Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine [Hardcover]

Richard P. Sloan (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0312348819 | ISBN-13: 978-0312348816 | Publication Date: October 31, 2006 | Edition: First Edition

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.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Thanks to some studies and to accounts by physicians, patients and theologians, it has become popular to believe that prayer can heal the sick and that attending religious services regularly can extend one's life. But does the evidence for a link between religion and health hold up? Sloan, professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia, probes the matter in this sometimes provocative but often prosaic book. Reports of the relationship between religion and medicine, he says, are greatly exaggerated and detrimental to both. He writes that dissatisfaction with contemporary medicine, uncritical media stories about religion and health, and advocacy groups that promote a link between religion and health have encouraged patients to seek alternative treatments that exploit that connection. Sloan examines the thousands of reports that prayer has been the key element in healing and finds many are based on anecdotes rather than systematic data collection. Even scientific studies on the healing capacities of faith and prayer do not always prove what they are purported to prove; some, for instance, touch only peripherally on the role of religion in health. For Sloan, attempts to connect religion and medicine can jeopardize patients' lives by giving false hope. Although repetitious, Sloan's book offers clear challenges to patients and medical professionals who embrace prayer as a means of healing. (Nov.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist

Sloan contends that the recent upsurge of allegations that prayer and religious affiliation can cure or prevent illness dishonors both religion and medicine. The claims--indeed, the majority of so-called studies most often cited--are at best of dubious validity; at worst, blatantly misleading. Despite which, of course, the reports and anecdotes persist, perpetuating misinformation that Sloan feels is dangerous because it fosters relationships between doctor and patient, and between good health and illness, that disrespect the unique qualities of science and faith. God and faith shouldn't have to endure scientific scrutiny, and to remain viable, science mustn't be compromised to prove religious points. Doctors shouldn't inquire about patients' religious beliefs, Sloan says, for then they may be tempted to abuse their authority to influence them. Sloan's argument is good as far as it goes but overlooks the need for physicians to know patients' religious beliefs to address possible faith-based impediments to such procedures as, for example, blood transfusion. Donna Chavez
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 304 pages
• Publisher: St. Martin's Press; First Edition edition (October 31, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0312348819
• ISBN-13: 978-0312348816
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.2 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,093,716 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

30 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Shoddy Work Done By These "Researchers", November 11, 2006

By 

The Spinozanator "Spinozanator" (Harlingen, Texas) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine (Hardcover)

Does the practice of religion bring health benefits to the faithful? Not likely, says Richard Sloan. He has been simmering for years about the poor research that says otherwise, prompting him to co-author a literature review for "Lancet" in 1999 and now this book. Much of the research reviewed in "Blind Faith" has been supported by advocacy foundations that think religion is good for your health and don't mind using the tools of science to prove it. Relentlessly, they misuse these tools and an uncritical media propagates their invalid conclusions.

Suppose you want to see if religion influences health. Since it's not feasible to randomly assign half your group to be religious and half irreligious, the groups are "self-selected" by church attendance surveys. Never mind that church attendance is known to be over-estimated in face-to-face interviews and that attendance doesn't necessarily measure devoutness - those details are routine hazards of epidemiological research.

In five years your data shows the mortality rate to be higher for non-church-goers. Should that be proof of a health benefit or is it more likely that people too sick to attend are also the ones more likely to die. What about the influence religion might have on smoking, drinking, drug usage, and a hazardous life-style? Is resultant better health the direct effect of religion or is a byproduct of a healthier lifestyle - called a "confounder"? Observational studies of this type are all that's available in much of epidemiology. Confounding is a serious problem, subject to biased interpretation. A randomized, double-blind experiment is much preferred.

Ideally, all studies would be randomized and double-blinded - you take a group of people, randomly divide them into 2 groups, apply the variable to one group and a give placebo to the other, without the researchers or either test group knowing which group is which. Then you compile and evaluate the results. Standard methods are used to minimize bias and statistics are applied to see if the differences are significant.

Many randomized and double-blinded studies intend to show that intercessory prayer (IP) improves surgical outcome. Most of them have significant methodological flaws, commonly misusing the data. The researchers are looking to prove their stated hypothesis, but dozens of outcome variables may be incidentally measured. If you measure enough variables, some will achieve significance. These should be identified and researched with another study. Instead, a biased researcher might say, "Eureka! The prayers were answered." This is called the "sharpshooter's fallacy" - drawing the bull's eye on the barn after the arrows have reached their mark.

The following things good researchers take great care not to do:
1. Use anecdotes
2. Ignore confounding factors
3. Confuse correlation with causation - Factors associated with health outcomes may be markers but not causally related
4. Scientific conclusions cannot be based on the sharpshooter's fallacy

The authors writing articles about the religion/health issues are guilty of all these things and more. As a result, their articles are almost always published in the same group of sub-par journals, released as abstracts, or leaked to the press without peer review. They are then restated inaccurately in religious periodicals until they reach the myth stage.

The best part of this book is Part Two: Reading the Evidence. It is a well-done expose of religion-inspired efforts to skew data. The rest of the book (rightfully) takes to task those Doctors who want to evangelize while they practice medicine, but I don't see this as the burning issue Sloan does. Throughout the book, he questions the validity of doing these studies at all - because it trivializes religion. Religion shouldn't get this free pass and I eagerly welcome the few well done studies - the poor ones are not going to disappear. There is much to be said for relentless application of the scientific method - no other method has ever worked so well in uncovering the truth. If certain myths fall by the wayside, so be it.

10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Religion & Medicine, January 22, 2007

By 

Marilyn Clark "Freethinker" (Washington State) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine (Hardcover)

Fast read, non-technical. Good overview on how to evaluate the quality of studies, medical journal reviews, and the process of scientific experimentation. The third section of the book seemed to bog down and become more "opinion-based" rather than fact- or statistically-based.

13 of 18 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Hard Look at the Facts, October 31, 2006

By 

Wantz Upon A Time Reviews (Chicago) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine (Hardcover)

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