Challenges Posed by a Scientific Approach to Spiritual Issues

Challenges Posed by a Scientific Approach to Spiritual Issues

To the Editor:

I read with interest the article "Challenges Posed by a Scientific Approach to Spiritual Issues" in the 3/02/2002 issue of the Journal of Family Practice. I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what the author wrote.

However, this agreement may be more superficial than real; it's difficult to tell. The author mentions "spirituality" and asks if it is "a tool for prolonging life, or is it something broader, such as a source of life purpose". Put thusly, it sounds as if "spirituality" is something that is always positive, always good, always beneficial.

But this is a myth. If we acknowledge that morality is a real category of behavior, such that an action may be moral (e.g., saving a child's life) or immoral (e.g., torturing a child to death for fun), then it follows that there may be spiritual influences for good, and spiritual influences for evil. We should be aware that there is content to spirituality, and that it is incumbent upon us to choose the Source of spirituality that is good, and not just blithely follow any "spiritual" path. All roads do not lead to God, or at least, all roads do not lead to God's mercy; all except One lead to His wrath.

It is also a myth that "Science and religion share the view that each person has value and dignity." First of all, there is no "Science" as a monolithic entity that can hold a view. Individual scientists may hold such a view; others do not. Science is commonly mischaracterized these days as what amounts to a philosophically naturalistic enterprise. As such, it would be illogical for "Science" to acknowledge any dignity or value for each person, since dignity and value are spiritual ideals, not material entities.

Some religions also do not support such a view. Marxism as a religion deifying the state practically expressly denies any dignity or value for an individual person. Individual Buddhists might claim to uphold the dignity and value of individual persons, but this is hard to square with Buddhist ideas such as "all is one". This would mean that there is no real difference between one person and another, one person and the nearest rock, or even between good and evil.

It is fashionable these days to touch superficially upon ?spirituality? issues in medicine. In fact, when done properly, medicine is always deeply spiritual, because the physician has a God-given duty to promote his patient's welfare, even at cost to himself. Failure to recognize this fact has led the profession to the sorry state it is in now, where it is considered acceptable practice to kill an unborn child at the request of his mother, to provide the means for suicide on demand, to prescribe Viagra to be used outside of wedlock--the list goes on. All too soon we will find ourselves doing as the Dutch do, killing elderly patients even without their consent, and doing as Dr Peter Singer (PhD professor of bioethics at Princeton) advises, killing disabled newborns at birth or on demand of their parents. Why not? After all, we wouldn't want to impose our morality on anyone, would we? And it all depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

Ah, relativism...feet firmly planted in midair!

Sincerely,

Jeremy Klein, M.D., F.A.A.F.P.
Louisa, KY