no matter how many transistors Intel can fit on the head of a pin.
#88 – MM,
I don’t make up my own definitions for words, unless no word exists for what I wish to say. In that case, I would be very clear about my meaning with a lengthy description.
ir·ra·tion·al /ɪˈræʃənl/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-rash-uh-nl] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
5. Mathematics.
a. (of a number) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers.
b. (of a function) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two polynomials.
6. Algebra. (of an equation) having an unknown under a radical sign or, alternately, with a fractional exponent.
7. Greek and Latin Prosody.
a. of or pertaining to a substitution in the normal metrical pattern, esp. a long syllable for a short one.
b. noting a foot or meter containing such a substitution.
–noun
8. Mathematics. irrational number.
I meant a watered down combination of definition numbers 1 & 3. Simply, not rational. Or, if you prefer, not logical.
Your experiences would count as perfectly valid emotional arguments for you. However, they do not constitute logic and reason. This is not a negative statement. I do not mean this in a derogatory way.
As for the god-of-the-gaps, I’d have been surprised if you subscribed to that faulty logic. But, your comment about not knowing everything made me curious. It is true that science has not yet answered all questions. It probably never will as it keeps bringing new questions to light. Some claim that the lack of answers to specific questions indicates a proof of the existence of god. Again though, I’d have been surprised if you fell into that category.
>>Some claim that the lack of answers to specific questions
>>indicates a proof of the existence of god.
The lack of “scientific” answers to specific questions does not form the basis of either my belief in God or my religion. It’s the answer to general questions that are (and will always be) outside the purview of scientific investigation.
To assert, given the seemingly near-infinite track record of “things we’ll never know” which are now common knowledge, that there are
“general questions that are (and will always be) outside the purview of scientific investigation”
is the epitome of the very sort of intellectual arrogance you accuse nonreligionists of.
Oh, the irony.
>.is the epitome of the very sort of intellectual arrogance you
>>accuse nonreligionists of.
In your case, ceviche-man, I have reason to be intellectually arrogant.
As you were.
#72 – Well, that would be between them and God, wouldn’t it? So why don’t you just STFU?
Because being right is more important than being liked, and religion is killing humanity and must be stopped.
Trying to wipe out the insidious scourge of religion may be like tilting at windmills, but that doesn’t necessarily mean its a waste of my energy.
Lauren’s right… some folks are deluded into believing they spoke to God, but Bush and Robertson and their ilk are liars who use religion as power to hurt people. Let’s call them what they are…
>>religion is killing humanity
As the NRA is fond of saying (to paraphrase), religion doesn’t kill people, people kill people.
If you don’t like Little King George’s or Patty’s implementation of their religion, take it up with them and “their ilk”.
Leave me out of it, thank you very much.
#95 – MM,
Actually the parallel to guns don’t kill people doesn’t really apply here. Guns do not talk to people, except a few very special people, and convince them to kill. With religion, that is the way it goes in many cases, and not just historically, but right into the present day. That doesn’t mean all religious folks are murders or that all murderers are religious. But, religion is one of many reasons people find to kill each other. I could do without it.
#94 – The only one who drags you into it, is you…
If you are hanging out with your granola eating hippie friends, then you are not my target.
And if you are offended that I declare religion to be dangerous and God to be a myth… well… forgive me.
Considering that 98% of Americans believe in God (http://tinyurl.com/2jq87g) one has to wonder how psychiatry got so out-of-step with the people they are trying to help.
#97 – It didn’t…
#97 – Greg Allen,
Your number’s a little off.
A 2006 CBS News Poll of 899 U.S. adults found that 82% of those surveyed believed in God, while 9% believed in “some other universal spirit or higher power,” 8% believed in neither, and 1% were unsure.
Still pretty frightening that in this day and age, we have 91% believing in mythology.
Don’t be afraid of people who believe in God. Be afraid of people who still believe in George Bush.
Actually, the most recent Pew Foundation study (2006) found 11% self-described as atheist or secular – another chunk as agnostic. Then, you get to the dimwits.
Great article! nvofgfjv