Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine

This is the definitive book on religion and medicine: they are different and do not mix very well. Most of the research on the effect of religious activity on health has been sloppy, and the results have been negative. Neither going to church nor prayer will guarantee better health or longer life. Physicians have neither the time, nor the expertise to counsel patients on questions of religion, or meaning, or spirituality. For this there are other experts,-- ministers, priests, chaplains, etc. -- trained in the ministry and theology, as well as in counseling. This is a very good book. It is especially solid on science and medical research, explaining what conclusions can realistically be drawn and what can not be drawn from the existing research, but also what is possible to research at all.

There was a time when the Church decided to take on the science of physics. They decided that the earth was the center of the universe and sentenced Galileo to life under house arrest for saying otherwise. Having lost that battle, it now seems that religion has decided to take on biology and medicine. ==Since our time is a bit more scientific than was Galileo's time, thr arguments from the religious are often framed in the words of science, specifically research papers that purport to show proofs that the religious views are correct. In this book Dr. Sloan (Professor of Medicine, Columbia) looks at some of the studies that have come out saying things like church goers live longer (perhaps those in the process of dying are too sick to go to church), the power of prayer, the power of crystals and so on. He also laments the lack of understanding about basic scientific principles and views among people who have gone through our educational system. And then there's the 'UN'intelligent design folk who are trying to force the adoption of their religious based ideas into out schools. With the right wing fanatics in the Muslim world, and the Christian right trying to take over this country, it makes you wonder what's happening to the world.

Will attending church or reading the Bible help you live longer? Help you have less complications after surgery? Help your blood pressure go down? Columbia professor Richard P. Sloan introduces us to the major players in this new area of Christian evangelism. The studies purporting to show any health benefits from going to church or "being religious" are all so flawed as to render them useless. Using his epidemiological knowledge, Sloan carefully shows the reader how one should analyze claims from the media and claims in journals that purport to show a connection between religious behavior and improved health. In an organized, straightforward approach, Sloan one by one rips these shoddy studies and their charlatan authors to shreds. It's just beautiful, and Sloan should be applauded for using common sense, caution, and science to analyze this growing movement. He's right--trying to bring religion into medicine is a very bad idea with all sorts of negative consequences for patients, physicians, and the general public. Somehow, after a beautiful twelve chapters, something goes horribly wrong. Professor Sloan bumps his head, is pressured to soft pedal to sell more books, or something--but the rational, sensible flavor of the book just goes out the window. He has just taken us on a very pleasant journey using a clear head, reason, and science to find the truth of this important matter. But now, we must throw all those tools away because we're going to talk about religion. We must keep religion away from medicine, we read on p. 241, because we might "dumb down religion by eliminating what is distinctive about different religious traditions." Tradition is right--that's all there is to any religion; and therefore, there is nothing really distinctive at all to lose. Better still, "...religion and science are independent approaches to knowledge, and neither can be reduced to the other" (p. 253). What? We can't or shouldn't use science to see if the Earth is the center of the universe? We can't use science to see if the world was destroyed by a universal flood six thousand years ago? You bet we can, and we should. As if he hasn't already hasn't weakened his argument enough, Sloan tells us that "religious truths are considered to be enduring and not subject to change. Scientific truths, on the other hand, are completely dependent on evidence, and as new evidence merges, scientific truths change accordingly" (p. 254). This is pretty misleading. Religion is a set of stories invented to explain thunder and lightning (when we didn't yet know how they come about), a set of stories to quell our fear of dying. That's it; and implying that religion is the one constant in life while science is always changing its mind is incredible. Scientific truth is real and lasting; it is like a building that keeps getting taller--very, very infrequently do we ever adjust anything in the lower levels of the building. On p. 260, we are told that if we us

There is a growing movement to incorporate religion into the practice of medicine. Proponents claim that hundreds of studies have shown the benefits of intercessory (distance) prayer, energy healing, and so on. Anecdotal stories of miraculous interventions abound. The media has been glutted with supporters of various religious links to healing and medicine. But is it true? Does solid, empirical evidence really exist to prove these claims? Richard Sloan, Ph.D. and behavioral medicine professor at Columbia University, disputes the validity of these findings. In his new book, BLIND FAITH: THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE OF RELIGION AND MEDICINE, Sloan examines the impact of religion on healthcare. He not only takes a critical look at the sources of supporters' research, but at the mental, spiritual, and physical effects of blending religious ideals with medical cases. In addition, he raises the concern that sponsoring such research is harmful to religion; that to take something transcendent and try to make it scientific is to trivialize it. Toward the end of the book, Sloan posits: "Recognizing the effort to bring religion into clinical medicine as bad science, bad medicine, and bad religion is not a critique of religion at all. In fact, it's an effort to protect religion against the trivialization of being simply another part of the scientific enterprise." Ultimately, Sloan does not dismiss the importance of religion to patients and some doctors. However, he uses this platform to expose the dangers of mingling religion and health in inappropriate ways. "But recognizing that religious and spiritual concerns arise in times of illness doesn't mean that doctors should take these concerns on as part of their responsibility," Sloan writes. "... doctors lack the time, the training, and the experience to engage in spiritual interactions with patients." This book is an important look at a growing movement. Sloan's voice needs to be heard above the din, lest the system goes completely awry. Reviewed by Christina Wantz Fixemer 10/17/2006

Dr. Richard Sloan tackles an area that has not been debated much in the public arena--yet. But with the not-so-stealthy attempt to turn America into a nation of Christian law, being led by the White House, we had better discuss the implications of faith on laws pertaining to healthcare. 'Blind Faith' goes into great detail about what makes a scientific study credible. Sloan then puts various claims of 'faith causing healing' up against those tests. Faith fails every time when held to scientific principles. Sloan also rips to shreds biased 'studies', funded by the religious right which are inaccurately reported to try and prove that faith heals. Consider for a moment the religious right in charge of funding for stem cell research-- which has been proven to lead to cures for a variety of debilitating diseases. Guaranteed they'll be no cure for the aliment afflicting you or your loved one if religious zealots have their say. Recall the Terry Schiavo debacle--which had elected officials rushing back to Washington from recess to try and intervene in something which was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS in the first place!! And think about your right to have a living will wherein YOU decide when your life should end, not some bible-thumping do-gooders with selfish, baseless, myopic agendas. These are just a few of the examples Dr. Sloan explores in this well-researched, well-reasoned book. If these thoughts trouble you, then I recommend you pick up this book which provides good reading for students of science and proponents of church state separation.