Science, Quackery, and Faith

The last month, and especially the last two weeks have been none stop insanity. On trauma, there are two chiefs, and we split the call time. Therefore I am on call for twelve hours, switch out with the other trauma chief for twelve hours, dash home and try to catch some sleep and perform the necessary tasks of being a human. Inevitably, though, some major disaster of a trauma patient rolls in about 30 minutes before change-over time. Your twelve hours off turns into ten as you sew up seemingly endless lacerations or trundle someone off to the OR for a splenectomy or something.

In about a week, I have a scientific paper to present at the Southeastern Surgical Congress in Savannah, Georgia. The time off to attend the meeting will be a welcome break. However, I continue to cram to prepare for my presentation. I think that it will go Ok, but I have to be prepared for it.

Scientific knowledge is an interesting thing. It is like a giant pyramid. What one person discovers is entirely dependent on what so many other people have discovered before you. In turn, what you discover lays the groundwork for the discoveries of other people. Eventually your work becomes obsolete as the people who follow you build on what you have done. The fund of knowledge that we have built up as a society is a tremendous legacy for the future. However, what we know is so miniscule in comparison to what remains to be discovered that it makes the collective knowledge accumlated by science look like idiocy. In the end, God's ways are and always will be so much higher than anything we can ever hope to know or achieve.

Therein lies the error of modern science. It assumes that we can know and explain everything. Christians know otherwise. However, the arrogance of secular science is not as disturbing to me as the attitude of many Christians towards science. Based on the conflict between modern science and the Bible about origins, many Christians condemn science in its entirety. Any scientific finding that is in conflict with their world view is dismissed based solely on the faith that their world view cannot be wrong. While the strength of such faith is to be admired, it remains irrational. It has at its heart the existential "leap of faith" championed by one of my favorite authors, Kierkegaard.

What is missing in most cases, is the rational basis for the leap of faith that has been taken. Not being able to explain why their worldview is correct other than the fact that they believe it makes them no different than fervent believers in other faiths such as secularism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. While they are lucky enough to have been born into and to have inherited what I believe to be the only correct worldview (ie Christianity), they would probably have blindly embraced whatever philosophy had been spoonfed to them at whatever impressionable moment of our life beliefs are formed.

This irrationalism leads to a rejection of science as a whole. In my opinion, this is why many Mennonites and Amish people are so susceptible to medical quackery. Truth is established by testimony, not by science. Therefore when James Miller (I do not know anyone named James Miller, although I apologize in advance to any James Miller's that I should know whom I'm forgetting now that I do know) tells Ida Yoder (Also don't know anyone by this name) that his mother's, uncle's, nephew was cured of cancer by a snake oil peddling quack, it is accepted as truth. That is how people of faith establish truth--by testimony.

Being a doctor means that friends and acquintances feel obligated to tell you about their medical woes and experiences with the health care system. When I was a medical student, I was never quite sure how to react to people who wanted (?) my opinion about whatever alternative medical therapy they were pursuing. Intially I smiled, nodded, and politely avoided conflict when John or Jane Miller (the Menno version of Doe) asked what I thought of chiropractors, not getting children vaccinated, chelation therapy, etc. However, I eventually decided that my politely smiling, nodding avoidance of conflict could be interepreted as tacit approval and belief in whatever form of medical quackery was being described. I therefore changed my approach to being more honest in my lack of confidence in those therapies being much more than placebo.

Since then, I think that I have lost a friendship or two over the matter. When you don't believe that the modern medical system is a giant conspiracy designed to take over the world, you become a part of the conspiracy and are therefore evil. However, I would rather be seen in that light than feel at all responsible for the health consequences someone suffers for not accepting the appropriate role of science in our lives.

I suppose that I ought to make a little disclaimer at this point, as I've said enough inflammatory type things here to be hung and quartered by both the Christian and non-Christian readers of my blog. To my non-Christian friends, you already know my worldview. I already know that we don't share that. I still like you and can disagree with you while accepting you as a person.
To those who can't miss their chiropractor appointment... I don't entirely reject the utility of chiropractors. However, their role should be limited to treating the spine. When they venture into attempts at treating cancer or other things by one of their kooky methods, that is when they turn into quacks.