How religion and science coexist in medicine and modern society

¶ … Religion and Science

Science & Religion an Introduction

Science and religion, though seemingly in constant conflict and contradiction of one another still tend to coexist in the modern world with only limited conflicts. Most people, including the majority of scientists themselves report some belief in a higher power and many in the U.S. purport that this higher power is a Christian God. "Of course, the great scientists of the scientific revolution were not atheists, and many scientists today believe in God." (Nord, 1999, p. 28) In one relatively well-known book one scientists even claims that the ability and in fact benefit of believing in a higher power, i.e. A God is hard wired into our brains, though the work is highly contested and not very science based it is an interesting hypothesis that may hold more water in the future, (Hamer, 2005) as science and particularly medical science begin to look more closely at this issue. (Koenig, 2008, p. 4) Additionally, some on the science side profess that proof of "a god gene" supports science over faith, while detractors emphasize the shortcomings of the theory and again stress that God created man and therefore if such "gene" exists it is because God put it there.

It is then fair to say that despite the inherent conflict between science and religion, in most cases, among individuals they coexist, with some believing that science and/or religion plays more or less of a part in existence and nature. Though there are some who purport that science and religion are incongruent and side either with science or with religion, this is generally the exception. To some degree science is divorced from spirituality; "…modern science assumes that God is irrelevant to understanding nature, for scientific method prohibits appeals to miracles, divine purposes, religious experience, or scripture." (Nord, 1999, p. 28) While we must make clear that even hard core scientists still often report a belief in divine, they simply assume that "faith" issues cannot be tested with science and that to some degree there is no need to, as "faith" itself defined is the description given to a belief in something that cannot be seen or more importantly proven and that one simply believes.

Religion & the Science of Medicine / The General Rule of Moderation

Religion and the science of medicine, among most also hold a relatively constant coexistence, with only limited interference. There is a current movement in the mainstream to link religion with health, as it has been shown repeatedly that the state of one's mind and beliefs do influence health and healing, most believers assume a marginal involvement and support prayer and religious intervention as secondary, though important to medical care. Many people, doctors, scientists and the general public believe that faith has a great deal to do with physical and mental health and modern medicine is increasingly interested in these connections, though much is still preliminary and in discussion. (Koenig, 2008, p. 4) In fact a great deal of medical science is supported and provided by religious institutions and most by people who have belief in God. Yet, some individuals and churches hold strong convictions regarding medical care, claiming that all illness and injury is caused by sin and that faith and prayer will elicit appropriate intervention from God, if it is warranted. For an adult to claim and live by this tenet is his or her right, all adults have the right to refuse medical care when and if it is needed.

The problem arises when adults with dependant children make the choice to completely refuse modern medical care for children, in the name of faith. (Peters, 2008) It is in fact at this point for many that there is a complete rift between science and religion, as most contest that some very basic care and all emergent care should be provided to children, so they may fully develop and come of age to make a decision on their own about the part that faith will play in their medical care. Modern medical science has provided many foundational interventions for treatable and even preventable disease that are often even relatively minor. Most of us take our children to the doctor for immunizations and in fact cannot enroll our children in school without them, that is without legally opting out for the sake of faith. Most of us would take or child to the doctor if he or she was bleeding uncontrollably was stung by many bees or was losing weight at an extreme rate, incongruent with his or her intake. Most of us even take our children to the doctor for routine medical exams when the child is not even sick, called well children visits that begin as soon as they are born, as a way to provide early detection of any needed health or wellness intervention. "Now when we are sick. We see our doctor and ask our pastor to pray for us." (Barnes and Sered, 2005, p. 450)

Discussion

The trend toward changing laws to counteract the extreme that are seen when children are denied medical care as a result of faith is slow and frequently, as has been noted supported by constitutional, state and federal laws. There are exceptions, where legal ramifications are employed and individuals are held to account for their inaction. For most people, including myself the idea that faith is the only solution to medical concerns, and especially emergent ones is unfathomable. Medical care is congruent with faith, as even for the most ardent believer in God if God had not meant for children to be cured of preventable a treatable disease he would not have developed treatments to do so. For the broader population this is a reasonable tenet and most people report taking themselves and their children to a doctor or hospital when they feel it is necessary. It is also clear that modern people are even more involved in their own wellness and may even be able to treat some injuries and illnesses at home, without medical intervention. Furthermore most know when they need to seek care for themselves and are more aggressive when it comes to children. To be honest, some laws need to be changed with regard to religious observance of denial of medical care to children as children are vulnerable, with limited or no voice of their own and without the discerning skills of adults to make decisions regarding their own welfare. Additionally, as Swan stresses educating people of medical denying faiths of the nature of preventable and treatable childhood disease is also an essential needed social concern. If any of these children had been members of my family, I would abhor the parents to seek intervention, having lost a member of my family to a treatable disease many years ago, though this was an adult capable of making her own decisions about refusal of care, the wounds are still deeply felt and social concern is warranted. To aid in bridging this gap coalition and debate need to come to the forefront of faith and medical practices and community members need to be more proactive in intervening when it is known that nothing is being done for a child, as a result of religious fervor.