The Power of Prayer

And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
Click to expand...
I am always a little curious about what these kinds of 'scientific' prayer studies are supposed to show. If they show prayer improves things, it is a great victory for believers but skeptics would probably not be swayed.

If it shows prayer does not make any difference, well then maybe they will try again another day. But the result that the study actually caused harm must have been a little unexpected.

I would say that looking for confirmation of prayer is just not worth risking people's lives. There is no scientific knowledge to be gained, and very distinct potential for harm.
 
Doing studies of whether prayer works on a "other than placebo" factor is as stupid as doign studies of if voodoo works, if remote-viewing happens or if Never Never Land exists. It's a waste of time and money. There is no scientific basis to even think that such things really work/exist. It's investigating superstitions that we know are just superstition.
 
Kopji said:
I am always a little curious about what these kinds of 'scientific' prayer studies are supposed to show. If they show prayer improves things, it is a great victory for believers but skeptics would probably not be swayed.

If it shows prayer does not make any difference, well then maybe they will try again another day. But the result that the study actually caused harm must have been a little unexpected.

I would say that looking for confirmation of prayer is just not worth risking people's lives. There is no scientific knowledge to be gained, and very distinct potential for harm.
Click to expand...

The benefit is strictly rhetorical. The first line of attack is to prove that prayer works, therefore discrediting naturalism/atheism.

The next stage is to meta-analyze the prayer studies to *prove* that the favourite religion's prayers work best, therefore discrediting other religions.

Scientifically.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Doing studies of whether prayer works on a "other than placebo" factor is as stupid as doign studies of if voodoo works, if remote-viewing happens or if Never Never Land exists. It's a waste of time and money. There is no scientific basis to even think that such things really work/exist. It's investigating superstitions that we know are just superstition.
Click to expand...
I can't see what's "stupid" about empirically testing a remedy that millions of people steadfastly believe in. Science doesn't, and shouldn't, take the position that it can be certain of its hypotheses without actually testing them. That's the department of faith.
 
slingblade said:
I did my own studies, over a couple of decades.

No appreciable results.
Click to expand...

;) Nice one

Years of habit mean that if I'm in a hole I often find myself doing the "Please God" thing in my head and I have to stop and remember. Just sort it out Stew, you're on your own now, and you always have been.
 
The study cost $2.4 million, and most of the money came from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into spirituality. The government has spent more than $2.3 million on prayer research since 2000.
Click to expand...
I don't think the John Templeton Foundation got the ROI they were expecting. Unfortunately, I don't think this will be the last time the taxpayers' money is wasted on this kind of studies.
 
JamesDillon said:
I can't see what's "stupid" about empirically testing a remedy that millions of people steadfastly believe in. Science doesn't, and shouldn't, take the position that it can be certain of its hypotheses without actually testing them. That's the department of faith.
Click to expand...

What you say is certainly true, but there has to be some measure of sanity in the hypothesis before it is worthy of devoting resources or risking lives. The mere fact that there are millions of gullible people in the world shouldn't enter into the scientific process.
 
Freethinker said:
What you say is certainly true, but there has to be some measure of sanity in the hypothesis before it is worthy of devoting resources or risking lives. The mere fact that there are millions of gullible people in the world shouldn't enter into the scientific process.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's true at all. Testing and correcting superstitious beliefs has long been a chief goal of science. (See, for example, Mythbusters). If there weren't studies like this, on what would religious skeptics base their arguments for the inefficacy of prayer? Anecdotal evidence-- "I know a guy who tried praying once, and it didn't work"?

I don't see this as a waste of time. I see this as science at its best.
 
JamesDillon said:
I don't see this as a waste of time. I see this as science at its best.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. After all, the study of UFO claims hasn't been a waste of time either. It has shown that there is no compelling evidence for the claims of the UFOlogists, abtuctees, or "I saw a weird light!" crowd of course. But even more usefully it has expanded our understanding of human psychology and sociology. Prayer studies (honest, impartial studies at least) can lead to other questions like "Why do people pray?" "Why do they think it's effective?" "How do emotional states effect health?" etc. Any increase in human knowledge is positive. Dismissing something outright as stupid and unworthy of inquiry is what the woo believers accuse skeptics of doing when constructing their favorite straw man. If we were to prove them right then those on the fence between logic and blind belief may decide that the 'crystals and spirit guides' types are right about us.

Steven
 
Foster Zygote said:
I couldn't agree more. After all, the study of UFO claims hasn't been a waste of time either. It has shown that there is no compelling evidence for the claims of the UFOlogists, abtuctees, or "I saw a weird light!" crowd of course. But even more usefully it has expanded our understanding of human psychology and sociology. Prayer studies (honest, impartial studies at least) can lead to other questions like "Why do people pray?" "Why do they think it's effective?" "How do emotional states effect health?" etc. Any increase in human knowledge is positive. Dismissing something outright as stupid and unworthy of inquiry is what the woo believers accuse skeptics of doing when constructing their favorite straw man. If we were to prove them right then those on the fence between logic and blind belief may decide that the 'crystals and spirit guides' types are right about us.
Click to expand...
Very much so - and lucidly presented. The emotional charge surrounding such research themes adds an unnecessary encumbrance because any finding that has the unabashed temerity to disagree with a cherished (but poorly supported) view is summarily consigned to the rubbish bin or viewed with disdainful suspicion. In its turn, this supports the notion that "man is arrogant in proportion to his ignorance."

There is also a further, somewhat less obvious and frequently overlooked, benefit to be gleaned from these endeavours: negative results point at dead ends, and can - in fact, usually do - prompt further creative thought on investigative and experimental methods, causal aspects, model generation, etc. - in short, they signal that a rethink is probably in order.

'Luthon64
 
My wife, a neopagan, believes in the power of candles to influence health. Specifically, blue candles are the ones that send healing power. I did a little scientific observation of this practice. There were four events.

Trial 1) Lit a blue candle for her father-in-law.
Result 1) Patient died.

Trial 2) Lit a blue candle for her grandfather.
Result 2) Patient died.

Trial 3) Lit a blue candle for her mother-in-law
Result 3) Patient died.

Trial 4) Lit a blue candle for her grandmother.
Result 4) Patient died.

To be sure, they were all very sick, but you'd think the candle could send some healing.
 
Tricky said:
Trial 1) Lit a blue candle for her father-in-law.
Result 1) Patient died.

Trial 2) Lit a blue candle for her grandfather.
Result 2) Patient died.

Trial 3) Lit a blue candle for her mother-in-law
Result 3) Patient died.

Trial 4) Lit a blue candle for her grandmother.
Result 4) Patient died.QUOTE]

It seems pretty clear to me that blue candles are lethal.

Steven
Click to expand...
 
Anacoluthon64 said:
There is also a further, somewhat less obvious and frequently overlooked, benefit to be gleaned from these endeavours: negative results point at dead ends, and can - in fact, usually do - prompt further creative thought on investigative and experimental methods, causal aspects, model generation, etc. - in short, they signal that a rethink is probably in order.

'Luthon64
Click to expand...

That reminds me of something that Carl Sagan (At least I think it was him) once said to the effect that there were no "right" or "wrong" answers in science. As an example he used extraterrestrial life, stating that if there were no life beyond Earth then that fact would be just as important a truth as knowledge that life does exist on other worlds.

Steven
 
Foster Zygote said:
That reminds me of something that Carl Sagan (At least I think it was him) once said to the effect that there were no "right" or "wrong" answers in science. As an example he used extraterrestrial life, stating that if there were no life beyond Earth then that fact would be just as important a truth as knowledge that life does exist on other worlds.
Click to expand...

I think what Sagan (and others-- I think the point was first emphasized by Popper) meant is that a negative experimental result can advance scientific knowledge as much or more so than a positive result. That's somewhat different from saying that there are no right or wrong answers in science. There are definitely wrong answers in science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom