Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine

by Richard P. Sloan

In an America that increasingly turns its back on the teachings of science, the worlds of religion and medicine have grown disconcertingly close. A majority of Americans now see prayer and other religious activities as a substitute for well-researched methods of curing disease. Many ask, "So, what's the problem with prayer?" By taking a hard look at the scientific evidence. Richard Sloan believes there is no proven curative power to prayer and that the use of it as a medical treatment underminds effective patient care.In Blind Faith , Sloan exposes the questionable research practicies and unfounded claims made by ethical scientists who manipulate scientific data and research results to support their claim of effective mystical intervention in healing. Sloan begins by looking at how good science works and what it's founded on. He then discusses the faulty methodology employed by those trumpeting the role of prayer in healing and implicates a gullible media in the propogation of bad science. He looks at ethical and clinical concerns of the debate and the ultimate trivialization of religion that results. As the Christian right turns its back on science, medicine, seems to be its next target. Sloan lays bare the faults of these assertions in a book sure to make headlines.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Religion, Politics, Atheism

304 pages, Hardcover

First published October 31, 2006

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sloan (no relation) addresses and answers three critical questions on teh relationship between religion and medicine:

1) Do efforts to link religion and health represent good science?
2) Do they represent good medicine?
3) Do they represent good religion?

Unsurprisingly his answer to all three is a clear NO.

The section on religion and health is somewhat dry, focusing as it must on study methodology. However, this is largely unavoidable, as how can one judge if the studies cited are good science without having clarified what precisely constitutes good science?

The section on good medicine is less dry as it includes more examples, many reasonably compelling. The last, on good religion focuses on the practice or religion rather than specific beliefs.

Overall an interesting and well-argued read, albeit a bit dry at times. By way of disclaimer, as a practicing physician with a good background in statistical methods, it is difficult fro me to judge how accessible and interesting some of the discussion may be to others with different backgrounds.

[Peter · Rating 2 out of 5]

Would work better as essay. The basic theme is fine except the book just goes on and on - fluffed up essay

[Virginia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Long read but worthy of all the pages. True scientific discussion of religion, dissecting all of the points that have been made in recent years connecting religion and medicine. While I was reading to confirm my own beliefs and in separation of medicine and religion, I have come away with new ways of thinking about the topic and plenty of new research to cite.

[Sue Caulfield · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you are looking for one person's opinion on this topic, this is the book for you. It is not a scholarly book and there are numerous methodological issues with his approach.

[Mof · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book that should be an article. It takes a lot from the thoughts of Steven Jay Gould about the separate domains of religion and science.

There are two main points.
First, for many people, religion bring comfort in times of difficulty.
Linking religion and health trivializes religion

Second, methods of science have contributed nothing to ethics, inspiration, morals, beauty, love, hate or aesthetics. These are beyond the domain of science.

Always hope for the best, even if we do not expect it.
Quality of patients life is better with hope than without.
In all things it is better to hope than to despair. Goethe

Subjectivity over rationality
- actually there was no period of rationality
- before Sputnik nobody studied math

Dissatisfaction with state of medicine

Why has non rational thought about medicine seem to have increased.

Advocacy groups most notably the John Templeton Foundation

Media
- metamedia stories about stories
Metanarratives

What can we believe about medicine and faith based medicine.
- Only reports in peer reviewed journals are valid
- highest quality journals are best
- discount claims at press conferences
- cautious about bold claims

[Denise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Simple, easy reading -and a bit redundant. Mr. Sloan asks: Do efforts to link religion and health represent good science? Do they represent good medicine? Do they represent good religion?

The first chapters cover a very brief history of medicine and religion. This is followed by explanation of the scientific method and how to think critically about science information. Ultimately, he answers "no" to all three questions.

Really good line on page 57.
"We crave more personal, more caring treatment by the health care system. We want to be treated like people, not cases with one disease or another, not collections of tissues and organ systems."

For anyone who has taken science and critical thinking in an accredited college, this book may not offer anything new.

[TJ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Could the author be more biased or skeptical. Would value and respect the book more if he even tried to be non biased.
Also he picks the low lying fruit of research articles on medicine- ones that focus on prayer and church attendance. There are more articles that focus on quality of life and religion

[Joan]

A lot of words to tell me what I already knew. Comfort is good in whatever form it comes in. Not to be confused with being favored by whatever god one believes in.

[travelerblue · Rating 2 out of 5]

Religion and medicine can be mixed - just not by the doctor.