Efficacy of Prayer

[Ivor the Engineer]

You know, I'm starting to think that it might be irresponsible to do prayer studies involving people's health. It could be condemning them to a statistically predictable chance of recovery, whereas if we weren't studying them, God may have answered their prayers for healing. God seems stubborn to remain undiscovered, to the point that no quantity of prayer study hostages will elicit his mercy.

Who do you think created the normal distribution in the first place?

 

[Cactus Wren]

Not long ago I got into an argument on this very subject, specifically on the results of the cardiac-bypass-surgery study. My interlocutor argued that the study was not valid and could not be valid, because there was no evidence that the individuals praying had been born again. There was no evidence they'd even been Christians! Repeat the study, he said, but make sure that all the people doing the praying are properly born-again and Protestant Christians, and then it will be valid.

Some years ago Zenna Henderson wrote a short story called "The Effectives", set in the near future at a high-tech medical research center located next to a religious commune. The researchers' project, for this story, is to work out a treatment for a new disease accidentally brought back from space. There is already a treatment -- replacing the victim's entire blood volume with donated blood -- but it doesn't always work, and no one knows why it works in some cases and doesn't in others. At the center where the story is set, it always works: every patient brought there lives.

Eventually it's worked out that (surprise!) patients who are brought to this particular center are given blood donated by members of the commune -- who always, always, pray as they are donating. Don't just pray, but specifically pray for the health and well-being of the person receiving the blood. The story ends with the chief researcher -- an outspoken atheist and skeptic, whose life has just been saved by a donation of prayed-into blood -- writing in his journal the question, "Is prayer subject to rational analysis?"

Ms. Henderson, herself a devout Mormon turned devout Methodist, obviously intended the answer to be Yes. But the answer is, and can only be, No. Prayer is not subject to rational analysis. To analyze something, first you have to define exactly what it is you're analyzing. And with prayer, there will always be a special plead -- a way to define the same action as prayer or as non-prayer.

How is a prayer action to be distinguished from a non-prayer action? Is spinning a wheel praying? Many Tibetan Buddhists seem to think so: Western Christians, not so much. Is reciting the same forty-word incantation fifty times prayer? Protestants would probably say No, Catholics Yes. How about if the incantation is recited those fifty times by a parrot? Or on a recording? (This may get back into the question about the spinning wheel.) Does it count if it's a computer that works out the nine billionth name of God?

And of course there's always, "Well, the study that didn't give the results I wanted doesn't count because the people doing the praying didn't MEEEEEEEEEEEEAN it!"

 

[paiute]

The Great Bloodletting and Most Holy Purification

Not long ago I got into an argument on this very subject, specifically on the results of the cardiac-bypass-surgery study. My interlocutor argued that the study was not valid and could not be valid, because there was no evidence that the individuals praying had been born again. There was no evidence they'd even been Christians! Repeat the study, he said, but make sure that all the people doing the praying are properly born-again and Protestant Christians, and then it will be valid.

This subject always makes me think that if prayer can be shown to have an effect in the physical world, then we need to

1. Run experiments to find exactly which denomination has prayers which work - Anabaptists, Catholic, Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915, etc.
2. Slay all followers of nonefficacious sects as heretics.

 

[shuttlt]

Perhaps it would better if we were given some examples of prayer working and worked backwards from there. Presumably one religion/sect has lots of examples and the others don't and that way we will know what the correct way to pray is.

I hope this helps.

 

[shuttlt]

This subject always makes me think that if prayer can be shown to have an effect in the physical world, then we need to

1. Run experiments to find exactly which denomination has prayers which work - Anabaptists, Catholic, Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915, etc.
2. Slay all followers of nonefficacious sects as heretics.

Don't be silly, all you need to do is to encourage all the followers of all the religions in the strongest possible terms to convert heretics while encouraging love and forgiveness. That way the prayers of whoever is right are bound to convert whoever is wrong in a peaceful and bloodless manner.

 

[Southwind17]

Who do you think created the normal distribution in the first place?

The Royal Mail?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Replied once, but lost my (very weak) wireless connection, so the reply didn't go through. Trying again.

If science can study the supernatural then creationist "science" could possibly be a legimitate endeavor. Would you say that it is?

"Creation science" isn't illegitimate because it studies the supernatural. It's illegitimate because it's pseudo-science. Science follows the scientific method in an attempt to discover the truth about the universe. Creation "science", by contrast, works in a way that can at best be called science imitation, with the covert goal of proving the alleged truth of the Bible.

Bottom line: God's existence in the first place, let alone as the destination of prayers, isn't verifiable in a scientific way since God is supernatural. If you're going to accept studies based around something involving God or the study of the supernatural by science, you may as well accept Young Earth Creationist science as real science. You can't have it both ways.

Proving the existence of a deity living in a hypothetical unreachable universe is one thing. Proving its interactions in this universe is another entirely. "You can't prove the supernatural scientifically" sounds good on the surface, but only until you think about what science is.

Let's take on an example: I tell you I can run at 80 km/h. Fine, says you, let's go down to the track, I'll bring my stopwatch and time you, or maybe I could try to get my hands on a laser to measure your speed. Oh no, I reply, that's not possible-my ability to run at unnaturally high speeds is supernatural and therefore cannot be measured scientifically. You just have to watch me run really fast and take it on faith that I run at 80 km/h.

Here's the problem with the cop-out: everything that exists in this world can in theory be observed and observed and measured. Invisible radiation can be measured. Too-small-to-see atoms can be observed and measured. If God interacts with this world (as opposed to a supernatural world) through prayer and miracles, this can be detected - otherwise, after all, there'd be no way to know about it.

When praying to God cannot be shown to have any discernible advantage over praying to any other god, or to non-living, non-thinking objects such as jugs of milk (see relevant YT vid), the most rational explanation is that He's either not real, or that He doesn't care. If a study conducted by Hindus concluded that praying to Shiva doesn't work, I'm sure Christians would've jumped on it saying it was evidence Shiva didn't exist.

Whether the thing prayed for does happen is the only thing that can be measured and it is utterly irrelevant to measure it since petitionary prayer is not a gimmick or power which works or doesn't work but a supplication to a Being who may or may not have the desired effect produced, and if He does then it may or may not be because of the prayer, which again IS NOT A WORK/NOT WORK thing since we ourselves are not the ones making anything happen if the prayer is answered.

Measuring the efficacy of prayer is as simple as comparing the number of prayers to the number of granted "wishes". How these wishes are granted is immaterial - what's important is whether or not you gain any advantage in praying at all. Current statistics say no, which indicate that God isn't real, doesn't care, or for some reason we mortals can't comprehend only intervenes when He doesn't need to (for example, by curing cancer that would've gone into remission by itself anyhow, or preventing a traffic accident victim with non-fatal wounds from dying).

ETA:

Or is it God likes to hide the fact he exists. If you dare actually look for evidence God exists, then he will hide from you. I would ask you to show me where in the Christian Bible does God say you must believe in spite of the fact I am going to cover up all evidence of my existence?

I was going to say this myself. Nowhere in the Bible does God hide from humans, nor does He say He wants us to have "faith" in Him while He does his utmost to deny us every effort to prove He exists. Of course He may have changed His mind, but again, it's far more reasonable to assume, in lieu of evidence, that He does not exist.

 

[shuttlt]

Maybe we could all play amateur scientist by praying this thread reaches a definitive conclusion that satisfies everyone.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
How is a prayer action to be distinguished from a non-prayer action? ....

By the control group which in a properly designed and executed study should have the same result of everything except the intervention.

Multiple studies compensate for any poorly designed studies or claims like, prayer wasn't done right or wasn't done by the right people. And peer review suggests needed changes for future studies such as claiming prayers must be performed only by practicing born again Christians.

 

[Pixel42]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm

A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.

The man, Dale Neumann, told a court in the state of Wisconsin he believed God could heal his daughter.

She died of a treatable disease - undiagnosed diabetes - at home in rural Wisconsin in March last year, as people surrounded her and prayed.

Neumann's wife, Leilani Neumann, was convicted earlier this year.

The couple, who were both convicted of second-degree reckless homicide, face up to 25 years in prison when they are sentenced in October.

 

[Maia]

Theologian John Shelby Spong (the one who always gets called the "atheist bishop", a title he doesn't particularly like), had something very interesting to say about the question of prayer in A New Christianity for a New World[i/]. He wrote that whenever he'd give a lecture and then take questions from the audience, there was one that inevitably was asked about as often as all the rest put together, including, say, can God forgive sins, is Jesus really coming back, is every word in the Bible literally true, did Jesus actually rise from the dead, is there life after death, etc. And that was: Does God answer prayer? Does prayer actually "work"? There's a very long section on prayer in Spong's book-- more than one of his many books, in fact-- but his basic answer is "no, not if it's defined in that way." God doesn't cause your football team to win, or find you a parking space, or favor one side over another in a court case, or cure cancer, or enhance fertility treatments, or whatever. Prayer just doesn't work that way. It never has, and it never will.

 

[shuttlt]

Does he explain how he does feel prayer 'works'? For him, is there a difference between how prayer works when directed at a God that exists from prayer that is directed at a God that doesn't exist?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Prayer 'works' by either whatever was being prayed for occurring by natural means, or by whatever was being prayed for not occurring and the people doing the praying consoled by the fact that at least they tried.

 

[Maia]

Does he explain how he does feel prayer 'works'? For him, is there a difference between how prayer works when directed at a God that exists from prayer that is directed at a God that doesn't exist?

Well, I just returned the book to the library, so this is going to have to be from memory...

The section on prayer in that particular book has a lot to do with giving up the idea of God as a heavenly father who doles out answers to prayers in the first place. Actually, Spong is just a trip, because he always starts out his recent books by saying, "I'm a Christian, I believe in God, I believe in Jesus," and, of course, he's a retired Episcopal bishop--and then through really, really excellent biblical criticism and faith criticism, he basically dismantles Christianity and theism piece by piece. Your mouth is always kind of left hanging open by the end of the book whatever your beliefs actually are, because there's a certain "HOW did he get from there to here??" quality to it all.

For instance, in Jesus for the Non-Religious, which was an even more recent Spong book, he dismantles any traditional theist understanding of Jesus totally; I mean, absolutely 100%. But he actually does show how it's possible to do this and still have a belief in Jesus in the way that he's talking about. He defines Jesus as a human being who showed the ability to love fully and wastefully, to give himself away for others without counting the cost, and anyone could embody those principles. Spong grew up in a certain faith tradition, so he's sticking with Jesus, but you can pick someone else if you want.

However, none of them are going to magically answer prayers for anybody. What Spong would say, I think, is what I believe: the power of prayer is to bring us closer in comtemplation to God as we understand God, and to bring us together as communities in love, to move beyond our prejudices and limitations. The worst way, the most destructive way, to use prayer is to pray for some kind of magical result.

 

[shuttlt]

Well, I just returned the book to the library, so this is going to have to be from memory...

The section on prayer in that particular book has a lot to do with giving up the idea of God as a heavenly father who doles out answers to prayers in the first place. Actually, Spong is just a trip, because he always starts out his recent books by saying, "I'm a Christian, I believe in God, I believe in Jesus," and, of course, he's a retired Episcopal bishop--and then through really, really excellent biblical criticism and faith criticism, he basically dismantles Christianity and theism piece by piece. Your mouth is always kind of left hanging open by the end of the book whatever your beliefs actually are, because there's a certain "HOW did he get from there to here??" quality to it all.

For instance, in Jesus for the Non-Religious, which was an even more recent Spong book, he dismantles any traditional theist understanding of Jesus totally; I mean, absolutely 100%. But he actually does show how it's possible to do this and still have a belief in Jesus in the way that he's talking about. He defines Jesus as a human being who showed the ability to love fully and wastefully, to give himself away for others without counting the cost, and anyone could embody those principles. Spong grew up in a certain faith tradition, so he's sticking with Jesus, but you can pick someone else if you want.

However, none of them are going to magically answer prayers for anybody. What Spong would say, I think, is what I believe: the power of prayer is to bring us closer in comtemplation to God as we understand God, and to bring us together as communities in love, to move beyond our prejudices and limitations. The worst way, the most destructive way, to use prayer is to pray for some kind of magical result.

Thanks for the summary. If it just comes down to Jesus as a historical figure who lived a good life and we could all take a lesson from, then I'm happy with that. It doesn't seem like a religion though.

I found the following quote on his Wikipedia page:
"Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt."

This is Christianity without God. I'm not sure I can conceive of grounds to object to this. The guy sounds like at least as much of a sceptic as I am. I can't imagine too many evangelicals go for this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I just returned the book to the library, so this is going to have to be from memory...

The section on prayer in that particular book has a lot to do with giving up the idea of God as a heavenly father who doles out answers to prayers in the first place. Actually, Spong is just a trip, because he always starts out his recent books by saying, "I'm a Christian, I believe in God, I believe in Jesus," and, of course, he's a retired Episcopal bishop--and then through really, really excellent biblical criticism and faith criticism, he basically dismantles Christianity and theism piece by piece. Your mouth is always kind of left hanging open by the end of the book whatever your beliefs actually are, because there's a certain "HOW did he get from there to here??" quality to it all.

For instance, in Jesus for the Non-Religious, which was an even more recent Spong book, he dismantles any traditional theist understanding of Jesus totally; I mean, absolutely 100%. But he actually does show how it's possible to do this and still have a belief in Jesus in the way that he's talking about. He defines Jesus as a human being who showed the ability to love fully and wastefully, to give himself away for others without counting the cost, and anyone could embody those principles. Spong grew up in a certain faith tradition, so he's sticking with Jesus, but you can pick someone else if you want.

However, none of them are going to magically answer prayers for anybody. What Spong would say, I think, is what I believe: the power of prayer is to bring us closer in comtemplation to God as we understand God, and to bring us together as communities in love, to move beyond our prejudices and limitations. The worst way, the most destructive way, to use prayer is to pray for some kind of magical result.

Sounds like Deism. When the evidence suggests prayers aren't answered, move the goal post back by claiming god exists but he doesn't answer prayers.

 

[shuttlt]

I think Spong may have packed up the goal posts and deflated the ball. For some reason he still wants to keeps the players on the pitch.

 

[Maia]

Actually, I don't think Spong claims that God exists, either. I'm still not sure exactly what he thinks-- I'm always sure that I'm going to figure it out by the end of the most recent book he's written, but I never do. I'm still not sure how he managed to elude the definition in Jesus For the Non-Religious; it was kind of a remarkable feat, actually. I have high hopes for the next book, though! (It comes out on September 1st.) Of course, he's 78, so hopefully he's going to clarify the point rather soon.