Suppose that independent double-blind scientific studies were conducted at Duke University Medical Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Stanford University School of Medicine, and Yale School of Medicine that determined that intercessory prayer resulted in statistically significant improvements in patients’ recovery and health. Suppose that these studies were published and were peer reviewed in prestigious journals, such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and the Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. As one example of the findings, suppose that patients who were prayed for were 15-20% more likely to recover from surgery without complications, such as strokes or infections. Suppose that there are no studies to the contrary, and that there is no controversy over the studies.
Question:
Should government fund further study of intercessory prayer?
===========================================
Of course, I would, on principle, oppose government funding of this or any other research. But I’m interested in hearing the pros and cons from people who do not hold, as I do, to the Noncoercion Principle as a political foundation. I would think that there might be mixed feelings about this: on the one hand, it might be argued that there is a wall of separation between Church and State; but on the other hand, it might be argued that the State should do all it can to provide for the welfare of its people. And I’m sure that there are arguments for either side that I haven’t even thought of. I’d like to hear your argument (and I may debate you on it), and I’d appreciate it if you would identify where you are on the political and religious compasses.
I think that the government should fund any reasearch into something that seems, according to legitmate scientific tests, to be effective, whether it is prayer or telepathy or rubbing blue mud in your navel. The government has and does fund study of intercessory prayer, as far as I can tell:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/healing_prayer_5-21.html
''MR. OSTLING: Walker’s project was the first prayer study funded by the federal government. Ursula Goodenough, Professor of Biology at Washington University in St. Louis, objects to government funding. She thinks it lends credibility to what she considers questionable therapies."
I would support further study into this, if only to discover the mechanism by which the effect occurs. Current scientific theory does not support having one person’s recovery affected by another person’s prayer (or lack thereof).
The existance of such an effect would turn the scientific world on its ear, and we should welcome that. One thing that is very common with supernatural effects is that they do not happen with any regularity, nor are they replicable. Get past that, and you should have a world of scientists interested, with or without the government’s aid.
At that point, no. There could be slippery slope arguments made, and perhaps someone will come along with an argument that makes me rethink my position. But a study on spirituality and its empirical effects does not appear to be establishing a religion to me. In your scenario, we have established pretty well that the effect does happen, so we should learn more about it. Separation of Church and State has never required ignoring scientific evidence. Do you think it does?
Now, if they refuse to fund any similar non-christian or atheist studies, THAT I would object to.
No, of course not. But it doesn’t require funding everything scientific either. There is much scientific research that government does not fund. In fact, “60% of pathology articles, 62% of internal medicine articles and 74% of surgical articles” in the “10 most cited journals in the fields of internal medicine, pathology and surgery” were unfunded. Cite. Just because it can be determined scientifically that prayer works does not mean that government should fund it unless you believe that general welfare overrides religious freedom. Why should an atheist have to pay taxes for studies of intercessory prayer, no matter how scientific they are?
Whether to fund the studies should be determined on the legitimacy of the research done and the good likely to come of it. Fundamentalists have to pay for evolution research and JW’s have to pay for blood transfusion research. It’s all about the science.
(NOTE: You said this was a SOCAS thread and not a Noncoercion Principle thread.)
In your hypothetical, with a scientifically demonstrated causal relationship between intercessory prayer and medical healing, can you not imagine how much less taxpayer money would be required for health care if such an effect could be scientifically exploited? We’re no longer talking about “expanding the boundaries of knowledge”, we’re into the realm of R&D with a calculable financial payoff.
And a few social benefits as well, one might imagine…
To what end? It sounds like the studies leading up to your question are conclusive, I’m assuming with all other factors controlled for. Release the findings, let people pray if they want to, right? What kinds of further study are you thinking of?
I can understand your points of view, but I don’t think that Church was separated from State on account of Church being unscientific. I think it was separated so that people could be free from government’s intervention in matters of faith. I’m not talking about noncoercion; I’m talking about the first amendment. Noncoercion would address this or any other study, but the first amendment addresses this study only, because it is prayer. Now, just because science might determine some validity to some aspect of religion — hell, even if science proves outright the existence of God — I don’t see how the government can have any role in it. What about first amendment issues?
Zwaldd
More of the same sorts of studies, at the same or other research centers if you like. The hypothetical studies are unfunded.
I’m an atheist and I would have no quarrel with the government funding research into prayer. (Assuming, as you spell out in your OP, that there were some intriguing leads that were begging to be followed up.)
Remember, the research might wind up establishing that there’s a neurobiological reason why prayer works that doesn’t involve an actual communication with a supernatural being. Maybe people are capable of a hitherto unknown subconscious form of telepathy … who knows? It’s not any different from research into mental patients who experience religious visions. If there’s a real physical effect, it’s worth finding out what’s causing it.
And if further experiments did in fact conclusively establish the existence of God … well that makes separation of church and state kind of moot, doesn’t it? As long as well-intentioned adults can rationally disagree over the form and existence of God, it makes sense to put such matters beyond the reach of law. But if God’s existence were conclusively proven and his properties established, it would be wrong for the government not to encourage behaviours in accord with His wishes. Religious observances would become a matter of public health.
I’m not sure scientific proof of God would necessarily make SOCAS moot. If the various religions are still different interpretations of the will of a non-universally communicative God, then the practice of religion would still, by definition, be a matter of faith, separate from the realm of government.
Good point. I imagine the protection clause would contract so the unknowable mind of God would still remain beyond the realm of law, but the established physical manifestations of God’s existence would be fair game for legislation.
Further studies might not be redundant. They might, for example, test for particular demographics or for particular pathologies. Is there greater improvement for Asians than Hispanics? Fewer complications for eye surgery than for hysterectomies? And so on.
=====================
Regarding the science, I still don’t get why that even matters. Were Church and State separated because religion is unscientific? Is there anything from the Founders’ letters or articles to suggest that that is the case? Has any court ever held that if a thing is both religious and scientific, then government may establish a law with respect to it.
What if they determine that Atheism statistically leads to higher grades and IQ among students ? Would government fund that ?
First thing that came to my mind. Newsweek and Time magazine both had reports about the influence of prayer on the Brain... so I suppose someone researched that. I don't know how science funding works in the US... but I bet some government money was probably used somehow. (not much... but certainly some.)
All the time. Bakeries that produce hosts for communion must still pass health regulations. Churches must meet local fire codes. The state doesn’t turn a blind eye to ALL aspects of religion … only to those mysteries beyond the reach of rational debate.
If prayer were conclusively demonstrated to have a concrete effect in the real world, it would be perfectly appropriate for the government to fund further research into it, even to regulate it.
Well, no, but one of the established First Amendment tests is called the “Lemon Test”, which says a law or public policy affecting religion isn’t unconstitutional if it:
Serves a legitimate secular purpose.
Has as its primary goal neither the advancement or inhibition of religion
and
Does not create excessive government entanglement with religion.
So, if there is some scientific basis to faith healing or prayer helping in healing, the study of such would have a secular purpose…healing the sick, and that would be the primary goal of the government policy.
If the initial studies suggested some variations like that, then the government should treat it the same as it would for any treatment. Do they fund studies for those things now? Were any side-effects found? If so, it may have to be reviewed by the FDA. Otherwise, I would say let private groups fund further study.
