Part II of a response
Let’s continue a review of
THIS POSTJAK (previously): ” ’Faith’ is a relative not an absolute.”
Hoops:
“Relative to what?”
JAK:
Example: People differ in their degree of what they characterize as “faith.” One has
faith his car will start. It might not. If the car is in poor condition, one’s
faith that it will start is diminished relative to someone who has a new car in top shape. 20 degrees below zero may temper the
faith one has that his car will start even if he believes his car to be in good condition.
If one begins a trip by car of 1500 miles in a car, one has a degree of
faith that the car will make it as well as a degree of
faith that one has the skill to pilot the car through 1500 miles of traffic and all that entails.
Some would be very confident (much
faith) that all would be well. Others would be less confident as a result of their age, their condition, the condition of the car, etc. Hence, faith in an outcome is
relative to the situation and to the individuals.
In religion, a person who refuses medical treatment in favor of petitioning
God for physical problems well treated by medication is a person who exhibits
relatively more faith religiously than a person who utilizes fully the medical science available. To illustrate, hypertension or high cholesterol is well treated by medicine.
Someone who claims to have “faith” but sees a doctor and takes medication for a treatable problem exhibits relatively
less faith in
God presumably through prayer that seeks to manipulate
God’s will to comply with their own.
Still others who have little or no
faith in their own capacity to
influence God, also go to the medical profession and follow the direction of applied medical science. Of course, some might not. We can always find some percentage, even small, of individuals who are outside the general, prevailing reliance on medical science.
So one could understand that even a person who claims to be agnostic or atheist might reject (for a variety of reasons) medical treatment. That might be the case with terminal cancer in a person 90 or less who simply is willing to accept an earlier death or even welcome it rather than endure painful medical treatment. At best the treatment might prolong their life a few weeks or months.
Hence,
faith is relative to time, circumstance, perspective, belief, etc.
JAK previously: For example, many pray for “healing” then go to the doctor or hospital for medical science to provide “healing.”
Hoops’ response: You bet! Isn't the Christian admonition to explore God's Creation wonderful?
JAK: Not necessarily is this universal Christian view. Early
explorers in science and medical science were condemned and criticized for attempting “explore” rather than rely on
faith. Those Christian Scientists, for example, oppose use of modern medicine.
Amish, for example are slow to accept medical treatment especially for mental illness. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example do not believe in blood transfusions.
Amish and the Modern Health Care Industry clarifies some particular beliefs of certain Amish groups.
One item from that link states: “They believe the body is a creation of God and, while medicine may help, it is God who heals. An extension of this idea is evident in the traditional use of ‘home remedies’."
Here we have an example of
relative faith.
Amish Culture and Health care observes: “Amish life is significantly different from modern society in North America. For example, the Amish avoid modern conveniences such as telephones and
electricity. Furthermore, their most common mode of transportation is horse and buggy.” (emphasis added) Use link to full website.
Any quality medical care relies on “electricity.”
Hoops quoting JAK: “If they had “faith,” what is the need for doctors or hospitals? Hence, “faith” is relative.”
Hoops stated:
“You have no idea what faith is. Going to the doctor is an excellent demonstration of faith. Faith in our fellow human, created by God, faith that God's universe is predictable, the medicine we take, and so on.”
JAK: “Going to the doctor” is a demonstration in faith in the doctor, not faith in
God. Modern medicine has evolved slowly over time. People who relied on “faith in
God” a hundred years ago and more had little understanding of what we (collectively) know today about the treatment of illness.
You demonstrate well here that
faith is relative. It’s relative to time, place, people, and available knowledge.
The first appendectomies resulted in death. At that time nothing was known about germs and sterilization. Today, an appendectomy is relatively routine. The “faith” is in medical science not in
God. Nevertheless, many facing surgery appeal to
God as they attempt to manipulate
God to “guide” the surgeon. When the surgery is a success, many who claim “faith” say, “Thank God.” Fewer thank the surgeon and the medical profession. They might, but their
prayer is not to the surgeon.
While there is no evidence for any
God notion, there is much evidence for medical science as it has evolved over the past century.
This is more than enough for one post, Hoops. But I have no objection to addressing the remainder of your comments in
this post.
JAK