Anne Harrington explores the overlap
between faith and science in the context of medicine. Does the mind, or do
higher powers accessed by the mind, have power to heal the body? Harrington
considers four related claims, all offering some scientific validation.
The first is that participation in religious services is good for one’s health, which can apparently be explained only in part by religious communities serving as highquality social networks.
The second is that meditation reduces physical stress and aids healing, whether or not the meditator has any knowledge of or connection with a religious tradition.
The third, larger claim is that religious belief of any sort can heal the body; this claim has strong roots in American religious history, but seems to derive more from the belief that the mind has innate healing capacities, rather than that healing comes from any sort of divine power.
The fourth claim, in contrast, is that prayer conveys healing benefits, whether or not it is the patient or an intercessor who prays.
This fourth claim rethinking science and religion is bolstered by certain controversial studies and differs from the other three in its implicit support for divine power, and thus divinity, whereas the other claims are exceedingly pragmatic in their overtones: religion is important because it works.
All four claims, however, are somewhat distinct, and hardly form a coherent package. Overall, Harrington is concerned with the broad assertion that religion heals the body, due to its insistence that science has provided conclusive proof, as well as its utilitarian emphasis on medicinal therapy versus any other benefits conveyed by religion. To Harrington, what may result is not the spiritualization of medicine, but the medicalization of religionp
The first is that participation in religious services is good for one’s health, which can apparently be explained only in part by religious communities serving as highquality social networks.
The second is that meditation reduces physical stress and aids healing, whether or not the meditator has any knowledge of or connection with a religious tradition.
The third, larger claim is that religious belief of any sort can heal the body; this claim has strong roots in American religious history, but seems to derive more from the belief that the mind has innate healing capacities, rather than that healing comes from any sort of divine power.
The fourth claim, in contrast, is that prayer conveys healing benefits, whether or not it is the patient or an intercessor who prays.
This fourth claim rethinking science and religion is bolstered by certain controversial studies and differs from the other three in its implicit support for divine power, and thus divinity, whereas the other claims are exceedingly pragmatic in their overtones: religion is important because it works.
All four claims, however, are somewhat distinct, and hardly form a coherent package. Overall, Harrington is concerned with the broad assertion that religion heals the body, due to its insistence that science has provided conclusive proof, as well as its utilitarian emphasis on medicinal therapy versus any other benefits conveyed by religion. To Harrington, what may result is not the spiritualization of medicine, but the medicalization of religionp
No comments:
Post a Comment