I agree that science can do things that most religions can’t, but I pretty much reject the concept of “religion” anyways, since it means so many different things to so many different people, and the idea that religion ought to exist n a separate sphere from religion is a completely liberal view of humanity.  It’s a view I share, but it doesn’t need to be this way.  Of course, empirically, medicine is the only way to cure certain illnesses.  That’s pretty obviously true.  What’s not obvious though is the way one conceptulaizes this process, the way one orients and discovers the sacred, with or without or against science, and the idea that there is a right or wrong way to do this with our without science seems suspect to me.  Anyways, an interesting article on faith healing.

I don’t know how the case will turn out. But the more important thing to communicate to parents is that this is bad religion. Science is a way of grappling with what we can know empirically. Religion is a way of grappling with what we can’t. Each of these disciplines must recognize its limits and defer, beyond that, to its counterpart. Properly understood, there’s nothing unscientific about religion, and there’s nothing irreligious about science.

I’m not saying the distinction is perfectly clean. It isn’t. Sometimes religion and science have to work together. But it’s crucial to ask which kind of question you’re facing. Healing is a physical phenomenon. Can faith influence it? Yes. Look at the latest study on acupuncture: It sometimes works, apparently because patients believe in it. But what happens when people pray for your recovery without you knowing about it? Answer: Nothing. Belief, not God, is the medically salient factor.