life eh!

[JohnW2]

At a guess, I cannot check at the moment, but our local surgery seems to have around 80% female doctors, and 100% female nurses.

I suspect that's fairly typical. My local GP practice is a little different -probably a similar 80% female doctors to yours, but probably the same, or lower, percentage of female nurses, since there are at least a couple of male nurses. They also have a couple of male 'paramedics', who seem to essentially fulfil the role of 'Nurse Practitioners'.

I think my previous comments still partially explain the persisting relative paucity of male nurses, since nurses are paid a lot less than doctors - so, as I suggested, perhaps 'female predominance because of the low pay', rather than 'low pay because of female predominance' ?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

Low pay because female

Made in Dagenham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

I think my previous comments still partially explain the persisting relative paucity of male nurses, since nurses are paid a lot less than doctors - so, as I suggested, perhaps 'female predominance because of the low pay', rather than 'low pay because of female predominance' ?

Plus males tend to be in the workplace, for the longer term too.

 

[JohnW2]

Not in those exact forms, but I understand they are already doing robotic surgery.

Indeed, but the robots are simply doing (maybe 'better' in some cases) the same sort of surgery that a human would do - reallky just 'automation'. That's very different from 'curing cancer by pressing a button on a remote control'

I suppose, like most people, I am finding it more and more difficult to keep up with modern advances, at the rate they come along.

As you say, we're all in that boat. However, as I've said, I think that the advances of the last 50+ years have opened our mind much more to the possibility that future advances may be at an incredibly ('unbelievably'?) fast rate, and may well include things which are essentially 'unthinkable' (and 'unthought of) at present.

The most dramatic rate of advances have, I suppose, been in 'IT' and related microcomputing activities. My very first hard drive (which cost 'a fortune' in terms of early 1980's money) was 5 MB. I've recently installed a 4 TB one (which, in terms of 'real cost' was an awful lot cheaper than my first one) - so rapidly approaching a 1 million-fold increase. Even more dramatic with RAM - my first one was 8 kB, and I now have 32 GB - a 4-million-fold increase. My mind had given ub being 'boggled'!'

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Low pay because female

... OR, as I said, predominately female because low paid.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Plus males tend to be in the workplace, for the longer term too.

Undoubtedly true, but I'm not sure how that impacts on what we are discussing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

... OR, as I said, predominately female because low paid.

I could have added ... I've know a few men who would have liked to become nurses but didn't "because they couldn't afford to". One has even become a doctor - as a 'second (but better paid) choice'..

Kind Regards, John

 

[FrodoOne]

That's an interesting one. One certainly does not need a degre (sic), but one does need to have a very good understanding of theology before one can really get even close to, rationally, be a 'confirmed atheist'.

I have always regarded 'confirmed atheists' as a bit odd, since they really need to have as much 'blind faith' in their view as do those who subscribe to a religion.

Agnosticism would seem (to me) to be the only rational position - since to 'dismiss' something on the basis of there 'not (yet) being any proof' and that it is 'beyond all credibility and common sense' is essentially dangerous - what do you think those around me back in the 50's/60s would have said/though if I had suggested what technological marvels most people would be carrying around in their pockets in the 2020s - I feel sure that most would have dismissed the suggestion as being 'beyond all credibility and common sense'.

Kind Regards, John

However, one can be a Non-Theist - without having "Blind Faith" in any contrary "argument" to "Theism".

Many people can say that "Gravity" and "Evolution" are only theories - while there does not yet seem to be any better "theories" available to both disprove and/or replace them !

(Einstein's "Special Relativity" might be regarded as a "tweak" on Newton's "Classical mechanics".)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please compare and contrast these two extracts from various Dictionaries.

From Oxford Dictionary
Faith:-
a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Delusion:-
a belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder:

From Collins Dictionary
Faith:-
strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
or
unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence

Delusion:-
1. a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc
2. a belief held subjectively in the face of objective evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason

From Merriam-Webster
Faith:-
firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Delusion:-
a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary


I find it difficult to discern much difference in the definitions ascribed to these two words.
Hence, these definitions imply that (blind) Faith is a Delusion and (possibly) a symptom of mental disorder!

Most people have now freed themselves from the "Mental Disorder" of "Faith" in Ra, Kali, Isis, Astarte, Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Bacchus, Mithras etc. etc.- but many have still not given up their last delusion of Allah, Jehovah or God - in spite of no "supporting evidence".

The basic "tenet" of advertising is to
"Create a Fear" - which you may not know that you needed to have
and then
show you the "way out" of this "predicament".

You may be interested to compare the processes of Advertising with Religion in regard to this.

 

[JohnD]

Many people can say that "Gravity" and "Evolution" are only theories -

Many people don't know what the technical term "theory" means.

 

[JohnW2]

However, one can be a Non-Theist - without having "Blind Faith" in any contrary "argument" to "Theism".

That depends on what you mean, There are obviously countless people who do not believe in the existence of any 'god' - so to call them "Non-Theists" would merely be a statement of fact. However, if they claimed to be 'absolutely certain' that no 'gods' existed, then that would again require 'blind faith' - since this is one of those many fields in which 'proving a negative' is next-to-impossible - i.e. "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

... which takes me back to my view that "agnosticism" is the most rational position - something along the lines of "I do not currently believe in the 'existence of any 'god' but cannot be absolutely certain that no such thing exists" [but, crucially, see comments below about the meaning of 'a god']

Many people can say that "Gravity" and "Evolution" are only theories - while there does not yet seem to be any better "theories" available to both disprove and/or replace them !

That's true of many disciplines that we think of as 'scientific', but is really down to matters of detail. In some cases, it's merely semantics. There can't be many people who do not believe that if an apple becomes detached from a tree, it will inevitably fall to the ground. Something clearly causing that to happen, whether one calls it 'gravity' or anything else. The question of what is causing that 'something' to exist/happen (and 'where it came from' are the 'matters of detail' which, since we don't have 'infinite knowledge', can only really be 'theories'.

Similarly with 'evolution'. I would say that there is overwhelming evidence that the complexity and diversity of forms of life has increased progressively over (very long periods of) time, so I would imagine that most thinking people probably 'believe that'. However, how that has come about is, again, a matter of 'theories', and it's very unlikely that any of our current theories are 'totally correct'.

As I've hinted above, and said before, for this discussion to be sensible, I think it's necessary to considerably widen or view about gods/religions. Most people thing only of 'formalised religions', and their 'teachings' and of white-bearded human-like entities etc.- but that is far too narrow, and essentially naïve. There is an awful lot about what happens in the universe (and 'why?'), including what happens in human beings ('consciousness', 'self', emotions, behaviour etc.) that is currently totally beyond our understanding (even beyond many 'science-based theories') and which we therefore currently would probably describe as 'supernatural'.

However, the alternative at the other end of the spectrum is probably just as "beyond all credibility' (in terms of current knowledge), relating to a totally 'deterministic' universe. In other words, from the day that sub-atomic particles first appeared (and even that begs the questions "why?" and "where from?"), billions of years ago, the initial state and position of those particles dictated everything that would subsequently happen in the universe - including what you and I would be thinking, writing and doing at a certain point in time on (what we call) 29th July 2023 (probably 30th for you ). To me, with my current level of knowledge, that seems just as 'beyond credibility' as does the notion that some 'supernatural' (i.e. ;'not currently understood) factors are at play - do you not agree?

It gets even more difficult/confusing in the areas where Physics and Philosophy tend to converge. We intuitively think we understand the concept of time, particularly 'the passage of time', but that view is certainly challenged by some theories - and if it were the case that "all points in time exist 'concurrently' (whatever 'concurrently' would mean in that situation!)", then our minds (at least mine) get boggled so much that rational thought and discussion become impossible!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Many people don't know what the technical term "theory" means.

Maybe because many people use the word as part of 'everyday English', rather than as a 'technical term'. ?

However, having said that, I would think that most people probably use the word in a sense which is close to the dictionary ('technical'?) meanings - along the lines of "a plausible (but not 'proven') argument/attempt to explain something (in terms of current knowledge)"

I think some dictionaries define/defined it as "the best currently available explanation ....",which I think is/was wrong, since it precludes the possibility of their being two or more 'plausible' theories about something (which quite often happens, due to our imperfect/incomplete knowledge).

Kind Regards, John

 

[opps]

what can one do as an atheist with a degree in theology

I know/knew an atheist that is doing his PhD.

I know other people with masters in theology that are atheists.

None of them have jobs directly related to their degree.

I initially started studying economics at university but switched to economics and geography. I have been decorating since I left uni.

I was lucky that when I was at uni, the loans I took out were maintenance loans, we didn't have to pay tuition fees at the time. My loans topped up the frozen maintenance grants.

I am glad that I went to what at the time was a poly and became a university following the 1991 white paper. All first year students spent their first semester learning how to "learn". We read the likes of Plato (read: Socrates), Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations), Marx (Das Capital), Machiavelli (The Prince).

University expanded my ability to question things and research things independently/thoroughly (this was pre-internet). The geography side of my degree particularly helped. Essays were marked, not just on the factual content, but also on the style of writing. Regrettably, we now live in a world where some people think that getting their news from their social media bubbles counts as independent research.

I do not believe that I am "better" than people that didn't go to university. I recently had a customer tell me that I am one of the most "intelligent" people that they have met (not sure how you quantify that, but anywho) I was quick to respond that they are the one living in a £2m home and have a happy and stable home life.

 

[opps]

Agnosticism would seem (to me) to be the only rational position - since to 'dismiss' something on the basis of there 'not (yet) being any proof' and that it is 'beyond all credibility and common sense' is essentially dangerous

What is rational about saying that you are never going to dismiss anything ever?

Are you suggesting that pastafarianism may indeed be true and that the world was created by the flying spaghetti monster?

There are a gazillion religions. Can they all (potentially) be truthful? Seems unlikely given that they differ so much.

I used to call myself agnostic, in part because I didn't want to be accused of being close minded, then I realised that those people that called me close minded were people that blindly believed in a god because someone else told them to. That is to say, they were believers even though there has been no evidence to back up their beliefs for in excess of 2000 years.

And whilst we are at it... whilst not intentionally picking on Christians exclusively... the Bible has undergone several edits. Possibly, the most outrageous being in 1946. Biblica released the RSV version in the USA. Passages such as "man shall not lay with young boys as he would a woman" were changed to "man shall not lay with man".

Has “Homosexual” always been in the Bible? — forge

The word arsenokoitai shows up in two different verses in the Bible, but it was not translated to mean homosexual until 1946. We got to sit down with Ed Oxford at his home in Long Beach, California and talk about this question. You have been part of a research team that is seeking to under

www.forgeonline.org

Evangelical Americans paid to alienate 10%(?) of the population because they are bigots. Not content with poisoning the minds of Americans, in 1983 they edited the German Bible.

The author of the article in my link (Ed Oxford), compared the new version with the facsimile of Martin Luther's bible, all references to child molestation were edited to condemn love between consenting male adults.

And seriously... Noah was over 600 years old, dinosaurs never existed? I could go on, and on, and on.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to believe something, that is their choice, but I reserve my right to question their position whilst they simultaneously question mine.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As I've hinted above, and said before, for this discussion to be sensible, I think it's necessary to considerably widen or view about gods/religions.

Why?

Most people thing only of 'formalised religions', and their 'teachings' and of white-bearded human-like entities etc.-

Exactly.

As that is what most people think of as god, then surely it is quite valid to argue that such a thing is fanciful and does not exist; is it not?

but that is far too narrow, and essentially naïve. There is an awful lot about what happens in the universe (and 'why?'), including what happens in human beings ('consciousness', 'self', emotions, behaviour etc.) that is currently totally beyond our understanding (even beyond many 'science-based theories') and which we therefore currently would probably describe as 'supernatural'.

Should that not also apply when disputing the existence of Father Christmas?

They do look rather similar.

 

[opps]

Should that not also apply when disputing the existence of Father Christmas?

You have reminded me of the time that Trump asked a small kid if they still believe in Santa (during that sickly thing that US presidents do during the US "tracking" of santa's sleigh).