Spiritual Healing: Scientific and Religious Perspectives  . Edited by FraserWatts . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2011 . xiv + 207 pages. £55.00 UK; 95.00 $US .

This book is the first volume of a set of two (the second yet to be issued) documenting a symposium on “Spiritual Healing” held at Queen's College, Cambridge, UK, in January 2004 under the aegis of the John Templeton Foundation's Humble Approach Initiative. Twelve authors of different religious and scholarly backgrounds—scientists (notably psychologists), anthropologists, philosophers, and theologians (some also qualified scientists)—and of different nationalities—British, United States, and French—contributed to the 11 chapters of this well‐written book. Chapters 1, 5, 10, and 11 address conceptual issues of “spiritual healing,” which is mainly understood as “special divine action” (pp. 7, 13, 44, 76, 159, etc.), while the remaining chapters present case studies on different aspects of the phenomenon. Each contribution is interesting in its own right and deserves proper recognition, but space does not permit their in‐depth discussion here.

The editor, psychologist Fraser Watts, Reader in Theology and Science in the University of Cambridge, and minister in the Church of England, describes the intention of the enterprise modestly as “beginning to frame the issues” (i). At the end of the book, he admits that “an understanding of spiritual healing is very difficult,” but hopes, nonetheless that “the present volume has made a significant contribution to this important task” (180).

The reviewer begs to differ. While applauding the initiative, he cannot but notice that the inquiry into the admittedly tricky phenomenon of “spiritual healing” as presented here is simply not rigorous enough. The book does not really clarify matters, but rather confuses them instead. How so? Several authors plead for “broadening,”“extending,” or “complementing” the reductionist scientific worldview to accommodate “spiritual healing”; some go so far as to take recourse to the “radical science” of “parapsychology” (whatever that means; 167) and interpret “distant healing” as an effect of “psychokinesis” and “biopsychokinesis,” respectively (174; 140–52). The consequence is not clarification but a blurring of lines of meaningful communication between disciplines. Scientific arguments are diluted and become meaningless, while religious statements get deformed beyond recognition by being pressed into the scientific Procrustean bed. This makes the reader wonder if proofing and vindicating “spiritual healing” to an enlightened critical audience is the hidden agenda of a project framed as an unbiased interdisciplinary inquiry.

Instead of addressing the formal and methodological stalemate between science and religion, the approach taken follows the scientific paradigm of evidence‐based effects attempting to make “spiritual healing” acceptable to those who doubt it by trying to measure its physical impact on breast cancer patients, for instance, whereas the real issue at the heart of the debate is the hermeneutical question of how religion and science address and interpret human experiences and world perception. Unfortunately, this question is not addressed at all, which is surprising insofar as the editor explicitly notices himself, “The key question is not whether spiritual healing is to be understood scientifically or theologically, but what the relationship should be between theological and scientific accounts” (11; original emphasis). Yet, this is exactly what is missing.

Another regrettable flaw is not the reflected difference between “spiritual healing” and “miracle.” The various papers each present different definitions so that there is no coherence in the argument. Further, none of the authors reflects the temporal dimension of personal salvific/healing experiences that make people interpret respective happenings as “miracles” in the first place. Instead, the discourse focuses solely on the rationality and physical materiality of such healing phenomena that defy conventional explanations, thereby implying that “spiritual healings” are eo ipso“miracles.”

Considering the enormous effort that went into bringing this publication about, it is to be regretted that the yield is so poor and disappointing, save the bibliography, which is a valuable repository for any further topic‐related research.