Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?
Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.
Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.
Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins
The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.
I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.
They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.
I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.
Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion
So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.
Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?
Weak.
No response?
I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …
Did that not accurately capture points from his book?
Which part was inaccurate?
I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.
Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.
Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.
Ian Barbour’s 4 models of the interaction between religion and science:
* Conflict: Science and religion are in conflict. This view assumes that either science or religion is true while the other is necessarily false, and thus the perspectives of each will be in conflict.
* Independence: Both science and religion can be true, but in different domains. This view assumes that science and religion focus on different things, so as long as each keeps to its own domain, it can yield truth in that domain (Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria would be an example of this view).
* Dialogue: Science and religion can be conversation partners, as they both contain truth about many things. This view doesn’t assume that science and religion are the same, but that there is enough overlap in what they focus on to mutually inform one another about truths.
* Integration: The truths of science and religion can be integrated into a larger whole. This view assumes that the best way to understand the world is through an integration of science and religion, because they are complementary modes of knowing the truth about reality.
Conflict: Perhaps only in conflict with fundamentalist beliefs. Are there many fundamentalist scientists?
Independence: This was my point earlier about compartmentalizing and using religion to fill the diminishing gaps in our scientific understanding.
Dialogue: Different perspectives could be useful, but probably not possible unless the groups can agree on those "truths".
Integration: This seems like an internal debate for scientists to rationalize their religious beliefs. Science gains nothing here. And, even more deeply, agreeing on "truths" would be a big barrier.
So, to me, "independence" is the most realistic mindset for a scientist to reconcile their religious beliefs.
And that sentiment is supported by Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”
Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria was not widely accepted by scientists, (with the exception of Francis Collins). It was seen mainly as an attempt to appease religionists and was essentially a stance of "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries". So, while scientists agreed that the "realms" should be separate, as a group, they did not think of religion as being on a par with science.
Scientists, irrespective of their own religious views (e.g., Francis Collins), don't let religion figure into their scientific work.
I would agree but that does not mean they are in conflict - and clearly they are not for many excellent scientists -
Agree on Gould’s overlapping magesteria being problematic.
S and R definitely are very different but that does not mean they cannot have meaningful dialogue and cooperation in important areas .
There are many ethical issues involved in the way science is implemented. consensus building requires dialogue ,
There is no need for good science to cooperate with religion. Yes there are ethical issues in science and they are dealt with ethically, without religion.
Religion needn't cooperate with science either, but religion should butt out, as two respected scientists have said - Francis Collins and Stephen Gould
Well I know many good scientists who disagree with you .
The dialogue model advocated by Barbour does not rely on overlapping jurisdictions but on value of open dialogue with differing perspectives on truth and reality.
Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of humanity is highly influenced by religion, including the US.
It is far better for reasonable and respectful dialogue on moral issues rather than dogmatic rejection of different perspectives.
DP
An MD friend told me about an excellent surgeon who always prays with his patients before surgery.
Would you give him permission for prayer if he was your surgeon?
Is the surgeon’s performance affected by prayer?
That’s scary.
I will be speculating but if he is doing it must be in a positive way.
But if he doesn’t pray then what happens?
I would assume it might be his way of focusing and going into the zone, like some great athletes have their ritual.
What happened if they don’t do it? it is hard to answer.
Many doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical providers are religious but most do not offer to pray withh their patients. In my experience, when they do, it is usually done with sensitivity and respect for no.
Many medical service practitioners (myself included) have seen patients experience miracles that defy scientific explanations. That does not mean they reject rigorous scientific approaches to medicine in any way.
You really believe that they experienced "miracles"?
What is your educational background?
Not necessarily miracles in the popular dramatic sense but medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms. Medical practitioners are more likely than the average population to identify as religious. This suggests that their faith motivates them to help others (I have met and worked with many doctors and nurses whose faith values to love and serve attracted them into medical work). Heaven knows it is extremely difficult for many medics to practice their professions in the US where insurance companies continually undermine medical decisions.
Religious and Spiritual Beliefs of Physicians Kristin A Robinson et al. J Relig Health. 2017 Feb.
What percentage of doctors are religious?
The majority of physicians believe in God (65.2 %), and 51.2 % reported themselves as religious, 24.8 % spiritual, 12.4 % agnostic, and 11.6 % atheist. This self-designation was largely independent of specialty except for psychiatrists, who were more likely report agnosticism (P = 0.003).
Abstract
The aim of this study is to describe religious and spiritual beliefs of physicians and examine their influence on the decision to pursue medicine and daily medical practice. An anonymous survey was e-mailed to physicians at a large, multidisciplinary tertiary referral center with satellite clinics. Data were collected from January 2014 through February 2014. There were 2097 respondents (69.1 % men), and number of practicing years ranged from ≤1 to ≥30. Primary care physicians or medical specialists represented 74.1 %, 23.6 % were in surgical specialties, and 2.3 % were psychiatrists. The majority of physicians believe in God (65.2 %), and 51.2 % reported themselves as religious, 24.8 % spiritual, 12.4 % agnostic, and 11.6 % atheist. This self-designation was largely independent of specialty except for psychiatrists, who were more likely report agnosticism (P = 0.003). In total, 29.0 % reported that religious or spiritual beliefs influenced their decision to become a physician. Frequent prayer was reported by 44.7 % of physicians, but only 20.7 % reported having prayed with patients. Most physicians consider themselves religious or spiritual, but the rates of agnosticism and atheism are higher than the general population. Psychiatrists are the least religious group. Despite the influence of religion on physicians' lives and medical practice, the majority have not incorporated prayer into patient encounters.
Can you give me some examples of "medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms"?
Patients who are not expected to survive the night even with advanced medical interventions so close relatives are contacted. They pray over their loved one, and the patient goes on to make a complete (age appropriate) recovery. This happens relatively often.
Patients who lose oxygen for extended periods of time (such as drowning cases or cardiac arrest) that would normally result in severe brain damage and/ or death. Their families and friends pray over them and they make astonishing recoveries.
I personally witnessed a young man who dived into a shallow body of water and was paralyzed from the neck down. He had no feeling in fingers or toes and could not move at all. Xray showed complete fracture of cervical vertebra. Family and medical staff of different faiths prayed over him. A few days later he was walking normally. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation but this was prior to more recent advances made in treating fractured spines.
Many medical service workers are motivated by their faith to help and serve others and have humility about the limits of medicine in certain situations. Physical Death is a fact of life but medical professionals seek to preserve quality and length of life as much as possible. Many medical workers try to show respect for spiritual side of life (innate human dignity of everyone). However commitment to rigorous science and best medical care is first priority.
Life and death is not black and white. Medical practitioners will often try and help patients and their families to navigate treatment choices in ways that make the most sense for them.
None of these are examples of "medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms" , and in fact there is only one anecdote from you personally that is even close. As for your claim that "Medical practitioners will often try and help patients and their families to navigate treatment choices in ways that make the most sense for them" please show me the AMA guidelines that recommend prayer as an efficacious treatment.
Things we cannot understand do not, by default, equal divine intervention. Please don't claim they do. You do a disservice to your honored profession.
The point being made is that science and religion do not need to be seen as being in conflict.
A majority of medical doctors identify as religious (2/3) and many pray regularly.
The main point is that faith often motivates medical practitioners to work in the medical field. It does not harm their ability to practice medicine but motivates them to work in a profession with many ethical minefields and political interference.
You can choose to see religion and science as perpetually in conflict if you wish to. Many very good scientists do not.
1) how does 51.2% = 2/3?
2) PP doesn’t say anything about them being in “conflict”. I don’t believe anyone on this thread has. You only get “conflict” when you ignore scientific reasoning.
The majority of physicians believe in God (65.2 %), and 51.2 % reported themselves as religious, 24.8 % spiritual, 12.4 % agnostic, and 11.6 % atheist.
I equated belief in God with being religious but you are correct that this is not necessarily the case.
So, to be clear, only 1/2 of doctors identify as religious.
There is no “conflict” unless someone tries to ignore scientific reasoning. It seems like most/all of the religious posters have indicated that they use religion to explain the unknown.
Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?
Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.
Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.
Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins
The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.
I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.
They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.
I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.
Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion
So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.
Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?
Weak.
No response?
I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …
Did that not accurately capture points from his book?
Which part was inaccurate?
I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.
Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.
Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.
Ian Barbour’s 4 models of the interaction between religion and science:
* Conflict: Science and religion are in conflict. This view assumes that either science or religion is true while the other is necessarily false, and thus the perspectives of each will be in conflict.
* Independence: Both science and religion can be true, but in different domains. This view assumes that science and religion focus on different things, so as long as each keeps to its own domain, it can yield truth in that domain (Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria would be an example of this view).
* Dialogue: Science and religion can be conversation partners, as they both contain truth about many things. This view doesn’t assume that science and religion are the same, but that there is enough overlap in what they focus on to mutually inform one another about truths.
* Integration: The truths of science and religion can be integrated into a larger whole. This view assumes that the best way to understand the world is through an integration of science and religion, because they are complementary modes of knowing the truth about reality.
Conflict: Perhaps only in conflict with fundamentalist beliefs. Are there many fundamentalist scientists?
Independence: This was my point earlier about compartmentalizing and using religion to fill the diminishing gaps in our scientific understanding.
Dialogue: Different perspectives could be useful, but probably not possible unless the groups can agree on those "truths".
Integration: This seems like an internal debate for scientists to rationalize their religious beliefs. Science gains nothing here. And, even more deeply, agreeing on "truths" would be a big barrier.
So, to me, "independence" is the most realistic mindset for a scientist to reconcile their religious beliefs.
And that sentiment is supported by Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”
Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria was not widely accepted by scientists, (with the exception of Francis Collins). It was seen mainly as an attempt to appease religionists and was essentially a stance of "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries". So, while scientists agreed that the "realms" should be separate, as a group, they did not think of religion as being on a par with science.
Scientists, irrespective of their own religious views (e.g., Francis Collins), don't let religion figure into their scientific work.
I would agree but that does not mean they are in conflict - and clearly they are not for many excellent scientists -
Agree on Gould’s overlapping magesteria being problematic.
S and R definitely are very different but that does not mean they cannot have meaningful dialogue and cooperation in important areas .
There are many ethical issues involved in the way science is implemented. consensus building requires dialogue ,
There is no need for good science to cooperate with religion. Yes there are ethical issues in science and they are dealt with ethically, without religion.
Religion needn't cooperate with science either, but religion should butt out, as two respected scientists have said - Francis Collins and Stephen Gould
Well I know many good scientists who disagree with you .
The dialogue model advocated by Barbour does not rely on overlapping jurisdictions but on value of open dialogue with differing perspectives on truth and reality.
Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of humanity is highly influenced by religion, including the US.
It is far better for reasonable and respectful dialogue on moral issues rather than dogmatic rejection of different perspectives.
DP
An MD friend told me about an excellent surgeon who always prays with his patients before surgery.
Would you give him permission for prayer if he was your surgeon?
Is the surgeon’s performance affected by prayer?
That’s scary.
I will be speculating but if he is doing it must be in a positive way.
But if he doesn’t pray then what happens?
I would assume it might be his way of focusing and going into the zone, like some great athletes have their ritual.
What happened if they don’t do it? it is hard to answer.
Many doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical providers are religious but most do not offer to pray withh their patients. In my experience, when they do, it is usually done with sensitivity and respect for no.
Many medical service practitioners (myself included) have seen patients experience miracles that defy scientific explanations. That does not mean they reject rigorous scientific approaches to medicine in any way.
You really believe that they experienced "miracles"?
What is your educational background?
Not necessarily miracles in the popular dramatic sense but medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms. Medical practitioners are more likely than the average population to identify as religious. This suggests that their faith motivates them to help others (I have met and worked with many doctors and nurses whose faith values to love and serve attracted them into medical work). Heaven knows it is extremely difficult for many medics to practice their professions in the US where insurance companies continually undermine medical decisions.
Religious and Spiritual Beliefs of Physicians Kristin A Robinson et al. J Relig Health. 2017 Feb.
What percentage of doctors are religious?
The majority of physicians believe in God (65.2 %), and 51.2 % reported themselves as religious, 24.8 % spiritual, 12.4 % agnostic, and 11.6 % atheist. This self-designation was largely independent of specialty except for psychiatrists, who were more likely report agnosticism (P = 0.003).
Abstract
The aim of this study is to describe religious and spiritual beliefs of physicians and examine their influence on the decision to pursue medicine and daily medical practice. An anonymous survey was e-mailed to physicians at a large, multidisciplinary tertiary referral center with satellite clinics. Data were collected from January 2014 through February 2014. There were 2097 respondents (69.1 % men), and number of practicing years ranged from ≤1 to ≥30. Primary care physicians or medical specialists represented 74.1 %, 23.6 % were in surgical specialties, and 2.3 % were psychiatrists. The majority of physicians believe in God (65.2 %), and 51.2 % reported themselves as religious, 24.8 % spiritual, 12.4 % agnostic, and 11.6 % atheist. This self-designation was largely independent of specialty except for psychiatrists, who were more likely report agnosticism (P = 0.003). In total, 29.0 % reported that religious or spiritual beliefs influenced their decision to become a physician. Frequent prayer was reported by 44.7 % of physicians, but only 20.7 % reported having prayed with patients. Most physicians consider themselves religious or spiritual, but the rates of agnosticism and atheism are higher than the general population. Psychiatrists are the least religious group. Despite the influence of religion on physicians' lives and medical practice, the majority have not incorporated prayer into patient encounters.
Can you give me some examples of "medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms"?
Patients who are not expected to survive the night even with advanced medical interventions so close relatives are contacted. They pray over their loved one, and the patient goes on to make a complete (age appropriate) recovery. This happens relatively often.
Patients who lose oxygen for extended periods of time (such as drowning cases or cardiac arrest) that would normally result in severe brain damage and/ or death. Their families and friends pray over them and they make astonishing recoveries.
I personally witnessed a young man who dived into a shallow body of water and was paralyzed from the neck down. He had no feeling in fingers or toes and could not move at all. Xray showed complete fracture of cervical vertebra. Family and medical staff of different faiths prayed over him. A few days later he was walking normally. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation but this was prior to more recent advances made in treating fractured spines.
Many medical service workers are motivated by their faith to help and serve others and have humility about the limits of medicine in certain situations. Physical Death is a fact of life but medical professionals seek to preserve quality and length of life as much as possible. Many medical workers try to show respect for spiritual side of life (innate human dignity of everyone). However commitment to rigorous science and best medical care is first priority.
Life and death is not black and white. Medical practitioners will often try and help patients and their families to navigate treatment choices in ways that make the most sense for them.
None of these are examples of "medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms" , and in fact there is only one anecdote from you personally that is even close. As for your claim that "Medical practitioners will often try and help patients and their families to navigate treatment choices in ways that make the most sense for them" please show me the AMA guidelines that recommend prayer as an efficacious treatment.
Things we cannot understand do not, by default, equal divine intervention. Please don't claim they do. You do a disservice to your honored profession.
The point being made is that science and religion do not need to be seen as being in conflict.
A majority of medical doctors identify as religious (2/3) and many pray regularly.
The main point is that faith often motivates medical practitioners to work in the medical field. It does not harm their ability to practice medicine but motivates them to work in a profession with many ethical minefields and political interference.
You can choose to see religion and science as perpetually in conflict if you wish to. Many very good scientists do not.
Sorry, but first you claimed there were "miracles". Then when challenged on that you put it as "Not necessarily miracles in the popular dramatic sense but medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms.". When challenged on that you now back it down to science and religion not being perpetually in conflict, which was not a claim made in any post you responded to.
That was speaking to a different sub point - that many medical practitioners have a healthy respect for the limits of medicine in certain situations. That does not mean they do not continue to provide excellent medical care to the fullest extent possible.
I have never waivers from my main point being that religion and science do not need to be seen as always in conflict. I prefer Barbour’s dialogue model.
Then please don't claim the existence of "miracles", and please don't imply that unlikely results are divine in nature.
Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?
Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.
Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.
Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins
The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.
I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.
They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.
I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.
Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion
So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.
Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?
Weak.
No response?
I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …
Did that not accurately capture points from his book?
Which part was inaccurate?
I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.
Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.
Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.
Ian Barbour’s 4 models of the interaction between religion and science:
* Conflict: Science and religion are in conflict. This view assumes that either science or religion is true while the other is necessarily false, and thus the perspectives of each will be in conflict.
* Independence: Both science and religion can be true, but in different domains. This view assumes that science and religion focus on different things, so as long as each keeps to its own domain, it can yield truth in that domain (Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria would be an example of this view).
* Dialogue: Science and religion can be conversation partners, as they both contain truth about many things. This view doesn’t assume that science and religion are the same, but that there is enough overlap in what they focus on to mutually inform one another about truths.
* Integration: The truths of science and religion can be integrated into a larger whole. This view assumes that the best way to understand the world is through an integration of science and religion, because they are complementary modes of knowing the truth about reality.
Conflict: Perhaps only in conflict with fundamentalist beliefs. Are there many fundamentalist scientists?
Independence: This was my point earlier about compartmentalizing and using religion to fill the diminishing gaps in our scientific understanding.
Dialogue: Different perspectives could be useful, but probably not possible unless the groups can agree on those "truths".
Integration: This seems like an internal debate for scientists to rationalize their religious beliefs. Science gains nothing here. And, even more deeply, agreeing on "truths" would be a big barrier.
So, to me, "independence" is the most realistic mindset for a scientist to reconcile their religious beliefs.
And that sentiment is supported by Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”
Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria was not widely accepted by scientists, (with the exception of Francis Collins). It was seen mainly as an attempt to appease religionists and was essentially a stance of "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries". So, while scientists agreed that the "realms" should be separate, as a group, they did not think of religion as being on a par with science.
Scientists, irrespective of their own religious views (e.g., Francis Collins), don't let religion figure into their scientific work.
I would agree but that does not mean they are in conflict - and clearly they are not for many excellent scientists -
Agree on Gould’s overlapping magesteria being problematic.
S and R definitely are very different but that does not mean they cannot have meaningful dialogue and cooperation in important areas .
There are many ethical issues involved in the way science is implemented. consensus building requires dialogue ,
There is no need for good science to cooperate with religion. Yes there are ethical issues in science and they are dealt with ethically, without religion.
Religion needn't cooperate with science either, but religion should butt out, as two respected scientists have said - Francis Collins and Stephen Gould
Well I know many good scientists who disagree with you .
The dialogue model advocated by Barbour does not rely on overlapping jurisdictions but on value of open dialogue with differing perspectives on truth and reality.
Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of humanity is highly influenced by religion, including the US.
It is far better for reasonable and respectful dialogue on moral issues rather than dogmatic rejection of different perspectives.
DP
An MD friend told me about an excellent surgeon who always prays with his patients before surgery.
Would you give him permission for prayer if he was your surgeon?
Is the surgeon’s performance affected by prayer?
That’s scary.
I will be speculating but if he is doing it must be in a positive way.
But if he doesn’t pray then what happens?
I would assume it might be his way of focusing and going into the zone, like some great athletes have their ritual.
What happened if they don’t do it? it is hard to answer.
Many doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical providers are religious but most do not offer to pray withh their patients. In my experience, when they do, it is usually done with sensitivity and respect for no.
Many medical service practitioners (myself included) have seen patients experience miracles that defy scientific explanations. That does not mean they reject rigorous scientific approaches to medicine in any way.
You really believe that they experienced "miracles"?
What is your educational background?
Not necessarily miracles in the popular dramatic sense but medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms. Medical practitioners are more likely than the average population to identify as religious. This suggests that their faith motivates them to help others (I have met and worked with many doctors and nurses whose faith values to love and serve attracted them into medical work). Heaven knows it is extremely difficult for many medics to practice their professions in the US where insurance companies continually undermine medical decisions.
Religious and Spiritual Beliefs of Physicians Kristin A Robinson et al. J Relig Health. 2017 Feb.
What percentage of doctors are religious?
The majority of physicians believe in God (65.2 %), and 51.2 % reported themselves as religious, 24.8 % spiritual, 12.4 % agnostic, and 11.6 % atheist. This self-designation was largely independent of specialty except for psychiatrists, who were more likely report agnosticism (P = 0.003).
Abstract
The aim of this study is to describe religious and spiritual beliefs of physicians and examine their influence on the decision to pursue medicine and daily medical practice. An anonymous survey was e-mailed to physicians at a large, multidisciplinary tertiary referral center with satellite clinics. Data were collected from January 2014 through February 2014. There were 2097 respondents (69.1 % men), and number of practicing years ranged from ≤1 to ≥30. Primary care physicians or medical specialists represented 74.1 %, 23.6 % were in surgical specialties, and 2.3 % were psychiatrists. The majority of physicians believe in God (65.2 %), and 51.2 % reported themselves as religious, 24.8 % spiritual, 12.4 % agnostic, and 11.6 % atheist. This self-designation was largely independent of specialty except for psychiatrists, who were more likely report agnosticism (P = 0.003). In total, 29.0 % reported that religious or spiritual beliefs influenced their decision to become a physician. Frequent prayer was reported by 44.7 % of physicians, but only 20.7 % reported having prayed with patients. Most physicians consider themselves religious or spiritual, but the rates of agnosticism and atheism are higher than the general population. Psychiatrists are the least religious group. Despite the influence of religion on physicians' lives and medical practice, the majority have not incorporated prayer into patient encounters.
Can you give me some examples of "medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms"?
Patients who are not expected to survive the night even with advanced medical interventions so close relatives are contacted. They pray over their loved one, and the patient goes on to make a complete (age appropriate) recovery. This happens relatively often.
Patients who lose oxygen for extended periods of time (such as drowning cases or cardiac arrest) that would normally result in severe brain damage and/ or death. Their families and friends pray over them and they make astonishing recoveries.
I personally witnessed a young man who dived into a shallow body of water and was paralyzed from the neck down. He had no feeling in fingers or toes and could not move at all. Xray showed complete fracture of cervical vertebra. Family and medical staff of different faiths prayed over him. A few days later he was walking normally. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation but this was prior to more recent advances made in treating fractured spines.
Many medical service workers are motivated by their faith to help and serve others and have humility about the limits of medicine in certain situations. Physical Death is a fact of life but medical professionals seek to preserve quality and length of life as much as possible. Many medical workers try to show respect for spiritual side of life (innate human dignity of everyone). However commitment to rigorous science and best medical care is first priority.
Life and death is not black and white. Medical practitioners will often try and help patients and their families to navigate treatment choices in ways that make the most sense for them.
None of these are examples of "medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms" , and in fact there is only one anecdote from you personally that is even close. As for your claim that "Medical practitioners will often try and help patients and their families to navigate treatment choices in ways that make the most sense for them" please show me the AMA guidelines that recommend prayer as an efficacious treatment.
Things we cannot understand do not, by default, equal divine intervention. Please don't claim they do. You do a disservice to your honored profession.
The point being made is that science and religion do not need to be seen as being in conflict.
A majority of medical doctors identify as religious (2/3) and many pray regularly.
The main point is that faith often motivates medical practitioners to work in the medical field. It does not harm their ability to practice medicine but motivates them to work in a profession with many ethical minefields and political interference.
You can choose to see religion and science as perpetually in conflict if you wish to. Many very good scientists do not.
Sorry, but first you claimed there were "miracles". Then when challenged on that you put it as "Not necessarily miracles in the popular dramatic sense but medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms.". When challenged on that you now back it down to science and religion not being perpetually in conflict, which was not a claim made in any post you responded to.
That was speaking to a different sub point - that many medical practitioners have a healthy respect for the limits of medicine in certain situations. That does not mean they do not continue to provide excellent medical care to the fullest extent possible.
I have never waivers from my main point being that religion and science do not need to be seen as always in conflict. I prefer Barbour’s dialogue model.
Then please don't claim the existence of "miracles", and please don't imply that unlikely results are divine in nature.
I did not claim that - I said that many doctors have a healthy respect for the limits of medicine and medical outcomes often defy scientific explanations. I can’t find any research explaining why average patients who have lost oxygen supply for more 10 minutes would experience no brain or other tissue damage.
There are actually extensive studies that show that patients often recover better and faster with prayer. So doctors who pray for their patients are actually relying on scientific evidence.
The main point is that science and religion do not need to be seen as being conflict and for many very good scientists they are not.
Anonymous wrote:^ how many of those are still alive?
Those are all listed as still living which is why I posted them and not historic scientists of faith.
Most of them are ancient. Back in the olden times it was easier to force kids into brainwashing.
Anyway, the science aspect of their life deals with facts and knowledge. The ”faith” side deals in beliefs and rituals to fill in uncertainty.
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives” -Collins
The scientists of faith in real life whom I know vary from 20s through to 60s.
I stand by earlier point that you have a very narrow view of both science and religion.
They do not need to be seen as being in conflict.
I recommend reading the brilliant physicist/ theologian Ian Barbour’s work on better understanding the relationship between science and religion -: if you are willing to open your mind.
Barbour:
- The scientific discoveries made by Galileo and Newton began to describe and explain the natural and physical laws by which the earth operates. These discoveries drastically changed the way that man viewed the world and nature. This in turn caused shifts in theological thought.
- God filled the scientific gaps
- the objectivity of science versus the subjectivity of history. History is seen as subjective because one is dealing with the humanities and there is a level of personal involvement. Although throughout history certain patterns of human behavior emerge, these patterns are never entirely predictable or repeatable. Where in science, all events that are observed must be repeatable and produce the same results in order to uphold natural laws.
- Like history, religion is subjective due to the personal involvement required of religion.
- although physics can be used to explain human freedom to some extent, it will never produce an entirely satisfactory argument for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_Science_and_Religion
So he compartmentalizes. And uses religion to fill in unknown holes.
Once those holes are all filled in what is left of religion?
Weak.
No response?
I would be bothered if there a substantive response to his typology but PP clearly did not read Barbour - just a quick drive by through wiki …
Did that not accurately capture points from his book?
Which part was inaccurate?
I was hoping to discuss his four-category typology of the ways we may think science and religion relate to one another:
conflict,
independence,
dialogue, and
integration.
Ian Barbour was a physicist and theologian who worked on reconciling science and religion, and who favored the dialogue model which I agree is the most helpful.
Western Science and religion grew up together over many hundreds of years (scientific reasoning grew out of religious and philosophical reasoning) -/ but neither cannot replace each other in terms of the parts of reality they illuminate and the epistemology of the types of knowledge they create.
Ian Barbour’s 4 models of the interaction between religion and science:
* Conflict: Science and religion are in conflict. This view assumes that either science or religion is true while the other is necessarily false, and thus the perspectives of each will be in conflict.
* Independence: Both science and religion can be true, but in different domains. This view assumes that science and religion focus on different things, so as long as each keeps to its own domain, it can yield truth in that domain (Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria would be an example of this view).
* Dialogue: Science and religion can be conversation partners, as they both contain truth about many things. This view doesn’t assume that science and religion are the same, but that there is enough overlap in what they focus on to mutually inform one another about truths.
* Integration: The truths of science and religion can be integrated into a larger whole. This view assumes that the best way to understand the world is through an integration of science and religion, because they are complementary modes of knowing the truth about reality.
Conflict: Perhaps only in conflict with fundamentalist beliefs. Are there many fundamentalist scientists?
Independence: This was my point earlier about compartmentalizing and using religion to fill the diminishing gaps in our scientific understanding.
Dialogue: Different perspectives could be useful, but probably not possible unless the groups can agree on those "truths".
Integration: This seems like an internal debate for scientists to rationalize their religious beliefs. Science gains nothing here. And, even more deeply, agreeing on "truths" would be a big barrier.
So, to me, "independence" is the most realistic mindset for a scientist to reconcile their religious beliefs.
And that sentiment is supported by Collins:
”the scientific method and the scientific worldview can't be allowed to get distorted by religious perspectives”
Stephen J Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magesteria was not widely accepted by scientists, (with the exception of Francis Collins). It was seen mainly as an attempt to appease religionists and was essentially a stance of "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries". So, while scientists agreed that the "realms" should be separate, as a group, they did not think of religion as being on a par with science.
Scientists, irrespective of their own religious views (e.g., Francis Collins), don't let religion figure into their scientific work.
I would agree but that does not mean they are in conflict - and clearly they are not for many excellent scientists -
Agree on Gould’s overlapping magesteria being problematic.
S and R definitely are very different but that does not mean they cannot have meaningful dialogue and cooperation in important areas .
There are many ethical issues involved in the way science is implemented. consensus building requires dialogue ,
There is no need for good science to cooperate with religion. Yes there are ethical issues in science and they are dealt with ethically, without religion.
Religion needn't cooperate with science either, but religion should butt out, as two respected scientists have said - Francis Collins and Stephen Gould
Well I know many good scientists who disagree with you .
The dialogue model advocated by Barbour does not rely on overlapping jurisdictions but on value of open dialogue with differing perspectives on truth and reality.
Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of humanity is highly influenced by religion, including the US.
It is far better for reasonable and respectful dialogue on moral issues rather than dogmatic rejection of different perspectives.
DP
An MD friend told me about an excellent surgeon who always prays with his patients before surgery.
Would you give him permission for prayer if he was your surgeon?
Is the surgeon’s performance affected by prayer?
That’s scary.
I will be speculating but if he is doing it must be in a positive way.
But if he doesn’t pray then what happens?
I would assume it might be his way of focusing and going into the zone, like some great athletes have their ritual.
What happened if they don’t do it? it is hard to answer.
Many doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical providers are religious but most do not offer to pray withh their patients. In my experience, when they do, it is usually done with sensitivity and respect for no.
Many medical service practitioners (myself included) have seen patients experience miracles that defy scientific explanations. That does not mean they reject rigorous scientific approaches to medicine in any way.
You really believe that they experienced "miracles"?
What is your educational background?
Not necessarily miracles in the popular dramatic sense but medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms. Medical practitioners are more likely than the average population to identify as religious. This suggests that their faith motivates them to help others (I have met and worked with many doctors and nurses whose faith values to love and serve attracted them into medical work). Heaven knows it is extremely difficult for many medics to practice their professions in the US where insurance companies continually undermine medical decisions.
Religious and Spiritual Beliefs of Physicians Kristin A Robinson et al. J Relig Health. 2017 Feb.
What percentage of doctors are religious?
The majority of physicians believe in God (65.2 %), and 51.2 % reported themselves as religious, 24.8 % spiritual, 12.4 % agnostic, and 11.6 % atheist. This self-designation was largely independent of specialty except for psychiatrists, who were more likely report agnosticism (P = 0.003).
Abstract
The aim of this study is to describe religious and spiritual beliefs of physicians and examine their influence on the decision to pursue medicine and daily medical practice. An anonymous survey was e-mailed to physicians at a large, multidisciplinary tertiary referral center with satellite clinics. Data were collected from January 2014 through February 2014. There were 2097 respondents (69.1 % men), and number of practicing years ranged from ≤1 to ≥30. Primary care physicians or medical specialists represented 74.1 %, 23.6 % were in surgical specialties, and 2.3 % were psychiatrists. The majority of physicians believe in God (65.2 %), and 51.2 % reported themselves as religious, 24.8 % spiritual, 12.4 % agnostic, and 11.6 % atheist. This self-designation was largely independent of specialty except for psychiatrists, who were more likely report agnosticism (P = 0.003). In total, 29.0 % reported that religious or spiritual beliefs influenced their decision to become a physician. Frequent prayer was reported by 44.7 % of physicians, but only 20.7 % reported having prayed with patients. Most physicians consider themselves religious or spiritual, but the rates of agnosticism and atheism are higher than the general population. Psychiatrists are the least religious group. Despite the influence of religion on physicians' lives and medical practice, the majority have not incorporated prayer into patient encounters.
Can you give me some examples of "medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms"?
Patients who are not expected to survive the night even with advanced medical interventions so close relatives are contacted. They pray over their loved one, and the patient goes on to make a complete (age appropriate) recovery. This happens relatively often.
Patients who lose oxygen for extended periods of time (such as drowning cases or cardiac arrest) that would normally result in severe brain damage and/ or death. Their families and friends pray over them and they make astonishing recoveries.
I personally witnessed a young man who dived into a shallow body of water and was paralyzed from the neck down. He had no feeling in fingers or toes and could not move at all. Xray showed complete fracture of cervical vertebra. Family and medical staff of different faiths prayed over him. A few days later he was walking normally. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation but this was prior to more recent advances made in treating fractured spines.
Many medical service workers are motivated by their faith to help and serve others and have humility about the limits of medicine in certain situations. Physical Death is a fact of life but medical professionals seek to preserve quality and length of life as much as possible. Many medical workers try to show respect for spiritual side of life (innate human dignity of everyone). However commitment to rigorous science and best medical care is first priority.
Life and death is not black and white. Medical practitioners will often try and help patients and their families to navigate treatment choices in ways that make the most sense for them.
None of these are examples of "medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms" , and in fact there is only one anecdote from you personally that is even close. As for your claim that "Medical practitioners will often try and help patients and their families to navigate treatment choices in ways that make the most sense for them" please show me the AMA guidelines that recommend prayer as an efficacious treatment.
Things we cannot understand do not, by default, equal divine intervention. Please don't claim they do. You do a disservice to your honored profession.
The point being made is that science and religion do not need to be seen as being in conflict.
A majority of medical doctors identify as religious (2/3) and many pray regularly.
The main point is that faith often motivates medical practitioners to work in the medical field. It does not harm their ability to practice medicine but motivates them to work in a profession with many ethical minefields and political interference.
You can choose to see religion and science as perpetually in conflict if you wish to. Many very good scientists do not.
Sorry, but first you claimed there were "miracles". Then when challenged on that you put it as "Not necessarily miracles in the popular dramatic sense but medical outcomes that could not be explained in scientific terms.". When challenged on that you now back it down to science and religion not being perpetually in conflict, which was not a claim made in any post you responded to.
That was speaking to a different sub point - that many medical practitioners have a healthy respect for the limits of medicine in certain situations. That does not mean they do not continue to provide excellent medical care to the fullest extent possible.
I have never waivers from my main point being that religion and science do not need to be seen as always in conflict. I prefer Barbour’s dialogue model.
Then please don't claim the existence of "miracles", and please don't imply that unlikely results are divine in nature.
I did not claim that - I said that many doctors have a healthy respect for the limits of medicine and medical outcomes often defy scientific explanations. I can’t find any research explaining why average patients who have lost oxygen supply for more 10 minutes would experience no brain or other tissue damage.
There are actually extensive studies that show that patients often recover better and faster with prayer. So doctors who pray for their patients are actually relying on scientific evidence.
The main point is that science and religion do not need to be seen as being conflict and for many very good scientists they are not.
The scientific evidence shows that doctors praying for their patients shows faster/better recovery?
Or is it really that patients who pray themselves recover faster/better?
I did not claim that - I said that many doctors have a healthy respect for the limits of medicine and medical outcomes often defy scientific explanations.
Really? What about "Many medical service practitioners (myself included) have seen patients experience miracles that defy scientific explanations." at 04/18/2023 19:30?
I did not claim that - I said that many doctors have a healthy respect for the limits of medicine and medical outcomes often defy scientific explanations.
Really? What about "Many medical service practitioners (myself included) have seen patients experience miracles that defy scientific explanations." at 04/18/2023 19:30?
You are clearly more interested in scoring points and doggedly holding in to a perception of winning arguments rather than respectful dialogue based on empirical evidence.
As I explained my point was not to focus on miracles but to explain that many medical practitioners have healthy respect for the limits of medicine in certain situations.
I did not claim that - I said that many doctors have a healthy respect for the limits of medicine and medical outcomes often defy scientific explanations.
Really? What about "Many medical service practitioners (myself included) have seen patients experience miracles that defy scientific explanations." at 04/18/2023 19:30?
You are clearly more interested in scoring points and doggedly holding in to a perception of winning arguments rather than respectful dialogue based on empirical evidence.
As I explained my point was not to focus on miracles but to explain that many medical practitioners have healthy respect for the limits of medicine in certain situations.
If, by "scoring points", you mean "holding people accountable in a discussion when they say things that are demonstrably untrue", then yes, I am really interested in "scoring points". You typed the word then claimed you didn't. I suggest you don't use the word "miracles" unless you can demonstrate that one occurred.
I did not claim that - I said that many doctors have a healthy respect for the limits of medicine and medical outcomes often defy scientific explanations.
Really? What about "Many medical service practitioners (myself included) have seen patients experience miracles that defy scientific explanations." at 04/18/2023 19:30?
You are clearly more interested in scoring points and doggedly holding in to a perception of winning arguments rather than respectful dialogue based on empirical evidence.
As I explained my point was not to focus on miracles but to explain that many medical practitioners have healthy respect for the limits of medicine in certain situations.
If, by "scoring points", you mean "holding people accountable in a discussion when they say things that are demonstrably untrue", then yes, I am really interested in "scoring points". You typed the word then claimed you didn't. I suggest you don't use the word "miracles" unless you can demonstrate that one occurred.
By scoring points I mean dogmatic refusal to e gage with main points being raised and playing Gotcha games with red herrings.
The empirical evidence supports that a large number of scientists do not see faith and religion as being in conflict.
By scoring points I mean dogmatic refusal to e gage with main points being raised and playing Gotcha games with red herrings.
You claimed "miracles". I responded to that and that alone. You then denied it. I showed the post where you did. So, yeah, I guess I "gotcha" but if the alternative is to let you be dishonest, I'll stick with "gotcha".
The empirical evidence supports that a large number of scientists do not see faith and religion as being in conflict.
By scoring points I mean dogmatic refusal to e gage with main points being raised and playing Gotcha games with red herrings.
You claimed "miracles". I responded to that and that alone. You then denied it. I showed the post where you did. So, yeah, I guess I "gotcha" but if the alternative is to let you be dishonest, I'll stick with "gotcha".
The empirical evidence supports that a large number of scientists do not see faith and religion as being in conflict.
By scoring points I mean dogmatic refusal to e gage with main points being raised and playing Gotcha games with red herrings.
You claimed "miracles". I responded to that and that alone. You then denied it. I showed the post where you did. So, yeah, I guess I "gotcha" but if the alternative is to let you be dishonest, I'll stick with "gotcha".
The empirical evidence supports that a large number of scientists do not see faith and religion as being in conflict.
This is not disputed by anyone.
Please reread past posts -it was disputed
Please reread past posts - no one disputed the numbers you posted.
By scoring points I mean dogmatic refusal to e gage with main points being raised and playing Gotcha games with red herrings.
You claimed "miracles". I responded to that and that alone. You then denied it. I showed the post where you did. So, yeah, I guess I "gotcha" but if the alternative is to let you be dishonest, I'll stick with "gotcha".
The empirical evidence supports that a large number of scientists do not see faith and religion as being in conflict.
This is not disputed by anyone.
Please reread past posts -it was disputed
Please reread past posts - no one disputed the numbers you posted.
There were entire pages of claims that it is not possible for religious people to be good scientists. When evidence of large numbers of very good scientists identifying as religious was presented, the claim was made they were either too old or dead already. Barbour was dismissed as a weak scientist and his typology of the four different kinds of models for relationship between science and religion was attacked.
It took many posts with different kinds of evidence to demonstrate that the relationship between religion and science does not need to be seen as being in conflict.
By scoring points I mean dogmatic refusal to e gage with main points being raised and playing Gotcha games with red herrings.
You claimed "miracles". I responded to that and that alone. You then denied it. I showed the post where you did. So, yeah, I guess I "gotcha" but if the alternative is to let you be dishonest, I'll stick with "gotcha".
The empirical evidence supports that a large number of scientists do not see faith and religion as being in conflict.
This is not disputed by anyone.
Please reread past posts -it was disputed
Please reread past posts - no one disputed the numbers you posted.
There were entire pages of claims that it is not possible for religious people to be good scientists. When evidence of large numbers of very good scientists identifying as religious was presented, the claim was made they were either too old or dead already. Barbour was dismissed as a weak scientist and his typology of the four different kinds of models for relationship between science and religion was attacked.
It took many posts with different kinds of evidence to demonstrate that the relationship between religion and science does not need to be seen as being in conflict.
At the risk of being accused of "gotcha" again:
There is a giant difference between the claim you made I was responding to:
The empirical evidence supports that a large number of scientists do not see faith and religion as being in conflict.
and the one you just made:
the relationship between religion and science does not need to be seen as being in conflict.
The former is the one to which I responded "This is not disputed by anyone". The latter is a matter of opinion, and very different.
By scoring points I mean dogmatic refusal to e gage with main points being raised and playing Gotcha games with red herrings.
You claimed "miracles". I responded to that and that alone. You then denied it. I showed the post where you did. So, yeah, I guess I "gotcha" but if the alternative is to let you be dishonest, I'll stick with "gotcha".
The empirical evidence supports that a large number of scientists do not see faith and religion as being in conflict.
This is not disputed by anyone.
Please reread past posts -it was disputed
Please reread past posts - no one disputed the numbers you posted.
There were entire pages of claims that it is not possible for religious people to be good scientists. When evidence of large numbers of very good scientists identifying as religious was presented, the claim was made they were either too old or dead already. Barbour was dismissed as a weak scientist and his typology of the four different kinds of models for relationship between science and religion was attacked.
It took many posts with different kinds of evidence to demonstrate that the relationship between religion and science does not need to be seen as being in conflict.
At the risk of being accused of "gotcha" again:
There is a giant difference between the claim you made I was responding to:
The empirical evidence supports that a large number of scientists do not see faith and religion as being in conflict.
and the one you just made:
the relationship between religion and science does not need to be seen as being in conflict.
The former is the one to which I responded "This is not disputed by anyone". The latter is a matter of opinion, and very different.
I am sure you understand the difference.
The first point supports the second and main point.
I did not claim that - I said that many doctors have a healthy respect for the limits of medicine and medical outcomes often defy scientific explanations.
Really? What about "Many medical service practitioners (myself included) have seen patients experience miracles that defy scientific explanations." at 04/18/2023 19:30?
You are clearly more interested in scoring points and doggedly holding in to a perception of winning arguments rather than respectful dialogue based on empirical evidence.
As I explained my point was not to focus on miracles but to explain that many medical practitioners have healthy respect for the limits of medicine in certain situations.
DP. Seems like some confusion.
Do you believe religious miracles exist? That some unexpected outcomes were caused by supernatural forces?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}