Washington Post Cover Story.

1. MIRACLE MEDICINE: WASH POST HYPES PRAYER STUDY ON PAGE ONE.
Today, in a major front-page story, staff writer Rob Stein tells us that "the largest, best-designed study of intercessory prayer" is being published in two weeks. What does it say? The secret is guarded as tightly as the Academy Awards. However, as I write this, the world population clock reads 6,505,424,096. Most of them pray. A bunch of them pray 5 times a day. They pray mostly for their health, or that of loved ones, making prayer by far the most widely practiced medical therapy. It's a wonder anyone is still sick. No one doubts that personal "petitionary" prayer benefits believers. Optimism is good medicine. To the believer, prayer is a stronger placebo than sugar pills. Stein, however, has his facts wrong. The controversy (if there ever was one among scientists) was settled in 1872 by Sir Francis Galton when he published "Statistical Inquiries into the Efficacy of Prayer." Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, recognized that remote prayer by strangers would be blind to the placebo effect. Since the Order for Morning Prayer of the Church of England includes prayers for the health and long life of the monarch and the archbishop, he compared their longevity to that of the general population and found no difference. So who is doing this new study? Herbert Benson, founder and president of the Mind-Body Institute, who touted the health benefits of prayer in his 1975 bestseller "The Relaxation Effect." It would be a miracle if he now discovers there's nothing to it. It's in our hands now, we have two weeks to pray that the study turns out to be objective.

Yep if prayer really worked there would be a lot of differences in the world. Of course the really faithful say that not all prayers deserve to be answered or the gods work in mysterious ways.

Bah. Feh. BS and useless. I smell a new book in the works from this person.

The results of the study.


1. MIRACLE MEDICINE: PRAYERS OF SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.
The long-awaited study of intercessory prayer for coronary bypass patients was released yesterday (see last week's WN). A small increase in complications, attributed to "performance anxiety," was found in a subset of patients who were told that strangers were praying for them. Otherwise, there was nothing. Scientists are relieved of course; science is tough enough without having to worry that somebody on their knees in East Cupcake, Iowa can override natural law. The study of 1800 patients took almost ten years and cost $2.4M, mostly from the Templeton Foundation. Of course, there are calls for further study. Where do we start? What are the units of prayer? Do prayers of Pat Robertson count more than those of death-row inmates? What is the optimum posture of the supplicant? Where can we learn these things?

I thought the performance anxiety issue was rather interesting. Though, really, isn't there a big difference between the way a patient would feel knowing that his/her friends, family, etc. are praying out of their own sincerity, or the feeling of knowing that a bunch of strangers are praying because they were told to for the sake of a study that would supposedly give scientific credence to the efficacy/inefficacy of prayer? I'd think the pressure of having one's "performance" on the operating table being scrutinized would be much different than the calming knowledge that those you care about also care about you.

As for whether one prayer "counts" more than another, I'd personally rather have the death row inmate praying for me than Pat Robertson. At least I'd know the inmate was sincere ; I mean, what would he have to gain? That example reminds me of that parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, with Mr. Robertson in the role of the Pharisee. But anyway, James says that "the prayer of faith shall save the sick", and I don't think our little study here had any way of testing anyone's faith. Just what kind of control group did they have here? I certainly hope no one else wastes another couple million dollars trying to prove/disprove something that just can't be proven objectively.

As far as intercessory prayer is concerned, regardless of the outcome of the one being prayed for, I think such prayer helps the person who's praying to have the proper attitude toward another of God's children (assuming it's a righteous prayer).

And as for the "it was God's will" argument that prayer works, even when those prayed for don't recover, what's wrong with that belief? I believe in the power of prayer, but we all have to die someday. What, should God keep everyone living forever and suffering in mortality, which we could concievably be praying for, just because it's what we want, when he has better things waiting for us afterwards?

Besides, every case is different, and sometimes even physical sickness can result in spiritual blessings. (Not having personally endured much in the way of phyical ailment, I mean no offense to anyone who has, but when I do have other such challenges in life, I find there's always something to learn from it that has helped me.) We're meant to suffer some things in this life. Sometimes what we pray for isn't what's best for us, even when we can't see why.

Even Jesus, in agony in Gethsemane prior to his death, prayed that the suffering might pass from him, but added, "nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt", and we all know the end of that story. I think that's a perfect example of what our attitude in any prayer should be, "Not my will be done, but yours, Father."

I know this is science-related, but it would also be appropriate for Religious Musings.

Although I found one humorous comments (I don't remember where!) which sums up the problem with all these sorts of tests: "Maybe they prayed to the wrong god!"

I heard a humorous comment on a blog somewhere, that, concerning the negative effects of prayer this study documents, it sure gives you a great incentive to pray for your enemies.

Duke: And as for the "it was God's will" argument that prayer works, even when those prayed for don't recover, what's wrong with that belief?....Besides, every case is different, and sometimes even physical sickness can result in spiritual blessings. (Not having personally endured much in the way of phyical ailment, I mean no offense to anyone who has, but when I do have other such challenges in life, I find there's always something to learn from it that has helped me.) We're meant to suffer some things in this life. Sometimes what we pray for isn't what's best for us, even when we can't see why.
Luigi Novi: See the title of the board.

Mark Morgan: I know this is science-related, but it would also be appropriate for Religious Musings.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps, but then the thread might diverge from the point of the scientific efficacy, which is what I wanted to focus on. That's pretty much what happened with Duke's comments. Not that I'm saying he can't say those things or anything, but I didn't want the topic to be dismissed on RM on the basis of the argument that, "Oh, this is RM, science doesn't matter", or whatever. I chose the title and location because I wanted to make the context of the topic clear.

To be specific, I wasn't objecting per se. Just a mild reminder that when the discussion starts veering into religious territories, it might be more appropriate for that topic.

I personally can't see any way at all a prayer study could meet even the minimum requirements for a study. How do you quantify God's decision? And which God?

More scientific arrogance.

Actually, when I posted my message yesterday, I hadn't noticed this was a Kitchen Sink topic, and I just took it for granted that this was an RM topic, otherwise, my post probably would've been more focused on scientific aspects (ie much shorter), so I apologize if that was a problem.

Wait a second. So Luigi, you were afraid the scientific study would be dismissed on RM because "science doesn't matter" there? I hope, then, that religious arguments won't be dismissed on this board because science is the only thing that matters...

On RM, different people may approach the subject differently, based on their personal religious views, and the emphasis they place on the non-empirical aspects of the topic. I placed it here because I wanted to focus on the empirical aspects of it.

Acknowledged.

More details of the study here, including fraud, lack of controls, other problems, and conclusions about the study's basic premise. The article is by Professor Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptics Society, publisher of Skeptic magazine, and was part of this week's e-Skeptic newsletter.

Interesting story.

Doesn't this fall under the wrath Heisenberg's uncertainity principle? You know, the part about effecting what you observe. If he exists, God should know if he's being studied, and presumably he wants to avoid detection, therefore, he would skew the results to avoid giving a conclusive answer.

I like what Bill Mahr said about prayer, it was something like:


On one hand christians say that God has a devine plan that we can't alter, but on the other hand if you pray enough God may answer your prayer. Which is it? Also with the idea that you can pray and God will answer your prayers, but if you don't get what you prayed for it was part of his plan, how is that diferent from random chance?

Matt, I don't see how praying constitutes "observing" or "studying" God. In any case, such an idea is unscientific, since that idea requires another unproven assumption used to explain an earlier one.

Court Vindicates Doctor Who Questioned Fertility Study.

The sad thing is there'll still be idiots out there quoting Cha's "study" as proof that prayer works.

As one of the aforementioned idiots- and I thank you for your courtesy and tolerance- I only need the evidence of my own life to determine that. I don't think many people that truly pray as a part of their faith in God are going to be looking for a scientific study to prove or disprove that.

If you believe in prayer in your life that's fine, but if you are quoting a discredited study as "proof" of anything what would you call such a person?

If you count yourself as one of the people likely to quote the study that Benn mentioned, why do you then think that there will not be more like you? The fact that people endeavor to conduct such studies would seem to disprove this, as there are many people who argue that religious ideas are empirical.

Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of the post; based on the emoticon and tone, I was under the impression that the 'idiots' were the ones who believe that prayer works. However, as for quoting this study- or any- I won't be one of those, no. :-) Perhaps there is a larger segment trying to empirically prove prayer than I am aware of, but from my perspective and experiences, people who are praying as part of their faith or beliefs are not going to be diving into the 'science' of prayer through studies and empirical data; seems to me to be rather missing the point, and I think most other people of faith would believe so, too. However, I could be wrong.

As Brian and Luigi have guessed, I do refer to the people who will point to the discredited "study" as proof that prayer works when I speak of idiots. Either they won't bother to research the study any further or will ignore the fact that it's been discredited. This is why I consider them idiots. To be fair, I also consider people who believe in "the full moon effect" to be idiots, too. No matter how many studies you show them that demonstrate the moon has no effect on behavior, they insist on believing that people are crazier on the night there is a full moon.