Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
False
General clinical
Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
Discuss any specialty in this open forum for all healthcare professionals
As a confirmed atheist in the finest traditions of Prof Dan Dennett, Dr Sam Harris, Prof Richard Dawkins and the late and much lamented Christopher Hitchens (The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse) I ne
9
Cat:OpenClinicalForum:GeneralClinical
Cat:OpenClinicalForum:GeneralClinicalDiscussion:2040b305-c790-46f3-be7c-d8382b684c25
Forums » Open clinical » General clinical » Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
|
Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
posted at 8/1/2012 8:44 PM GMT
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 14
First: 4/6/2009 Last: 7/3/2012 |
It is with a slightly heavy heart that I feel compelled to add to this thread. In answer to the question: of course they can: it is an observable fact that they do. I, like most other people on doc2doc, have colleagues who are devout straight up and down evangelical Christians, or very orthodox Muslims, and also clearly follow a very rigid evidence based approach to medicine. The really interesting question is how and why. The question, "can evidence based doctors beleive in God?" is partly an expression of disbeleif in an observable phenomenon, and thus a pointer to an area where a deeper understanding is required. Why should we find this unsuprising? Maybe it is because our view of both religion and/or EBM is flawed? From my perspective they are psychologically very similar - for all that the culture warriors seeking to sweep all religion (or sciences) from the fact of the planet would wish to portray them as opposites. At the risk of offending almost everyone I'd say that both Orthodox Religions and ultra-pure EBM allow the adherent to simplify a complex, mysterious beautiful and doubtful world to a nice neat set of logical parameters and practices. They offer freedom from doubt, and the comfort of following a clearly laid down path. Personally I take a more questioning approach to dogmatic religious ideas and the latest medical dogma whilst gaining a great deal from taking both religion and science very seriously. To understand this you really do need to understand how the drive towards both rational scientism and literal fundamental religious thinking are part of the overall nature of Western civilisation. The best book on this is the very misleadingly titled: "the Case for God" by Karen Armstrong. She makes the point that religious texts and stories were traditionally NOT regarded as LITERALLY TRUE, but as metaphors for spiritual truth, and that this only started to change in the West and in the last 400 years or so. If you want to have a hope of understanding fundamentalism in a calm, coherent and meaningful way you need to read this woman's work. Fundamentalism started very specifically in Western christianity and has since contaminated almost every religion around the world as western culture and economic structures stress peoples around the world to the point where they seek solace in "fundamentals". Like many people I worry that it is now spreading back into science. Spirituality (as distinct from religion) is core to human beings, religions are socially organised structures that take spiritual impulses and create thought and behaviour structures that formalise and control this core instinct. Religions, like all other social structures are amalgams of thoughts, beleifs, behaviours and social relations. They are in themselves no better or worse than the people participating. We delude ourselves if we think of "science" as any more "pure" than "religion". Both are socially constructed and whilst both attempt to overcome and control human frailties they are not immune from these frailties. What is tragic is to see religions and sciences becoming less and less reflective, toleratant, humane and calm as everyone reaches for more and more certainty and gets more and more condemnatory of anyone who doesn't agree with their way of thinking. Doctors should not be taking part in the "culture wars" except where it is necessary to defent patient care. Our role is to serve all who need our help to the best of our abilities. Calm, knowledgeable, humane caring. That is both our scientific and perhaps also, in the most profound sense, spiritual role in society. |
|
|
Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
posted at 8/1/2012 9:00 PM GMT
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 632
First: 9/12/2011 Last: 21/5/2012 |
Andrew Morrice speaks the entire truth on this matter, Spirituality is entirely distinct from Religion or religiousness. In fact, Spirituality, is akin to a deep introspection of ones own character, whereas religion is a Harsh Dogmatic structure, confining and stifling any progress and growth, Well put Mr Morrice.DuaneF |
|
|
Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
posted at 8/1/2012 11:17 PM GMT
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 22
First: 19/3/2010 Last: 10/1/2012 |
I"I never cease to be amazed at the number of highly intelligent, analytical, evidence based inquisitive minds that seem to shed their every faculty (particularly at this time of year) to the dogma and fantasy of religious books". ... It might not sound like it but I do respect every persons right to hold any view they wish (as long as it is kept within) and I am not obliged to 'respect' it. It is in my view a moral imperative. As Dr Sam Harris eloquently puts it: "The problem with faith is that it is really a conversation stopper. Faith is a declaration of immunity to the powers of conversation. It is a reason why you do not have to give reasons for what you believe". Having read extensively the works of Dawkins and Hitchens and actually looked up in detail many of the references they quote I have to congratulate you for writing in a way that suggests you have been indoctrinated completely into their narrow mindset. Their is nothing more tragic than hearing the views of someone else that are nothing more than the wholesale regurgitation of the thoughts of others; their is nothing more precious than an original thinker and nothing more damning than substituting the word's of others for one's own words. Dawkins and Hitchens unfortunately have a philosophy that in essence is as prejudicial as the religious beliefs they claim to be above; this philosophy consists essentially of a) assuming a lofty, arrogant and denigrating position on high from which they like to pontificate their view points which are essentially based on b) the sad history of atrocities committed by the Catholic church particularly but by others professing to be acting from religion , conveniently stating that as so much evil has been committed by those individuals that somehow the faith(s) they follow must be at fault ( a view which if applied universally would pretty much put an end to democracy and capitalism bearing in mind all the atrocities committed by those professing to act to further "freedom" ) and c) insisting that "God", his existence, aims, thought processes etc must me explicable to their own mindset and thoughts, and because He is not he could not possibly exist as nothing more than the ramblings of fools, something that is ludicrous in the extreme when considering the words of Immanual Kant when criticising the Cosmological argument : " it attempts to apply human knowledge and sensory experience to that which is supposed to transcend them". Whilst I laud both individuals for their intellect and success in their respective fields, the kind of sneering, condescening and disrespectul views they hold and extort others to hold is reprehensible, especially as explicit in those views is the idea that religion is all fantasy and those who believe are fantasists which is pure unadulterated disrespect of others . Belief in God or belief in the human spirit, atheism, theism of any other kind of ism is something that is the prerogative of every individual. Their views on the subject(s) are their right to hold, and further they have every right to express those views and to expect others to respect their views and their right to express them. Respecting a view is not the same as believing in it, and you cannot state that you respect the right of others to hold other views but then state in the same vein that you do not respect those beliefs; this is a tautological contradiction in terms. I am afraid I have to inform you that you obliged to "respect" other people's beliefs just as they are obliged not to take any notice of the fatuousness and conditionality of your "respect" i.e. that they can believe in whatever they wish provided they keep it to themselves. I(t is the mark of civilised society that views on religion are respected, not denigrated. The majority of the world's population believe in some kind of religion or God and for militant atheists ( and their followers who at times are as blind to other options as the followers of religion ) to insinuate in their arrogance that this somehow renders them less intelligent or educated quite frankly diminishes and demeans their own position, but furthermore their humanity. I am a theist, but defend the right of everyone to believe in whatever they wish to believe in, and defend the right of atheists to question religious faith and theism as any belief that cannot be questioned is a belief not worth holding. However implicit in that is one quality: RESPECT. This is a medical board for medical discussions and personally, I cannot see any reason for bringing up what are essentially personal beliefs unless you think that somehow they impact on the quality of patient care or the professionalism of our colleagues. If so, state your position and let us all debate the merits of both sets of views as professionals who respect each other and each others' beliefs and opinions. |
|
|
Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
posted at 9/1/2012 12:11 AM GMT
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 22
First: 19/3/2010 Last: 10/1/2012 |
In Response to Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?: I think that a common reason why many atheists are such is that they focus to much on the explicits of a bible or religious text to seriously or extrapolate specific words to a meaning held by science. I have a deep passion for physics (amongst other things) and I would like to briefly address the age of the universe debate that many atheists hold dear to their heart. And again I wish to make this explicit that I believe it is in all our rights to hold our own beliefs so this does not seek to contradict anyone elses beliefs or mentalities. This is just my own. As many religious people know, the bible alongside other texts puts the age of the earth at around 6000-8000 years old depending on which text you want to go by whereas science puts the age of the earth to be more in the region of 4.5billion years old with the universe standing at around 13 billion years old. Now this is the interesting bit that I have come to realise and something which I base my beliefs on. Science defines an earth year to be 365.25 days long or for one orbit or circuit of the sun. BUT what does the bible define a year to be?? To date I have not found an answer to this. There was no way when the bible was being written that they knew that a year was such a definite value of days AND even more exciting when I first realised it, where in the bible or other text does it define a day as being 24hours?? SO, in the beginning when heaven and earth was created in a 'day,' I personally take this as a day being an arbitrary unit of time and NOT the 24hour day that you and I abide to. If someone can find an example which contridicts what I haev just outlined then I welcome it BUT what I hope the above outlines is how I have taken evidence from both sides and been able to actually 'think outside the box' and come to a conclusion that I believe actually makes some sense. I have been a christian all my life and make no apologies in saying it. But I have always had a passion for the logic of science and I believe the above goes someway to allowing me to be able to come terms with ONE of the contradictions and grievences that the two seem to have with each other. So in conclusion. Can evidence based doctors believe in God? Yes I do when you look past the the debate and consider the evidence from both sides differently. Posted by Nathan Cantley In a word: Brilliant.
|
|
|
Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
posted at 9/1/2012 5:35 AM GMT
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 1
First: 9/1/2012 Last: 9/1/2012 |
Hello to all of you and a happy new year! It's sound to have an interest in God, even to negate Him. I agree with people who say that mercy and compassion are the markers of the believer and not hate. In the real world, among plenty of people who devoute their lives in the name of their God, what shocks all of us are the divisions, in past history and in the present time. For "religion" people have also killed other humans. As a christian I am aware of that, but as a doctor my faith helps me to be nearer to the sufferings. My faith is not in contrast with EBM, instead helps me to be a true physician, to stay bedside with all humans, whoever they are. That is the strenght of believing in God in my job. Other people love humans without believing in God? I am sure of that and I wait to work together with them for a better world, even a medical world. Have a nice day (here GMT+1). Antonio
|
|
|
Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
posted at 9/1/2012 7:38 AM GMT
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 5
First: 29/10/2010 Last: 9/1/2012 |
Since I believe in conversation I venture to reply to your rather profound question - Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?First of all, doctors (at least those who treat patients) are primarily experience based. They use evidence based science to learn certain subjects. If doctors use only evidence based facts, not relying on their own experience then they would be more like computers.Even the scope of Evidence based medicine or Evidence based practice is limited as given in the following abstract from Wikipedia: EBM/EBP recognizes that many aspects of health care depend on individual factors such as quality- and value-of-life judgments, which are only partially subject to scientific methods. EBP, however, seeks to clarify those parts of medical practice that are in principle subject to scientific methods and to apply these methods to ensure the best prediction of outcomes in medical treatment, even as debate continues about which outcomes are desirable.So it is erroneous to say that Doctors work is (entirely) evidence based. Regarding belief in God, it is too profound a subject to be debated. But it would be proper to conclude that those people who are carried away by their capacity for logical thinking ignoring their own intuitive capability tend to deny ‘God’. To give a small example: Can the ‘logical’ thinkers tell the value of infinity? Just because its value cannot be known can they deny the concept of ‘infinity’ as nonsense? Intuitively, infinity makes sense. |
|
|
Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
posted at 9/1/2012 9:06 AM GMT
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 1
First: 9/1/2012 Last: 9/1/2012 |
In Response to Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?: I have no time and abilities to convince you regarding the GREATEST FACT and TRUTH regarding the CREATER of the universe and ALL the creatures BUT I can refere you to a person with whom you can have a discussion and ask him any number of questions to satisfy your self and that person is Dr. Zakir Naik, he is a medical doctor and can be contacted at: www.facebook.com/pages/ DrZakir - Naik /15651504506 and at Dr. Zakir Naik President Islamic Research Foundation Zohra Manzil,195/213 SVP Road, Dongri Mumbai 400 009 India +91 2223736875 +91 2223730689 http://www.irf.net In Response to Can evidence based Doctors believe in God? : Posted by Dr. Maqsood Ali this guy has no knowledge on evolution et al just check out this video where he speaks utter nonsense
|
|
|
Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
posted at 9/1/2012 2:22 PM GMT
on bmj.com
|
Posts: 8
First: 20/4/2010 Last: 9/1/2012 |
Never stopps to amaze me that people who call the selves informed, educated or whatever acts if the two english words believe and proof mean the same thing. And furthermore that if you use the word believe it means that you are unfit for a conversations, Coversation stopper. Amazing. Strange forum for academic discussion. Besides I thought that all doctors used evidence as base for their clinical descicionmaking and were therefore "evidence based doctors". Leifur Bardarson |
|
|
Re: Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
posted at 9/1/2012 3:44 PM GMT
on bmj.com
|
|
Posts: 632
First: 9/12/2011 Last: 21/5/2012 |
Not So strange if you understand Ethical behavior, and an attachment to something greater than ourselves. As for me, I always maintain that I am Less than what I should be. I continue to enroll in, Finish and graduate from any number of various Toxicology, CBRNE, Hazmat, Medical, and Biochemistry courses, always reching for more knowledge, Knowing full well, I will never know it all, Yet it is the Reach for, rather the attainment of said Knowledge that keeps me striving for more.DuaneF |
Forums » Open clinical » General clinical » Can evidence based Doctors believe in God?
