The Science of Prayer

According to the Christian tradition (since I am a Christian), God commands us to pray. We are told to "pray without ceasing" and to "bring all things before Him". Much has been made of a recent study (who has been linked repeatedly and is what prompted me to start this thread) in which it was "proven" that prayer doesn't work. At least this is evidence enough for those that wish to doubt or otherwise gather ammunition for a debate. Still, this was neither the first word nor the last word. Below is a good collection of research on prayer for discussion. Again, the main purpose here is to point out that, if you want to use one study to "disprove" prayer, perhaps you should consider the larger body of evidence. Of course, if you are a believer, you didn't need me to convince you that this new study must have been inconclusive somehow, but I nonetheless think you will find some of these interesting reads. Of course, you can get countless other links from google.

Scientific Research on Prayer
Studies Find that Prayer Can Help the Sick
|| DukeMedNews || Results of First Multicenter Trial of Intercessory Prayer, Healing Touch in Heart Patients

Now, I want to discuss the use of this latest experiment, what the Bible says about prayer's effectiveness, and misconceptions. First, I have noticed that the use of this latest experiment as "proof" that prayer doesn't work has a certain pitfall. The final conclusion was that prayer was detrimental, which would seem to strengthen the atheist position, but actually it is fundamental evidence that one of two things are true: either the sample size was too small to have far-reaching implications (since we would expect that prayer would have no result at all) or that prayer did have an impact. To an atheist, I would want to ask that, if you took this experiment as evidence that prayer doesn't work, would you not also have to conclude that praying to a supernatural being does have an effect in our "purely physical" realm? That seems contradictory to me. Secondly, it is stated over and over and over and over again that bad things happen to good people in the Bible. They don't always, but they do. It is an interesting observation that we are commanded to pray without ceasing, but yet God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. God hears the prayers of his children, but yet bad things happen to good people. If anything, I think that the evidence thus far (if you can call it that) shows that perhaps those who we consider to be God's children are much fewer than we suppose. That, and the sovereign plan of God are the only two explanations I can give (other than faulty methodologies) for the results.

Thank you so much as this will surely end peaceably! I love science supporting faith it is so....rare!

kmkemp said:

To an atheist, I would want to ask that, if you took this experiment as evidence that prayer doesn't work, would you not also have to conclude that praying to a supernatural being does have an effect in our "purely physical" realm? That seems contradictory to me.

Click to expand...

You should really need take an elementary statistics course. The negative effect of prayer is not statistically significant.

yossarian22 said:

You should really need take an elementary statistics course. The negative effect of prayer is not statistically significant.

Click to expand...

Funny you should take that particular jab, since I have taken Statistics. Of course, that isn't really what you were going for, but rather you were just making a snide comment supposing that some casual reader might mistake that for you having a point. If you didn't know the results of the experiment and were an atheist, you would expect that prayer would have 0 effect and that the sample size would be sufficiently large enough for that to prove to be the case. How is an experiment that doesn't have the predicted conclusion not significant? Prove it to me with a statistics book!!!

It seems to me the greatest benefit of prayer is for the pray-ee. If a person feels more at peace and happy after prayer, who needs science to validate anything? You can't ever know for certain if God or coincidence created the positive outcome so the next best thing is to relax in the meditative qualities you find in your time with God.....and leave it at that. Science should definitely stay out of the prayer realm.

kmkemp said:

Funny you should take that particular jab, since I have taken Statistics.

Click to expand...

Have you forgotten everything then?

If you didn't know the results of the experiment and were an atheist, you would expect that prayer would have 0 effect

Click to expand...

Why would the effect ever be zero?
Variability remember....

and that the sample size would be sufficiently large enough for that to prove to be the case.

Click to expand...

400 people is not a very large sample size anyhow. Even with an extremely large sample size, you have disregarded the placebo effect.

How is an experiment that doesn't have the predicted conclusion not significant? Prove it to me with a statistics book!!!

Click to expand...

You claim to have taken a statistics course, but you are unfamiliar with the term?
Do I really have to define it for you?

yossarian22 said:

Why would the effect ever be zero?
Variability remember....

Click to expand...

If you have any familiarity with statistics (or common sense), whatsoever, you would know that the larger the sample size, the more sure the results. What I am claiming here is beyond obvious. Since the final result wasn't what an atheist would have predicted, then we are forced to either conclude that (1) the sample size was not sufficient to make any claim at all, thus no reason to link it repeatedly or (2) it was shown that praying to a supernatural being did have an impact (whether good or bad).

yossarian22 said:

400 people is not a very large sample size anyhow. Even with an extremely large sample size, you have disregarded the placebo effect.

Click to expand...

I have done no such thing. I am all for discrediting experiments like this. I am referencing a POV that is necessary in order for an atheist to use this as proof. Even the scientists formed their conclusion with the knowledge of the placebo effect when they said that it was possibly an effect of "performance anxiety". Still, if you had read some of the material I linked (there are assuredly others out there as well), there were double blind studies done as well.

kmkemp said:

If you have any familiarity with statistics (or common sense), whatsoever, you would know that the larger the sample size, the more sure the results.

Click to expand...

Don't lecture me on something you know so little about

What I am claiming here is beyond obvious. Since the final result wasn't what an atheist would have predicted, then we are forced to either conclude that (1) the sample size was not sufficient to make any claim at all, thus no reason to link it repeatedly or (2) it was shown that praying to a supernatural being did have an impact (whether good or bad).

Click to expand...

Can you grasp what statistically significant means? If prayer has no effect, then some variablity is natural.

Even the scientists formed their conclusion with the knowledge of the placebo effect when they said that it was possibly an effect of "performance anxiety".

Click to expand...

I read your links, but since none of your statements bothered to include it at all, I assumed you overlooked it. Apologies if you did not.

Still, if you had read some of the material I linked (there are assuredly others out there as well), there were double blind studies done as well.

Click to expand...

Double blind studies do not negate the placebo effect.

It is simple , you believe in prayer and God or you do not . No study or anything either way will truly sway you .

That's not true, opensoul7. If prayer/raindances/voodoo had well-demonstrated, statistically significant effects, that would sway me.

Well, if praying has a negative effect, if you momentarialy disregard the statistical variations (I shudder inwardly, when I have spent so much effort to learn about statistical analysis) then you would have to conclude at least one of the following:
- God does not exist, and the illness has just taken it's course,
- He did not care about the people in question in this case,
- God hates people praying for others, and made everything worse.
- He couldn't do anything about it

In any of these eventualities, surely, these results are not the results that you would try to use as evidence for God's existence, because at the very best, he just did not care, and at the worst, he hates you, does not even exist, or did not have the power to alter the situation.

However, if you took into account the low sample size, as a statistician, you would say: "There is not enough data, and the variation in the statistics can easily be dismissed as random, because of the probability if there was no relationship. Therefore, I want a larger population size. I want to set up four tests. In one, the patients know they are being prayed for, and are prayed for, in the second, the patients know they are being prayed for, and no one prays, the third, the patients are told they are not prayed for, and they actually are, and the fourth, they are told they are not prayed for and are not prayed for."

After that was done, we could make a more meaningful conclusion from the data.

Well, the studies don't show that prayer is necessarily 0% effective (you would have to have an infinite sample size for that, I suppose). But, rojse and yossarian, the sample size IS big enough to draw the conclusion that prayer is not 100% or even 90% effective, no?

Mr Spinkles said:

That's not true, opensoul7. If prayer/raindances/voodoo had well-demonstrated, statistically significant effects, that would sway me.

Click to expand...

I'd hunt down the bloody raindancers! Send them to the Sahara, we don't need them!

Mr Spinkles said:

Well, the studies don't show that prayer is necessarily 0% effective (you would have to have an infinite sample size for that, I suppose).

Click to expand...

Not really. Because of the inherent variability in humans, there will never be an exact match in the group responses. Now if we had 100 million twins on each side given the exact same strain of the same disease, then the story changes.

But, rojse and yossarian, the sample size IS big enough to draw the conclusion that prayer is not 100% or even 90% effective, no?

Click to expand...

Sample size has little to do with this. Once you break around 250, your sample is decent. Its a relatively small scale test. The alpha testing of drug normally has around 500 people in it. The full test involves at least 1000 people I think.
The issue is one of statistical significance.
To kmkemp, who obviously did not know what that means, something which is statistically significant is so improbable, it will not happen by chance. Due to the huge variability of the human population, a drug needs to have a fairly high effect. Since a placebo typically positively effects a population by about 10%, there needs to be at least a 50% net benefit from the drug.
Now meta-analysis of these various experiments is fairly pointless, as they measure different responses and so are not entirely comparable. It can be said, with a large degree of confidence, that prayer is no more effective a placebo.
Or to put it more succinctly: Prayer has absolutely no medicinal effect. It is surprising that a study even needs to be done about this. Anyhow, that does not mean don't pray for somebody or yourself. If it makes you feel better, then it is a good thing. Feeling better typically has a fairly high effect on patient mortality.
Just pray and take medicine.

Ummm, I don't think the scientists would have felt the need to hypothesize about the negative effect of prayer unless there was a statistical significance. Perhaps you can clue me in on why that is?

The thread title is a lie.

kmkemp said:

Ummm, I don't think the scientists would have felt the need to hypothesize about the negative effect of prayer unless there was a statistical significance. Perhaps you can clue me in on why that is?

Click to expand...

Of course they would hypothesize about it. Its easy grant money. But their case is too weak to be accepted as a serious claim.

Jay said:

The thread title is a lie.

Click to expand...

Hear hear.
His analysis shows his lack of understanding.

yossarian22 said:

Of course they would hypothesize about it. Its easy grant money. But their case is too weak to be accepted as a serious claim.

Hear hear.
His analysis shows his lack of understanding.

Click to expand...

Lol, you craftily dodged the point that there is no point in forming a hypothesis if there is no observation (or, in this case, your beloved statistical significance) that allows it. In fact, it would be infinitely more likely to get them laughed at than grant money.

Mr Spinkles said:

But, rojse and yossarian, the sample size IS big enough to draw the conclusion that prayer is not 100% or even 90% effective, no?

Click to expand...

Was there an assertion that prayer has to be 100% effective?

Just pray and take medicine.

Click to expand...

Good advice.

If you really want to make a conclusion that prayer helps cure people from illness, you should do four different tests, under the same conditions, except for what you deliberately change, to examine the differences.

First test, the patients know they are being prayed for, and are prayed for,
Second test, the patients know they are being prayed for, and no one prays,
Third test, the patients are told they are not prayed for, and they actually are,
Fourth test, they are told they are not prayed for and are not prayed for.

If the first and third tests are successful, you would know that prayer affects the healing process, regardless of whether they believe someone is praying for them or not.
If the first and second test are successful, you would know that it is a psychological effect - believing that people are praying for you cures you, not the prayer itself.
If only the first test is sucessful, you would conclude that the effect is partly psychological and partly a real, measurable effect, but both must be present to work.

All of the tests would all be compared to the fourth test, the control, where there is no intervention through prayer, nor is there any belief of intervention through prayer.