There is a long history of scientific investigation on prayer with mixed and contradictory results. However, I think now there is enough information to come to a rather strong tentative conclusion. It doesn’t work.
The first study I am aware of on the effectiveness of prayer was made by Sir Francis Galton. Galton was an interesting person. He was a cousin of Charles Darwin. He pioneered the science of biometry (the application of statistics, systems analysis and engineering to the life sciences). He also was a strong advocate of eugenics.
In his prayer study Galton reasoned that many people pray for the health of the King. If prayers were answered then kings should live longer than well-to-do but not regal people. He took a look at records and found they live less long. So he concluded that the effectiveness of prayer was not supported.
More recently there have been a number of studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Four in particular have made a “media splash”. The first three were hailed as scientifically showing the power of prayer without critical analysis. The last study was one which used over 2 million dollars in grant money, involved several centers, had the best controlled model. It failed to show a positive effect for prayer.
I will critically evaluate all four studies and show you that in actuality the other three didn’t either.
(1). Byrd, RC (1988). Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population. Southern Medical Journal 81:826-829.
This was the first on the scene. It was hailed as the first double-blind study on the effects of intercessory prayer. Byrd looked at 393 patients who were admitted to the coronary care unit of San Francisco General Hospital. The patients were divided into 2 groups. The experimental group contained 192 patients; the control group contained 201 patients. Both groups were told that people may pray for them as part of a scientific study. However, only the experimental group actually received prayers.
The intercessors (the people who did the praying) were “born again” Christians. Their normal religious activity included daily prayer and regular church attendance. They were affiliated with several protestant sects and with Roman Catholicism. Each patient in the experimental group was assigned to between 3 to 7 intercessors. The intercessors were told the first name, diagnosis, and general condition of the patient. They were also told of pertinent updates to their condition. Intercessory prayer was done daily until the patient was discharged from the hospital. Each intercessor was told to pray for a “rapid recovery and prevention of complications and death”.
Experimental and control groups were compared on 29 different outcome measures during their hospital stay. The experimental group fared statistically significantly better on 6 of those criteria. They were congestive heart failure (4% of the experimental group and 10% of the control group developed congestive heart failure); Diuretics (5% of the experimental group and 8% of the control group required drugs that stimulate the kidneys to reduce fluid volume); Cardiopulmonary arrest (2% of the experimental group and 7% of the control group had a period in which their heart stopped and required electrical stimulation to restart); Pneumonia (2% of the experimental group and 7% of the control group came down with pneumonia); Antibiotics (2% of the experimental group and 9% of the control group required antibiotics during their hospital stay); and Intubation (0% of the experimental group and 6% of the control group required intubation during their hospital stay).
That sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? In every case in which a significant difference was found the group that received prayer fared better than the control group. Prayer works … or so it seems. But just reporting the results is not critically examining the study. To do that one needs to look at the design of the study and the results that were not statistically significant.
The first thing to note is that there was no statistical differences in what most of us would consider the most important outcomes. Patients in both groups had similar mortalities. There was no difference in the length of their stay in the CCU or in the hospital. No statistical difference in the cases of unstable angina, readmissions to the CCU, coronary angiography, or major surgery. The prayers for the patients specifically asked for speedy recovery (no difference between controls and experimental groups), no deaths (no difference between controls and experimentals), and no complications (no difference in MOST indices). So the question that immediately arises is why some things and not others. No obvious answer arises, nor does any testable hypotheses immediately jump to mind. That is never a good sign.
Dr. Byrd claimed that his was a double blind study. Neither the patients nor the persons determining the outcome were aware of who was being prayed for. In fact Dr. Byrd claimed that the patients, the staff doctors, AND HE, HIMSELF were all “blinded”. So in a sense that is triple blinded. That is the way such studies should be done. In studies like this it is important. Why?
The reason is that presumably it would be Dr. Byrd who is entering the data. Data entry is a boring and monotonous job. Mistakes can easily be made. Also mistakes can be unconsciously be made especially in times like that. As Richard Feynmann said the most important thing in science is to not fool yourself, and the first step in doing that is to realize that you are the most easy person to fool.
Unfortunately, it was discovered afterwards that Dr. Byrd did not enter the data. The data was entered by his assistant Janet Greene. She was also the one who assigned patients to each group. She also gave the names of the patients to the intercessors. She closely monitored each and every update. She was totally unblinded. … That is not the way to do it. Each and every place is a place where her personal biases can enter into the experiment.
So the judgment from this study alone is that there are some intriguing signs that prayer may work. But there also some intriguing unanswered questions and some disturbing methodological flaws.
(2) Harris, WS et al. (1999). A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Archives of Internal Medicine, 159:2273-2278.
This study was hailed as a “truly blind” study that replicated and supported Byrd’s 1988 study. But did it really? Here is what the study reported.
990 patients from the Mid America Heart Institute (MAHI) were divided into experimental and control groups. There were 524 patients in the control group and 466 in the experimental group. Neither patients nor doctors were told of the study so both were unaware that an outside group was praying for anyone.
The intercessors had a variety of Christian backgrounds. 35% were non-denominational; 27 % were Episcopalians; the rest were from different protestant and Roman Catholic sects. 87% were women. The mean age was 56 years old. All said they agreed with the statement, “I believe in God. I believe that He is personal and is concerned with individual lives. I further believe that He is responsive to prayer for healing made on behalf of the sick.” All prayed daily and attended church at least weekly. A group of intercessors was given the name of a patient only. They were instructed to pray for “a speedy recovery with no complications” and anything else they deemed appropriate. They were told to pray for 28 days regardless of the outcome of the patient. They were not given any updates on the patient’s condition.
Experimental and control groups were compared over 35 different outcome parameters. These parameters were then evaluated on a scale invented by the MAHI that rates outcomes on a graded scale. Each time the patient needed some type of medical intervention he was given points. The lower points were given for simpler procedures. The higher points were given for more serious complications. The highest (6 points) was given for death. A patient’s total score is the arithmetic total of all the scores throughout his hospital stay.
It was found that the score for the experimental group was better than the score for the control group by 11%. This was statistically significant at the P=.04 level. That means that only 4% of the time should you expect to get results like that if there really isn’t any difference between the groups you compare.
Harris et al. proudly proclaimed that they had successfully replicated Byrd’s study and the news media so reported it that way. However, they had not. In order to see that we need to look at the study critically.
Byrd had found statistically significant difference between experimental and control groups on 6 of his 29 outcome measurements. They were Congestive Heart Failure, Cardiac Arrest, Pneumonia, Diuretics, Antibiotics, and Intubation. Each of these is included in the Harris study. But there is no statistically significant difference between experimental and control groups on these parameters in the Harris study. In fact, Harris found no statistically significant difference on ANY of his 35 outcome parameters.
The statistical difference that Harris gets is only when the results are lumped together and “cooked” in a rather subjective grading scale. It appears as though the authors were searching to find something significant. In reality, even the Byrd study can be criticized for this. One needs to specify exactly what factors one want to look at before these types of studies are performed. If one uses enough parameters one should find things that appear statistically significant but are only so due to chance. Thus, my interpretation of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of prayer at the point of the Harris study is one that says the two studies contradict each other and no viable claim can be established.
(3) Cha KY, Wirth DP, Lobo RA. (2001). Does prayer influence the success of in Vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? Journal of Reproductive Medicine 46:781-787.
This study was widely touted as evidence of prayer affecting fertility. It was even hailed as a potential breakthrough by Dr. Timothy Johnson on ABC’s Good Morning America. It has become a BIG LESSON of caution for researchers purporting beneficial effects of the supernatural … although you would never know it if you limited yourself to the popular media coverage.
In this study the authors looked at the fertility rates of women being implanted with embryos at a fertility clinic. Looking at this single trait avoids the problem in the two studies above in which a shotgun approach is taken to search for statistical significance. Both the women being implanted and the doctors doing the implanting were unaware that prayer was going on. Excellent double-blind technique.
The fertility rate in the experimental prayed-for group was 50% while in the control not-prayed-for group it was 26%. Almost a 100% increase… a robust phenomenon. All of these things are things we like to see in a study.
Furthermore, two of the authors were faculty members at Columbia University School of Medicine. One, listed as the study’s primary author, Dr. Rogerio A. Lobo, was chairman of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia. You couldn’t ask for better qualifications than that. So then what was the problem with the study?
The answer is the third author. Daniel Wirth it turns out is a big time con man. Soon after the study was published Mr. Wirth was indicted on fraud charges. E had bilked Adelphia Communications out of 2.1 million dollars by infiltrating the company’s computers and having the company pay for unauthorized consulting fees. An investigation into his background showed that he had used an alias, John Wayne Truelove, to obtain a passport and make several trips abroad. He bilked the Social Security Administration out of $103,178 by having his father’s social security checks sent to him for 10 years after he had died.
While none of these things deal with the article directly it does cause one to wonder. What was Mr. Wirth’s role in the study anyway? It turns out he did almost everything. Although Dr. Lobo was listed as the primary author, Dr. Lobo later admitted he knew nothing about the study until a year after it was over. His TRUE role was to give advice on the wording of the article, check out the statistics, and to facilitate publication … Dr. Lobo was on the editorial board of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine.
Dr. Cha ran the fertility clinic. He was responsible for collecting the data on the people being prayed for. He used the protocol developed by … Daniel Wirth. Mr. Wirth collected the data from the intercessors. He is also the one who collated the data. There was plenty of opportunity for fraud.
Since the paper was published Dr. Cha has left Columbia. He works at his own fertility clinic. Dr. Lobo has requested that his name be dropped from the article. He claims that it was erroneously put on there in the first place (despite the fact that he was initially referred to as the primary author). He has stepped down as chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. He is no longer on the editorial boards of any journal. Both Cha and Lobo are effectively out of science and deservedly so.
Mr. Wirth is serving a 5 year prison sentence after having pleaded guilty to all counts of fraud against him.
So, as it turns out this paper is almost certainly fraudulent and offers no support for the efficacy of prayer. At this point I would say that the scientific data is becoming decidedly against it in fact. If the phenomenon were real one would be expecting to see something by this time.
(4) Benson H, et al. (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patents: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. American Heart Journal 151:934-942.
This was a highly publicized research project from the moment of its inception. It was funded primarily by the John Templeton Foundation. It was supposed to be the definitive study on the efficacy of prayer. The Rolls Royce of prayer studies, if you will. It is a huge study. It involves several prestigious heart centers. The researchers were familiar with appropriate design of blinded studies. In short, it was a study that prayer aficionados were looking forward to for almost a decade.
A total of 1802 patients completed the study. The patients were all scheduled for nonemergency coronary artery bypass surgery. They were randomized to 3 different groups. Group 1 consisted of 604 patients that received intercessory prayer after being told that they may or may not receive it. Group 2 consisted of 597 patients that did not receive intercessory prayer but as in group 1 they were told that they may or may not receive it. Group 3 consisted of 601 patients that were told they were definitely going to receive intercessory prayer and did receive it.
So Group 1 received intercessory prayer but were unsure whether or not they were going to receive it. Group 2 didn’t receive intercessory prayer and were unsure whether or not they were going to receive it. Group 3 received intercessory prayer after being assured they were going to receive it.
The intercessors were from two Catholic groups and one protestant group. A list of patients to be prayed for was posted at a central location within each church and the intercessors were to pray “for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications”.
The data was collected by independent auditors reviewing patient records. All investigators, participating nurses, interviewers, and auditors were blinded as to which group the patients were assigned.
The results were devastating for the efficacy of prayer. The complication rates were as follows:
Group 1 patients (received prayer; uncertain that they would receive it) – 52.5%
Group 2 patients (received prayer; uncertain that they would receive it) – 50.9%
Group 3 patients (received prayer; certain that they would receive it) – 58.6%
The first thing to notice is that the complication rate was significantly higher than either the Byrd or Harris et al. studies. The authors attribute this to the thoroughness of the independent auditors. If this is so then it raises further questions about the first two studies.
Group 3 patients experienced a significantly higher complication rate than did Groups 1 and 2. Why this should be isn’t clear. The authors speculated that perhaps knowing they were being prayed for may have unconsciously convinced them they were sicker than they really were.
The other interesting finding is that Group 1 patients had higher complications than did Group 2 patients. This did not quite rise to the level of statistical significance. However, when the researchers looked at the patients that they had classified as having a major complication then the results did reach statistical significance. Group 1 patients had major complications 18% of the time while Group 2 patients only 13%.
Thus, the group of patients that received prayer did statistically worse than those who didn’t even though neither group was certain as to whether or not they were to receive it. This is another result that is hard to explain.
The authors noted that during the design of the experiment they had elected to include in the major complication group patients that they had lost contact with. It was assumed that the most likely reason they would lose contact with the patient was because the patient would have suffered some major complication and be unavailable for follow-up. There were 35 such patients in the major complication groups. When these patients were eliminated from analysis the results were no longer statistically significant. So the authors suggest that the overall result even though statistically significant were really due to chance.
The results have certainly been criticized. Most of the criticism comes from theological sources and center on the inappropriateness of trying to quantify God. I find this criticism rather disingenuous. I am sure that had the results come out showing that prayer was efficacious these same sources would have found nothing inappropriate trying to “quantify God”.
One valid scientific criticism of the study is that prayer by outside sources was uncontrolled for. It would be impossible to do so. I cannot imagine family members and friends so inclined to pray foregoing such activity to aid in the scientific investigation on the efficacy of prayer. However, this type of prayer is true for control and experimental groups. In a study as large as the STEP study, it should even out.
Other criticisms have come from fringe groups. Some say that the type of prayer is important. The basis for this seems to be the Spindrift studies. These studies were carried out by Christian Scientist members Bruce Klingbeil and his son John Klingbeil between 1969 and 1993. They took plant seeds, stressed them in salt water, planted them in pans, prayed for one side and not the other. They reported that the prayed-for side produced more plants than did the non-prayed-for side. They further prayed in two different ways. One in which they asked God to make the plants grow more robustly – directed prayer. And another way in which they asked God to do what was in the best interest of the plant – undirected prayer. They reported that while both prayers made the plants do better than non-prayer, undirected prayer worked the best. All of the prayer studies listed above used directed prayer (actually the Cha et al. study on fertility claimed to use both directed and undirected prayer, but it is unlikely the study actually did either). So, claim these prayer enthusiasts, it is no wonder the results are equivocal.
But the Spindrift studies were never published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal so were never subjected to formal scientific scrutiny. Furthermore, the studies are bathed in a sea of suspicion. The Klingbeils did publish their results on their own. But very shortly after they published their results both of them committed suicide. Why? Some people claim it was because they were persecuted by both the religious and scientific communities. They were supposedly about to be excommunicated from their Christian Science church (I do not know why). The science establishment had poo-pooed their research.
I certainly do not know why they committed suicide, but they seem to have been a strange family. Here is a quote from an Amazon.com review of a book detailing their life. The quote comes from Deborah Klingbeil, Bruce’s daughter and John’s sister:
As the daughter of Bruce Klingbeil and the brother of John (the two researchers whose work is documented in this book) I read Journey Into Prayer with special interest. I can attest personally to the truth of the incidents in the book. I found the book especially helpful as a resource for newcomers to prayer research who are carrying on my dad's research work because it gives them a sense of context and history. I disagree somewhat [w]ith the author's opinion of the suicides given in this book. I talked on the phone to my dad and brother just hours before their death and I was the only person in communication with them at that time. Based on what they told me, which they asked me not to make public, I felt the suicides were a concession made in order to keep the research from dying entirely while the author of this book states that he feels the suicides sabotaged the research. I gave the suicides my blessing before and after they occurred not because I believe in suicide (which I do not) but because I do believe in concessions that advance the greater good. The author expresses that he thinks the suicides were caused by negative energy. …
What?? The suicides were a concession made in order to keep the research from dying entirely?? She gave the suicides her blessing before and after they occurred?? That seems to be one strange family! It makes no sense to me.
To my knowledge in the 14 years since their suicide no one has replicated their results. From this there is no reason to put any credence in the idea of directed vs undirected prayer.
Other people claim that what is important is the relationship of the person doing the praying to the person being prayed for. These are just the type of studies that the lead author, Herbert Benson, was familiar with. Dr. Benson is head of the Mind/Body Medical Institute at Harvard University. He had written several books extolling the power of prayer. His work had been criticized extensively, however. For one thing he never used a control group. In one study he reported that spiritual relaxation by using prayer increased the likelihood of a woman achieving pregnancy by 35%. It turns out that what he really did was see women who had unexplained infertility problems. He told them to relax and pray. After doing so 35% actually became pregnant. How many would have become pregnant if they would have gone home and read Harry Potter or something innocuous like that? No one knows because it was not controlled for.
If a person has a lot of family members praying for him and he gets better is it because of the praying or is it because of the family support? No one knows, it hasn’t been checked. Thus, there is no reason to assume this is a valid criticism either.
The problem with these fringe objections is that they are ad hoc. One can always come up with potential ad hoc reasons that studies don’t work out the way one wants. The simplest (and most likely correct) answer to failed experiments is that the phenomenon one is examining isn’t like one thinks it is. In this case the way the phenomenon of intercessory prayer is most likely to be different than one thinks it is, is in its very existence. But that is often hard to accept.
It should be noted that many (if not all) of the authors of the STEP study were devout theists. Besides the lead author’s advocacy of prayer, several other authors were hospital chaplains. It comes as no surprise that the implications of their study were hard for even them to accept.
For instance, in the discussion section of the paper the report says, “Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, and the results of this study do not challenge this belief.” Er … it seems to me that it does at least challenge that belief. The study rather clearly implies that intercessory prayer is ineffective. If intercessory prayer is ineffective with strangers then why would it not cast at least a shadow of doubt on “private or family prayer”? Why is private or family prayer such a different entity that the study would have no bearing on it?
Dean Marek, a hospital chaplain at the Mayo Clinic and coauthor of the study said after the study was published, “you hear tons of stories about the power of prayer, and I don’t doubt them.” Really?? Why not? Why was it not shown in the study?
Bob Barth, spiritual director of Silent Unity, the protestant organization that provided intercessors, said, “A person of faith would say this study is interesting, but we’ve been praying for a long time and we’ve seen prayer work, we know it works, and the research on prayer and spirituality is just getting started.” How does he “know” it works? If it is so obvious that it works, why didn’t the study show it?
The real reason this doesn’t challenge their belief in the power of prayer is that they believe in prayer despite the evidence. It is called “faith” and in this case seems to be directly opposed to reason. Tell me again … why is this a virtue?
But in any case, this study … large in scope and lacking the methodological problems plaguing the Byrd and Harris et al. studies … certainly give no support to the efficacy of intercessory prayer.
So what is the story on prayer so far? These are by no means the only studies published on prayer. They are just the ones that have received the most attention. There are many others and the results are like these … mixed and contradictory. None are as well controlled as the STEP studies however.
As of this point, the efficacy of prayer has been diligently looked for and our best data says it doesn’t exist. This is telling. If the phenomenon was real, studies should have demonstrated it by now. They don’t. Barring extremely impressive results to the contrary in the future, my opinion is that intercessory prayer has been shown to be ineffective beyond a reasonable doubt.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Waaaay too long....
Sorry,
I wrote this a few months ago for another audience. I decided to post it on this blog because someone in a reply to another blog of mine claimed miracles to be evidence of God's existence.
My purpose in including the detail I have is to make is so that someone who has never read the studies I allude to could understand exactly what they did. I do not know how I could have shortened it and still achieve that.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
Why would anyone even try to prove scientifically the effectiveness of prayer?
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps to:
(1) obtain straight-forward evidence for God's existence.
(2) have a reasonable belief that it is worth one's while to pray.
(3) satisfy one's intellectual integrity about one's religious beliefs
(4) to see if there is anything outside of the four natural forces of nature that can be shown to have an effect on the universe.
(5) obtain fame as the person showed the most important result ever obtained by science (or as it would have been if the results had turned out unequivocably positive).
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
Hi
First up let me say that I haven't read all 4 of your critical analyses, only up to #3. I haven't because the points I'm going to make don't require me too.
Most importantly it is my view that in prayer we are dealing with a Being and not a vending machine. The Being may or may not decide to answer those prayers, on a case-by-case basis. A scientific study may not help in this case as we are dealing with something that has completely free will. The system is not repeatable, every case is different. To God, your test cases are not identical.
Time. He may decide to answer them, but not in the time period of the study. I have heard of a girl in my city here with nerve damage in her arm who had an answered prayer after 2 years! Hence there are uncontrollable factors with respect to a given experimental design.
I think in Christianity at least, who is doing the praying may make difference. In the Bible it suggests prayers in alignment with God's will are 'better' received, as are prayers by the 'righteous'. How can we know what God's will is or who is 'righteous'? haha you'll have to ask a righteous person, not me ;-)
Just a thought with the longevity of Kings example, I think it may be misleading to compare Kings lives with other peoples lives. To see if a prayer for 'long live the king' worked wouldn't you have to compare the life of the King that wasn't prayed for with the life of the same King that was? Ie the same person with only one variable changed - prayer versus non prayer. Unfortunately this is impossible. Who is to say those Kings didn't live longer than if they hadn't been prayed for? (or shorter even :), we don't know).
I believe God exists, and can answer prayers. I believe this because it has happened to me. I know because I was there. Instant physical healing. I can understand why others would be skeptical, I am skeptical of other people's stories unless I see it happen. Fair enough.
Lastly, to critically analyse something:
"The statistical difference that Harris gets is only when the results are lumped together and “cooked” in a rather subjective grading scale. It appears as though the authors were searching to find something significant."
you really ought to show how differences are 'cooked', not just say that they are. It's probably not the place to do it here, maybe you could post that elsewhere on the web and link to it from here?
You may be completely right but if you just say "these are cooked" with no explanation, we can't tell.
Have a good day,
Very well said. ^_^
I think the "cooked" comment was in regards to the point scale they assigned for the complications. Their scale may have said that the experimental group had lower scores than the control, but that on its own doesn't mean anything. They could have all (hypothetically) died immediately with 6's while the others developed enough complications to to end up with higher scores when they were discharged. That they had to resort to tallying complications when the prayers were specifically for swift recovery and no complications, together with what DB said were results that showed no significant difference between the two groups, proves the prayers didn't work.
As for timing, etc... God is not a vending machine, but Christians are always touting the power of prayer. They can't expect to make such claims without them being put to the test. The post also posited that if these studies had not been problematic and the results had come down in favor of prayer, Christians would feel utterly vindicated (as they did when the results were publicized). They can't have it both ways.
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
I don't think it makes sense for either of us to speculate on what the author meant by a particualr comment, since he is around to answer for himself. You may be right but we can't tell without asking him.
Haha good point you are probably right about vindication. I think this is human nature to look for flaws in things we 'know' to be wrong. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Looking for flaws is a good way to increase understanding about something.
Eh... your comment is too iffy for me to discuss in detail, but I want to look at one thing:
I have heard of a girl in my city here with nerve damage in her arm who had an answered prayer after 2 years!
Nerve damage, hmm? You know, when we were studying the nervous system in physiology, our professor talked about how he was doing an experiment looking at blood flow in the brain. He had this device in which he pretty much screwed a cap onto your skull so that it wouldn't move. He did this to a nurse he was working with and screwed down the screw so hard that it severed a nerve in her scalp. She had a spot on her head that she couldn't feel sensation in as a result. Guess what? The nerve grew back in about 10 months, I think.
Nerves can be regenerated, contrary to popular opinion. It isn't strange that it took two years for her to get those nerves back after the initial damage... it takes a long time for them to do so. It doesn't necessarily have to do with God.
~C
Visit my blog.
Well that's a good point, you could argue in that case that maybe over time something just fixed itself in her arm.
I do think you have assumed a lot about the case, that her nerves were lost and regrown again. As I remember her story, it was: violin player, intense pain in arm (like maybe tendonitis, or OOS), can't play violin, praying....two years later went to healing prayer meeting, prayed, arm instantly feels hot and no more pain again since.
That's all I know about that particular case, and I don't even know the girl myself but I think it is possible that a prayer was answered there. I'm not trying to use it as an example to PROVE prayer can work.
For that, you'd have to try it for yourself I think. The Bbile teaches that those that seek God will find him. I guess you have to have some inkling of his existance before that, but I think if you actually ask Him to make Himself known to you and work in your life, He will.
(1) Too bad you missed #4. It is the one that showed that prayer doesn't work.
(2) It is not clear from your description why it is that science would necessarily be unable to detect God's action in answering prayer.
It does not matter if the test cases are identical so long as they are properly randomized. In the Benson study, there were enough patients and the radomization procedure should have been sufficient to equalize out those cases that God may have found unworthy of granting prayer requests to.
Since studies covered the period of the patient's hospital stay and that is what the prayers covered, it is not easy to see how God could have answered THESE prayers at a later date.
You are right, God could intentionally not respond to prayers from a study. I suppose he could be so ticked off that we are trying to find evidence of his existence that he would refuse to answer prayers that he may have answered otherwise. But if he did that then what type of God would he be? ... A pretty petty one.
(3) The people who did the praying were just like you. They all believed in the power of prayer. They would also claim to have seen it in action. Unfortunately, when looked at carefully, the results didn't back up that claim.
(4) Galton's study on Kings was done in the 1880's. No single study is going to answer a question like this. It needs to be looked at by different people from several angles. It has now. The results suggest that prayer doesn't work.
(5) You were correct when you said that you believe that God exists and he answers prayers. You were wrong when you said someone had their prayers answered and when you implied that you know prayers are answered. There is a minimum of three different requirements that must be met in order for someone to KNOW something;
(A) That person must believe it.
(B) That belief must be true.
(C) That person must have sufficient reason to believe it.
I'll grant that you have A. I think the results of scientific investigation shows that B is not correct. Even if you disagree with me on B, you should at least grant that they cast doubt on the validity of prayer. In that case, you do not meet C.
(6) It is my understanding of the Harris study that the scale in which he used to show overall statistical significance was made after his study results were completed. In any study like this one it is easy to divide the subjects into groups that will show statistical significance if you do the dividing after the results are in. That is what it means to "cook" one's results.
(7) There is a problem with the whole concept of prayer that I did not address in the blog. That problem is that it doesn't make sense.
When one prays for God to cure someone of a disease, he is asking for God to intervene in the natural laws of nature. He is asking God to do something that would not happen otherwise. If God can do that for one person, then he could do it for another. But for every prayer that is answered, there are thousands that aren't. Why would God intervene to cure your friend of paralysis after 2 years, but doesn't intervene to stop a the suffering of a baby with Harlequin Fetus Syndrome (WARNING: disturbing pictures).
All it would take for God to prevent that is to prevent one particular sperm from fertilizing one particular egg. That sure seems easier than curing cancer.
Also, why is it that every single case of God curing a disease it is of a disease that occasionally cures on its own. Why is it that we never see God grow back a limb of an amputee? That would sure be a more convincing demonstration of his power.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
I find most of your points about God and prayer really come down to you putting your own rules on God about how He should behave. For example:
"If God can do that for one person, then he could do it for another. "
It's easy to do and I'm not putting you down for it, I think we all make assumptions about things all the time. I do want to introduce you to the idea that you are making them though. Since the conclusions you draw from them are negative ones, it may be not that 'prayer doesn't work' but that God doesn't work the way you assume Him to.
Now, this whole thing about the violinist is a slight red herring with respect to my reasons for belief (my 'C' in your example). I mentioned the violinist in connection with time-to-answer, not prayers being answered per se.
My example for prayers being answered per se is one of personal experience. I have had a prayer for healing for a knee injury work. That is, I have had crippling pain that was preventing me from walking (or actually having the knee in any position without pain) go to zero pain, and immediate gym workout on the knee (I was in the gym at the time), from an answered prayer.
For this, A) I believe it to be true, B) Is it true? we will disagree on that I'm sure. But, one minute I was crippled, the next I was fine and even working out on the thing. No problems since. What happened in between? Prayer. That is my C) in this case.
I think most people's C) is going to be personal experience, or at least for guys like us that are skeptical and like to pull things apart. I understand why you would be skeptical but your argument doesn't and actually cannot prove that prayer never works.
> down to you putting your own rules on God about how He
> should behave.
Since neither you nor any other theist can actually sit their "god" down before us to tell us what "he" actually believes or does, your complaint in this case seems more than a little hypocritical.
percivale
It would be hypocritical if I had prescribed rules about what God does...but I don't think I have, have I?
But even if I did, so people are hypocritical... Haha news flash! Wouldn't alter the main points.
Isn't the entire point of your presentation the assumption that "god answers prayers?" If so, and since you cannot actual prove that this is the case, yes you are making some rather presumptuous statements, I think.
Also, just because "everyone does it" isn't a good defense of hypocrisy, and while noting a hypocrisy may not alter your main points, it does call into question why you would challenge someone's argument based on a line of reasoning that you have also used.
percivale
I think my point was that I reckon God exists and answers prayers if He decides to.
I can't prove it to you. Neither, I think, do the studies above prove that God does not exist, nor prove that He cannot answer prayers if He decides to. I can only invite you to try praying yourself. The Bible teaches that God is willing for everyone to have a relationship with Him, that that those that look for Him find him. In the end I think it is only a personal experience that will prove it to you to your own satisfaction percivale.
No there is no good defence of hypocrisy, I agree :). While everyone makes assumptions (including me of course) I'm suggesting that Darwin's Beagle's assumptions may be incorrect causing him to not see that the studies above do not prove anything.
There are many people who claim to believe in all manner of unproveable things (or at least, things that have not yet been proved). Some people believe in bigfoot. Some people believe that the Illuminati are secretly in control of all the world's governments. Some people believe that the tooth fairy really does exchange teeth for quarters if you leave them under your pillow. So my question to you is this...
What makes your argument any different than theirs?
perci
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
As I said, seek and you will find.
If you try to make contact with the Tooth fairy, I believe you will fail no matter how many times you try.
If you pray to God to make contact with Him, I reckon you will find Him at some point.
Once you have, arguments about the philosophy of it disappear for you, much as if someone was trying to argue that say your mother never existed.
I can only invite you to try. I don't think the existence of God is unprovable to yourself. If you pray for healing say and receive it, you will know the difference. It isn't possible (I think) to have proof that you can convince everyone else with...even if the dead were raised some would not believe it. They don't WANT to.
...that verifies the existence of my mother, and will be able to do so even after her eventual death.
You say, "If you pray to God to make contact with Him, I reckon you will find Him at some point." I say that this is a pretty presumtuous attitude. I spent most of my life in one church or another, and after decades of devout worship eventually realized that I was just being fooled by other people who wanted me to believe for their own purposes.
But, you really didn't answer the question. No evidence is no evidence. Either you can provide evidence that proves that "god" exists, or you cannot. If you can, you win the argument. If you can't, you loose the argument until you can. It really is as simple as that.
Oh, and if really doesn't count as "proof" if your "evidence" can only be perceived subjectively. Your argument is conveniently crafted to avoid taking the responsibility of backing up your own claims. And, the whole point of the original blog was that claiming that prayer heals people is quite obviously imaginary.
percivale
-----------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
You are right we have got off topic...is there somewhere else can discuss this maybe?
Yes it is a presumptuous attitude, except I tried it and it worked for me. I can recommend it on that basis. Also, I'm suggesting taking God up on His own promises, so I feel reasonably confident that it'll work for you too.
I never set out to prove to everyone in the world that God exists, I reckon it cannot be done. I think God has to be found by individuals. It's about a relationship with Him and you can't make that for someone else.
I think nothing will convince you until something happens to you. I was the same. Thus my invitation to starting praying.
I don't even have an ulterior motive...does it make any practical difference to me if you (who to me is some random person maybe hundreds of miles away) come to Christ? Not that I can think of.
...what steps did you take to test and verify that when you "tried it and it worked for" you, what you preceived was really what was going on? One of the reasons that anecdotal evidence is generally discounted in rational discussion is that perception does not always correlate to reality.
I also think that you DO have an ulterior motive, though it is not necessarily (and does not seem to be) a malicious or even conscious one. Many people find in difficult to admit to being wrong, and organized religions are a perfect example of the sheer lengths to which people will go to protect their egos. Abandoning all rationality and evidence is a necessary part of "faith," for the simple reason that if those concepts are not abandoned, the entire basis of religious belief begins to crumble away almost immediately.
percivale
-------------------------
Arthur: Which is the greatest quality of knighthood?
Merlin: Truth. That's it. Yes. It must be truth, above all. When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
(From John Boorman's Excalibur)
(1) I am not imposing anything on God. I don't think any such being exists. All I am doing here is subjecting the claim that God answers prayers to scrutiny.
(2) I see no problem with my statement "If God can do that for one person, then he can do it for another". I doubt if you REALLY think that if God performs a miracle for one person that somehow prevents him from performing a similar one for another. And nowhere in your comment do you explain the problem with my statement.
(3) God, by definition, can do anything he wants. I assume nothing. In fact, if you want to be real, since I think that God doesn't exist I assume he doesn't act at all. And guess what? That is what the data indicates when we look at it closely.
(4) I don't know for sure but I assume your "violinist" is the girl in your city who improved from nerve damage after 2 years. There are numerous problems with using this as evidence for answered prayers.
(A) It is an anecdote. Anecdotes tend to stress the unusual and there are a lot of unusual things that happen naturally.
(B) Nerve axons are known to grow back slowly at about 1 cm per month. It is well within natural law for someone to get better after 2 years.
(C) If you are going to claim this as a positive instance of answered prayer then if you are going to be intellectually honest you have to try to explain the numerous cases of unaswered prayer. Why, for example, was Christopher Reeve never cured of his spinal cord nerve damage, despite what must have been numerous prayers by his fans.
Claiming that God works in mysterious ways as an answer is a sure-fire way of fooling yourself. It allows you to claim all positive instances as examples of prayer answering while dismissing negative instances as being too mysterious for us to make any conclusion.
That is what science, when done properly, is designed to NOT ALLOW you to do. It is designed to prevent you from fooling yourself. And the data shows that prayer doesn't work. Anecdotes are just that anecdotes. There is no rhyme or reason when we look at both putative positive instances of answered prayer compared to apparent instances of unanswered prayer.
(5) Exactly how do you think God healed your knee injury. He instantaneously removed the inflammation causing pain? That would require him to magically disappear numerous chemicals that would have been in your joint mediating the pain response. So which is more likely ... God magically evaporated (or transported) matter out of your knee (to where?? did it just cease to exist or did it go some place else?); or that natural healing properties cause those chemicals to degrade?
You admit that the pain had been with you for a while. That is what it takes to degrade these chemicals naturally. Presumably, God knew that you needed the knee in good shape ... why did he wait so long before magically making it OK again.
More importantly, why is it that God decided that the pain in your knee was more worthy of his intervention into the laws of nature than ... say, making the chemicals in the brain of a psychotic Korean college student give him a better model of reality so he could (of his own free will) have not killed 32 people (thereby doing the ultimate in depriving them of their free will)?
(6) Lots of people have stories of answered prayer. Lots of people have stories of ESP. But these stories are all subject to selection bias. Positive instances are much more likely to be remembered than are negative instances. The question is ... do anecdotes constitute real evidence. That is where the science comes in. The answer seems to be that when we look at the data the anecdotes evaporate into background noise.
(7) Since God could act anyway he wants, the claim that God answers prayer can never be disproven. I do not think that is the standard. I think the standard is reasonableness.
At this point the evidence is such that IF God does answer prayer then he is capricious and arbitrary in his application of it. He intervenes in the laws of nature in response to some prayers but refuses to intervene in others. He does so without any apparent regard for how much a person deserves it.
Alternatively, IF God doesn't answer prayers then apparent positive instances are due to luck.
I know luck exists. I don't know that God exists. If he did exist, I would be very disappointed in his capricious and arbitrary nature. In other words, it would be of no comfort to me to know that God acts on the basis of unfathomable whims.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
Firstly I'm going to talk about the point you have helpfully labelled number 5) above since to me that isn't anecdotal.
"You admit the pain had been with you for a while"
I didn't say the pain had been with me for a while. You have made assumptions again.
I was in the gym, working out. Something went wrong with an exercise, crippling my knee. I don't know at the molecular or even at the tissue level what I did to it, but I believe it was bad as I couldn't walk, or hold it in any position without quite a bit of pain. Something bad had happened.
I prayed. Pain gone instantly. Knee appeared fine. I tentatively walked on it, body didn't WANT to which was an interesting experience in itself, but it was fine. I carried on with my work out after that, even with the exercise that injured it the first place. No further problems.
"He intervenes in the laws of nature in response to some prayers but refuses to intervene in others. He does so without any apparent regard for how much a person deserves it."
You don't even realise you are doing it do you? You put your values onto things and expect God to work according to what YOU think is valuable or He should do. Maybe He sees further ahead than you do.
"I know luck exists."
Do you? I don't believe in luck myself. If you attribute some events to good luck do you feel you have to explain the nonoccurance of luck (perhaps...bad luck?) too in order to be, as you put it, 'intellectually honest'? If not, why have you ascribed one standard of explanation to prayer but not to 'luck'?
(5.1) Your story is anecdotal. Furthermore, you fail to address the main criticisms. You asked God to intervene in the laws of nature so your knee wouldn't hurt and he does it. But billions of people ask God to intervene in the laws of nature to help them and he doesn't. What put your knee so high up on God's priority list?
(5.2) Your God can do anything he likes. But if you are going to tell me that he feels your knee is more deserving of suspending the laws of nature than is this Harlequin Fetus Syndrome baby, then I am going to tell you God has his priorities screwed up. I can say that because by any reasonable standard its truth is obvious.
If you are going to arrogantly assert God's decision to personally intervene with your knee, but allow the HFS newborn to suffer through the only week of life it will ever have is because he has some type of higher view, then you need to come up with a plausible example that would make the obvious not so obvious in order to be taken seriously.
You have no plausible examples. You want to claim that there may be something out there that no one can possibly think of that if we only knew would justify what apparently seems unjustifiable. I call that the argument from the possibility of ignorance. It certainly makes it easy to hold any idea no matter how ridiculous. Sure, all your physiology measurements may say that it is impossible for a cow to jump over the moon, but that is YOU imposing your own ideas on how a cow should jump. Perhaps the cow has a different idea, one that is beyond yours. If you knew that, then it would be obvious that the cow could jump over the moon anytime it wanted to.
(5.3) If you TRULY do not believe luck exists then you are an idiot. The odds of winning a lottery may well be 1 in 100,000,000. In agreement with those odds about 1 in 100,000,000 tickets win. The person who happened to have that ticket is pretty damned lucky. The unlucky ones lost a dollar.
With respect to people suffering injuries to the knee; some will suffer bad injuries requiring surgery some will suffer injuries requiring days or weeks to heal on their own, and some will suffer minor injuries that will heal quickly. That should be obvious. The lucky ones are the last group. I suspect you were lucky.
Now explain to me again why the idea of luck is intellectually dishonest.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
(5.1) It isn't anecdotal to me, even if it is to you. Your 'criticism' seems to be God couldn't have answered my prayer because He doesn't heal some other people. My response is simply that implicit in there is some assumptions about who God should answer, which may not hold.
I can't tell you how God decides explicitly and completely, because I don't know. You'll have to as Him :).
(5.2) "then I am going to tell you God has his priorities screwed up. I can say that because by any reasonable standard its truth is obvious."
At first glance that seems reasonable, but then, what assumptions are we making? Words like 'reasonable' and 'obvious' are slippery. Are we saying more medically serious cases should have 'higher priority'? Does an infinite being need priorities (now I have introduced the concept of a priority myself and begged my own question, but I am using your word from 5.1)? Could an infinite being not do everything that he decides to do?
If you were God, would you answer every prayer? Or maybe you address every need before the prayer was asked? Would you perhaps even arrange the universe so that there were no needs to pray for in the first place?
I can't help feeling that your philosophical argument against prayer really comes down to that God doesn't appear make the same decisions you think you would. That isn't a proof of non-existance.
"It certainly makes it easy to hold any idea no matter how ridiculous.[cows etc]"
Well no, a cow's ability to jump is not totally determined from it's own will, the cow's ideas of jumping are of lesser relevance than physiology, provided you can convince it to try. Whereas I reckon prayer-answering is totally determined from God's will.
It comes down to - are the studies adequately perturbing what the decision to answer prayer is based on? I'm suggesting in my initial points that maybe not.
Now either side of the argument would claim it as evidence for or against their point if it could be interpreted that way, regardless of whether it is actually right, sure :)
(5.3)"If you TRULY do not believe luck exists then you are an idiot. "
When we say luck what do we really mean? Sometimes I think we are just relegating something very complex that we can't be expected to follow to a concept of 'stuff that happened'.
that you aren't trying to be and have no idea that virtually everything you said is ridiculous. If one has to claim the obvious is unseeable in order to maintain a belief, is that belief worth having?
(1) Your story is anecdote even to you, unless at the time it happened you systematically recorded pertinent facts. Otherwise, it is just memory and memories of this sort can easily be distorted.
(2) My criticism is most definitely NOT that God could not have answered your prayer. My criticism is that it makes no sense for God to have answered your prayer WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ignoring cases that by all rights should have a higher priority. If you were to have read what I said you should have realized that, but instead you decided to change what I said into something that easily refuted. If your belief makes it easy for you to do that then it is not doing you a favor.
(3) I find it interesting that you left out my reference to God supernaturally mending your knee while allowing suffering of a Harlequin Fetus Syndrome baby. All you quoted was my saying that if God really did that then his priorities are screwed up. By doing that you do not need to address the example. If your belief forces you to turn a blind eye to the evidence in order to keep it, then again it is not doing you good.
If we were to accept your reasoning then we would be forced into a world of solipsism. You could not conclude that anything other than you exists.
"Obvious" is obviously not a slippery term. If something is obvious then it is unreasonable to deny its truth. There is nothing hidden about God that we need to know to see that any reasonable entity whose intent is to decrease suffering would put that of HFS baby in a higher priority than your knee. Again, that is obvious.
Furthermore, since you claim that God is an infinite being it is OBVIOUS that he could have done both. So it is OBVIOUS that if God does intervene in natural law to relieve suffering then there is no reason he shouldn't have prevented that of HFS babies.
The fact that you don't even try to come up with a reason he doesn't is telling. The fact that you edit out the problem so as to not even having to think about it is telling as well.
This is a problem I have with religion. It promotes this type of thinking. It is only a short step from this to ignoring or rationalizing away potentially heinous acts on the part of one's leaders.
(4) If I were God I would do a huge number of things differently. I would never intentionally create anything in which there is unnecessary suffering. Unnecessary suffering can be defined as any suffering over the bare minimum needed to achieve a higher purpose.
But I suppose before anything I would have a clear purpose. Since no one has yet given any reasonable purpose on the part of God as to why we are HERE (as opposed to other logically possible universes), it is difficult to say that I would have actually done anything if I were God.
(5) I am not only saying that God doesn't seem to be making the same decisions I would, I am claiming he doesn't seem to making decisions ANY reasoning being would make. The fact that you seem to want to limit it to me avoids your having to even try to think of any either. It is your way of denying the obvious. Again if you have to do this to protect your belief, maybe your belief is not doing you any REAL good.
(6) It is also telling that again you avoid saying exactly what it is that makes it easy to hold any belief, no matter how ridiculous. Just to refresh it was the ARGUMENT FROM THE POSSIBILITY OF IGNORANCE. You were saying that because there was a possibility that God may have reasons that we cannot know for his apparently unreasonable actions that it is OK to believe he does.
My cow jumping over the moon example (which you also fail to quote) shows that your argument applies equally well. It is possible that cows jump in a way very differently than we do, and differently than we think they do. If only we knew exactly how it is they jump then we would know that they could jump over the moon.
With that background let's see how you respond to it. You say:
"Well no, a cow's ability to jump is not totally determined from it's own will, the cow's ideas of jumping are of lesser relevance than physiology, provided you can convince it to try. Whereas I reckon prayer-answering is totally determined from God's will."
That is an absolute non-sequitur. No where in your nor my argument is it important whether or not a cow's ability to jump is determined by it's own free will. But even it were, one could just extend your argument from the possibility of ignorance to cover it.
How do you know that a cow's jumping ability isn't determined by its own free will? It is possible that cow's jump by using only their minds, that may well be how they are able to jump over the moon. You can't possibly rule that out so you don't know ... Mr. Smartypants.
(7) I have no idea what you are talking about when you ask, "are the studies adequately perturbing what the decision to answer prayer is based on". But no matter ... the logical conclusion that one can draw from the study is simply this; There is no evidence that prayers are answered. That is all that I have ever claimed the studies show.
(8) Luck is not some type of complex concept at all. It is the obvious outcome of any process in which there are a large number of trials and some type of rationale for judging the favorablity of individual outcomes. By sheer chance some outcomes will be more favorable than others.
You seem to want things to be more complicated than they are. You are counting on the concept of complexity to provide plausibility to your claim that there just might be something that we are incapable of thinking of that would make it reasonable for God to act the way he has to be acting if he actually answers prayers. But there is absolutely no reason to think that any complexity is involved.
God would find that 2+2 = 4. So would a reasonable human. So humans and God CAN use the same reasoning. There is no reason to assume that God would necessarily use some type of different reasoning in assessing whose prayers to answer than we would. What is wrong with our reasoning that if we could prevent any suffering we may want then we should assign a higher priority to that of an HFS baby than to your knee? Nothing!
That is obvious.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
It seems the Benson study could have also had a lot of other control groups. In addition to groups that were:
1. Told they might receive prayer and received it
2. Told they might receive prayer and didn't receive it
3. Told they would receive prayer and received it
there should also have been groups that were
4. Told they would receive prayer and didn't receive it
5. Told they wouldn't receive prayer and received it
6. Told they wouldn't receive prayer and didn't receive it.
If done correctly such a study would give us a better idea not only of the effectiveness of prayer, but also of placebo effects.
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
One can have all the control groups that one may want. The problem this makes is that it requires you to up your number of subjects.
The Benson study had 1802 patients. If they added 3 more control groups then they would have had to have had 3600 patients for each group to be the same size. That would have added a few more years to the study.
I suspect a contributing reason that they didn't include the control groups you suggest is that your control groups 4 and 5 would consist of patients who were lied to. That could potentially open them up to lawsuits. Suppose someone was told they were NOT going to be prayed for but were suffered complications. The Benson study shows that people who were prayed for did worse. This person could claim that the prayers he was told he would NOT get caused his complications.
I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea how important that would have been.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
It might be better if an experiment used the three groups I proposed, along with #3, being told they would receive prayer and receiving it; the first two might be better off without. But then there is the lying issue you mentioned, and the perverse possibility of prayer making things worse.
Those darned ethics...
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
One valid scientific criticism of the study is that prayer by outside sources was uncontrolled for.
Well, that answered the BIG nagging question I had while reading through your entire blog. Who's to say that a large percentage of the control group isn't active in their church, and so has the whole congregation praying for them? It might be safe to assume that it would be the same in both groups, but it's an extraneous variable, and could affect the results.
I have another one though.
I wonder what religion the people that were a PART of the study were, and if this would make a difference. I mean, if there is a large group of atheists in one group, I don't think they are going to care one way or the other about whether someone is going to pray for them, and so there would be no placebo effect. Since the studies were double blind, I wonder if it was even taken into consideration. Again, it might not make any difference, but it's something to consider.
Of course, both these questions really go back to the idea that each of the groups is random and represents the population at large. Are the groups truly random?
~C
Visit my blog.
It is my understanding that the groups were controlled for on the basis of religious affiliation.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
I'm not a scientist, but I'm sure the effectiveness of prayer cannot be proven or disproven. Just because there was a control group that no one prayed for does not mean that there were not people somewhere praying for them and vice versa. I've prayed for people I haven't seen in years and they have no way of knowing. If you pray for a science experiment it is not a real prayer, it is just going throught the motions of prayer.
Denken. Nicht lesen.
(1) No one was praying FOR an experiment. They were praying for PEOPLE in an experiment. They were given by people who genuinely wished for a good outcome for the people they prayed for.
(2) Again ... It is always possible that God may decide that prayers given in the course of an experiment do not count. But then if he did that, ... what type of God would he be?
He would be a petty one.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
I'm not saying that prayers given in an experiment don't count, if they are genuine. But prayers are not always answered when you want them, but when you need them. Those people in the experiments may have wanted prayers to be answered, but that does not mean it was the best time for them to be answered.
God may decide that prayers given in the course of an experiment do not count.
I think that any prayers that you really mean will be answered if they are "good" prayers. But when praying, one must consider that you are not the only person who wants something. There might be someone else whose prayers are in opposition to yours, and their's may be answered because that is the best possible outcome. For example, I, a broke college freshman, may be praying for a job so I can pay for college and make it easier on my parents. But a single mother of two children might be praying for the same job so she and her children do not have to be homeless and starving. I might think my prayer is pretty important, but I think the best outcome would be if the single mother got the job, although I will never know this. There could always be someone else with more important prayers.
Denken. Nicht lesen.
Any such problems would presumably be taken care of by the control groups. The fact is, looking at these experiments we have large groups, and the overall results are that there is no evidence that God answers prayers.
Your excuses for why it is that the evidence isn't there is unconvincing.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
Well, I'm sorry I can't convince you. A science experiment can't convinve someone who has personal experience with prayers working. All it proves is that God didn't answer those people's prayers. It certainly does not prove that God does not answer all people's prayers, mine have been answered.
Denken. Nicht lesen.
Contrary to popular opinion, science generally PROVES nothing. What these experiment show is that if a prayer-answering God exists then we cannot find evidence for it.
The question is why? My answer is "no such prayer-answering God exists". Your answer is "I don't know".
The standard should never be "proof". If it were then we would have no reason to believe anything. The standard should be reasonableness.
Whose answer is more reasonable? There are plenty of things we do not know, so perhaps one may consider your answer reasonable. But the reason you think that the science is wrong is because you have personal experience with prayer. Well, science has done experiments investigating claims of astrology too. Science says that doesn't work. Adherents of astrology use exactly your argument for why the science is wrong.
We know that people can easily fool themselves. Just look at all the people who believe in psychics like Sylvia Browne, John Edward, James Van Praagh, et al.
On the other hand, from the beginning of recorded history things we have considered to be due to the direct action of God have been shown to have naturalistic explanations. It is to the point now that the general consensus even among believers is that there is no scientific evidence of any sort that God exists.
These studies are just another link in a long chain of scientific evidence that fails to find any existence of God. I believe that makes my interpretation, no prayer-answering God exist, the more reasonable one.
You are free to believe otherwise, but I believe I have the more defensible reasons.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
if a prayer-answering God exists then we cannot find evidence for it.
So this study proves nothing. You're basically saying that you don't have evidence for something that you already did not have evidence for.
And my answer was not "I don't know." My answer was there were more important prayers. I think both your answer and mine are reasonable. We just come to different conclusions because we have different personalities. But truly, neither of us knows.
Denken. Nicht lesen.
WHOA PETE!!
I said that strictly speaking science NEVER proves anything. I NEVER said that there was no evidence. In fact, ALL the evidence supports my position. That is why my position is more reasonable.
I think you would do much better with an "I don't know" defense. If you want to go with the assertion that the reason God doesn't answer these prayers is because he doesn't find the prayers for newly admitted patients into a coronary care unit important enough to fulfill, then I change my analysis from your answer has a minimal amount of plausibility, to your answer has none what-so-ever.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
is that God and science cannot coexist. For many people, on both sides of the fence, they are mutually exclusive. It does not have to be so.