“Is religion good for your health?” posed Dr. Richard P. Sloan to a sea of thoughtful faces in Matheson 410.

Sloan, author of the book Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine and professor at Columbia University, surveyed the quiet classroom and then followed up with the question, “Are the religiously devout going to lead longer lives?” Students shook their heads. No. To date, there is no irrefutable evidence linking longevity with religion. And to Sloan, this idea is completely ridiculous.

On Tuesday, May 22, 2007, the College of Arts & Sciences and the Department of Physics presented a lecture-turned-debate as part of a Drexel course, Science and Religion, which meets from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The students in the class and other attendees listened attentively, enthralled by Sloan’s quick, sarcastic and witty speech.

“This idea has penetrated the media and influenced the medical field,” Sloan stated with a touch of disgust. A prime example of this is that universities are starting to offer courses on spirituality to students studying medicine.

“But why is this happening now?” Sloan asked. Since the mid-1990s, there has been an increase in media attention to, and a general public belief in, the supposed tie between religion and medicine. According to Sloan, there are cultural causes for this misconception.

“There is a rise in irrationalism,” he said, “especially in the U.S. This sort of trend does not exist anywhere else but in the U.S.”

To prove this rise in irrationalism, he cited a book that has been #1 on Amazon for the past few months and whose author was invited to speak on Oprah:  Secret, by Rhonda Byrne. Sloan’s synopsis and personal interpretation of the book is this:  “The universe is a big cosmic vending machine, and if you send your thoughts out into the universe, then the universe will give you anything that you want.” He paused to let the absurdity of this sink in.

“This is a peculiarly American point of view,” Sloan added. “The wanting of a free lunch is another bizarre Americanism.”

Quoting William James, who described America as “a country moonstruck by optimism,” Sloan went on to tell the audience that Secret has appeared countless times before, in various reincarnations with different names, but always preaching the same dime-store “power of positive-thinking” philosophy.

Sloan cited another book, Sleeping with Extra Terrestrials — which is an accumulation of accounts of people who claim they have had sex with aliens — to prove the irrationalism and absurdity of American culture.

“I can’t understand why anyone would think this,” Sloan said, appearing genuinely upset. “Why anyone would claim that they have not only met an extra terrestrial, but that they have also had sex with him?”

According to Sloan, these books, which dually influence and are influenced by American culture, “demonstrate the willingness of Americans to believe the blatantly untrue,” just as Americans are so willing to believe that religion is good for their health.

But there are other reasons that have driven Americans away from their traditional beliefs in medicine.

“American medicine,” Sloan said, “is one great example of the outstanding versus the appalling.”

Sloan cited a recent New York Times article entitled “People Versus Patients,” which describes several patients’ abysmal experience with the health care system. People in hospitals are more and more treated by doctors and nurses as nothing more than specimens to be poked and prodded. 

“Unfortunately,” Sloan said, “these experiences are not uncommon in the U.S., and they explain why people are looking for other ways to treat their pain and problems; it explains why people are looking for other ways to heal.” And these other ways focus foremost on religion.

“The future of medicine,” Sloan said, “is prayer and Prozac. Tear down the wall between religion and medicine.” But this sort of attitude is becoming more accepted in American culture, and, Sloan admits, it scares him.

“As H.L. Menkin said, ‘There is always a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.’” The combination of religion and medicine is exactly that.

“Nobody disputes that religion provides comfort,” Sloan said. “But can religion add anything to medicine?” Is it good science to incorporate religion into medicine? Is it good medicine? And, is it good religion?

To address the first question, Sloan described how he and a research partner debunked all studies that claimed to link religion and medicine. In 2000, the pair found that 17% of studies conducted reported such a link. But these studies failed to consider other factors. For example, one study asked if participants went to church frequently. Ten years later, the researchers surveyed who was still alive and concluded that more of those who attended a place of worship were still alive than those who didn’t. However, it was later found that people who were suffering from diseases had limited religious participation. So, those who “weren’t active” in their religion, it turns out, were already sick, and thus more likely to die. So in reality, the study indicated that there is no real correlation between religion and health.

Other studies were conducted that violated fundamental scientific methodology. “All scientists know,” Sloan said, “that the way you conduct an experiment is to make your hypothesis first, and then set up a study to prove or disprove it. You cannot do it the other way around; you cannot set up a study and test it until you get the result you want and then make the hypothesis.” This sort of experiment is more of a fishing expedition, and it leaves out the fact that many other scenarios were tested before the right combination of factors to prove the hypothesis was achieved.

But as it relates to religion, the class argued, surely optimism has health benefits. No one in the class could argue that the power of positive thinking could be bad for one’s health.

“But is optimism linked to religion?” Sloan responded. No study has linked the two yet. “And no one can deny that, certainly, religion is also associated with a lot of negative emotions – guilt, for example,” Sloan added.

What about spirituality on its own? The ambiguous American definition of “spirituality,” Sloan suggested, is something that can be neither demonstrated nor measured.

Addressing the second question of whether it is good medicine to incorporate religion into medicine, Sloan considers this an ethical issue.

“There is manipulation and coercion because of religion,” Sloan said, citing a doctor who would ask his patients, after they were already prepped for surgery and about to enter the Operating Room, if they would mind saying a prayer together. “Who could say no, with a scalpel pressed against their neck?” Sloan asked. “Even confirmed atheists would agree to a prayer.”

There is also the issue of privacy. “We consider some things private,” Sloan said, “such as our marital status. Would you go to a doctor who advised you that, to improve your health, you be married by the time he sees you next? Of course not.” The same holds true for a doctor who would suggest his patients get more in touch with their spiritual or religious side. Hospitals recently are offering “spiritual counseling” as a treatment option. That sort of information, Sloan said, just does not belong in medicine.

And the third ethical reason is that incorporating religion into medicine can actually cause harm. Sloan cited cases, such as the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Relatives claimed that the girl was found because she was “the most prayed-for little girl in the world.”

“How can you make this comparison?!” Sloan asked. “Other kids who are lost, they aren’t found because no one prays for them? They don’t deserve to be found because no one loves them enough?”

This sort of statement or belief, while not purposefully meant to cause harm, actually can.

Lastly, Sloan addressed whether it is good religion to incorporate religion into medicine. It is actually surprisingly dangerous.

A recent survey asked physicians if they would not suggest to their patients other treatment options based on their own personal religious beliefs. The study showed that an overwhelming 14% — over 40 million doctors in the U.S. — would not only not inform their patients of alternative treatments or recommend another doctor whose beliefs wouldn’t interfere, but that doctors would suppress all information about different methods based on their beliefs.

“Religious interference is not an idle threat,” warned Sloan.