From: vbv@lor.eeap.cwru.edu (Virgilio (Dean) B. Velasco Jr.)
Subject: Re: The arrogance of Christians
Organization: Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 28

In article <Apr.22.00.56.15.1993.2073@geneva.rutgers.edu> hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:

>A similar analogy might be a medical doctor who believes that a blood 
>transfusion is necessary to save the life of a child whose parents are 
>Jehovah's Witnesses and so have conscientious objections to blood 
>transfusion. The doctor's efforts to persuade them to agree to a blood 
>transfusion could be perceived to be arrogant in precisely the same way as 
>Christians could be perceived to be arrogant.

>The truth or otherwise of the belief that a blood transfusion is necessary 
>to save the life of the child is irrelevant here. What matters is that the 
>doctor BELIEVES it to be true, and could be seen to be trying to foce his 
>beliefs on the parents, and this could well be perceived as arrogance.

Let me carry that a step further.  Most doctors would not claim to be 
infallible.  Indeed, they would generally admit that they could conceivably
be wrong, e.g. that in this case, a blood tranfusion might not turn out to 
be necessary after all.  However, the doctors would have enough confidence
and conviction to claim, out of genuine concern, that is IS necessary.  As
fallible human beings, they must acknowledge the possibility that they are
wrong.  However, they would also say that such doubts are not reasonable,
and stand by their convictions.

-- 
Virgilio "Dean" Velasco Jr, Department of Electrical Eng'g and Applied Physics 
	 CWRU graduate student, roboticist-in-training and Q wannabee
    "Bullwinkle, that man's intimidating a referee!"   |    My boss is a 
   "Not very well.  He doesn't look like one at all!"  |  Jewish carpenter.
