When science fails, then what?

This week I went to see the movie, The Exorcism of Emily Rose. I'd like to provide a brief review of the movie, then offer a few comments on the philosophical issue it raises.

The movie is based on a true story. It concerns the teenaged daughter of a devoutly Roman Catholic family. She experiences a series of mental and physical disturbances which defy explanation. A psychologist concludes that Emily has epilepsy, combined with some kind of psychosis, and treats her with Gambutrol (not a real medication).

Emily takes the medication but the disturbances continue. The family decides that Emily needs spiritual help and they call in the local priest.

The priest attempts to perform an exorcism. Emily stops taking her medication and, some weeks later, she dies.

Clearly the priest did not intend for Emily to die; nonetheless, he is charged with murder. Roger Ebert writes,

What is fascinating about "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is that it asks a secular institution, the court, to decide a question that hinges on matters the court cannot have an opinion on. Either Emily was possessed by a demon and Father Moore did his best to save her, or she had a psychotic condition and he unwittingly did his best to kill her.

I thought this was a pretty good movie, but its commercial potential is no doubt limited. The Exorcism of Emily Rose falls between two stools. It has some of the elements you might expect to see in a horror movie, but it is also very much a courtroom drama.

In fact the movie falls between three stools (which rather spoils the metaphor). Scott Derrickson, who is the director and co-writer, raises a serious philosophical question. I would put it this way:  When science fails, then what?

Are people obliged to continue with their scientific treatment anyway? Does there never come a time when they are free to opt for an alternative, spiritual (or homeopathic) treatment? This is a real issue that plays itself out in the courtroom from time to time.

Derrickson refuses to provide us with an easy answer to the question. This, too, probably detracts from the effect of the movie, as Ebert points out:

Somehow the movie really never takes off into the riveting fascination we expect in the opening scenes. Maybe it cannot; maybe it is too faithful to the issues it raises to exploit them. A movie like "The Exorcist" is a better film because it's a more limited one, which accepts demons and exorcists lock, stock and barrel, as its starting point. Certainly they're good showbiz. A film that keeps an open mind must necessarily lack a slam-dunk conclusion.

Ebert gives the movie three stars; his readers give it three and a half, which seems about right to me:

• This is a good story, well told. It is visually effective and held my attention throughout.


• The role of the defense attorney, which is well acted by Laura Linney, is very interesting. She is an agnostic who can't quite buy Father Moore's explanation of events, but is able to view him sympathetically nonetheless.


• Derrickson handles the material with integrity. The religious characters are not mocked, and the film does not stoop to sexual exploitation. Emily does not dress in baby doll pajamas to face her demons; she dresses as you would expect a teenager growing up in a religious, conservative household to dress.

Here are my personal reflections on the issue raised by The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

We have gained a great deal from science, but it is a trade-off; we have lost a great deal too. I know this from direct, personal experience. I once had a much deeper faith than I do today, and losing many of my core convictions was an acutely painful passage.

Science has given us hope in the face of many illnesses that once would have killed us. Science has increased our life expectancy dramatically, through means both direct (medical advances) and indirect (e.g. we enjoy improved nutrition due to advances in agriculture).

But the benefits come at a price. Sometimes, science fails. Then what? With the loss of religious faith, we have also lost hope of an afterlife. And we have lost the conviction that suffering can be meaningful — even suffering unto death, like Jesus' crucifixion.

The hope science offers is limited to this world. It cannot speak to a life beyond this one; it cannot set our human lives into a context of meaning. At its best, science knows its limitations. The wise scientist remains agnostic about such ultimate questions, and does not presume to offer an authoritative opinion.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose dares to suggests that Emily died in hope. She continued to believe that her life, and her intense suffering, had purpose.

Such a thing is not possible in the absence of a vital faith.

---

If you have already seen the movie, and you want to read an account of the true story that lies behind it, you will find one here.