Religion and Medicine:
Why Faith Should Not Be Mixed With Science


Richard P. Sloan		  
Larry VandeCreek

Does religious faith contribute to better health? Despite a lack of solid evidence, advocates of a growing trend to integrate religion with medical treatment believe that it does. In their view, doctors would enhance their effectiveness as medical healers by considering, inquiring about, and attending to the spiritual needs of their patients. Indeed, a leading proponent from Georgetown University asserts that "the medicine of the future is going to be prayer and Prozac."[1]

We disagree.

Linking religion with medicine may seem intuitive. But, as we argue along with a group of healthcare chaplains and biomedical researchers in a report in the June 22 New England Journal of Medicine,[2] this movement oversimplifies 2 very complex and different realms of human experience. It oversteps the boundaries of medicine and diminishes the power of religion.

In doing so, it unintentionally opens the door to spiritual coercion. As patients with various illnesses, we generally accept our physicians' professional authority and expertise. There are times when we entrust them with our lives. But what exactly are we supposed to think if our doctors question us about our religious beliefs or advise us to pray more frequently? Is this within their area of expertise as well?

We are all on dangerous ground indeed if we start asking our doctors to become clerics or spiritual advisors.

Those who support bringing religion into medicine argue that there is a substantial body of evidence to prove that religious activities promote good health. They draw the conclusion that greater participation in religious activities would produce healthier individuals, and, further, that it is appropriate and even desirable for doctors to counsel their patients to that effect.

In these times of evidence based medicine, it is essential that all recommendations by physicians be grounded in solid scientific data. So, let's consider the evidence. On the whole, it is weak, with significant methodologic flaws, conflicting findings, and a lack of clarity and specificity.[3]

To date, only a few well conducted studies have demonstrated a link between religious activities and better health. Those studies focused on attendance at religious services, which they found was associated with lower death rates.[4,5] There is no evidence at all that other religious activities -- such as prayer or reading the Bible -- play a role in improving health, despite their importance in people's spiritual lives.

But even if we concentrate solely on church attendance, these studies only take us so far because they fail to explore important questions. For example, religious worship services vary widely in both style and content. Consider the differences between a Quaker meeting, a Roman Catholic mass, and a Jewish service. Do we really want to conduct scientific studies to determine whether some religions are more salutary or better than others?

Finally, we have to keep in mind that these types of epidemiologic studies, even when well conducted, only reflect associations at a very broad level. Correlation does not imply causation. Therefore, these studies do not provide any evidence that recommendations by physicians to engage in religious activity will lead to improved health -- assuming that those recommendations are even followed in the first place. And if there are benefits, there may be an enormous difference between attending church on your own and attending because a physician recommends that you do so.

Although more research will certainly be done in this area, it will likely miss the point. That's because its purpose appears to be justifying a role for religious activities in medical treatment -- similar to the role that antibiotics play in eradicating infections or the role of certain surgical procedures in repairing defective heart valves or replacing worn-out knees.

But religion doesn't need medicine to validate itself. It doesn't require scientific empiricism because it is based on faith. And when you mix faith with science, you serve neither and weaken both.

Evidence suggests that Americans lead rich spiritual lives. They are, however, highly personal and private lives.

They should be kept that way. It is not up to physicians to query patients on their religious beliefs or advise them on how often they should pray or go to church. Those types of discussions are appropriate when the counselor is a priest or a minister or a rabbi or an imam. They are not appropriate when the counselor is a physician, who has neither the training nor the spiritual authority to offer guidance in matters of faith.

If anything, spiritual counseling is an abuse of a physician's authority. It has the power to coerce people who are vulnerable and afraid. That is not what medicine is about. Nor is it what religion is about.

References Sides H. The calibration of belief. New York Times Magazine. December 7, 1997:92-95.
Sloan RP, Bagiella E, VandeCreek L, et al. Should physicians prescribe religious activities? N Engl J Med. 2000; 342:1913-1916.
Sloan R, Bagiella E, Powell T. Religion, spirituality, and medicine. Lancet. 1999;353:664-667.
Oman D, Reed D. Religion and mortality among the community dwelling elderly. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1469-1475.
Hummer RA, Rogers RG, Nam CB, Ellison CG. Religious involvement and U.S. adult mortality. Demography. 1999;36:273-285.

Richard P. Sloan, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, at Columbia University and Director, Behavioral Medicine Program, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, New York. The Rev. Larry VandeCreek is Director of Pastoral Research, The HealthCare Chaplaincy, New York, NY.

April 11, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

Faith-Based Medicine

By RAYMOND J. LAWRENCE

RESPONSIBLE religious leaders will breathe a sigh of relief at the news that so-called intercessory prayer is medically ineffective. In a large and much touted scientific study, one group of patients was told that strangers would pray for them, a second group was told strangers might or might not pray for them, and a third group was not prayed for at all. The $2.4 million study found that the strangers' prayers did not help patients' recovery.

The results of the study, led by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, came as welcome news. That may sound odd coming from an ordained minister. But if it could ever be persuasively demonstrated that such prayer "works," our religious institutions and meeting places would be degraded to a kind of commercial enterprise, like Burger King, where one expects to get what one pays for.

Historically, religions have promoted many kinds of prayer. Prayers of praise, thanksgiving and repentance have been highly esteemed, while intercessions of the kind done in the Benson study — appeals to God to take some action — are of lesser importance. They represent a less-respected magical wing of religion.

In fact, many theologians reject out of hand the notion that any person or group can effectively intercede with God in any respect. Paul Tillich and Karl Barth, the two major Christian theologians of the 20th century (and certainly no opponents of prayer) would have scoffed at the idea. The Lord's Prayer, the central prayer of Christendom, contains no plea for God to influence specific events in people's lives.

The news from science will not lead religious people to stop praying for others. Prayers are expressions of empathy that strengthen a caring community and bring comfort to those who are suffering. Comfort in this context undoubtedly has therapeutic health benefits. But scientists should not leap to the assumption that the ruler of the universe can be mechanically requisitioned to intervene in people's suffering or health.

It is unsurprising and not a little ironic that patients in the study who were told unequivocally they were being prayed for did worse than those who were told only that they might be. When medical personnel dabble in religious practices, we should anticipate that patients might interpret this as a sign of desperation.

Doctors in particular should be pleased that the Benson study demonstrated no benefit from intercessory prayer by strangers. Recently, a colleague told me about a devout, well-educated woman who accused a doctor of malpractice in his treatment of her husband. During her husband's dying days, she charged, the doctor had failed to pray for him. If prayer could be scientifically shown to help, every doctor would be obligated to pray with patients, or at least provide such service, and those who declined to do so would properly be subject to charges of malpractice.

In my several decades as a clergyman working closely with doctors, I have never met one who prays with patients, nor one who prescribes intercessory prayer. There are other ways to express personal care and concern.

Besides, the earlier, smaller scientific studies claiming that intercessory prayer was effective have been exposed as flawed. Perhaps the monumental Benson study will mark the end of all such research.

We should note that the impetus for this recent research has come almost entirely from scientists, not from religious leaders. It seems that no credible theologian has been involved in planning, directing or even consulting on such studies. But scientists who conduct research on religious practice should at least consult reputable theologians. Had they done so to begin with a considerable amount of money could have been saved. Scientists who undertake the work of theologians are as reckless as theologians who pretend to be scientists.

Raymond J. Lawrence, an episcopal priest, is the director of pastoral care at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columibia University Medical Center.