Page 30 - Hall et al (2015) Principles of Critical Care-McGraw-Hill

Introduction xxix

to communicate? Classical arguments about God’s existence convince
believers and cause nonbelievers to look for more convincing evidence. Falsification Verification
Listening for and hearing the still small voice is a complex human
endeavor. It requires some or all of the following: belief that God can
and will speak to me; a quiet spirit free from noise, hurry and crowds; a Scientific
desire to know God’s answers to my questions, or God’s preference among method Truth Still small voice
courses of action in front of me; and a willingness to obey the instructions
after putting the conversation to the test. Ceaseless striving for discovering
alternative explanations for the still small voice can squelch these subtle H o s Myths
movements of the spirit. Alternatively, cultivating these aptitudes for
active receptivity is an all-consuming spiritual practice that can interfere Believing
https://kat.cr/user/tahir99/
with the search for more convincing evidence. So my approach is to go Ceaseless scientist Active receptivity
with the flow of the still small voice, choosing to listen rather than search. striving
This choice was supported by several happenings in my life. One occurred
early in my relationship with my wife, Elaine, when I told her about the Science Interface Belief
progressive peripheral polyarthritis which I had suffered for the previous
year. She listened empathically as I finished the story, and then asked if she
could pray for me. “Of course,” I answered, so she laid her hands on my left FIGURE 2. Schema depicting the methods of inquiry and their interface. Science goes
shoulder saying “Lord, please heal Larry’s arthritis.” Immediately, I expe- clockwise toward falsification, and those H s not disproven pour into the chamber of Truth;
O
rienced warmth spreading from my left shoulder down my left arm and belief moves counterclockwise from the interface through innumerable myths until the most
across my shoulders to my right arm, warming all my joints from shoulder benevolent and the true myth is verified by the still small voice and enters the chamber
to wrist and the metacarpal joints of each finger. This feeling lasted a few of Truth.
minutes, when the stiffness, pain and fluid in the joints disappeared and
never returned. I know that I know God used Elaine’s love to heal me, and
I expect that this spiritual experience will have no effect on the belief of
any others who hear this story—it is my spiritual experience, done for me TABLE 4 Attributes of the Methods of Inquiry
alone, so anyone hearing this story is unlikely to be convinced—and any Science Belief
of my friends who wish to tap in to the spiritual experience need to have The scientific method The still small voice
their own. It seems one cannot accept God’s healing presence vicariously;
one needs their own spiritual experience. Formulate null hypotheses (H ) O Make up a story—myth
If I were able to use the scientific method to test my belief that God Falsifies H O Sorts, chooses most benevolent myth
exists and speaks to his people, I would phrase the null hypothesis “God Truth is what cannot be falsified Truth is verified
does not exist/speak to His people.” Then I would examine each of the Objective, measurable, calibrated Subjective, no measures
entries in my spiritual journal for God’s conversational attributes, and
finding multiple responses to my inquiries, I would reject the hypothesis Cannot handle the subjective Can process subjective mysteries with active imagi-
and conclude the opposite—God does exist and speaks to his people. nation ratified by the still small voice
I compiled ten such examples which falsified this H , provided my Slow, tedious to rule out H s Imprecise innumerable myths
O
O
subjective evaluation is allowed as evidence. And there is the risk, for Excess controls distort the study Builds relationship
as convinced as I am by my subjective evidence, I do understand why
the scientific method cannot accept it for lack of objective evidence and Conclusion: Science and belief are complementary
reproducibility in the observers. This does not weaken my belief that
God spoke to me; indeed, my faith is enhanced and my enthusiasm to
hear His word is heightened. Yet I do not expect others to be convinced such that truth consists of H s which could not be rejected. Clockwise
O
by my subjective evidence—they must have their own spiritual experi- rotation from the interface of science and belief depicts the start (and
ence before they become convinced. end) of our understanding when we began reading this paper.
So belief becomes a personal choice to act on subjective perception of But I introduced the notion that belief and its interface with science
God’s presence. It seems like my healing and my learning transcend all can be processed with active receptivity to develop innumerable myths
my understanding of how it can occur, so it is not unreasonable for me to to explain reality. Then the still small voice serves as the hammer to
invoke divine intervention. To the extent God did it, it is the polite behav- nail down the myth which best explains the phenomena under study,
ior for me to feel grateful and to express my gratitude to Her. Suspending verifying it as truth to contribute to our new knowledge as depicted—by
my search for scientific proof seems like a good idea given my improved counterclockwise rotation from the interface—in the right side of Fig. 2.
health. It is an even better idea given my prior faith experiences, so I have Accordingly, science and belief are complementary methods of inquiry
no trouble dealing with God as if She exists. This sets me free to converse and knowing, each providing limited understanding, but together
with God and to hear Her still small voice. How else can God communi- increasing the probability of knowing.
cate with Her children? Besides, everything for which I do have scientific Table 4 compares the attributes of these methods of inquiry. The
proof is so complex and beautiful that it draws out of me wonder and scientific method protects us from bias and erroneous H s using
praise, so I get it both ways: my skepticism cannot disprove God in scien- intellectual discipline of statistics and logic, while the still small voice
O
tific terms because I do not have a Godometer; and whenever I can prove requires faith to verify beliefs. Science is objective and measured, but
anything scientific, the result causes me to praise God. belief is subjective and often not measured. Accordingly, science cannot
process phenomena of great importance, but belief can process interior
SUMMARY: SCIENCE AND BELIEF ARE mysteries with active imagination ratified by the still small voice. Science
COMPLEMENTARY! is tedious and slow and too many controls can distort the study, while
belief proceeds at a furious pace when the believer is affirmed, present-
We have been discussing two modes of inquiry: science and belief ing innumerable myths for the still small voice to choose from. And even
(Fig. 2). With ceaseless striving scientists develop H s which might when the chosen belief is wrong, the process of communication builds
O
explain phenomena and use the scientific method to falsify these H s, relationship between the believer and the still small voice.
O

intro.indd 29 19-01-2015 16:50:51