|
In a way doctors
are the new priests, because so many people do not belong
to an organized religion or have a spiritual leader
that they go to on regular bases. The only "well
being sort of person" they may see is their doctor,
or maybe their dentist or psychiatrist. The only person
that fulfills that listening role, the role of confidante-because
there you have confidentiality, is the physician or
psychiatrist. They assume that role in a world where
the role of the religion is disappearing. Do dentists
count as confidantes? I mean you cannot really talk
because your mouth is pried open .It is funny, because
so much of the doctor's role is based on the physical,
and I have to wonder if our whole idea of spirituality
is disappearing at the same time We cannot take care
of our souls, so we try and take care of our bodies.
Instead of having shamans, we now have personal trainers.
If we do not ever die, then we don't have to worry about
heaven or hell, sort of whole redirection from the spiritual
to the physical. It seems apt that doctors, and pharmacists
would become the new priests. Look what we have got
now, we are over-medicated. People who took drugs first
with a recreational purpose have now moved on to taking
drugs for coping, for therapy devices. It became so
acceptable to take a pill first for having fun, and
for feeling better, and then just for getting through
the day. On the one hand, I feel like we have socialized
ourselves to accept this. On the other hand, I think
the quality of our lives- in terms of environment, human
interactions, the pace of life, have become so unbearable
that we have to jump-start evolution by medicating our
selves to keep up with the world that we are living
in now.
Usually spirituality
and religiosity are used as interchangeable terms,
but the underlying concepts are different. It is well
established to divide religiosity into 3 sub-constructs:
intrinsic, extrinsic, and quasi religiosity(1-4),
while the construct spirituality was divided into
the following sub-constructs: cognitive orientation
towards spirituality, experiential-phenomenological
dimension of spirituality, existential well-being,
paranormal beliefs, and religiousness(5).
Intrinsic religiosity identifies religion as an end
in itself. Strong personal convictions, beliefs, and
values are what matter, while the social aspects of
motifs of religion are not important. In contrasts
the motifs of extrinsic religiosity are based on social
or external values or beliefs; religion is used to
gain social standing or endorsement(1-4).
Spirituality can be viewed as opposite to religion,
or as a vital aspect of religiosity. 7 aspects of
spirituality have been recently differentiated, which
entail more personal , more individualistic views,
namely, "prayer, trust in God and shelter",
"insight, awareness and wisdom" ,"transcendence
conviction", "compassion, generosity, and
patience", "conscious interactions, "gratitude,
reverence and respect", and "equanimity"(6).
There is an outstanding
difference between spirituality and religiosity convictions
between Muslims and Western Europe, while differentiation
is inappropriate for Muslims; it is of conceptual
importance for others. This is in congruence with
the observation that in Islam "there is no distinction
between religion and spirituality". For a Muslim,
"Allah's unity must be maintained spiritually,
intellectually, and practically in all facets of life",
and thus illness is regarded as part of life and a
test from Allah. Moreover, "illness is one of
the forms of experience by which humans arrive at
knowledge of Allah" as cited by Rassool. However,
in Western Europe the Reconnaissance has significantly
affected the trust in institutional religion and God,
changed ethical norms, and thus, we have to notice
a decline of interest in religiosity and even praying.
While the relation to Allah is vital in Arabic countries,
we have to notice the disturbance of this vertical
connection in Western countries.
For Muslim patients
the "spiritual causes" of disease may be
regarded much more as "given by Allah"(namely,
Albaqarah 2:155-156): "We
will most certainly try you with somewhat of fear
and hunger and loss of property and lives and fruits;
and give good news to the patient. Who, when a misfortune
befalls them, say: Surely we are Allah's and to Him
we shall surely return.";
Sahih Bukhari Book71,No.665:Narrated Abu Huraira:
"The prophet said, 'No' Adha (namely, no contagious
disease conveyed to others without Allah's permission);
nor (any evil omen in the month of ) Safar: nor Hama.
[restless wandering ghost]." and a matter of
less faith and trust (namely; Sahih Bukhari Book71,630):
"Narrated 'Aisha (the wife of the prophet ) that
she asked Allah's Apostle about plague, and Allah's
Apostle informed her saying," plague was a punishment
which Allah used to send on whom He wished, but Allah
made it a blessing for the believers." Or as
a trial (namely, Al-Hagg 22; 53): "So
that He may make what the Shaitan casts a trial for
those in whose hearts is diseases and those whose
hearts are hard".
However most of the Western Europe patients would
reject this point of view. The significant differences
in the spirituality and religiosity convictions and
attitudes of Arabic and Western Europe people can
be explained of course with cultural differences,
but also with distinct religious perspectives. Faith
in Allah (Shahadah) and regular worship (salat) are
2 of the 5 major concepts of the Islamic faith and
Muslims will cling to them. Both concepts are highly
relevant for Christian too, but due to the changing
of social and religious structure of Western society,
you may state that you have no interest in religiosity
at all, or may set up an individual 'religious patchwork',
using various existing esoteric and religious resources,
to provide meaning, sense and hope, and there is no
social disqualification(7).
The big question is,
can research on the effects of religion and spirituality
on health validate God through scientific methods?
Hemple, in his Philosophy of natural Science, has
outlined basic criteria for scientific explanations.
He describes explanations of phenomena that provide
psychologically or spiritually valid answers (including
God's will, power, or plan) as inadequate for the
purpose of science. Their inadequacy derives from
their failure to meet 2 essential scientific criteria:
explanatory relevance and testability. Explanatory
relevance refers to the requirement that an explanation
for a phenomenon must constitute grounds for expecting
a given result under a given set of conditions. When
we offer that a rainbow will appear any time light
from behind an observer is refracted through water
droplets in front of the observer, the explanation
has relevance to the phenomenon being observed. That
is, even without having seen a rainbow, the explanation
allows us to expect that under the conditions specified,
one will appear. (This criterion is similar to that
of "prediction" as opposed by Lambert and
Brittan, who state that for an explanation to be adequate
in science, it must indicate "why, given certain
antecedent conditions, the event to be explained could
have been expected to occur). Alternatively if we
offer that rainbows are the bridge that souls cross
to the after life , our explanation- now and forever,
has no link to the observed phenomenon and allows
us no conditions under which to expect or predict
the rainbows occurrence (which of course only matters
with respect to science and not with respect to spirituality,
literature, culture, personal meaning ,etc)(8).
The second requirement is testability, or that a given
explanation must be empirically testable, in principle
if not in reality.
That is, a scientific
hypothesis must have certain "test implications",
such that empirical findings can either support it
or contradict it. The fact that you can create a research
design for a given hypothesis does not ipso facto
make the hypothesis scientific. Hempel offers the
example of entelechies or "vital forces"
as explanation for the "organic directiveness"
that occurs in embryonic development. Experiments
that demonstrate repair of embryonic damage can and
have been done. Yet a hypothesis that this process
is a function of entelechies would be neither supported
nor contradicted by the experimental results because
the entelechial explanation cannot make differential
predictions regarding when these forces will manifest
and in what manner they do their directing. The vital
force is just "there" .Hempel calls such
hypothesis "pseudo-hypothesis" (with respect
to science, but not with respect to their intuitive,
spiritual, or psychological validity)(8).
Attempts to impose statistical order on such is absurd.
With respect to God's intercession in the world, it
is clear from many religious traditions that God is
not bound by natural laws or probabilities. Rabbi
Luzzatto(9) makes this clear in his explication
of God's working in the world, including miracles,
from a Jewish perspective:
The spiritual consists
of all entities which are not physical and which can
not be detected by physical means [1:5:1]. Every physical
entity and process is under the charge of some type
of Angel. These angels have the responsibility of
maintaining each of them, as well as bringing about
changes within them according to God's decree[1:5;2]….When
he wills, God can change the order of creation at
any time. He can bring about various miracles and
wonders, as He desires and deems beneficial for creation,
according to the time and circumstances {11:5:6}….The
highest wisdom decreed …that these Forces [Kochos,
a type of transcendental being] should be able to
act upon the physical world in another manner…that
conforms to their own innate laws, rather than the
physical laws of nature. .It is through this mode
of action that the normal laws of nature can be suspended
and altered on the physical plane [III; 2:21][Italics
ours].
In chapter 17 of the
Book of Exodus (KJV), Moses must confront one of many
potential rebellions by the Israelites, this one prompted
by a lack of water. After smiting the rock and producing
the water, Moses names the place Massah, the Hebrew
word for "trial". "Verse 7 tells the
story" And he called the name of the place Massah
because they [the Israelites] tempted the Lord, saying,
"is the Lord among us, or not?" Later, in
the Book of Deuteronomy where many of the Jewish laws
are explicated, this event carries enough weight to
warrant its own command: "Ye shall not tempt
Lord your God, as ye tempted him in Massah" (6:16,
KJV). And much later, when Yushua is having his visions
in the wilderness and wonders whether God's angels
would actually bear him up in their hands if he leaped
from a pinnacle of the temple, he chastises his beguiler
with these words: "It is said, Thou shalt not
tempt the Lord thy God" (Luke 4;12,kJV). The
lesson of Massah is that God cannot be compelled by
our research designs, statistics, and hypothesis to
our demands "Is the Lord among us or not?"
Massah makes it clear that our intercessions must
be a matter of faith and trust in God, of putting
our hope in God, of knowing that we are part of God
no matter what the outcome in our experience of the
physical world.
Massah tell us not only that
God should not be tested, but more important, that
God cannot be tested(10-11). As Sloan and
Bagiella have a written, mixing experimental method
with faith degrades both concepts. We do not need
science to validate our spiritual beliefs, as we would
never use faith to validate our scientific data(12).
|
