What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

Physician, Heal Thyself

May 15, 2006, 11:49 AM
Dabanner

I mentioned in an earlier post that I recently came across Freethought Radio, the Freedom from Religion Foundation's new weekly radio show, which I highly recommend.

The very first episode, which I was listening to the other day, made me aware of a shocking violation of the separation of church and state. This latest outrage, not surprisingly, arises from George W. Bush's constitutionally repugnant "faith-based initiatives" plan, a political euphemism for forced taxation in support of religion. (The FFRF has won five major court victories against various aspects of the faith-based initiative program in the past several years, and has filed a new lawsuit against this one.)

This new violation is the fault of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, of all groups. Apparently, the VA has begun to integrate religion into the medical treatment of injured or disabled veterans - religion not as an optional service available to those who request it, but as a built-in part of all treatment whether a veteran requests it or not. It seems that every patient admitted into the VA system is given a "spiritual/faith assessment", containing questions about how often the person prays or attends church, how often they read scripture or listen to religious TV programs, or how often they "experience the presence of the divine". Readers are invited to wonder how this could possibly be relevant to any patient's care. Some assessments go so far as to include leading questions such as, "How often do you worry about your doubts or disbelief in God?"

Based on the patient's answers, the attending chaplain determines whether there is - wait for it - "spiritual injury". If so, the chaplain prescribes attendance at a "spiritual injury support group". All of this is based on the premise that good health care is incomplete without attending to the patient's spiritual needs, apparently regardless of whether the patient themself feels any need to do so. (The FFRF press release has further information.)

There is no constitutional problem with providing chaplains to address patients' needs. But this should come only at the patient's request, to protect their free exercise rights. The VA crosses the line when it seeks to make this involvement a part of every patient's care, regardless of whether they desire it or not, and in so doing breaks the law by attempting to promote religion using government resources. Should I ever be admitted to any federally funded hospital, I will encourage the doctors to treat my body only, thank you very much, and not concern themselves with the state of my soul. Were I in this situation, I would refuse to fill out any ridiculous questionnaires about my "spiritual health", and I would certainly decline the invitations of any bullying chaplain to take part in his rituals of superstition. I hope many nonreligious veterans are similarly refusing to comply.

On another note, my local newspaper recently ran the following gushing story about how a Catholic woman's prayers to the "Divine Child" saved her daughter's life by getting her the kidney transplant she needed:

Rosa's 14-year-old daughter, Yesenia, needed a kidney transplant. The girl had been subjected to a year's worth of three-hour-long dialysis treatments three times a week. This was her second child to go through this. Rosa's first daughter suffered kidney failure but was able to quickly find a donor in her brother. Coincidence? Rosa firmly believes that a solution was because of intervention on behalf of the Divine Child through Rosa's frequent prayers.

I sent a letter to the author of this article, which is reproduced below. Should I receive any response, I will provide an update.

"Hello,

This letter is in reference to your article 'Saving Yesenia' that appeared in the May 13 edition of the Times Herald-Record, which I read with some interest. I am an atheist, and no one is happier than I that Yesenia received the transplant she needed and is now doing well. I wish her and her family all the best. However, I must comment on this story's credulous acceptance of Ms. Solis' belief that her prayer to the 'Divine Child' was what resulted in her daughter receiving a transplant, as opposed to the diligent efforts of the many hundreds of human beings throughout history who have worked to make such life-saving interventions possible through study and medical research.

This claim is an instance of a very common mistake in thinking called confirmation bias, also known as 'counting the hits and forgetting the misses'. There are tens of thousands of people waiting on lists to receive organ transplants, and the vast number of them doubtless have friends and relatives praying that they receive one. People who do receive one, of course, view it as a miracle and the answer to their prayers - but that is only because they overlook the thousands of others who are praying the exact same thing and receive no answer, and of course those stories receive little or no newspaper coverage. According to http://www.shareyourlife.org/facts_stats.html, about 18 people die in America every single day while waiting for organ transplants they never receive.

Although Ms. Solis doubtless did not mean to cause any offense, her belief that her daughter's transplant was due solely to her prayers could be viewed as highly insulting to those others. What would she tell the mother of some other young girl who died waiting for a transplant? Did God see fit to grant one mother's prayers but leave someone else's daughter to die? Does Ms. Solis mean to imply that her daughter was more deserving of life than those others? This view makes God an evil and capricious being who saves some and abandons others to die on a whim, a view that is unworthy of being held by any human being with a conscience.

In addition, this view thoughtlessly neglects the contributions of the hard-working, dedicated doctors who actually located a donor and performed the surgery, by making it seem as if Yesenia's recovery was a matter of prayer alone. In reality, it was a human effort, carried out not by miracles or angels but by human beings who care for each other, using techniques that have been honed through decades of patient study and scientific research. At no point did any gods intervene in this process, and it is demeaning to imply that Yesinia's recovery was a miracle from heaven that simply dropped into the family's lap. Though that outcome might be described as a miracle, it is the only kind of miracle that exists: the kind that we work together to bring about for ourselves.

I hope you will exercise due skepticism in the future before running any more stories of this type."

 

Physician, Heal Thyself

Newsletter: Share: