Christianity and Postmodern Relativism Differences in Spirituality and Ethics in Healthcare

Christianity and Postmodern Relativism Differences in Spirituality and Ethics in Healthcare

Firstly, the Christian perspective of spirituality is that of an all-powerful God who has total control over life. This is an ecclesiastical philosophy in which Christians are required to acknowledge the Bible as the main source of guidance and teachings from God (Griffin, 1988). Relative to healthcare, God in the Bible is termed as an all-powerful being who can mend all maladies. Moreover, Christians surmise that for whatever condition they go through, God is all-knowing and has a plan for everyone (Griffin, 1988). Relative to spirituality in healthcare, postmodern relativism repudiates the viewpoint of an absolute value and certain belief (Griffin, 1988). The dogma acknowledges proven facts and knowledge as guiding principles of life. As such, in postmodern relativism, the idea of an all-powerful being who has the aptitude to cure all ailments is not plausible.

Secondly, the Christian standpoint on ethics in healthcare is that morality can only be gauged based on the instructions and teachings of the Bible. Therefore, this infers that decisions in life or healthcare ought to be made in congruence with these hallowed teachings and instructions (Griffin, 1988). Accordingly, euthanasia cannot be regarded as ethical because it thwarts the inalienable ordinance of not taking a human being’s life. Postmodern relativism has a quite different outlook on ethics in the sense that there is no ultimate verity on which to appraise morals (Griffin, 1988). In the same line, according to this creed, ethics could be right or wrong based on the moral conscience (Griffin, 1988). As such, not conducting euthanasia is heinous in the case where a patient with chronic pain requests it to be done.

Anti-Scientism Arguments

Scientism is a controversial position that uplifts the notion that science is the absolute rationale that should gauge social and political issues. In its context, ideas, methods, and practices of science are substantial, testable, and applicable, hence science ought to be the go-to and reliable source of knowledge for the functionality of society (Hietanen et al., 2020). As a functioning philosophy, scientism employs explanatory ideologies and theories that were subjected to experimentation and critiques and then ratified as the ultimate realities (Hietanen et al., 2020). Nonetheless, scientism faces substantial critiques that are against its exalted adoption in society.

The first anti-scientism argument is called the false dilemma of scientism. According to this particular assertion, scientism itself is not established on the foundations of science. Scientism uses non-scientific principles of belief such as senses, memory, and hypothesis (Hietanen et al., 2020). As such, for scientism to be a reliable body of insight, it needs to disentangle itself from the aspects of soft sciences such as memory and senses. However, in doing so, the functioning mechanisms of scientism would be maimed and thereafter render it obsolete.

Another major argument is that scientism is self-refuting. This is in the sense that scientism only acknowledges knowledge or theories that have been ascertained by science. Therefore, for scientism to be affirmed as the foremost source of information and knowledge needs to be rationalized scientifically (Hietanen et al., 2020). However, such justification cannot be enforced through scientific research, since it is not feasible to formulate an exploration of scientism.