Of Mice and Meditation

Disclaimer: This post is from the archives, and may not represent the current views of the author. It also may not be at all interesting to read. Continue at your own peril!

I just realized a few minutes ago that I haven’t ranted about my Psychology of Religion class yet (…on here anyway). And it definitely deserves some ranting.

So I’m taking this class this term – Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. And despite what you might infer from the title, it is not located within the Psychology department. Instead, it’s cross-listed under both the Religious Studies department and the Spiritual and Personal Development department. Before the classes started, I was curious as to why that was. But now I know why – it has very little to do with psychology.

Now, sure, we do talk about what different psychological theorists have said about religion. People like William James, Sigmund Freud, Abraham Maslow, Gordon Allport, for example. And that has been interesting. And the textbook is fairly decent. But the prof is another matter. Throughout the course, it’s been a struggle not to completely challenge him on his personal philosophy as well as his academic methodology. I know that sounds strange, and normally I would never challenge a professor like that….but this guy needs to be challenged.

During the first class, he went over some of the major theorists and topics that we would be covering in the class. After mentioning a few of them, he said that each theory has valuable insights to share, and that we needed to view them in complementarity in order to get a fuller picture of religion. Now, while I agree with that to a certain extent, he implied that all of these viewpoints should be given equal weight. And one of these viewpoints was the field of experimental psychology. That made me cringe. Experiments are one of the most powerful tools we have for determining cause and effect. And to place this on the same level as some guy just sitting around and thinking about things, or with a guy who examines a few case studies and creates an elaborate theory from them, is just wrong. Certainly theoretical contributions are important. But we cannot divorce theory from data. Otherwise we risk having these very complex, internally consistent theories that end up not describing anything that actually exists in real life. Of course experimental psychology has its strengths and weaknesses and limitations. But I dare say it has many more strengths and many fewer weaknesses than the case study method. I know that psychology is a difficult field to bring into the realm of science. Dealing with concepts such as consciousness and abstract notions such as love, self-image, justice, etc – these are all difficult to measure. And the psychology of religion is even more difficult. But that doesn’t mean we should just give up on trying to create rough measures to try to tap into them and just rely on what we think is right. Come on. Equally valid? Gimme a break.

Anyway, that was a minor issue for me, ultimately. What really made me realize why this guy’s course was not in the Psych. department was the class when we talked about experiments done to determine the effects of healing. Normally when someone thinks of healing, they probably think about people laying hands on another person, or praying for healing, or something like that. So this one guy set up an experiment, and what did he use? Mice, of course. Because that really taps into the whole idea of healing. Now, I do realize that this does eliminate the problem of the placebo effect – if someone expects to be healed, it often actually has an effect. So I understand the rationale for using mice – they presumably aren’t expecting to be healed. But really…mice? This researcher found a person who claimed to have the gift of healing, and he separated mice into groups – a group who was held in a tray by the healer, a group who just had a heated tray (to see if the heat from the healer had any effects), and a control group. Over something like two weeks, the mice in the first group showed great improvement over the other groups. (One experiment used goiters, and another experiment used mice who had a piece of skin removed.) So what can we say about these results, then? Perhaps that this guy has the ability to heal mice. Big whoop. Or perhaps that there is some connection between mice and humans that we don’t fully understand. Or perhaps mice are smarter than we think, and actually expected to be healed.

Or perhaps…just perhaps…this guy’s methodology was bad. That was the biggest thing that annoyed me. My prof handed out sheets briefly summarizing the experiment, but we didn’t get the actual published article. So how could I be sure that it was a sound experiment? When I got home, I tried to look it up, and it turned out that the studies were published in the Journal of Psychical Research. Which is, of course, a ridiculous journal that also publishes research on stuff like ESP. One of the most important parts of scientific research is the peer review process, where other scientists can take a look at it and determine whether it was methodologically sound and that your analysis was done correctly. But what happens when you get a bunch of scientists together that all believe the same thing to begin with? Where’s the critical eye that is so crucial to the process? Not there, that’s for sure. If this study had been published in a well-known psych. journal, then I’d definitely have to take more notice of it. But I couldn’t even find a copy of the journal article anyway, because my library doesn’t subscribe to that journal. So what am I supposed to conclude about this study if I can’t even actually examine it for myself?

My professor also told us about another couple studies done by the same researcher. After the brilliant idea to use mice, he also decided to follow that up with…bean plants. Yes, of course! What a great idea! So he got someone who was known for being very good with plants – someone with a “green thumb”, as it were – and did a couple experiments with them. He “wounded” the seeds with saltwater, and then had the guy hold the pot with the seeds in the experimental condition for 15 minutes at the beginning of the study. And those plants grew much higher than controls. In another study, he had the guy not even touch the plants at all, but just hold the saltwater solution. And the plants that had that solution poured on them did better than those with a regular, “untouched” solution. Like, come on, give me a break. Even if this study was flawlessly conducted, what does it prove? That there’s some sort of energy being passed from this guy to plants? I’d sooner believe that invisible gremlins were watering the plants when no one was looking. This has nothing to do with “healing”. It has to do with gardening. The only thing to conclude from this is to call up that gardener and get them to plant your flowers for you.

And that, along with a few other equally trite experiments, was the professor’s lip service toward the field of experimental psychology. From these inane experiments, his conclusion was that consciousness must be much broader than we perceive it, which allows us to affect other life forms and pass positive or negative energy. But where are the real experiments? What about the several studies on prayer and healing that have been done? What about research on the persuasive tactics of religions? Or the numerous studies on the effects of religious priming on various behaviours? These are all studies that he could have used, that were all published in respectable journals, and critiqued and replicated by other respectable scientists. Heck, at the very least, he could have given us some better studies on meditation – the ones he talked about were useless. Man, that class made me angry.

It’s not that I have a problem with religion, or with studying it, or theorizing about it. I mean, I enrolled in the class because I was interested in it, and in learning about the research that has been done about it. But this guy just pisses me off. He’s more concerned with trying to convince us that meditation is an “entirely different state of consciousness” (which, even if it is, so what?) and that brains are just filters for a broader consciousness that connects us all. When I looked up his profile on the Religious Studies website, it mentioned that he does a lot of research (if you can call it that) on dreams and dream analysis. He apparently has catalogued and analyzed over 5000 of his own dreams. Seriously, what a waste of time. Psychology moved on from that like 40 or 50 years ago. Now we actually use, you know, real methods. Like experiments and brain scans and autonomic measurements and seven-point scales and priming…etc. I don’t have a problem with alternative theories…what I have a problem with is ignoring all the mountains of research that have been done in favour of stupid theories on brains as “filters” for all-pervasive consciousness that will make us feel one with the universe. There have been a couple times where he has mentioned that scientists have a bias against these sorts of alternate theories. But it’s called skepticism. It’s an important tool for, you know, not being gullible. If these people that do experiments on healing and ESP and alien abductions could provide a solid, double-blind experiment that could be reviewed and replicated, things would change. But complaining that scientists are being too scientific is like complaining that astronomers aren’t paying attention to your astrological theories. THAT’S A GOOD THING. You should do the same…

Anyway, we are now discussing Transpersonal Psychology, which talks all about alternate states of consciousness like meditation and dreaming and such. The chapter we had to read had something very interesting to say. After talking about the development of the theory, etc. it started going into the “state of the world” today. You know, talking about holes in the ozone layer, overpopulation, wars, corruption, and so on. And then it said that we have the solutions to these problems – stuff like renewable energy, for instance. But then it said that without helping people to achieve these alternate states of consciousness and assisting them in feeling “oneness” with humankind and with life, we could not solve these problems. And that’s where I got confused. First off, I don’t think I need to meditate to feel like I’m connected with others. I can just sit and think and say, “Hmm, they’re human, I’m human…I guess we’re pretty similar!” Or even if I couldn’t do that, I can connect with enough people, like my friends and family, to understand that being selfish all the time makes things worse. I don’t think I need to enter some mystical realm of oneness to figure that out. Secondly, if we already have the solutions (or are developing them), as the article says, where’s the problem? All we have to do is….implement them. How is that so difficult to figure out? So instead of actually building solar panels and ending conflict, we need to just sit around and feel all lovey-dovey and get the warm fuzzies. That seems like making the problem worse…because while you’re sitting around achieving transcendence, the African kids are still dying. But hey…you feel more connected to them!

It’s this sort of thinking that just angers me. I don’t like the idea that all opinions and theories are “equally valid.” That’s just complete crap. There are some opinions that are informed, and some that are not, and the former are much, much more valid than the latter. Now, certainly we don’t understand everything, and so there is definitely, definitely room for alternate theories. But the theories can’t just be pulled out of one’s nether regions. They actually have to be able to explain the data better than the last theory. And that requires that we have data to explain. So research – good research – needs to be done to drive the theoretical contributions of science forward. Moreover, as much as mice and bean plants may tell us about how to control the rodent population and keep your garden healthy, it tells us little about religion. The theory can’t be so removed from the data that the data become irrelevant. Healing mice goiters does not convince me that consciousness doesn’t lie within the brain. And I’m not even necessarily a strict monist – I’m open to the idea that we may have immaterial “souls” like dualists would claim. I remain fairly agnostic on the issue, because I don’t think there is definitive evidence that supports one over the other…and that includes the evidence of miraculous bean plant healings. It’s gonna take something a little more definitive than that.

But at any rate, with that said, I do support that sort of research. Hey, if you can come up with a robust experiment to test your theory, great! Go for it. I’d rather you do that then just come with a theory off the top of your head and then publish seventeen books about how it must be the absolute truth. At least the attempt to prove your theory scientifically is a start. But anyway…I’ve gotten a little off-topic, but let’s just say that the class infuriates me. Some classes, it’s been a struggle to just sit there and keep my mouth shut. I really want to confront the professor. But I also want a good mark in the course. So I suppose the only thing to do is to write my comments in the course evaluation at the end of the term. I doubt that I’d be able to convince him – at 5000 dreams in, I think he’s got a significant investment in his current beliefs – but at least it will make me feel better. Who knows – maybe I’ll feel more at one with the universe afterwards.

6 responses to “Of Mice and Meditation”


All I can say about this class is lol. I'm on your side for the majority of what you posted. If he really wanted to do an "experiment" on healing, why didn't he use humans??? Of course, you would physically have to see the problem for skeptical people to draw their own conclusions. I know this first hand from being healed of asthma. I've talked about this in one of my blog posts.

My question on your professor, what does all of this have to do with religion??? It sounds like it just has to do with the "spirituality" part of the title. Is he a skeptic about religion and believes in "spirituality"? I'm confused. (:

Well, that's it for now. Again, lol. And rolling my eyes. Sounds like fun none the less!

I'm tired, that's why the brief comment,



W'dup Jeffery

Does this Prof. of yours claim any "faith"?

I think you are wise and it would be prudent to keep your critique of dude and this class until after you recieve a grade.

I'd sure like to be a fly on the wall in that room when you get going.

Are there any outspoken Believers in that class?



Ola Senorita

Maybe the Prof. tried to get volunteers and no-one accepted? OK class we will be starting a study on healing, I need half of the class to be beaten with leather straps, the rest of us then will pray for them and see whose prayers are answered, and who heals the fastest.

Peace out, feeno


Hi Jeff you said .."There have been a couple times where he has mentioned that scientists have a bias against these sorts of alternate theories. But it's called skepticism. It's an important tool for, you know, not being gullible. If these people that do experiments on healing and ESP and alien abductions could provide a solid, double-blind experiment that could be reviewed and replicated, things would change."

Yes im sure if these ideas could be shown to be reliable and to honestly more often work than not work.

Then it would surely be silly to think we wouldnt see these ideas being used far more often.If faith healers could really heal goiters,then surely we should see faith healers being often used to heal goiters.

I agree i dont think its being very real or even so honest to suggest each theory carrys the same weight.Theories backed up by experiments surely must carry a little more weight than theory without experimental backing.

Yes we should always be open to new ideas of these ideas,but ideas most often are only ideas until some experimental evidence and use of the idea starts suggesting its much more than just an idea.

I guess with these type courses its hard to get people to teach them who are totally unbiased.Maybe most often either they believe in faith healing or dont believe it,either way what ever they happen to believe is more likely to correspond somewhat with the experimental evidence they then supply.

I agree maybe you are best to just forget certain problems you see for now, and not upset the prof! which as you say could maybe effect your marks you get given.



Haha yeah definitely. Unless he's trying to start a religious movement with mice or something, I really don't know… But as far as what you asked about the professor, I don't actually know what his views are about religion and spirituality and such. I get the feeling he's more sympathetic toward some notion of "spirituality" rather than an organized religion, but he's been fairly tight-lipped about that. He mostly talks about different theorists' views on things instead of what he himself thinks. But that's probably a good thing 😛


Again, the prof hasn't really said much about what he believes. I would tend to think that he doesn't adhere to any specific religion, but rather has some notion of individualized spirituality. Damn, now I'm realizing that I forgot to talk about the one class where he brought someone in to do some meditation. That was an interesting experience, let me tell ya lol…but I get the feeling that's what he is mostly into – meditation and dream analysis and stupid crap like that.

As far as believers, well, there are some religious people, but I don't think there's anyone that's really hardcore about it. It's mostly full of psychology students and religious studies students, neither of which are really known for their enormous faith usually lol…oh and I would totally take part in that experiment! I'd want to be the person beating people with the leather straps though….haha


Yeah NO KIDDING! I totally agree. I've always wondered why we don't hear about faith healers heading to hospitals and just healing everyone. I guess they just don't want to put all the doctors out of their jobs, you know? Lol…how selfless of them. If these things worked reliably, we'd be using them. I at least have some sympathy towards meditation, as it can be useful as a relaxation therapy (I think it's common sense that stress can be relieved pretty well with some relaxation), but saying that people can relax with meditation and saying that they can achieve some higher plane of existence are two different things. And experiments might have a difficult time giving evidence for that second one…

But yeah, I suppose it is difficult to get an unbiased person. I just don't like the fact that it's called "Psychology of Religion" and yet there is very little quality psychological research mentioned in the class. If they had gotten a psychologist who actually did experimental research about religion to teach the class, I think it would have been much more insightful. The textbook is a lot better, though, as the guy goes much more into various ways religion has been studied…like, actually studied, in the lab. So I would have much rather just bought the book and skipped the class 😛 Oh well!



My oldest daughter is home from college for Thanksgiving and I was telling her about your Philosphy/Religion class. She said at her school they offer a class called Philosophy of Harry Potter. That's for real. Then my wife said there are schools offering classes in Hip Hop. And you guys will be the future of the world? God help us.

Later. feen


Haha…well, gotta make learning relevant to today's mass media culture, right? Lol…well, maybe the people taking those classes won't be "the future of the world" 😛