The Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics at Loyola University

Prayer Studies Do Not Have a Prayer

The big problem with prayer studies is theological. God is more likely to heal people if enough strangers gather to ask? God can be fooled into participating in - or will be willing to participate in - a study in which some patients are deprived of that power deliberately?

The power to heal the sick and answer prayer is profound in most religious traditions. But sometimes the answer to a prayer could very well be - as it most profoundly in the Christian tradition is for Christ when he asks God to allow him to forego suffering at the cross - that suffering (even the suffering of Job) is the will of God. Life on earth remember is for the Judeo-Christian tradition and indeed in most major religious traditions a mortal coil, a matter of ashes to ashes.

So prayer studies are a preposterous, misguided and ultimately perhaps blasphemous activity, and from a scientific point of view they have more than been shown to be a waste of money and effort. And this is the subject of our Caplan & McGee column this week in the Times-Union for Hearst News Service and NYT News Service:

Despite the fervent hopes of a few faithful, the idea of prescribing prayer to cure diseases and disabilities just doesn't have a, um, prayer. Study after study shows that prayer flunks the test of hard scientific evidence when it comes to measurable effects. But should this really be the test to which prayer is put?

Harvard researchers and the John Templeton Foundation, a philanthropy devoted to bridging the gap between science and religion, recently poured nine years and $2.4 million into the most comprehensive study to date of the power of prayer for the sick. They wanted to see whether prayer by strangers, sometimes called "intercessory prayer," would increase the chances that people got better or had fewer problems as they healed.

A few weeks ago they announced their findings. Prayer by strangers had no effect on minimizing side effects for 1,802 heart bypass patients. This study confirms what five others have shown -- there is no empirical evidence that praying for the sick works.

Some are still unconverted. They contend that this study, just like the earlier ones, was not done correctly. Perhaps the people praying didn't get the prayer right. Or they did not pray with sufficient zeal, or pray long enough. Or maybe patients were scared at the thought of strangers praying for them, which may very well explain why many heart patients who were told they were the subjects of prayer did more poorly than those who were unaware.

The problem isn't prayer itself.

Prayer can be the most generous, open, solemn and thoughtful form of human expression. Faith that a prayer may enlist God's help to heal someone is about as universal a religious experience as there is. When medicine fails and science reaches its end, a physician would have to be pretty callous to scorn the faith of patients and their families.

But that is the point. Faith is a matter of -- faith. Religions recognize the frailty, mortality and finitude of human life and, when a person is dying, the need to accept our finitude.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of prayer treatment is the eerie clarity that its advocates have about the idea that death is a failure. What if the Harvard study had shown that more patients who had been the subject of intercessory prayer were slower to heal or had more health problems? Would that show that God does not exist? That all prayer is pointless? On the other hand, what would intercessory prayer do for medicine if it actually worked? Would we have to warn those with no family and few friends that they aren't going to do as well because sadly they are prayer deficient? Would HMOs and insurance companies have to cover the costs for professional prayers?

[READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE]

comments

A few overarching ideas come to mind when addressing this issue. Supernatural intervention in this case God 'healing' people is by its very essence rare. If it were otherwise it would not have the essential characteristics of the miraculous (I think this is the appropriate descriptive term for it). Now given that it ought to be expected to be rare, such things will then lack the necessary volume of instances that would be required for said causal link to be evaluated. I would have expected these results.
The miraculous by it's nature will not be testable. Thoughts, Dr Kaplan?
On a side note, you might consider using darker lettering in the links along your blog posts. In the present format they are very difficult to discern.

I think it borders on heresy to maintain that the miraculous is empirically testable. Faith is faith and it does not cross the twain of empirical verification by means of the methods of science.

Heresy is not a word I typically associate with academic pursuits save for the excessive dogmatism that serves to hinder serious scholarly endeavors.
Testability and verifiability I believe are two entirely different things. To which do you refer?
To illustrate this I will re-characterize my assertion by putting into the form of a question. Is the miraculous testable in that a hypothesis can be put forward but not verifiable given that by it's sheer rarity there will be a lack of corrobative evidence?
In essence the causal link is not verifiable because we are unable to proceed past step three of the scientific method.
I'm neck deep in Popper right now which serves as the context for this specific avenue of inquiry.

I think for once I actually am in agreement with something posted on this blog. A miracle indeed!

Jesus answered him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.'"
Matt. 4:7

Amen to that Laura. Don't they have any other subjects to study on? Now, even man's faith can be tested scientifically? Absurd.

think for once I actually am in agreement with something posted on this blog. A miracle indeed!

That article was very well said.

contribute a comment

Comments have been closed for this post.

what is this?

A 'Nature Top 50' science blog by the editors, staff and friends of The American Journal of Bioethics. Science writes: "To follow the latest twists in ... science stories with social impact, dive into this Web log"

The original story behind this blog

What people are saying about blog.bioethics.net

recently on blog.bioethics.net

Earbuds Killed the Radio Star

How many times have you told someone or been told that the tunes blaring in your MP3 player of choice are just too darn loud... (more)

Lonely "Virgin Mary" Shark Proves Her Species Doesn't Need Males Either

Scientists have reported in the Journal of Fish Biology (a real page turner) that for the second time, a lonely lady shark in captivity has... (more)

Bioethicist, Nancy Kass, Joins the IOM Ranks

EurekaAlert says that Johns Hopkins School of Public Health bioethicist Nancy Kass has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine. She... (more)

Web Searching Better For Brain Than Books

Neuroscience researchers have found that Googling is more stimulating to the brain than reading a book, crosswording, or any other kind of activity for baby-boomers,... (more)

Web Searching Better For Brain Than Books

Neuroscience researchers have found that Googling is more stimulating to the brain than reading a book, crosswording, or any other kind of activity for baby-boomers,... (more)

this blog's feed

  • Subscribe
    • XML
    • Google Reader or Homepage
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • Add to My AOL
    • Convert RSS to PDF
    • Add to Technorati Favorites!
    • Add to your phone
    • Get RSS Buttons

info

archives

tags