Collapsing NOMA - Ensign, June 2008

The late Stephen J. Gould is known, among other things, for his view of how science and religion relate to each other. He called it Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA) and argued that

"the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."

This is a controversial idea; some agree with it, while others argue that the two sides cannot be honestly separated--that many religious teachings and practices do, in fact, touch on the empirical realm and therefore constitute scientific questions.

With this in mind, the June Ensign has an article, The Spiritual Component of Healing, by Elder Alexander B. Morrison, an emeritus Seventy. The section, "The Role of Medicine," caught my attention. After explaining that we should consult and follow the advice of qualified professionals (which I was glad to see), Elder Morrison writes:

Wise health professionals—whatever their academic training or orientation, be it primarily medical or psychological—increasingly are aware that spirituality is a significant component of their therapeutic resources. As recently as a decade ago only a handful of medical schools in the United Sates offered courses in spirituality and healing, but now more than half do. Particularly with religiously devout patients, evidence is beginning to show that spiritual approaches to the psychotherapy of depression, for example, are at least as effective as those that are purely secular. A growing number of physicians and psychotherapists now use spiritually oriented approaches and interventions in treating patients with both physical and mental illnesses.

No references are included. A little internet searching appears to confirm that more medical schools are offering courses in spirituality and healing. Religion--or other forms of spirituality--certainly play an important role in the lives of many people, and will impact treatment decisions, attitude, and overall mental health. I think it is entirely appropriate that physicians and counselors have an understanding of how these issues impact the health of their patients, and use them to their advantage--in ethical ways, of course. What spiritual approaches to healing are--and ought to be--used by health professionals are not specified by Elder Morrison. Nevertheless, it seems to me that he is implicitly rejecting NOMA; he even refers to unspecified "evidence."

Presumably we all want our medical care based on the best evidence available. I don't know what spiritually oriented interventions Elder Morrison has in mind--particularly for physical illness, but should physicians make such recommendations unless they have evidence to support their use? And how can such evidence be obtained without rejection of NOMA and opening up to the possibility of falsification? If there exist effective spiritually oriented interventions, there are also, presumably, some that are less effective or worthless. How can the good be separated from the worthless without rejecting NOMA? Are we willing to subject our favored interventions to such tests? How does this square with teachings that spiritual things are not meant to be validated scientifically?

Aside from these interesting (to me) questions, I have two principle concerns with how this paragraph may be perceived. First is that some may think that LDS religious 'spiritual' practices are supported by science. I'm not aware that such practices have even been evaluated, much less supported. Second, I fear that some will interpret this as endorsement of alternative health practices or philosophies that could be interpreted as spiritually based (e.g. chiropractic, therapeutic touch, acupuncture) because they make claims about vital forces, healing energies, etc, but that have no basis in modern science, and do not hold up to scrutiny. But then, that takes us back to the question of NOMA.

---