Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Power of Prayer ... Or the lack thereof

And this IS serious science so please don't contaminate it.

In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

Researchers emphasized that their work can't address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.

They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.

The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600 apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were prayed for but only knew it was a possibility, and those who weren't prayed for but were told it was a possibility.

The researchers didn't ask patients or their families and friends to alter any plans they had for prayer, saying such a step would have been unethical and impractical.

The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery. Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But 59 percent of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52 percent of those who were told it was just a possibility.

Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, who didn't take part in the study, said the results didn't surprise him.

"There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either," he said. "There is no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Moslem scriptures that can be constrained to the point that they can be predicted."

Source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681

Commentary:
Seems like the same thing happens when people pray for peace so the results are consistent.

I'm glad more studies are being done on the power of prayer. This one is certainly large. I would also be interested in comparing a group of people who were told they were not going to be prayed for at all. All of the people in this study thought they had at least the possibility of being prayed for. Perhaps all three groups would have fared better than a group that thought no one was praying for them.

I do think the study was done correctly in order to measure the power of prayer alone.

I would just also be interested in a study that compares someone who thinks there is a possibility of people praying for them vs. someone who thinks they have no possibility of people (other than their family and friends) praying for their recovery.

One thought that occured to me is that if someone told me they were going to pray for me I might be more inclined to think my condition worse than it actually was.

Psychology and placebo effects work.

The prayerful should have mass-prayed for a more acceptable study result. Wait... the results were a test of faith! Prayer works, and the lack of supportive evidence is proof!

Catch 22

Along your line of thinking DA, those who were being prayed for may have been more fearful to begin with.

The truly interesting study would be between people who were religious and had friends/family praying for them vs People who do not believe in religion whose friends did not pray for them as they are likely also atheistic and then throw in the cranky people who nothing ever kills (ok the last one was for fun), and see what the results were.

I would hazard a guess that those who are by nature more self reliant do better than those who put the outcome "in God's hands".

This "study" makes no mention of types of bypass surgeries done (there is a lot more than just one type, and no two are the same, I am sure ANY doctor could provide that answer as well), the age grouping, was this even done? patient over all health prior to surgery,what were the patients levels of stress prior to, and post surgery, were visits made to patients prior and post by family members? there are so many things that make this NON-scientic that without clairity to these and a lot more questions almost laughable, within a year most any person could define his own groups, and show that getting a cold is lethel 100% of the time.. numbers mean nothing the first time around, it is consistency of numbers over a period, with consistant control groups, using the same guides that provide for consistant truth.

The hospitals used, the skill level of doctors performing the surgeries.. there is no way this is accurate, we dont know some doctors are better than others? hospitals are better than others as well? you want to call this "study" science?

This study if you want to call it that is a lot closer to someone wanting to express their opinion with numbers. Making groups of 600 people with out any consistency of the groups means NOTHING, doing something once does not science make.

Archer ... consider that if god was answering prayers ... the skill of the surgeon would be irrelevant.

But thank you for so eloquently proving the point that prayer is as valueless as a lucky rabbit's foot.

You call that SCIENCE? here I will quote you.. quote: And this IS serious science so please don't contaminate it. unquote.. HOW IS THIS FACTUAL science? questions were asked, you didnt reply to any of them, YOU are the one who made the claim its science, this is someones theory and NOTHING more, I read this study, it took place though SIX different hospitals (yeah real lab quality results here), there was NO control on ANY part of it.. just numbers of 600 "test subjects" and NO consistency of data being gathered..

Hard science this is not.. AAAS would not even CLASSIFY this "scientific study".. or are they idiots too? A few politicans around here, they cant reply, they have no reply.. so they make it personal...LMAO.. thanx. There is also some real talent here as well..

We are not talking about doctors, we are talking about YOUR claim this is science, nice try on the deflection.. so how is this "study" science?

The study was published. If you have any reason to doubt that prayer did not benefit the patients then by all means discuss the study.

My remark, however, was addressed to what you said:
"The hospitals used, the skill level of doctors performing the surgeries.. there is no way this is accurate,...."

My statement was simple and straight-forward. Not too hard for anyone to understand. If the point of prayer is for a deity to intervene. Then the deity's intervention can not be related to the surgeon's skill.

Point being that Archer is correct. This isn't science...its just a way for people to express an opinion. If God wanted to give the sort of proof that's subject to scientific study he wouldn't have waited til now. This is just people thinking they're clever enough to trap God...I'm sure he's had a good laugh.

Easy.

Actually it is science in that it meets the tests of the scientific method. Source:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

Lets see how.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

Certainly meets this test.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

Seems to meet this without an issue.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

Meets this one too.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

Works here too.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Doesn't meet this test. This is for other independent researchers to do: And they will.

If you still think it isn't science tell us specifically which test of the scientific method it fails.

I'd have to agree with whoever it was that said belief or non-belief should have been included. Why would someone who was an atheist care at all if they were being prayed for, and would a believer get some kind of placebo effect happening if they knew? It seems that the underlying assumption, and the experimental flaw, is that prayer in some way affects everyone.

They should have had a group of atheists and a group of believers, with both groups divided into those who knew and those who did not know that they were being prayed for. Or something to that effect.

Rusty asks:
"I'd have to agree with whoever it was that said belief or non-belief should have been included. Why would someone who was an atheist care at all if they were being prayed for...."

I'd like to answer that.

If prayer works the belief system of the physician and patient is irrelevant. Prayer is a communication between the person saying the prayer and a presume deity with supernatural powers asking for intervention. If the deity intervenes a plumber could miraculously cure a brain hemorrhage. If the deity doesn't exist or exists but doesn't care not even the entire staff of the Mayo Clinic will be able to change the odds of a simple tooth extraction.

If the result of the prayer is anything other than a placebo effect then your concerns don't enter into the picture.

Now if you wish to discuss whether prayer as a placebo is more or less effective than an iv consisting of sterile saline that is quite a different matter.

Yes, fair enough, it's just that they (the journo?) made a point of saying: "In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications." From what you're arguing, DA, this would have to be a meaningless statement in the context of the experiment.

This is not science, it's more akin to psychology and just as tentative. The experiment is effectively doing no more than exploring how God may act when he sees he is being experimented upon. As scripture says 'Do not test the Lord your God', I would imagine he wasn't overly cooperative. He seems to deem faith as quite important and sufficient.

It ain't science, but it is nonsense.

"And this IS serious science so please don't contaminate it." - Yeah right, and if the results had shown that prayer works in this context you wouldn't have even posted it. Rather hypocritical to say the least. Seize upon it to carry your atheistic agenda. You may have come to conclusions about God Mr Morgan, but science has not and will not allow you or anyone else to abuse it in your pointless desire to seperate the human race from their deity.

THE THREAD SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED: SCIENCE...OR THE LACK THEREOF.

Easy.

The conclusions of this study shook me up a little over the weekend because I had heard there were studies that proved the opposite. I've been trying to find some studies to compare through google, but seems like so many sites want me to order a book or order an ebook to get a look at anything.

If anyone has links to some other real hard studies on prayer or alternative healing, could you please post the links?

thanks

another article on this same study:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/AcuteCoronarySyndrome/tb2/2963

Rusty wrote:
"From what you're arguing, DA, this would have to be a meaningless statement in the context of the experiment."

I agree.

There are two possible outcomes. One assuming a deity the other assuming the deity doesn't exist.

1. Deity with intervention:
Intervention makes abilities and belief systems of the patient and physician irrelevant.

2. No Diety or lack of intervention:
Belief system of the patient or others aware of the prayer becomes part of the equation through placebo effect or basic psychological interaction.

If the patient is a true believer they may interpret the prayer as making things better or a statement that things are far worse than they had assumed. There is no telling what they were thinking.

If the patient is a non-believer they may interpret the prayer as benign or a nuisance. But I would presume either interpretation less likely to affect the outcome.

Who can say? People are very complex machines.

Easy Life wrote:
"As scripture says 'Do not test the Lord your God'"

When my wife was dying from cancer members of her family and church prayed for her.

In retrospect, looking at your statement, it appears god ignored their prayers as it was obviously just a well disguised test.

She recovers ... one result.
She dies ... the other.

Now if I had just know this a decade ago I could have saved her life by forbidding her family to pray.

Has it occurred to you that the reason some unknown writer put that into the text was precisely because he knew WHY nothing would happen?