Has anyone ever devised a test to prove that there is power in prayer?

[heidler1]

I suppose that mass prayer for someone who is ill and knows that the praying is going on might cause a positive psychological reaction. Same for war and games like football.

How about affecting the lottery which should be immune unless it's crooked? If each denomination tried to out do the other denominations on prayer power by buying a single ticket would the winner then have proof of have the most influence with God? Or would this just be a coincidence?

[HawkerHurricane]

1. Yes.

Double blind studies of medical patients who are told they are being prayed for do better, whether they are actually being prayed for or not.

[trotsky]

25. Most of those studies have since been debunked.

http://members.aol.com/garypos/prayer.html

[Orrex]

30. Plus, an omnipotent god would invalidate all possible empirical studies

And if we allow that "all prayers are answered but sometimes the answer is 'no'" nonsense, then the subject itself is nonfalsifiable.

Any empirical study purporting to show the efficacy of prayer as a healing aid is doomed from the get-go.

[seattlemetal]

2. I have..

I heard of a test they did with two groups of people with cancer, one control group and one group that got prayed for by a 'Prayer team' of people...they all under went normal medical treatment but they found that the group that had been prayed for did not have ANY different survival rate than the other group, then they studied a group that prayed for themselves and they did have a slightly better survival rate, presumably for just the reason you stated....placebo effect....

I wish I still had the link....I'll see if I can find it...

[heidler1]

4. That is what I'd expect, thanks.

I read one time about a group who were previously known to be susceptible to being hypnotized. They were put in a room together and a what was supposed to be a hypnosis inducing tape was played, many went under. However it turned out that they had used the wrong tape which had nothing to do with hypnosis. To me this was similar to the placebo effect.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

3. A Godoff?

"If each denomination tried to out do the other denominations on prayer power"

I say this as a spiritual person and I believe in a higher power, and while I technicaly belong to a denomination, I do not attend church and havent done so in a very long time.

Such a test would never achieve anything.

Neither a positive, nor negative result would be accepted by anyone of another faith (which includes atheism as it is simply another faith - a faith in that no higher power exists).

Furthermore, if a higher power does exist, surely such a being would find a "godoff" unworthy of their attention, in my humble opinion.

The results, or non results will simply reinforce the beliefs of all faiths, as it will be interpeted as such.

[heidler1]

6. You seem to contradict the old saw "God moves in mysterious ways".

I submit that if there is a God, no human knows what he'll do next.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

11. You have a good point.

I agree if there is a God, no human knows what he'll do next.

But I submit, that groups of humans are pretty damn predictable :)

[beam me up scottie]

8. Oh brother...

Atheism is a faith the way not having mental illness is a disease.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

10. fine.

Prove that God doesn't exist.

or if you prefer, prove that God does exist.



Until someone proves either, all we have is faith in our beliefs.


Its common knowledge that challenging someones religion is likely to produce a strong negative reaction from the person you are challenging. This is true of any religion, including Atheism.

Dare I say, that your post indicates a strong reaction? Please accept my apology. It was not my intention to offend, but rather discuss the idea of a "God test" as the original poster suggested.

[beam me up scottie]

12. A strong reaction to ignorance, yes.

But I'm like that with all ignorance, not just the religious kind. ;)

[Freedom_Aflaim]

13. Im just being technical

You arent the first person I've annoyed with that trait :)

[beam me up scottie]

14. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

And don't believe for a second that most atheists have an interest in trying to prove a negative.

There are some here if you're looking for a scrap, but you won't get one from me on that subject.

:evilgrin:

[Freedom_Aflaim]

15. Thanks, enjoying it here.

Oh Im willing to scrap with folks on a number of subjects, but religion isnt one of them :)

At least with politics you have a small hope of turning the person to your point of a view. But arguing about whether God exists is proably the least productive thing you can do....NOBODY ever changes their mind.

thanks again and have a good evening.

[beam me up scottie]

16. You're welcome.

But we can use your help in things related to religion as well as politics.

Check out this thread from DUer Maat:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x45013

She usually makes some excellent points and helps us see what the other half of the country is drinking.

[Zhade]

66. "NOBODY ever changes their mind."

You're wrong, of course - I myself changed my mind, from thinking there might be objective evidence of the existence of gods to learning that there isn't.

People change their minds every day, and I think discussing the issue is as fine a way to pass the time as debating the teaching of 'intelligent design' - both have an increasing impact on society in the United States.

[heidler1]

19. When ever someone claims that something exists in all cases that

I know of the burden of proof rests on the one who claims this, except in the case of Gods? All science rests on proof provided by the guy that says it's so. With less than complete proof it is labeled a theory. Even after what is accepted as complete proof if some new discovery blows it out of the water scientists are generally willing to revise the accepted view. Typically it takes centuries to move the religious community. like with Galileo and Copernicus.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

29. This is true, except that Im not debating

whether or not God exists. I respect everyone belief system and Im not about to try and change your mind about THAT.

I posted two question that are impossible to answer.

Rather (what has developed into a debate), is rather the belief that no God exists is another belief system, another tenant of life that one must choose to take on faith, or reject it.

There are two possibilities:

1) God does not exist

2) God does exist.


We cannot prove either statement. Yet everyone latches onto one of those conclusions vociferously and many become angry when challenged on which statement they believe. In fact some become murderous when challenged (generally folks who cling to #2)

I think everyone agrees, folks who cling to statement #2 have a faith and belief system.

My simple(and only) assertion is that folks who cling to statement #1 have a faith and belief system also.

Is one better than the other? THAT I leave for someone else to argue about :)

[immoderate]

61. Nonsense.

Welcome to DU. You must be very new to hold such misconceptions so confidently.

Of course, like most arguments, we must define our terms to derive any resolution. I'm using the word belief to describe the set of ideas that we retain to describe what I'll call "reality" or the world that exists outside your head. Let's call a belief system those beliefs which are interdependent. That is, once you believe one thing, it leads to other beliefs to maintain consistency.

Let's take an example of two contradictory statements:

1. Polar bears do not drink Coke.
   
2. Polar bears drink Coke.

First, remember that there is more evidence for polar bears drinking coke than there is for the existence of god. I have seen the pictures. And if you do believe the evidence you have to adopt a belief system, that there are North Pole Coke distributors, that seals go better with coke, etc.

If you don't think that seals drink Coke, that does not constitute a belief system. If you don't believe in Santa Claus, that does not constitute a belief system. If you don't believe in Zeus, that does not constitute a belief system, although he was once a solid contender. What are the special features of your god that require a belief system to not believe in it?

A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena. You cannot prove a theory. Proof only applies to math and court rooms. A theory is accepted as long as it is consistent with reality. It is discarded when evidence contradicts it.

The belief system most atheists I know work on contains the ideas that:

1. The laws of nature are consistent in the universe.
   
2. Nature is comprehensible.
   
3. A statement cannot be both true and false.

But this is not an atheist belief system, it is a rational thinking belief system. the notion of god contradicts things that we do know. Most progressive theists deny the contradiction, or just live with it. Most conservative theists just deny the validity of science.

If atheism is an example of faith, can you give me an example of no faith?

--IMM

--IMM

[Zhade]

67. "seals go better with coke"

:rofl:

EXCELLENT post! :toast:

[FM Arouet666]

21. Any religion, including atheism?

Atheism is a lack of a belief, not a religious belief which has no god. As for your joust, prove this or prove that, sorry, the onus is upon you to establish a theory, based on a given set of facts.

I believe that ants are the keepers of all faith, fastidious as they are, guided by telepathy from the mother Queen. How do explain the complex behavior? The dying devotion to the Queen? Must be a supernatural at work, the hand of god.

Prove me wrong or prove the telepathy does not exist.

Silly little ants, but your religion fails on the same account, yet I am to believe because of matters of gawd, the afterlife, sin and all that. Just window dressing. Why believe?

Waking in the early morning you must wonder what life is about. Your mind clear, free of the daily noise, pondering mortality. 'There must be an afterlife, a heaven, death cannot be the end of existence, MY existence.'

The truth hurts, you end with the end of your life. I will stick with the ants, that Queen is getting me moist.........

:evilgrin:

[Freedom_Aflaim]

28. I thought that was agnostic

"lack of a belief"..agnostic that is??

Of course my "joust" was rhetorical. Everyone knows full well that neither can be proven.

We humans just pick one of those assertions (there is or is not a god), and then cling violently to that assertion without any proof whatsoever. Of course the same folks pick and choose interesting anecdotes to back up their beliefs. Few folks ever change their mind throughout their life about which assertion they cling to.

Is that not the classic definition of ANY religion?

Of course this is all just my assertions. I imagine that if I were to pick up a dictionairy that it would back up the fact that Athiesm is unlike other ism's and is faith.

But Dammit, Im going to cling to my assertion that it is, proof be damned

:)

[FM Arouet666]

59. I would have to disagree

'cling violently to that assertion without any proof whatsoever.'

Religious adherents choose to believe as a matter of faith, evidence is not necessary, texts written thousands of years ago, reinforced by modern day translators is all that is needed. No proof what so ever.

Science is not constructed in the same way. Drop the proof, best left to mathematics and alcohol, science looks for evidence, constructs a possible explanation, and supports or disproves that explanation. If met with considerable support your explanation might become a theory. Not fixed dogma, always open to revision based on new information.

Why do I not believe in a super natural, a god, jesus? Where is the evidence? Science appears to work, and it works very well. Through science humankind has gone into space, harnessed the atom for good and bad, explained disease, and I can cook my burrito in 2 minutes in a microwave oven.

Religions have suggested that a god or gods look over mankind, take interest, participate in our affairs. Where is the evidence? A supernatural realm exists? Why, other than what pre-science scholars have written, what supporting evidence do you have? Miracles, quote a few, but what personal experience do you have with miracles?

Yes, proof be damned. Believe as you like and I shall as well. Mine is not a religion and not based on a lack of evidence. Proof is fine, 80 proof will do for now....... :evilgrin:

[Zhade]

69. Some mighty LOUD crickets, eh?

Ask for the evidence, and they vanish.

[grumpy old fart]

60. Could you be more off the mark?

Atheism a faith?

Is it faith to believe cats don't fly? Is it faith to believe clouds aren't intelligent? Is it faith to believe volcanoes aren't butt holes of some giant farting monster?

What has faith got to do with not believing something that cannot be demonstrably proved, or at least rationally argued?

[Goblinmonger]

63. "butt holes of some giant farting monster"

Thank you. I needed some humor today. Your avatar would be proud of that statement, too, I believe.

[Zhade]

68. Agnostic literally means "without knowledge".

Look up the origins of the word.

(Full disclosure: I am an agnostic atheist - I don't have knowledge that gods exist, so I don't believe in their alleged existence.)

[trotsky]

26. What is "God"?

Define your god first, and we'll have a place to start.

Otherwise your request is no different than me demanding you disprove Zlarck.

[Orrex]

33. "This is true of any religion, including Atheism."

That's a jest, of course, since the lack of a religion is not a religion.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[Karmakaze]

22. LOL

Too funny.

Who created god, and why should we worship something that is a mere creation of something else?

God can not exist. No faith needed, it is logically impossible.

[Goblinmonger]

62. And another example

shamelessly stolen from someone else

Atheism is a religion/faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Give me a break.

And don't give me the "prove god doesn't exist" line, either. It is not my assertion, so I have nothing to prove. There is no proof of god's existence. Until you have evidence to the contrary, I stand on the position that there is no god due to lack of proof. If you want to try and prove it, knock youself out--but millions have failed before you. To use a courtroom analogy, I'm the defense in this, you are the prosecution. I don't have to prove dick.

[Zhade]

65. Your definition of atheism is wrong, and I think you know that.

I, for example, have no such faith as you describe. I just don't believe in gods, anymore than I believe in Bigfoot.

Nice try, though.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. Oh puleeeze!

Pray to what? Shiva, Buddha, Mohamed, Jesus, The flying Spaghetti Monster? Religion is what keeps the poor from eating the rich. As long as the least among us insist in finding some "option to existence", we will continue to have fundamentalist nut jobs. On the other hand, pandering to nut jobs is quite profitable. If I had a less ethical moral center, I would start a religion. Unfortunately, I am an atheist and find the concept morally repulsive.

[NMMNG]

20. You and I think somewhat alike

If I had a less ethical moral center, I would start a religion. Unfortunately, I am an atheist and find the concept morally repulsive.

I wouldn't start a religion, but I would profit off an existing one. I would start a chain of religious book/gift stores and set them up in the heart of the Bible Belt. What a perfect way to fleece the fundie whackjobs :evilgrin:. However I am not able to stomach the idea of promoting that vile propoganda, even with the prospect of making hoards of money.

[heidler1]

35. My mother encouraged me to marry a young female preacher about 60.

years ago. I knew that the whole faith and belief concept was not for me. I thought of the scam prospects and dumped it as pure misery. Being candid about my thoughts, especially to my self, is a top prerequisite to my peace of mind. I can not look at the promise of eternal life for just voicing belief would meet the requirements as set up by an all knowing God, if my mind kept saying this is BS. I like being this way may be part of the conundrum.

By the way I do not get headaches and sleep good too.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

44. I know

but it would be so easy! If, as an athiest, you didn't have ethics.

[NMMNG]

45. I know that the fundies (and some liberal xians) insist we don't/can't

But I do, and they do get in the way of certain things, like committing underhanded acts for financial gain. :shrug:

[TlalocW]

7. I always chuckle at people

Who point to the few (and flawed) studies about prayer helping sick people or the ones insisting that creationism/intelligent design is valid, etc. It's called faith for a reason - you believe in it with no proof. You can't prove God exists (or doesn't). If you can't believe in it without some sort of proof, then I would think that the faith isn't very strong.

TlalocW

[Richard D]

9. Larry Dossey, M.D. . . .

. . . wrote an interesting book on prayer and it's effects on ill people. What he found was basically that it didn't matter who was prayed to (e.g. God, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) or who was doing the praying. People who were prayed for did statistically better than those not prayed for. This was done it a strict double-blind study.

Someone even did a test on bacteria in petri dishes. Half were prayed for, half not. The people who had contact with the cultures didn't know which were or weren't. The ones that were prayed for grew faster and with less contamination problems than the ones that weren't prayed for.

So the conclusions were:

1. Doesn't matter what version of God is being prayed to, or what religious belief the praying is structured around.

2. Doesn't make any difference if the person who is ill knows if they are being prayed for or not. Those prayed for did better.

3. Love seems to be the deciding factor as to whether the praying works or not. Religion is unimportant.

4. Bacteria need love too.

[trotsky]

27. Oh yeah, the bacteria experiments.

http://www.csicop.org/sb/2001-12/reality-check.html

Dossey is simply wrong when he says the evidence is "simply overwhelming that prayer functions at a distance to change physical processes in a variety of organisms, from bacteria to humans." Even without examining the detailed protocols of these experiments, the statistical significance is insufficient to draw such a conclusion. We have no idea how many experiments may have been done that gave no positive effects and consequently were never published (the "filedrawer effect"). These papers should not have been published either.

[papau]

40. All theist are liars anyway-and if they did not say that there were 1000's

of unpublished studies that showed no effect, you can be sure there were.

We know that they hide contrary results (the file drawer effect) because Doctors who are Christian are unethical liars.

- Yeah ---- right

Can we say http://www.csicop.org/sb/2001-12/reality-check.html is lame.

[trotsky]

46. Of course, I didn't say that.

Isn't there a commandment against bearing false witness, papau?

[papau]

47. Your URL site and your argument say it - why do you deny? - I thought

you were proud of the thought process that "proved" your point.

"Bearing false witness" is yet another lame attack - the atheist crowd seems to feel that they know better than the theist what is the meaning of anything - including any religion's texts.

In some circles it is called using a "straw-man" - in others it is called being a liar - and in still others it is called showing superiority so as to claim a bit more self-esteem.

But let the attacks on theists/Christians continue until the atheist crowd at DU have enough self-esteem to practice tolerance and good manners.

I realize that may take a while.

[trotsky]

48. You know, sometimes "the atheist crowd" DOES know better.

We've actually read a religious text - in-depth enough to reject it.

I know that what you did is bearing false witness. Neither I, nor the person who wrote the article, is claiming that "all theists are liars" (what YOU are claiming we said - that's false witness), nor that any theists deliberately LIED about other studies, just questioning whether there have been studies with negative results that got left out.

I wish you wouldn't have to change the subject into a personal attack. By the way, I don't think you're a good candidate to be preaching "tolerance."

[papau]

49. Try again - the basis for saying studies with negative results have been

left out is what?

The basis for saying Jesus did not exist despite folks writing about him is what?

Why do you lie to yourself?

The only "false witness" is the atheist that claims his religious knowledge proves that there is no God.

As to toleration - do you ever see Theists threads on DU dumping on atheists or their thought processes or beliefs or reasoning ability or use of logic errors or lack of good cites. The only theist "attack" - personal or otherwise - are response posts on atheists threads or on atheists posts on other threads that dump on theists.

The personal attack should be a group attack perhaps - but I really am hoping for the day that a DU atheist wants to discuss politics without dumping on theists and those with a religion different from his atheism.

[trotsky]

50. papau, please get ahold of yourself.

Such a claim doesn't even come close to approaching the statement "all theists are liars."

You are bearing false witness.

And yes, I do see theists dumping on atheists. Please don't pretend that it's only the big bad atheists being mean to everyone else.

[papau]

51. all theists are liars IF THEY SAY that which helps a theist argument

doesn't even come close ??? get real

and "get hold of yourself" is a line we all could use

You see theists dumping on atheists at DU ONLY as a response - they do not start any confrontation.

I once rephrased an atheist post that said that studies prove atheists have higher IQ's than theists as a new thread that claimed the opposite - noting in the body of the post that the title was bull and citing the studies that indeed show there is no difference. I caught a lot of flack for that. Flack the original atheist poster did not catch. I do not understand the lower ethics standard atheists demand for themselves as they scream they have as much ethics as anyone else (and indeed I believe atheists do have as much ethics as anyone else - only on DU there is the atheist search for converts and for atheist self-esteem that fogs the image).

There is nothing "big", nor "bad", about the R/T atheist postings -just juvenile.

Indeed some atheists on these boards never get into these R/T flames - and post and converse with me and others on many topics with both good manners, and good logic (and better writing skills than my own :-) )

Being mean??? - no not really - trying to be a bully - yes, really. and that is why I respond. I hate bullies and as a youth was blessed with a large enough body to make them stop - a habit that is hard to break.

[trotsky]

52. You are making huge sweeping statements

that are impossible to back up.

Theists dump on atheists "only" as a response? I call bullshit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4365017#4365080

See? All I had to do was provide ONE counterexample (there are many others) and your sweeping statement has now been proven false.

Your bullying threats do not scare me. Thankfully, you do not know where I live. I do have to admit, for being a follower of the so-called "prince of peace" you resort to threatening and intimidation a lot.

Anyway, now I've caught you bearing false witness TWICE. Along with all your personal attacks on atheists as a group. Just admit your mistakes and let's go on, shall we?

[papau]

53. Here is your counter-example- please explain why you think it is a counter

example?

sniffa (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-16-05 09:33 AM
Original message "Look how tastefuL the freepers are it just warms my heart."

AND YOU LINK TO:
8. It's obvious from the photo what they are really crying about-
what callousness it must take to trivialize their grief into a lame Hillary-bashing joke.

displacedtexan (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-16-05 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
10. These people obviously do not believe in God.
There is no way that this could be called "a Christian act."
How absolutely pathetic!

At some point you will perhaps raise children and see that pressing HOT buttons verbally (or via posts) is the standard bullying act. Physical intimidation is not usually part of the mix unless there is a size difference with the bully larger.

"Just admit your mistakes and let's go on, shall we?" LOL -

Yes - "let's just go on" as the conversation is unproductive - I suspect for both of us.

:toast:

:-)

[trotsky]

54. Uh, papau, it's not sniffa's post.

It is the UNPROVOKED attack on atheists, insisting that anyone who could have done such a horrible deed "obviously" could not believe in God.

And I suggest you take a close look at your posts, and your attempts to push the "hot buttons" of atheists by purposely and markedly calling atheism a "belief system" that takes "faith" and all those other false claims. Someone is being a bully, that's for sure.

Oh I think this has been quite productive for me - demonstrating that you bore false witness.

[papau]

55. LOL - enjoy your self esteem boost is that is what you get out of our

interchange!

In my world stating that you have or you see others having Belief, or faith is not being a bully - and indeed is just being observant. But I can see how those in denial could read it as bullying. So let's score one for your side as we bid adieu to this thread!

Meanwhile I will go on to "false witness" the implications of atheist statements on other threads.

:-)

[trotsky]

56. I am sorry you still have not learned how to treat others with respect.

Maybe someday, papau. Maybe someday. And when you learn that lesson, perhaps you'll find you get the respect you desire in return.

[Zhade]

71. Perhaps, then, you should stop trying to bully trotsky with your lies.

He never said that "all theists/Christians/_____" are liars. You lied when you put your words in his mouth.

[Zhade]

70. Nicely done.

Half the cries of persecution come from the likes of those who set up and lie about what we atheists say, like the guy you replied to.

HE LIED - kinda the way he's done by plagiarizing in the past. Not even worth laughing at.

[applegrove]

17. Praying makes some people very much stronger. Stronger people

do better. They make choices from the standpoint of strength. They make better choices. They live healthier.

If you were born to pray - you should pray to a merciful god.

I don't think anxious & angry people live as long as the peaceful. I don't think they make great decisions. I don't think their families thrive.

If you were born gay - be gay. However you were born.. be yourself.

[Karmakaze]

23. LOL

Praying makes people stronger?

No it makes them weaker. The intentional willing subservience to a fantasy has got to be one of the weakest things any person could do.

[lvx35]

18. The little quiet voice at the bottom of the page

says in a whisper:

If there is an all powerful God, does he want to be proven to all? If so, would anybody doubt? If not, would proof ever arise for the unfaithful?

shh!

[grumpy old fart]

31. God loves us...for entertainment value.

My favorite Randy Newman song:

"God's Song"

Cain slew Abel, Seth knew not why
For if the children of Israel were to multiply
Why must any of the children die?
So he asked the Lord
And the Lord said:

Man means nothing, he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest Yucca tree
He chases round this desert
'Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
That's why I love mankind

I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
From the squalor and the filth and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayers you offer me
That's why I love mankind

The Christians and the Jews were having a jamboree
The Buddhists and the Hindus joined on satellite TV
They picked their four greatest priests
And they began to speak
They said, "Lord, a plague is on the world
Lord, no man is free
The temples that we built to you
Have tumbled into the sea
Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
And the Lord said
And the Lord said

I burn down your cities-how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind

[lvx35]

32. hehe, a good one!

It makes a good point too...If God exists, there's no guarantee (s)he's a nice being, it just means that (s)he exists! cheers. :toast:

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Yes, and American taxpayers are funding it

What's that you say? Separation of church and state? Sorry, that phrase has been removed from our vocabulary during the Bush theocracy.

Kraft is one of 120 breast cancer survivors being studied. All are healing from reconstructive surgery.

For eight days, strangers around the world pray, or concentrate on positive thoughts for some of the participants. But not every participant is prayed for.

The rates of healing for the different groups will be gauged by measuring collagen levels in each patient. Collagen is produced as scars heal.
...
The study is funded by the federal government's National Institutes of Health, and being led by Marilyn Schlitz, who calls the subject she is examining "distant healing."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=1483796

The advance of science continues - straight into the quagmire of special interest religious groups and fanatics. :banghead:

[grumpy old fart]

34. Religion is what keeps the poor from eating the rich. tmfun nailed it.

religion keeps the little guys in line and is used by the powerful to keep in power. '04 was a perfect example.

[Ediacara]

36. Yes, no effect whatsoever

From this website:

If experimenting with prayer offends you, said scientist Francis Galton (Charles Darwin’s cousin), then why not examine the efficacy of spontaneous prayers? Galton, who loved to quantify everything from intelligence to female beauty, collected mortality data on groups of people who were the objects of much prayer—kings, clergy, missionaries—and found that they lived no longer than others. Moreover the proportion of stillbirths suffered by praying and nonpraying expectant parents appeared similar.

In fact, because the royal family heads the Church of England and are prayed for every Sunday, they are the most prayed about people in England. They have received no subsequent benefit to health, compared to other rich people.

[moggie]

37. Columbia and Mayo

There was a 2001 study from Columbia University which claimed to show that infertile women who had been prayed for became pregnant twice as often as those who hadn't. The experiment was rather poorly designed, but, bizarrely, it may have been entirely fraudulent:

In summary, one of the authors of the Columbia Cha/Wirth/Lobo study has left the University and refuses to comment, another now claims he did not even know about the study until six months to a year after its completion and also refuses to comment. The remaining author is on his way to federal prison for fraud and conspiracy. Fraud is the operative word here. In reality, the Columbia University prayer study was based on a bewildering study design and included many sources of error. But worse than flaws, in light of all of the shocking information presented above, one must consider the sad possibility that the Columbia prayer study may never have been conducted at all.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_28/ai_n6194238

That article is worth reading in its entirety.

Also in 2001, the Mayo Clinic published (Mayo Clinic Proc. 2001 Dec;76(12):1192-8) "Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population: a randomized controlled trial", a report of a study involving 799 CCU patients. They found that prayer resulted in "no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit".

[heidler1]

57. I suspect that women have several ways to thwart pregnancy.

One thing that effects it is their orgasm acts like a pump that pushes the sperm in the direction of the egg. If prayer does indeed alleviate fear, by thinking God is taking care of me, then the more relaxed state would have a internal effect on the woman. Thus the test would be skewed.

[moggie]

58. That doesn't apply in this case

None of the women knew about the prayers. In fact, if the experiment took place as described (which is in serious doubt), they didn't even know that they were experimental subjects.

[hvn_nbr_2]

38. A summary of all such studies and their critiques

Studies: Yes, there is a link.
-->Critique: They've all been debunked and proven invalid.
----->Response to critique: No, they haven't.
-------->Yes, they have.
-->Critique#2: That's such a crock of shit that I don't need to look at the studies.

Studies: No, there isn't a link.
-->Critique: Those studies are flawed.
----->Response to critique: No, they aren't. The very idea is a crock of shit.

Meta-study: Some studies show it works and some say it doesn't.
-->Critique: Savage unscientific birdbrain!
-->Critique#2: Savage unbelieving heathen!

[MikeH]

39. C. S. Lewis's thoughts on the matter

C. S. Lewis was one of my favorite authors when I was a Christian and serious about Christianity. Even though I am no longer a Christian (for personal reasons), I still like much (if not all) of what Lewis says in his writings.

He had some very definite thoughts on the subject of this thread, which he states in his essay on the Efficacy or Prayer in his book The World's Last Night.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0156027712/bookofcommonprayA/104-9589740-8134357

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156027712/ref=ase_bookofcommonprayA/104-9589740-8134357?n=283155&tagActionCode=bookofcommonprayA

Here is an excerpt from his essay:

Prayer Is A Request by C. S. Lewis

Even if all the things that people prayed for happened -- which they do not -- this would not prove what Christians mean by the efficacy of prayer. For prayer is request. The essence of request, as distinct from compulsion, is that it may or may not be granted. And if an infinitely wise Being listens to the requests of finite and foolish creatures, of course He will sometimes grant and sometimes refuse them. Invariable "success" in prayer would not prove the Christian doctrine at all.

It would prove something more like magic -- a power in certain human beings to control, or compel, the course of nature.

http://www.thelovingheart.net/lewis_c_s3.htm


In his essay he talks about a hypothetical experiment in which a team of people might pray as hard as they know how, for a period of, say six weeks, for all the patients in Hospital A and none in Hospital B, and in which the results are toted up to see if Hospital A has more cures and fewer deaths.

The problem is that what goes on under such conditions is not real prayer. The real purpose and the nominal purpose of the prayers are at variance. "Words without thoughts never to heaven go", says the king in Hamlet. The experiment demands an impossibility.

[grumpy old fart]

41. Well, that's one excuse.....n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Lewis is getting to the heart of the matter...

that prayer is not asking some divine Santa Claus for gifts, but is a conversation with the divine. The divine is under no obligation to answer, but presumably does listen and accepts the prayer for what it's worth simply as conversation and the supplicant's statement of faith.

To the devout, prayer actually works inwardly and probably has some psychological effects the same as witch doctors and faith healers exploit. I wouldn't doubt at all that some patients will respond to prayers they say or know are being said about them, but there's absolutely no evidence of divine intervention.

Lewis put a lot more thought into his writings, but Twain's "War Prayer" really brings home the idea that when you pray for something, it is likely that someone else will do without, or be harmed. What is the divine to do when he can't satisfy all?

FWIW, Quaker theology talks of a continuum of suffering and death that is all interrelated without regard for time and space. Asking God to break the continuum is not a good thing to ask for, and such a request will not be looked upon kindly.

[Inland]

43. You confuse "power" of prayer with a deity answering them

Sure, there are positive reactions. So? What's missing is any evidence of the hand of God in it.

Or a lack of god in the negative reactions.

Therefore there's no explanation whatsoever. You could just as well assert the power of Emily Post in asking cancer politely to please take its leave.

[immoderate]

64. Many have been devised.

Many have been carried out. Some have shown significant results, about the number that would show results by chance, given the great number of studies. These get reported. They are never replicated.

--IMM