Prayers found ineffective in speeding recovery

[evil twin]

Article (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025463.200-prayers-found-ineffective-in-speeding-recovery.html).

[cambraceres]

The most interesting thing about this article is the reason for it's being written.

[gamblore99]

I can't believe people belonging to the sceintific community actually spent the time, effort and money to do this. Its kind of depressing

[guesswest]

There's a huge missing piece of information there, namely whether the third group who were being prayed for believed in prayer.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a huge missing piece of information there, namely whether the third group who were being prayed for believed in prayer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah! Yes, the placebo effect!

[DougShrapnel]

I think it's important to realaize that the sceintific community wastes alot of time, effort, and money debating sceinticfic ideas with religious fundementalists. This study, could answer a very important question, and provide evidence of a God. How is answering an imortant question a waste of time, effort and money?

[guesswest]

Doug - I don't think it's a waste of time and money either, because I think it's pretty interesting stuff.

But I think it's use is very limited in terms of convincing the religious right of anything, the reality is that studies with findings like these will be ignored completely. Religious interests do not apply scientific principles to the evaluation of these studies, they will cherry pick. To that end it could be argued that any such studies are detrimental, because only the ones that validate religion will be considered.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug -

But I think it's use is very limited in terms of convincing the religious right of anything, the reality is that studies with findings like these will be ignored completely. Religious interests do not apply scientific principles to the evaluation of these studies, they will cherry pick. To that end it could be argued that any such studies are detrimental, because only the ones that validate religion will be considered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guesswest, I can't agree that the placebo effect is interesting in the context of this study, but the rest of your post is golden.

[Green Kool Aid]

lol i cant wait for someone to die and go to heaven for the following conversation

Dead guy: God! Im only 45 years old. WTF!
God/Jesus/Allah/I dont know whoelse: Your family didn't pray for you. Take it up with them. What was I supposed to do?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think it's use is very limited in terms of convincing the religious right of anything, the reality is that studies with findings like these will be ignored completely. Religious interests do not apply scientific principles to the evaluation of these studies, they will cherry pick. To that end it could be argued that any such studies are detrimental, because only the ones that validate religion will be considered.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I willing to concede that the speculative uses of a study are grounds to deny oursleves the knowledge gained by doing the studies. Information is becoming and will become more of an ethical issue. People have the right to have correct information, what they do with it is mostly thier own business.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I think it's use is very limited in terms of convincing the religious right of anything, the reality is that studies with findings like these will be ignored completely. Religious interests do not apply scientific principles to the evaluation of these studies, they will cherry pick. To that end it could be argued that any such studies are detrimental, because only the ones that validate religion will be considered.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure I willing to concede that the speculative uses of a study are grounds to deny oursleves the knowledge gained by doing the studies. Information is becoming and will become more of an ethical issue. People have the right to have correct information, what they do with it is mostly thier own business.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't do these studies if they're valuable in their own right. I was just suggesting that engaging the religious right in dialogue should not be part of that motivation since they're unlikely to evaluate them correctly.

And camb - thanks for the compliment. With regards to the placebo effect: I don't really know how interesting it'd be in this study because the information is missing. Just that various types of positive thought have been shown to influence physical conditions since time immemorial. So whether the individuals who knew they were being prayed for believed in prayer as useful, could potentially be significant. I'm not sure that is, stricly speaking 'placebo effect'?

In any event, I'm sure not mentioning it is a failure of the journalist rather than the researcher, I can't imagine any halfway competent researcher wouldn't factor that.

[pstripling]

Could you provide some specific examples of scientific studies that have proven anything that have been discarded by religion?

[guesswest]

I don't have the energy to trawl through google for hours getting a list of all the numerous studies that has found no benefit in intercessionary prayer. Unless you're arguing that such studies don't exist, which I doubt, I get the feeling you may be trying to win this debate on a technicality. Which you're welcome to do if you find that satisfying.

Nobody within any kind of religious authority ever says 'oh, maybe prayer doesn't work after all' in response to any of these studies. But will very frequently and vocally quote the studies which demonstrated the contrary. If you're looking at research to validate a pre-existing belief, if you're not equally open to any outcome, then you can't evaluate information without bias.

Religion concedes ground in the face of scientific evidence only when the evidence is so absolutely overwhelming and undeniable that it's impossible to refute. SOME progressive christians now believe the world didn't begin 6000 years ago. That's some, and we have dinosaurs.

The kind of response which would represent neutrality just isn't in the vocabulary or the mentality of mainstream religion. I'm not saying that applies to every individual that partakes of these religions, there are exceptions - there are certainly a few intelligent and thoughtful christians on this board. But we're talking about mainstream religious lobbying groups and institutions here.

[bills217]

Do you think if I pray for the health of my sick grandmother, God suddenly goes, "Hey! That's a good idea! I should heal bills217's grandmother. I'd have never thought of that!"

Prayer isn't done in exchange for earthly rewards. It's done as an act of faith and as a way of communicating with God.

That said, fervent prayer from a righteous person can be very powerful, even in an earthly sense. How many among us can claim to be righteous I don't know.

In the story of the temptation of Jesus in John 4, Satan tells Jesus to throw himself down off a high cliff, because the Scriptures say angels will catch him.

Jesus' response is, "The Scriptures also say, 'Do not put God to the test.'"

[DougShrapnel]

This thread was all ready done here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5253239&an=0&page=5#Post 5253239)

"“The prayer of faith shall save the sick”, James 5:14-15. A bible passage used by many parents to allow their children to suffer and die rather than taking them to a “scientific” medical facility.
I guess those Christian folk they culled for the study had no faith. Either that, or God ran as soon as he spotted that some devious person was trying to gain a better understanding of him, rather than fulfilling the promise he clearly made in the bible. "

[pstripling]

I'm not trying to "win" the debate on a technicality. Nor do I even think it is a debate. People who want to agree with the OP will cite studies in which prayers did not work, people wanting to prove the religious side will cite studies that shows it does work.

To say definitivley that prayers don't work is absurd as that is results oriented. Saying that prayers do work is not absurd because prayer is about our relationship with God and seeking His will. Sometimes he chooses to extend mercy and grant a prayer request. At other times mercy may not be part of His plan at that moment,as He may be trying to teach someone something, or get them to let go of something.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to "win" the debate on a technicality. Nor do I even think it is a debate. People who want to agree with the OP will cite studies in which prayers did not work, people wanting to prove the religious side will cite studies that shows it does work.

To say definitivley that prayers don't work is absurd as that is results oriented. Saying that prayers do work is not absurd because prayer is about our relationship with God and seeking His will. Sometimes he chooses to extend mercy and grant a prayer request. At other times mercy may not be part of His plan at that moment,as He may be trying to teach someone something, or get them to let go of something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I agree that people going into this debate with an entrenched belief that prayer does not work are equally biased. But there's a third group of people, those who don't know if prayer does or does not work and are looking at research to answer that question - they're the ones that are examining these studies with some kind of neutrality.

And your answer demonstrates that exact point - you're starting with an assumption that god exists, that he has a will, that he is merciful, that prayer is a means of communicating with him etc. You can't approach results with any of those assumptions in place if you want to remain scientifically neutral.

[pstripling]

I would technically agree. I would point out though that for God, to be God... a being so powerful and awesome that we cannot comprehend would defy any explanation. God is supernatural, and science has had a terrible time trying to prove anything to do with the supernatural.

Psychics are an example that comes to mind. Some of them have been proven to be fakes, others are uncanily accurate. Although none have been scientifically proven as none have been anywhere close to 100% accurate. Yet some people have great faith in psychics, or certain psychics. I think that these studies are just a collection of inconclusive data, for or against. Eventually a person has to make a choice about what they have decided to believe in(put their faith in).

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I would technically agree. I would point out though that for God, to be God... a being so powerful and awesome that we cannot comprehend would defy any explanation. God is supernatural, and science has had a terrible time trying to prove anything to do with the supernatural.

Psychics are an example that comes to mind. Some of them have been proven to be fakes, others are uncanily accurate. Although none have been scientifically proven as none have been anywhere close to 100% accurate. Yet some people have great faith in psychics, or certain psychics. I think that these studies are just a collection of inconclusive data, for or against. Eventually a person has to make a choice about what they have decided to believe in(put their faith in).

[/ QUOTE ]

What psychics have been shown to be uncannily accurate in controlled situations?

[pstripling]

None that I am aware of in a controlled setting. Sylvia Browne comes to mind of a successful psychic who is good at the speaking in general terms stuff. The woman on the show "Medium" is supposed to be pretty good too though.

[guesswest]

Yeah she was pretty good in True Romance but I don't know what she was thinking with Lost Highway. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
None that I am aware of in a controlled setting. Sylvia Browne comes to mind of a successful psychic who is good at the speaking in general terms stuff. The woman on the show "Medium" is supposed to be pretty good too though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both are demonstrated frauds. Ms Brown in particular is a life long con artist. Coincidently both are subjects of articles in the Mar/Apr issue of "Skeptical Inquirer"

[morphball]

You're god, and you spent a great deal of your time (although you do have lots of time since you existed forever) planning the entire future. I mean you've really done your homework. You figured out where and when butterflies are going to flap their wings so that hurricanes and monsoons will happen.

Now, everyday, you get three billion telephone calls from people calling you different names asking you to change your plans.

It sucks to be god. <u>George Carlin's argument non-verbatim.</u>