Perspectives and Bias

[tbieter]

The following letter is featured in today’s Minneapolis newspaper. The author typifies today’s angry politicized liberal secularist. By one standard, the author certainly is no gentleman:

“The headline “God saved my life” (front page, Aug. 22), served to reinforce some of the worst of American Christian theology. I’m sorry the Star Tribune chose to promote this view.
The facts in the case of the American doctor brought back from Africa after he contracted the Ebola virus are clear. Being a white American contributed to his healing far more than God did. The privilege granted him by his skin color and place of birth allowed him to be whisked across the Atlantic on a special chartered plane, allowed him to be given new, rare, experimental drugs, and afforded him the best medical care the world has to offer.
If we buy into his toxic theology, what about the millions of people who are currently trapped in quarantined parts of their country, left to die of starvation or disease? Does God not care about their lives?
Caring for the sick is wonderful, but it is hubris, and only contributes to our own sense of ourselves as savior, to substitute God for our wealth and privilege.
Daniel Wolpert, Minneapolis

John Henry Newman - Definition of a Gentleman
“If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honors the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on civilization.”
http://www.his.com/~z/gentleman.html

Comments are invited.

[mickthinks]

Mr Wolpert certainly seems angry, but mightn't that be a good thing? Is anger always bad, in your view, Tom, or just when it is "liberal" and "secularist"?

By the way, Cardinal Newman didn't hold a neutral position on the issue of gentlemanly atheists.

[uwot]

The following letter is featured in today’s Minneapolis newspaper. The author typifies today’s angry politicized liberal secularist.

I suspect that's confirmation bias. Do you have any other examples on which you have modelled your profile?

By one standard, the author certainly is no gentleman:

Well, no. If you choose a standard that explicitly excludes the sort of behaviour that Mr Wolpert demonstrates, he is going to struggle. I wonder whether you see the irony, given the title you chose for this thread.

“The headline “God saved my life” (front page, Aug. 22), served to reinforce some of the worst of American Christian theology. I’m sorry the Star Tribune chose to promote this view.

Does the article mention who the lucky doctor blames for giving him Ebola in the first place?

The facts in the case of the American doctor brought back from Africa after he contracted the Ebola virus are clear. Being a white American contributed to his healing far more than God did. The privilege granted him by his skin color and place of birth allowed him to be whisked across the Atlantic on a special chartered plane, allowed him to be given new, rare, experimental drugs, and afforded him the best medical care the world has to offer.

Indeed. The real test of god's efficacy would be to send the doctor back to Africa and see how god copes without medical assistance.

If we buy into his toxic theology, what about the millions of people who are currently trapped in quarantined parts of their country, left to die of starvation or disease? Does God not care about their lives?

That seems to be a perfectly reasonable question; why do you think god chose to save the doctor, but is quite content to let thousands of Africans die a horrible death?

[NielsBohr]

I don't know why I should give a commentary about an explanation of the man.

The only I have to do: There is not a second ending quote mark for the entire quotation.

[uwot]

I don't know why I should give a commentary about an explanation of the man.

You are not obliged to.

The only I have to do: There is not a second ending quote mark for the entire quotation.

The point you seem to be making is so trivial, it is difficult to believe I have understood you. Have another go; better yet, say it in French, that way we could determine the degree to which your command of English is responsible for the peculiarity of your posts.

[HexHammer]

Well spoken OP!

If god really was that powerful and merciful, then why doesn't priests have the power to heal the sick at hospitals around the world?!!

..oh yes, because it's all in the mind of these sheep, and only sheep needs a sherperd!

[tbieter]

Mr Wolpert certainly seems angry, but mightn't that be a good thing? Is anger always bad, in your view, Tom, or just when it is "liberal" and "secularist"? No, anger is not always bad. There is righteous anger.

By the way, Cardinal Newman didn't hold a neutral position on the issue of gentlemanly atheists.

Please elaborate.

[tbieter]

The following letter is featured in today’s Minneapolis newspaper. The author typifies today’s angry politicized liberal secularist.

I suspect that's confirmation bias. Do you have any other examples on which you have modelled your profile?

By one standard, the author certainly is no gentleman:

Well, no. If you choose a standard that explicitly excludes the sort of behaviour that Mr Wolpert demonstrates, he is going to struggle. I wonder whether you see the irony, given the title you chose for this thread.
I admire Newman's standard and think that adherence to it in this forum would enhance the discourse here. When I read the article to which Mr. Wolpert reacts I didn't get angry. I did not agree with the doctor's identification of God as the causal agent. Rather, I thought of luck and the American medical science and technology that Americans should be proud of. Mr. Wolpert reacted to the doctor's statement with a resentful political and atheistic interpretation. Given how lethal ebola is, my interpretation was different.

“The headline “God saved my life” (front page, Aug. 22), served to reinforce some of the worst of American Christian theology. I’m sorry the Star Tribune chose to promote this view.

Does the article mention who the lucky doctor blames for giving him Ebola in the first place?

The facts in the case of the American doctor brought back from Africa after he contracted the Ebola virus are clear. Being a white American contributed to his healing far more than God did. The privilege granted him by his skin color and place of birth allowed him to be whisked across the Atlantic on a special chartered plane, allowed him to be given new, rare, experimental drugs, and afforded him the best medical care the world has to offer.

Indeed. The real test of god's efficacy would be to send the doctor back to Africa and see how god copes without medical assistance.

If we buy into his toxic theology, what about the millions of people who are currently trapped in quarantined parts of their country, left to die of starvation or disease? Does God not care about their lives?

That seems to be a perfectly reasonable question; why do you think god chose to save the doctor, but is quite content to let thousands of Africans die a horrible death?

[tbieter]

The following letter is featured in today’s Minneapolis newspaper. The author typifies today’s angry politicized liberal secularist. By one standard, the author certainly is no gentleman:

“The headline “God saved my life” (front page, Aug. 22), served to reinforce some of the worst of American Christian theology. I’m sorry the Star Tribune chose to promote this view.
The facts in the case of the American doctor brought back from Africa after he contracted the Ebola virus are clear. Being a white American contributed to his healing far more than God did. The privilege granted him by his skin color and place of birth allowed him to be whisked across the Atlantic on a special chartered plane, allowed him to be given new, rare, experimental drugs, and afforded him the best medical care the world has to offer.
If we buy into his toxic theology, what about the millions of people who are currently trapped in quarantined parts of their country, left to die of starvation or disease? Does God not care about their lives?
Caring for the sick is wonderful, but it is hubris, and only contributes to our own sense of ourselves as savior, to substitute God for our wealth and privilege.
Daniel Wolpert, Minneapolis
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege

What you never see is a person like Mr. Wolpert voluntarily giving up a benefit that he has as a result of white privilege. You never see the white professor of sociology resigning his faculty position so that a black man or woman can be appointed in his place.

Years ago - (before the resentment based on "white privilege" became radical chic for the left )- I served on the 3 member St. Louis County, Minnesota Civil Service Commission. The other members were a white man representing management and a white woman representing labor.

When my first term was ending and I was up for reappointment, I had a "white privilege type" conversation with an accusing black man, who worked at the university. I was really irritated. I responded by asking if he wanted to serve on the commission. I said that if he did, then I would arrange with the County Board for my resignation and his appointment. I said that if he didn't but could find another person of color to serve, I would do the same. He said he would think about it. He never responded thereafter, or return my phone calls and I was subsequently reappointed for another term.
Complainers often do not really complain in good faith.

John Henry Newman - Definition of a Gentleman
“If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-minded to ridicule religion or to act against it; he is too wise to be a dogmatist or fanatic in his infidelity. He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable, beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent; he honors the ministers of religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or denouncing them. He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also from the gentleness and effeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on civilization.”
http://www.his.com/~z/gentleman.html

Comments are invited.

[uwot]

I admire Newman's standard and think that adherence to it in this forum would enhance the discourse here.

I think conflict has it's place. I imagine American football would be a dull spectacle if all the players thought like Newman.

When I read the article to which Mr. Wolpert reacts I didn't get angry.

I haven't read the article, but what I understand of Mr Wilbert's reaction, is that he is drawing attention to the plight of the less fortunate Africans. I'm not an expert, but that to me seems to be the sort of thing that someone compassion, Christian or otherwise ought to do. In your own self-titled thread, you have taken a particular 'perspective' on the sort of person that Mr Wolpert is, but when I read these words:
"If we buy into his toxic theology, what about the millions of people who are currently trapped in quarantined parts of their country, left to die of starvation or disease? Does God not care about their lives?"
It seems to me that all you can say for certain is that Mr Wolpert takes a dim view of some complacent and ego centric theology, it doesn't follow that he is an atheist.

I did not agree with the doctor's identification of God as the causal agent. Rather, I thought of luck and the American medical science and technology that Americans should be proud of.

So you agree with Mr Wolpert: "Caring for the sick is wonderful,"

Mr. Wolpert reacted to the doctor's statement with a resentful political and atheistic interpretation.

That is how you read it. You may be right, but it is your perspective and bias that draws such a conclusion on such flimsy evidence.

Given how lethal ebola is, my interpretation was different.

Can't see what that has to do with it.

[tbieter]

I admire Newman's standard and think that adherence to it in this forum would enhance the discourse here.

I think conflict has it's place. I imagine American football would be a dull spectacle if all the players thought like Newman.

When I read the article to which Mr. Wolpert reacts I didn't get angry.

I haven't read the article, but what I understand of Mr Wilbert's reaction, is that he is drawing attention to the plight of the less fortunate Africans. I'm not an expert, but that to me seems to be the sort of thing that someone compassion, Christian or otherwise ought to do. In your own self-titled thread, you have taken a particular 'perspective' on the sort of person that Mr Wolpert is, but when I read these words:
"If we buy into his toxic theology, what about the millions of people who are currently trapped in quarantined parts of their country, left to die of starvation or disease? Does God not care about their lives?"
It seems to me that all you can say for certain is that Mr Wolpert takes a dim view of some complacent and ego centric theology, it doesn't follow that he is an atheist.

I did not agree with the doctor's identification of God as the causal agent. Rather, I thought of luck and the American medical science and technology that Americans should be proud of.

So you agree with Mr Wolpert: "Caring for the sick is wonderful,"

Mr. Wolpert reacted to the doctor's statement with a resentful political and atheistic interpretation.

That is how you read it. You may be right, but it is your perspective and bias that draws such a conclusion on such flimsy evidence.

Given how lethal ebola is, my interpretation was different.

Can't see what that has to do with it.

Who is Daniel Wolpert? I googled "Daniel Wolpert + Minneapolis" and I get a Daniel Wolpert in Crookstone, Minnesota. And he appears to be a religious guy, not an atheist!
http://www.micahprays.org/first.htm

In fact, he is a Presbyterian minister.
See http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Daniel-Wolpert/351608011

When I make a mistake its a whooper!

[tbieter]

I admire Newman's standard and think that adherence to it in this forum would enhance the discourse here.

I think conflict has it's place. I imagine American football would be a dull spectacle if all the players thought like Newman.

When I read the article to which Mr. Wolpert reacts I didn't get angry.

I haven't read the article, but what I understand of Mr Wilbert's reaction, is that he is drawing attention to the plight of the less fortunate Africans. I'm not an expert, but that to me seems to be the sort of thing that someone compassion, Christian or otherwise ought to do. In your own self-titled thread, you have taken a particular 'perspective' on the sort of person that Mr Wolpert is, but when I read these words:
"If we buy into his toxic theology, what about the millions of people who are currently trapped in quarantined parts of their country, left to die of starvation or disease? Does God not care about their lives?"
It seems to me that all you can say for certain is that Mr Wolpert takes a dim view of some complacent and ego centric theology, it doesn't follow that he is an atheist.

I did not agree with the doctor's identification of God as the causal agent. Rather, I thought of luck and the American medical science and technology that Americans should be proud of.

So you agree with Mr Wolpert: "Caring for the sick is wonderful,"

Mr. Wolpert reacted to the doctor's statement with a resentful political and atheistic interpretation.

That is how you read it. You may be right, but it is your perspective and bias that draws such a conclusion on such flimsy evidence.

Given how lethal ebola is, my interpretation was different.

Can't see what that has to do with it.

Who is Daniel Wolpert? I googled "Daniel Wolpert + Minneapolis" and I get a Daniel Wolpert in Crookstone, Minnesota. And he appears to be a religious guy, not an atheist!
http://www.micahprays.org/first.htm

In fact, he is a Presbyterian minister.
See http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Daniel-Wolpert/351608011

When I make a mistake its a whooper!

In stating that God saved his life, the physician implicitly refers to the well known theological doctrine of Divine Providence.See
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
Strangely, Rev. Wolpert explicitly rejects the doctrine and attributes the physician's recovery to a political cause, "white privilege." .

I don't reject the doctrine, but the doctrine of Occam's razor guides me to conclude that the physician's recovery more probably resulted from our advanced medical science and technology.

[uwot]

In stating that God saved his life, the physician implicitly refers to the well known theological doctrine of Divine Providence.
Strangely, Rev. Wolpert explicitly rejects the doctrine and attributes the physician's recovery to a political cause, "white privilege."

This is what Mr Wolpert said:
"Being a white American contributed to his healing far more than God did. The privilege granted him by his skin color and place of birth allowed him to be whisked across the Atlantic on a special chartered plane, allowed him to be given new, rare, experimental drugs, and afforded him the best medical care the world has to offer."
To me that doesn't suggest that Mr Wolpert believes that white privilege has any curative properties.

I don't reject the doctrine, but the doctrine of Occam's razor guides me to conclude that the physician's recovery more probably resulted from our advanced medical science and technology.

I think Mr Wolpert would agree that that is what actually cured the doctor.