Editor's Correspondence |

Research and Religion

Joseph K. Neumann, PhD
Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(12):1421. doi:.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


Chibnall and colleagues1 are to be congratulated for many points made and supported in their recent commentary concerning research on distant intercessory prayer. The lack of a comprehensive model, the explanatory relevance concerns, and the testability issues are all notable. However, I am concerned about their comments and implications in 2 areas, (1) syncretism and (2) encouragement of future research.

Comments on pages 2531 and 2535 of their article1 (eg, Would anyone "dare" to study differences as a function of specific theological belief systems?) support religious syncretism. That is, the authors support the general notion that all value systems are somehow basically alike, and research into differences between specific systems is inappropriate. Faith systems such as orthodox Judaism and Christianity make some rather exclusionary statements (eg, Exodus 20:3 and John 3:16). While we need to work together in publicly supported institutions, claims of equality among religious systems seem to be driven more by political correctness than data-based research. For example, research has repeatedly found that conservative Protestants tend to be more approving of medical training in-services from a variety of religious value origins relative to liberal Protestants, agnostics, liberal Catholics, and others.2 Exploration of any methodological concerns as well as correlates and causal factors should be encouraged, not shunned as too controversial.



Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles