Study finds that prayer does not heal the sick

[Eran of Arcadia]

Corrected! (Don't want to make too large of claims on science!)

Fair enough. There is still a risk in committing blasphemy, then, even if no one ever gets zapped in a study. But it's a small risk, no?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

And indeed, it would be proven that blasphemy is not immediately punished. So science can prove that. What is left unproved is whether there are long-term consequences. Will God remember this and use it against us at judgment? Will the fact that we did this separate us a little bit from God making it harder for us to accept and follow Him? Who knows.

There may be long-term consequences, that wasn't measured by my test example. There is much in science that remains unproven and so we run more tests and strive to increase our knowledge and understanding.

...You cannot measure spiritual issues scientifically...

My example shows the above statement to be incorrect. That was the point of my post.


If spiritual issues can be measured, this leads back to my orgininal post (sorry for the re-post but I feel this is a basic issue and it wasn't addressed by anyone but bgast):

I always find it suspicious when religious people don't enthusiastically welcome and actively encourage this type of research.

Let's look at this for a moment. We are using our brains that god gave us, with our curiosity and desire to learn that god instilled in us, to study the world god created, using the tools god provided (logic and scientific), in order to learn more about how god interacts with us.

The only reason I could see that anyone would discourage and/or disregard such attempts to learn, or the results of such research, would be if you fear the knowledge gained would be in conflict with your organizations established teachings and longstanding doctrine.

You may not agree, but I see the pursuit of new knowledge as being a good thing.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

There may be long-term consequences, that wasn't measured by my test example. There is much in science that remains unproven and so we run more tests and strive to increase our knowledge and understanding.

Of course, but I am saying that in this case the consequences occur after death and so are permanently beyond the ability of science to study.

My example shows the above statement to be incorrect. That was the point of my post.

If spiritual issues can be measured, this leads back to my orgininal post (sorry for the re-post but I feel this is a basic issue and it wasn't addressed by anyone but bgast):

Some spiritual issues can be measured in part. This study did not prove that prayer is always ineffective, just that it won't produce certain results under certain circumstances. Now, no one can say, "prayer has been proven to work", but I like to think of myself as a rational person; still I will pray for many things, some with potentially tangible results. However, I understand why they might not get the answer I want.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And I actually agree with your statement. I believe that God wants us to use our brains, even if it means that we discover that what we expected to happen does not happen, or at least not the way we were expecting.

 

[El_Machinae]

Of course, but I am saying that in this case the consequences occur after death and so are permanently beyond the ability of science to study.

As a person who thinks that death can be defeated - I'm okay with that.

As long as the purported 'bad consequences' only occur when you die, then the logical choice is to not die.

 

[MobBoss]

Mobboss: we're testing to see if blasphemy is immediately smitten. That's a way of testing what kind of God exists.

No...its not. When in the bible was anyone immediately smitten. I think I only remember one such instance in all of the bible. He didnt even immediately smite Sodom and Gomorra, but rather gave them chance after chance to redeem themselves....so your "test" as it were is hardly indicative of anything - except in your insistance of silly tests with extreme logic holes to prove your point.

Of course, we predict that in each case, the evidence will show that God does not intervene when it is possible to measure the intervention. This is of course predictable, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster gives the same level of intervention.

So, just exactly how worthy is such evidence in a lame test as that? Its of zero worth to be honest.

If you simply insist on tests that will only give you the results you want by all means go ahead. You will only get the results that you look for.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Of course, but I am saying that in this case the consequences occur after death and so are permanently beyond the ability of science to study.

No problem as I agree the 'after death' part would be difficult at best to study scientifically.

Why not actively study the 'still alive' part and try to learn more about how god's love is directly applied to us while here on earth?

Some spiritual issues can be measured in part. This study did not prove that prayer is always ineffective, just that it won't produce certain results under certain circumstances. Now, no one can say, "prayer has been proven to work", but I like to think of myself as a rational person; still I will pray for many things, some with potentially tangible results. However, I understand why they might not get the answer I want.

Is this study perfect? No. Is one study alone usually scientifically allowed to make a complex point? No. This study is attempting to learn. My point is why wouldn't organized religion encourage large-scale scientific method based testing in order to learn more and increase our understanding? If prayer did work shouldn't the church jump at the opportunity to demonstrate this scientifically for the whole world to see? Wouldn't this help to spread the word that god does love us and actually demonstrates his love?

 

[Urederra]

Actually, I have had part in several. I consider my daughters miracles.

I am affraid Vatican does not count those as miracles. But who is Vatican to deny a father's point of view?

And I will say a little prayer for you right now. Who am I to refuse such a request? But as the study shows, your milage may vary.

Thanks... sometimes a little attention is enough, keep the miracles for those who really in need

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I consider my daughters miracles.

I agree with MB that the birth of my children were indeed miracles.

Where to place the credit for such events is where our opinions differ.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

<sophisticated sophistry>

Of course, Jesus may have been a psychologist with knowledge of the placebo effect. This would explain why there is a measurable result, and would explain why it disappears in tests.

</sophisticated sophistry>

 

[BCLG100]

maybe they wernt praying hard enough?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And suddenly the biggest problem of all has just occured to me. They had no way to ensure that the control groups, the ones either not told of the study or told they would get prayers but didn't, were really control groups - that these people didn't have other friends or relatives outside the study praying for them. This fact might invalidate the entire study. Discuss?

 

[El_Machinae]

I kinda thought about that when I realised that the groups might not actually be randomised (in truth), but that the random machine was altered such that people were put where they were supposed to be (to keep the results inconclusive AND still heal those who needed to be healed).

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I kinda thought about that when I realised that the groups might not actually be randomised (in truth), but that the random machine was altered such that people were put where they were supposed to be (to keep the results inconclusive AND still heal those who needed to be healed).

I think that they would need to select patients who would not have anyone praying for them at all - either their entire family were atheists, or no one liked them. Otherwise, it could be argued that one prayer from a family member who knows and loves you could be as effective as a bunch of prayers from strangers who never met you.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's another factor - to determine which patients were themselves atheist, and which were Christian. I'm quite sure that Biblical doctrine is such that the benifittor of a prayer must accept the prayer for it to work.

 

[kingjoshi]

I think that they would need to select patients who would not have anyone praying for them at all - either their entire family were atheists, or no one liked them. Otherwise, it could be argued that one prayer from a family member who knows and loves you could be as effective as a bunch of prayers from strangers who never met you.

I already mentioned that. You can't control the prayers of people not involved in the study praying for people. Some Mother Teresa out there praying for all those who are sick can influence the study. We can't know the influence of such a prayer, much less everyone else that prays. Just like when I was proposing the other study to MobBoss, we can't control other people who might come and comfort the patients (family, friends, nurses, doctors, etc).

So this study and future studies are worthless on this topic.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That's another factor - to determine which patients were themselves atheist, and which were Christian. I'm quite sure that Biblical doctrine is such that the benifittor of a prayer must accept the prayer for it to work.

Now that, I am not convinced that it is true. At least for a Mormon - there are stories in the Book of Mormon of unbelievers benefitting from the prayers of believers, although in that case it was intangible benefits, like spiritual conversion. As far as measurable, tangible benefits go, it might make a difference, but I don't know if the study considered that.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ah, I should remember that the Christians I was exposed to were unusual. Often, the 'receiving' of a blessing was important - I think it was similar doctrine to accepting Christ's forgiveness. So, if someone did not want to receive God's blessing, they wouldn't.

 

[MobBoss]

Ah, I should remember that the Christians I was exposed to were unusual. Often, the 'receiving' of a blessing was important - I think it was similar doctrine to accepting Christ's forgiveness. So, if someone did not want to receive God's blessing, they wouldn't.

Well, in part I agree with you EL_M. I once had a pastor tell me that "the hardest thing to ever pray against is someones will". In explaining that he basically said if you have a loved one intent on living a harmful/destructive lifestyle, prayer is virtually powerless to improve their situation as God wont change someones free will/choice.

So basically, if you have an atheist or someone who does not desire your prayer, I would say any attempt at prayer for them would not be effective at all.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That's true, if someone is committed to not 'accepting' prayer, then there is nothing that can be done - prayer will not override an individual's free will. But I don't know what most Christians think about, say, praying for the health of a nonbeliever, as recovering from illness doesn't involve free will.