That’s a no brainer. Definitively yes. And though, being french, I’m unconcerned by the constitutionnal issues in the US, for the same reason (I mean because I support a public healthcare system, and all…), I would also expect the governement to pay/provide for “medical prayers”.
By Lib’s defintion, there could be no government funding of practically anything*, because there is no belief so wacko that some religion won’t espouse it. “You can’t study gravity! Our religion states that things fall because Jesus pushes them, so you are trying to refute our faith!” “You can’t fund algebra! Jesus has 12 apostles so we cannot write the number 12. The goverment is trying to force secularism upon us!” “Goverment paying for cancer drugs for the homeless? We beleive cancer is a punishment from GOD!”
[sub]*Which I think is his point.[/sub]
Then the provisions about religious freedom should be reframed or reinterpreted. Constitutions are suppossed to be based on rationnal gounds. If it becomes obvious that a strict respect of the separation of chuch and state if harmful for the constituents (not just in the “most people think that if these heatens are allowed to do whatever they want, it will be harmful” sense, but in the “it’s established without a doubt that not doing things that way is harmful” sense), then the rationnal aproach is at least to relax the interpretation of the rules at the light of this knowledge.
If we go further and it’s absolutely proven that a given god exists and a given religion is perfectly correct in its beliefs, then the sensible thing to do would be to advance a step further, and to authorize an endorsment of religion, or even a state religion. A constitution is intended to govern the interactions of real humans in a real world, it’s not a hollow chit-chat. If god is part of this real world, then it must be taken into account. Just ignoring it would be nonsentical.
Freedom is not an absolute in the face of harmful consequences for the collectivity. We don’t allow murders on the basis of a theorical absolute freedom which would include the freedom to shoot at whatever you want. Similarily, if blasphemy is proven to cause earthquakes, it would be idiotic to refuse to pass laws against blasphemy on the basis of a theorical absolute freedom of religion, which would include the freedom to curse god and as a result cause earthquakes.
Problem is…in this case, it’s not a matter of faith any more.
Who cares about the first amendment? Should a couple sentences written three centuries ago by now proven ignorant people prevail over reality? Is this text that sacred?
When the government funds things like research it is not usually directly. There exist government organizations that evaluate the scientific merit of various grant proposals and the giving of money isn’t an endorsement or establishment of what is being researched by the government. It is instead a belief of the organization that the study has merit. The money given to the organization out of the government budget is a sign from the government that it believes the sciences are valuable to the public good.
As for the specific issue I think it deserves scientific inquiry because it indicates a new realm of technology - semi-direct control of the material universe. The mechanics and limits of this is bigger than most other scientific issues currently being explored. The government would be pushing to understand it, and I’m imagine a great deal of military grants would be involved. Not only for helping troops recover but if prayer has combat applications it would seem hard to defend against, unless the other side could pray for defense. Thus we would need the best prayer technology available.
I don’t see how studying this would violate the establishment clause.
We’re talking about a correlation between an activity and a statistical result, right?
There’s no reason to assume, from what I read in the givens, that the mechanism would have to involve God, much less a particular religion.
This is an interesting idea. While I would heartily promote the research behind medical prayer, I’m not quite as sure that I’d support the gov’t hiring people to pray over the sick. Nor would I be comfortable with public service announcements promoting prayer as the way to good health.
While I think I would have to reluctantly acknowledge the value of further research if rather concrete proof were offered. It would seem that the government would, from one point of view, be the least objectionable/most likely objective sponsor (pharmaceutical companies would have no interest in a positive outcome*, religious foundations too much interest). I cannot see it getting funded however.
Why not? All prayer is not the same - much as the problem with Pascal’s wager, it is unlikely that the results will become simply a pray/no pray issue. If it does, then the religious issues fall away. If praying to God, the IPU, Cthulhu, or the spirit of ones grandfather are all equally effective it has ceased to be about religion per se. It may be considered government funding of research into the supernatural, but not into religion.
If all prayer is not equal, then my guess is that research into the relative efficacy of Catholic vs. Animist prayer will fly headlong past the SOCAS boundary (or at least sufficiently past that line for the vast majority of Congress who have some predisposition to prefer one sect or religion or another). Such investigation will most likely be sponsored by faith based or interfaith NGOs.
Of course, if 15 years down the line there are so many claims and counterclaims, with fraud rampant through out the therepeutic prayer community the government may be forced to regulate certain aspects of the industry.
*unless, of course it can be refined into a saleable product. “are you having any physical or mental health problems at all? Ask you doctor about Prayerol, from Glaxo Smith Whatever. Side effects in some cases include shortness of breath, nausea, and walking on water. Side effects were indistinguishable from sugar pills”
I do. So should you, if you live in the US.
It’s not a matter of “sacred”. It’s a matter of law.
People with attitudes like yours scare the shit out of me.
The First Amendment protects my right to worship as I please. I’ll fight for that.
As for “ignorant”, we’re all ignorant. (People three centuries from now will know a lot more than we do, or at least I hope so.) But this is the oldest in-force constitution in the world. And that’s not just random chance. It works. The founders may have been ignorant about a lot of things, but politically stupid they were not.
Besides, the Constitution does not intend to dictate reality, but rather to define the limits of the power of the State.
Given what Libertarian has posited, I would eagerly support government funding for more research.
I don’t see how such funding could possibly violate the First Amendment.
What would violate the First Amendment, I think, would be if the original studies showed roughly equal positive results for, say, Catholic, Zen Buddhist, and Muslim prayer, but the government only funded Catholic prayer studies to the exclusion of the others.
Similarly, let’s assume that privately funded studies have shown intriguing hints that atheism and Unitarian Universalism might lead to living an average of 10 years longer, gaining an extra 50 IQ points, and becoming extremely attractive. If the government funded studies into atheism but refused to fund any studies into UU, they would be violating the establishment clause.
In real life, it’s likely that things would not be quite so clear cut. Maybe there’s an X% chance that Mormon prayer works, but it’s possible that any Christian prayer would work as well. And there’s a 2X% chance that Southern Baptist prayer works, but probably less so. It might not be easy to tell which leads to follow, and it might not be possible to fund every lead. In such a case, I don’t think it would violate the establishment clause if the government picked a few leads to follow to the exclusion of others - although it may if they choose particular leads to due to religious bias.
I find this to be an interesting debate for a couple of reasons. One, as Gaudere points out, I oppose government funding of anything except suppression of coercion, so approaching this from the rather statist viewpoint of constitutionalism is quite new to me. But second, I’m surprised at the responses. I would have thought the atheists in our community would be first in line to oppose government meddling in this. After all, government is not some objective monolithic entity that is qualified to direct science. It is populated by politicians whose interests are in the maintenance of power and the manipulation of society.
It is not a slippery slope argument at all, but a quite logical inference that, given the nature of politics, religious leaders would begin to lobby the government for a piece of the tax pie, but more than that for a piece of the power pie. Science rightly would begin to narrow the parameters until it discovered exactly what sort of prayer works best and that would become, as Clairobscure suggests, the state religion. That runs headlong into Captain Amazing’s second provision, namely that government’s role would become primarily the advancement of religion. This is dangerous especially in America where, upon the very flimsiest of scientific footing, Creationists are able in some instances to impose their agenda on schools. It is conceivable that present prohibitions against prayer in schools led by teachers will be wiped away, and replaced by the actual teaching of prayer. This cannot possibly be what anyone wants.
Science is notably a trial and error epistemology. It makes no sense to me to grasp the first emerging straw and give it to government to research. Government works in absolutes — laws that are written in stone. Science doesn’t work that way; it is malleable and designed to revise its findings upon review of the data. As Pochacco says, at this point, science has not even determined that prayer works supernaturally. Allowing the government to be influenced by the institution of religion which already is a political machine could put into place absolutes that science would be hard put to undo. It is not science, but government that would have to change laws made during the infant phase of the research. But once powerful men in religion have their hands in this, I would expect the same sort of corruption we have always seen from government to apply. The money will go to the scientists who are most likely to produce data that helps the politicians to hold onto power. One reason it is so hard for government bureaucracy, once in place, to be dismantled is that accomplishing its task would result in downsizing it. Who needs a HUD if everyone is sufficiently housed? Applied here, it means who needs science if it has already been codified into law? When people are arrested for negligent homicide because they did not pray or pray properly, the fact that they are atheist is no longer an excuse.
If it’s the plain truth, an objective reality, why would you have an issue with the government promoting prayer as a way to good health?
Science is a physicalist epistemology. Prayer, according to science, would merely be neural activity. The issue of whether certain neural activity in other humans is correlated with an independent medical statistic such as lower complication rate or faster recuperation would still then be physical; the religious aspect of that neural activity would be scientifically irrelevent (although, certainly, surprising!).
As for funding, well, simply claim that the beneficial effects of your prayers are statistically significant and the James Randi Foundation will do it for free, and give you $1M if you are successful!
[QUOTE=Sample_the_Dog]
I do. So should you, if you live in the US.
[quote]
I don’t
And should laws/ constitutions never change in the face of evolution of society or knowledge? If they’re not sacred, why shouldn’t they change? And, actually, they do.
It might protect your right to worship as you please, now, but we’re in a new situation, completetly different from the situation we’re accustomed to. Your or another religion is now known to be an objective reality, it’s no more a matter of individual belief or opinion. This religion objectively provides well-being to the members of your society (diseases are cured, typhoons are prevented, etc…), while other religions have at best neutral at worst harmful consequence. Once again, we’re in a situation where it’s an objective reality.
Why the constitution should protect your right to indulge in an activity (worshipping a false god) which has objectively harmful consequences on the rest of society. What is the difference with allowing you to set buildings to protect your right to use your hard-earned gasoline in any way you see fit?
If you worshipping a false god has no harmful consequences, but public prayers to the real god have benefitial consequences, though then you could still be allowed to indulge in your fantasies (which would be, in this case, the same that stating that the earth is flat), why the governement should still be prevented from being involved in an activity which is beneficial for the population and based not on faith, belief, or similar thing but on the reality of the world? Once again, it would be akin to have a constitutionnal provision which would prevent the government from funding a space programm in order to protect the right of people to believe the earth is flat.
You didn’t get it. They are proven ignorant because at the time they wrote the constitution, they didn’t know that there was actually a religion which was objectively correct. They were working on false premises.
Not only a constitution should be modified if the reality changed, but it should (and does) change when merely the society and the mores change (which is way more common than reality changing, fortunately).
And shouldn’t it define the limits of the power of the state within the frame of reality? Or should it ignore reality completely?
And then? Is “I don’t believe in speed limits” or “I didn’t believe that hitting him on the head with a hammer would cause him to die” an excuse for homicide? (apart when the person is legally insane)
It depends on the premises, of course. A study proving that prayers (of an undetermined nature) help recovery for some diseases is totally different from science unarguably proving that that “there’s no god but God and Mohammed is His prophet”.
In the first case, the government should fund research which would try to establish how these prayers have a beneficial effect. As someone said, it might be that some people have ESP/ healing powers which are effective when they focus on someone. It’s not necessarily related to any religion.
In the second case, then the sensible way to go is indeed a state religion. Depending on the what is (scientifically) established exactly, you might have constitutionnal provision protecting the right of people not to belong/ be involved in this religion or not. After all, you’ve every right not to pray god and choose to be send to hell, even if it’s proven you will.
But if it’s proven that by not going to the mosque, you attract the wrath of god on the community, hence causing epidemics resulting the death of thousands, you’re indeed guilty of negligent homicide, and the constitution shouldn’t include provision protecting your right not to go to the mosque anymore than it does currently include provisions protecting your right to spread around containers of anthrax.
I don’t see that at all. Scientists would observe how very specific actions related to the outcome until they could establish a falsifiable cause and effect relationship. This would no more lead to a state religion then the discovery of penicillin led to a state antibiotic.
But this is a potential problem with regard to ANY scientific research, not just your example. If the “official” research deviates from independant research enough, it will have as much currency with the scientific community as internal tobacco company research.
The source of the research won’t impact legislation: they could make such laws without the blessing of sponsored research.
Now, like others have said, if it were as proven that not praying for someone would as easily cause their death as not giving them food, perhaps some legislation is in order. But if it is still up in the air, it would be incorrect to legislate mandatory prayer. But if the legislation tried to do so on the basis of shaky research, they would “get it” from both ends: anyone not of the chosen religion of the state, and the scientific community in general. Opinion polls would determine the rest.
Another thing: in the eyes of the extremely cynical, all else being equal, results would look more favorable if they came from without government. So politicians would have more political power to pass harsh legislation if shaky research came independently than government-sponsored.
And in the fantasy world you’ve proposed, it shouldn’t be. You’ve posited a world where the efficacy of prayer is an undeniable real-world fact. While its appropriate that the government gives religions a huge amount deal of leeway when it comes to extraordinary claims, it shouldn’t hesitate to intervene if those beliefs clearly contradict reality. For example, there have been several cases where Christian Scientists parents have been convicted of child abuse for denying medical care to children who have died. If prayer works, then denying it for “atheistic reasons” is just as misguided as refusing to believe in the germ theory of disease for religious reasons.
Your surprise at the atheist response to this hypothetical suggests to me you really don’t understand atheism very well. I think you’ve fallen into the trap many Christians do, of thinking of atheists as being somehow “opposed” to God. So you expect the atheists to respond to any situation where God is asserted by aggressively pushing back.
But I’m not opposed to God. How can I be opposed to something that doesn’t exist? I don’t think about God at all, unless I’m drawn into a conversation with a theist who reminds me that there are people out there who do believe in that stuff.
If I were presented with evidence that prayer was working I wouldn’t think “Grrrr, a victory for God, I must fight back.” I’d think, “Wow, that’s really cool and unexpected! I wonder how that works?”
As an atheist, I’m not interested in fighting against God. I’m interested in trying to see the world as it really is, as clearly as possible. If presented with new hard evidence about how the universe works, my desire is to integrate it as quickly as possble into my worldview. I think a lot of atheists feel this way.
And I think a lot of theists don’t. Theists, when presented with information that contradicts their core beliefs, tend to reject it out of hand, or spin it, or otherwise mentally paper over it. You expect us atheists to respond to a radical shift in world view the same way you would, by digging in your heels and fighting it. And that’s why you’re surprised at how we’ve responded.
I know you’re worried about religion taking over science, but I really think a greater danger (from your perspective) in this fantasy you’ve proposed would be science taking over religion. If the “rules for effective prayer” could be analyzed and codified, then prayer, a central aspect of many religions, will become thoroughly secularized. I’m not sure how well most religions would weather having their core ritual stripped of its mystery.
A thoughtful and well reasoned analysis, Pochacco, except that atheism is a bit broader than that. I know because I used to be one. There do exist atheists who are antitheists. Just as not all libertarians are pacifists, not all atheists are agnostic. You’ve described so-called soft atheism, but I was a hard atheist. At any rate, I really hadn’t thought about the angle of religion and science merging. As I said in the OP, there are likely points of view that will surprise me. The angle I had thought of is government and religion merging. My fear is that science will merely disappear. I oppose religion as an institution, and I believe that God does, too. That is why I so greatly value the separation of Church and State. As an institution, the church is merely another political entity. And if together they take over science, it will be also.