Can Prayers Heal? Critics Say Studies Go Past Science...NYT (fed funded)

[Rose Siding]

In 2001, two researchers and a Columbia University fertility expert published a startling finding in a respected medical journal: women undergoing fertility treatment who had been prayed for by Christian groups were twice as likely to have a successful pregnancy as those who had not.

Three years later, after one of the researchers pleaded guilty to conspiracy in an unrelated business fraud, Columbia is investigating the study and the journal reportedly pulled the paper from its Web site.

No evidence of manipulation has yet surfaced, and the study's authors stand behind their data.

But the doubts about the study have added to the debate over a deeply controversial area of research: whether prayer can heal illness.

Critics express outrage that the federal government, which has contributed $2.3 million in financing over the last four years for prayer research, would spend taxpayer money to study something they say has nothing to do with science.

"Intercessory prayer presupposes some supernatural intervention that is by definition beyond the reach of science," said Dr. Richard J. McNally, a psychologist at Harvard. "It is just a nonstarter, in my opinion, a total waste of time and money."

http://nytimes.com/2004/10/10/health/10prayer.html?hp&ex=1097380800&en=ba866178d9cdd696&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[DBoon]

1. But these studies are important for national security

I mean, prayer is the only thing that will get us out of Iraq right now.

[fjc]

6. Now, that's funny.

[damntexdem]

19. Oh, I don't know --

I suspect that we haven't got a prayer.

[Amigust]

2. Prayer and the coins will get you the Coke

eom

[Rose Siding]

4. Prayer and 5 Supreme Court justices will get you...

a Church-run State.

[carpetbagger]

33. A powerful brother and 5 justices will do the same.

Forget prayer. If Bush heard the voice of God, he'd declare it part of a terrorist conspiracy.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I believe in seperation of church and state

and that includes this form of spirituality in which I firmly believe. I have personally seen prayer and hands on healing help heal folks, but I know many people who think it is all nuts. Since I think that everyone has a right to their own opinion, I don't try to convince them. To each his own, as everyone has their own path in life to tread.

Any government study isn't going to convince me to abandon my beliefs, and I'm sure that it won't change the beliefs of those who think it is hocum. So using government funds to 'prove' this one way or another is a waste of money.

[KittyWampus]

8. Well, Taking Medication AS PRESCRIBED Is A LEADING Cause Of Death

perhaps we should abandon synthesized, prescription medicine.

It is a disgrace that Western Mainstream Science just can NOT deal with any other part of Reality except the Material World.

The Psychic component of Reality is SCREAMING for attention.

There are very ancient systems to measure, describe and manipulate the Psychic component.

And yet, Science obsesses over the Material World and discounts, belittles and ignores ANY attempt to utilize that which available to all. The Healing Power of our own Minds.

This isn't true in Europe. Germany is fairly forward thinking.

America is falling so far behind....

[damntexdem]

25. What is 'the material world'?

If you believe in 'the psychic component of reality,' then isn't it a part of the material world? If it is 'screaming for attention,' then is it not subject to examination by naturalistic scientific methods? Have not many 'psychic' claims been subjected to scientific study? True, most, or all, have failed to be upheld'; but remember that most NATURALISTIC hypotheses are also not upheld in scientific study. If you want your psychic claims tested, go to the skeptics and debunkers -- they have interest in testing those claims. Michael Shermer should be your best friend in that regard, because he will test claims that 'mainstream' scientists won't. Those scientists have good reason not to, because they see the testing of such claims as outside their areas of interest or career advancement; but then skeptics have different motivation and WILL test things like psychic claims.

Science was established post-Galileo as an enterprise to observe and test and explain natural phenomena using naturalistic explanations. It has been spectacularly successful in so doing, and MUST NOT abandon its approaches. At the same time, its successes have led it into an understanding of the universe much more complex and strange than past scientists could have imagined -- e.g., quantum mechanics might have appeared as 'occult' to a scientist in 1830 as any claims about ESP, likely more so. And don't kid yourself: if Europe is pulling ahead of the U.S. in science, it's not because they look to psychic healing, it's because they have not been as restricted in what they could research by religious fanatics -- for example, they may advance much faster in embrionic stem-cell research. But if there is really something to psychic healing, then science, using naturalistic methods, will be capable of finding it. I don't think so; but then how many geologists in the 1950s thought that continents drifted?

[Amigust]

9. The power of the mind is a strange and wonderful thing.

Action coupled with belief in one's thoughts can produce amazing results.

Shamen and even voodoo practicioners have known it for a long time.

Let's not confine the matter just to Christian theology, that artificially limits it.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Absolutely

Thank you!

[KittyWampus]

20. That Was So Well Worded!

:)

[damntexdem]

26. Yes, but IP studies attempt to control for such things.

They attempt to isolate known causal mechanisms whereby human thought could influence outcomes. For example, they double blind so that neither subjects (e.g., patients undergoing a procedure) know who is prayed for nor experimenters who deal directly with subjects know who is getting the intervention and who is not, so that they cannot somehow 'telegraph' different messages to the two groups.

[crossroads]

43. Well Said!

:hi:

[KittyWampus]

5. Focused Meditation CERTAINLY Has To Do With Science

Just because most people aren't familiar with the Principles behind HOW it works... doesn't mean the the Principles aren't there.

There is nothing "Supernatural" about focusing ones Intention towards an object.

We do it all the time. It is how ALL Change is effected.

Western Science, at this point, is becoming more and more retarded.

From the little I heard about the Prayer experiment cited... it didn't sound as if anyone involved had a real clue as to HOW Focused Thought works in healing.

[damntexdem]

27. Fine, make your claims regarding focused meditation ...

and then test them using the strongest scientific, naturalistic methods. If you can support your hypotheses, then tell me about them.

[Warpy]

7. There is an important point the researchers left out

namely, did these women know they were being prayed for? Also, if they did, was the control group also told they were being prayed for?

If one group was told they were being prayed for and the other was not, that could be the entire reason for this particular outcome, the placebo effect.

It's too bad the NYT didn't provde a link to a site that would answer these very important questions about that study.

[booksenkatz]

11. It might heal, but it doesn't seem to be able to stop war. nt

[Amigust]

13. Iraqi fighters are praying the infidels will be driven out.

Whose prayers should prevail?

[bemildred]

12. The placebo effect is well known and very real.

I am sure the deity will feel much better knowing that these
"researchers" have proved the effeciacy of appeals for her help.
God can always use a little Science to back her up.

[Amigust]

15. If there is a God, it includes science and is not separate from it.

eom

[bemildred]

18. A false premise implies anything you like.

If there is a God, pigs will fly out of my butt tomorrow,
little pink ones singing "Cum bah yah, my lord, cum bah yah",
is just as true.

Science is a method, not a thing, hence it is not part of anything
except, perhaps, some encompassing method.

"God" is an imaginary reification of the divinity that permeates
everything. The world is divine, but that divinity is not localized
in some thing somewhere called "God".

[Amigust]

22. The "method" that you refer to

is generally known as "the scientific method" and by itself does not define "science", but is a way of approaching investigation.

[bemildred]

24. It is true that big "S" Science is a belief system,

and in it's way just as dufuslike as say Two-Seed in the
Spirit Predestinarian Baptist theology. Little "s" science is a
method, or if you prefer a methodology, for finding reliable
knowlege by observation and experiment. There is no thing
there, just a way of doing business. The defining characteristic
is a reliance on observation as the ultimate arbiter of what is
real and what is not.

[Amigust]

30. Your whole point so far re "separated or included" turns on whether

something is "thing" or not. If not "thing", then by definition cannot be included as a part of "God". I doubt if one can be so exclusive, but it is a philosphical discussion that for me would be for another time. Thank you for your points.

[bemildred]

40. My point, or at least where I started out, perhaps obscurely,

is that there is an inherent sort of contradiction in trying to
use science (or experiment or logic) to prove the efficacy of faith
and revelation. Such attempts are already an admission of the weakness
of revelation, One does not use the Bible to argue that science must
have some validity or utility.

My regards to you too.

[Cheswick2.0]

32. The world is divine, but that divinity is not localized

The world is divine, but that divinity is not localized
in some thing somewhere called "God".

You are right, the world is devine, it is all God and we are all a part of it.

[bemildred]

38. I like to say it's all magic, but there is no special magic.

Just the ordinary everyday magic we all have access to as a birthright.
I suppose that makes me a monist of non-dualist or something like that.

[venus]

14. Looking at some of these posts really disappoints me.

Why must all Dems be anti-prayer, anti-spirituality, anti-religion? Your soon-to-be new leader is a devoutly religious person. Get over it. To continue to ridicule religion will turn back and bite you in the ass. Religion is proving science and science is proving religion. Read some of Einstein and Lincoln's writings. These were very spiritual men.

[Amigust]

16. When you say science is proving religion, you need to be

specific about what science is proving, and not lump all of religion together as what science is proving.

I won't hold Kerry's religious beliefs against him AS LONG AS he doesn't allow them to influence his public policy.

[bluewingoliver]

21. ?

All dems aren't anti-prayer, anti-spirituality, and anti-religion. (Although personally, I am.)
How will ridiculing religion bite anyone in the ass, pray tell? Is this another one of those fire and brimstone lectures? Religion has proved nothing but the gullibility of man, and science disproves religion constantly. Then you end up with things like creationism, christian identity, and other half-assed mythological crap.

[damntexdem]

29. Science can say nothing about religious beliefs ...

unless they make naturalistic claims. For example, if they claim that the world is 6000 years old, science can show that to be wrong based on observations of the world. If the religious claim is that the world is 6000 years old and that God made it appear to be older in ways beyond science's ability to detect, then that claim is not naturalistic, and science can say nothing about it -- only ignore it.

[bluewingoliver]

34. The "God is a cosmic trickster" theory...

I love that one. He placed fossils in the earth just to test our faith, I heard! :)

[H2O Man]

36. Interesting.

It is also true that in the field of "health pyschology," there have been numerous studies other than the one cited at the beginning of this thread that indicate that spirituality tends to help people deal with serious illnesses and injuries. Yet a rational person could conclude that it is something other than "religion" in a limited sense than is coming into play.

The obvious weakness in the belief that if science hasn't "proven" something, then it cannot be said to be true is that human beings are in fact limited. It is foolish to believe that human beings are capable of understanding (much less "proving") the life force, even in people. Can science "prove" a mother's intuition? Or can it fully explain why a mother's kiss makes a childs "boo-boo" better? I fully anticipate that some might say the mother's intuition are at best anecdotal antidotes, and meaningless in terms of medical science. Yet this ignores the obvious: that there is a love force within the life force, and it has the power to heal. And this is the higher meaning intended in Ephesians 1:19-20 : This power inus is the same as the mighty strength which God used when he raised Christ from death.

[damntexdem]

28. Well, given the amount of debate in the posts above, it appears ..

that the Dems on here are not all anything.

[DrWeird]

39. Are you familiar with the phrase "thou shall not give false witness?"

The links between prayer and healing are bullshit. If you're going to be an honest Christian then you have to admit that prayers do not improve health, and that science in no way is proving religion or vice versa.

[damntexdem]

17. It could be science.

I've often brought up IP research to contrast to the nonsense pushed by Creationists, particularly Intelligent Design advocates. If done right, IP research can be science becasue it relates two measurables, one a manipulation, an intervention: (1) having a group pray for an experimental group; (2) a measured outcome. If done rigorously as a randomized, double-blinded experiment to test pre-specified hypotheses, an IP experiment could do good science while trying to uncover a causal connection between 1 and 2. True, the specified hypothesis tested is not scientific in that it does not propose a naturalistic mechanism, but science often has reason to test such hypotheses -- e.g.: clinical trials of 'alternative' medical interventions; skeptical debunking of occult claims; and so on. The real scientific issue would occur should IP research show strong results upholding prespecified hypotheses, particularly under replication of studies.

It has not done so. In fact, little has been shown. Until the fertility study, I had not seen any study claiming to have upheld a specific prespecified hypotheses. Instead, weak connections had been reported between IP and some set of factors cobbled together after the fact -- in effect, the researchers 'went fishing' for a hypothesis that could be upheld by the data they had already collected and begun analyzing. That can be fine for proposing hypotheses to be tested in future research, but does not uphold any hypothesis.

So, what would be the issue if an IP-outcome connection appeared to be upheld? The issue, of course, would be what the mechanism was by which IP produced an outcome. The model would be

IP --> black box --> outcome

What's in the black box? Of course, the motivation of most IP researchers would be to claim that God was in the black box, answering prayers. But many other hypotheses could be entertained. One would be that the experimental results were somehow contaminated or that the experimental procedure was otherwise 'busted' -- naturalistic mechanisms. Likewise, there might be mechanisms not now known to science but that might someday be recognized as naturalistic. What if someone had stumbled over the ability to propagate radio waves before the development of enough knowledge of electromagnetism to explain what was happening -- wouldn't sending a message via radio have appeared to be 'magic'? If one is to provide supernaturalistic explanations, my favorite is that IP research is inherently sinful and that the devil answers the prayers in order to promote it. ;-) The question would be how to test competing hypotheses. A proposition that a result was pure chance could be tested by replicating an experiment -- one reason replication is important. An argument that the experimental design failed in some specified way can also be tested by replication with more-stringent replication incorporating stronger controls aimed at the suspected source of failure. But what could be done with a God vs. devil argument?

Actually, the fertility results amuse me because the Catholic Church holds that the fertility treatments are immoral -- if those results were found to hold up under replication, the Pope might argue that it was the work of the devil after all. ;-) But, likewise, those who think fertility intervention is just fine morally would argue that God answered the prayers. How could that disagreement be resolved? That is the crux of the problem noted by Dr. McNally -- but that invalidates the interpretation of the research, not the research itself, as science. So, replicate the fertility IP experiments and see whether consistent positive findings emerge. Then the mechanism can be argued over.

Now, it's another issue whether the government should fund the research. The Constitution establishes separation of church and state, not church and science. It may be that the founding fathers' motivation was to take the state out of debates that could have no natural, so no scientific, resolution; but it is at least as likely that the motivation was to reduce religious fighting using the state and to promote freedom of belief, even if beliefs are unfounded. In that case, could it be that government is prevented from funding IP research if it is motivated either by (1) belief that God does it, or (2) a skeptical wish to debunk IP? Possibly; but even so, that leaves open the avenue of funding IP as a test of 'alternative medicine,' under the rubric that "a lot of people try it and think it works, so let's test it to see whether, for some reason, it really does." I think that government funding can be justified under that rubric, but I'm not sure how much funding should go that way with what priority. There should certainly be some point in which nonresults lead to a decision to abandon such funding.

In the end, my concern is that science be defended from nonscientific thinking, such as Creationsim. In that regard, I would much prefer that those advancing supernaturalistic arguments use the best scientific approaches to test them, rather than trying the end runs that, in particular, Intelligent Design advocates have attempted. In that regard, I will continue to use IP experiments as an example of a correct approach that might be taken.

And what is the meaning of 'natural' and 'supernatural,' anyway. I argue that basically the 'natural' is whatever science has been able to show that it could observe and measure, hopefully manipulate and test, and attempt to explain, and that provides new hypotheses and avenues for research. Simply saying that 'God did it' does not do such things. But at the same time, the exclusion of God from scientific explanation largely since Galileo can be seen as the esult contingent on findings. When Galileo pointed his improved telescope to the heavens, he found the moons of Jupiter rather than a divine throne sitting on a cloud. As an agnostic, I have no problem with a believer who believes in God despite Galileo's, and hundred of years of further oberservers', faliure to sight a divine throne; but as a scientist and an advocate of science, I object to those who attack science's naturalistic methods.

[depakid]

23. Here we go again

Here's the trick- if the test subjects aren't blinded, then there's bound to be some placebo effect among the participants who believe. Placebo effects can be quite strong- as has recently been seen in adolescent anti-depressant studies. Good science tells us that the anti-depressant themselves have virtually to efficacy in children and adolescents, yet due to the palcebo effect, combination anti-depressant and non-drug therapy produces better results.

The same is true with prayer. If people believe in it, then it helps heal- and while there's nothing at all wrong with that- quite the opposite, let's not get confused about what's really going on. It's not some devine intervention of Jungian collective consciousness. It's just a very human response called positive thinking.

[damntexdem]

31. The experiment must go beyond that.

It must double-blinded. Even if the subjects don't know who is experimental and who control, if the experimenters dealing with them do, then they may treat them differently, so induce differential outcomes. And the failure of research design can be much-more subtle than that. For example, hospital patients may be assigned to groups based on patient numbers; and that might be as simple as assigning odd and even numbers to the different groups. If that is done, it assumes that the numbers have no meaning, are effectively random. But what if all rooms in the hospital have two beds and all odd numbers are in beds nearer the windows? Could that bring about a difference in outcomes?

This is where Murphy's Law comes into play: the most well-thought-out and faultlessly-implemented intervention may fail to produce an outcome, but some stupid little difference that somehow escapes experimental control may succeed in producing an outcome. Of course, that's not how it generally turns out; but that is what a good experimental design strives to prevent.

[depakid]

35. This is of course true- and astute

I was illustrating it from the patient-centric perspective to underscore a point about the power of placebo effects... and hopefully imparting that in terms of healing, they're not a "bad" thing at all, but can actually be a tool to work with.

Looking at it from a research design standpoint- trying to eliminate threats to internal and external validity, requires a great deal more consideration. As you mention, even the best laid plans can be confounded by some little thing like which rooms have windows that let sunlight in, or which parts of the hospital are noisier.

[daleo]

46. How does the placebo effect work anyway?

To just claim it is positive thinking doesn't do much more than rename the phenomenon. The placebo effect seems to be one of those interesting areas of science, where everyone agrees to give an unexplained effect a jargonish name and pretend it is understood.

[sam sarrha]

37. The only reason it doesn't heal is because you didn't pray Fuck'n hard enough

or you didn't believe good enough.. or because you are a god damned SINNER.. Their prof is SupraNatural.. failure is due to YOU.
the proof needed is lesser than the "Word"...thus does not apply to judge the unjudgeable...

circular logic.. the conclusion comes first and the premise follows, Apriori

I grew up tormented by those people..

[Amigust]

41. "I grew up tormented by those people."

Well, you know, the fear card does work and it has worked since Middle Eastern religions became rooted. Without it, they certainly would not look anything like what they are today, imo, and what a pleasant difference that would be.

The amount of human suffering the fear card has produced in good people is, I believe, beyond anyone's wildest imagination.

[Dark Jedi]

42. Shaking Head :-(

What a damn waste of taxpayer money! :cry:

[depakid]

45. Where is William Proxmeyer when we need him

his "Golden Fleece" awards weren't always very respectful of science, but they did make people think....

[Lorien]

44. Mind/ body connection has long been known

to play a critical roll in healing. Meditation can also have a huge impact on cancer survival. Nothing new here.

[iceman_419]

47. remember thar simpsons episode

Where Homer decided to pray to god in order to get stuff done, rather than do it himself. This led to him owning the church and doing Homer things. Anyways these "doctors" seem to have the same mentality as Homer. Let's not do the work and let god take care of it. What if this leads to a doctor doing a shotty job on someone because he thought god would take care of the rest? Or what if someone decides that prayer will heal her cancer much better than treatment from a doctor, and that person eventually dies? Maybe these people deserve to pass on, Darwinan effect, but these doctor's should have their medical licenses revoked for believing in this crap and making it part of their medical practice. Who knows how many people have died because of these wakkos beliefs, because they don't seem to have any evidence that proves that they did heal anyone. Religion is for lazy people who want God to do everything for them.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

48. What they should be studying

Is how these good christian folks can stand by and do nothing while 45 million Americans have no health insurance?

[LiberalFighter]

49. We should all pray for gw* to be healed

and if he becomes a much better person than most people then I will believe that prayers heal.

[arwalden]

50. What A Fucking Waste Of Money

money that could have gone to SETI... or stem cell research (oh wait, never mind... that's crippled and tainted with mouse-cells, never mind) or AIDS research and prevention (oh wait, never mind... that would involve the use of condoms... EVIL EVIL condoms).

Fundie xians and the legislators who pander to them are certifable LOONS!

-- Allen