STEP Study

[lunamoth]

What if prayer, any prayer for any person, impacts all the world equally? Then prayer raises all boats together, those prayed for and those not. Can't then be distinguished by a scientific study.

 

[shawn001]

What if prayer, any prayer for any person, impacts all the world equally? Then prayer raises all boats together, those prayed for and those not. Can't then be distinguished by a scientific study.

A "prayer" from any religion or would that not be a control issue? We probably need to specify the term more.

"Prayers" are thoughts from a persons brain and thoughts are chemical and electrical signals and hence energy. What mechanism would that energy use to reach everyone in the world?

For example with radio signals you need towers and with microwaves you need dishes. It would also generate quite bit of energy from the person to send the signals around the world and that would likely be detected. As well as the other people would have to have receivers.

This would almost be like telepathy of some sort.

Just to note: They have made quite a bit of progress into "electronic" telepathy as of late.


Prayer May Reshape Your Brain ... And Your Reality

Prayer May Reshape Your Brain ... And Your Reality : NPR

 

[lunamoth]

A "prayer" from any religion or would that not be a control issue? We probably need to specify the term more.

"Prayers" are thoughts from a persons brain and thoughts are chemical and electrical signals and hence energy. What mechanism would that energy use to reach everyone in the world?

For example with radio signals you need towers and with microwaves you need dishes. It would also generate quite bit of energy from the person to send the signals around the world and that would likely be detected. As well as the other people would have to have receivers.

This would almost be like telepathy of some sort.

Just to note: They have made quite a bit of progress into "electronic" telepathy as of late.


Prayer May Reshape Your Brain ... And Your Reality

Prayer May Reshape Your Brain ... And Your Reality : NPR

I would say it is not the prayer itself that raises all boats, but the reply.

 

[shawn001]

Maybe "YOU" think your getting a reply and it is "self" stimulated and rewarding to the brain?

Are you also saying praying to all the known "God's" of man would work equally in reply?

 

[lunamoth]

Maybe "YOU" think your getting a reply and it is "self" stimulated and rewarding to the brain?

Are you also saying praying to all the known "God's" of man would work equally in reply?

The reply is not to me. The reply is to the whole world.

As far as I know, there is one God and so praying to any God for good is the same thing.

 

[shawn001]

While its a nice and noble thought, its not based in any science of course and hence still just a nice thought.



And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied,

"You are the totaliter aliter, the vestigious trinitatum who speaks to us in the modality of Christo-monism.”

"You are he who heals our ambiguities and overcomes the split of angst and existential estrangement; you are he who speaks of the theonomous viewpoint of the analogia entis, the analogy of our being and the ground of all possibilities.”


"You are the impossible possibility who brings to us, your children of light and children of darkness, the overwhelming roughness’ in the midst of our fraught condition of estrangement and brokenness in the contiguity and existential anxieties of our ontological relationships.”


“You are my Oppressed One, my soul's shalom, the One who was, who is, and who shall be, who has never left us alone in the struggle, the event of liberation in the lives of the oppressed struggling for freedom, and whose blackness is both literal and symbolic.”

And Jesus replied, "Huh?"

 

[lunamoth]

While its a nice and noble thought, its not based in any science of course and hence still just a nice thought.

Faith is supposed to be based in science?

 

[shawn001]

"Faith is supposed to be based in science?"

First your talking about faith in the supernatural, so no that has nothing to do with science.

Faith is a human concept and perception of thoughts and experiences in the brain along with what we learn and experience in our own lives. You can see that all around you, its how we evolved. Hence so much faith in so many religions.

Faith or belief isn't a form of the scientific method. Faith can cause bias as well to the science. Saying I have faith or belief in an equation doesn't make the equation right. You still have to do the work.

The defintion of Faith:

noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish fait

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Unfortunately it's much easier to design such an experiment than it is to overcome the logistical hurdles. But I believe this shows that there is no reason that any hypothesis that makes an observable prediction is beyond the scope of science, and that any relevant religion makes observable predictions. It may be very difficult to tease apart the factors, but it is within reach of mortals.

The basis of an experiment like this is simple enough that I could throw something comprehensive out off the top of my head. However I agree that the actual practice of an experiment of this kind would be incredibly difficult.

I like it. The only angle it doesn't cover is the method of prayer, which in these case, would need to be uniform and to the same deity within a particular study group.

There is the other problem of how one measures "benefits." I mean, sure, there's the obvious "getting better" that is simple to quantify, but I don't think we should overlook psychological benefits either. Feeling loved is important. For most humans, at any rate.

I suppose that if you wanted a second test where the factors were the same but simply repeated with different religious groups or prayer methods this could further deepen the specifics of any individual religious factor. Though the original concept would have just been to identify if something truly was effective or if it was simply psychologically induced.

When I use the term "benefits" I specially mean positive differences between the rates of recovery or effectiveness of treatments. We all know that religious intervention and knowledge thereof would have (usually) positive psychological effects during a time of crisis. I am verging on anti-theism myself but I admit this is usually true. Though secular musings may be just as effective. In which case it would be simple enough to provide the necessary data to determine this.

But back on point, if you will forgive my rambling, is to provide a way to see if there is any evidence that can support the claim that prayer can make physical differences in the outcomes of treatment or recovery. This metaphysical and divine intervention is where I find the most unrest about the whole thing.

 

[Quintessence]

But back on point, if you will forgive my rambling, is to provide a way to see if there is any evidence that can support the claim that prayer can make physical differences in the outcomes of treatment or recovery. This metaphysical and divine intervention is where I find the most unrest about the whole thing.

Personally, I'd be extremely surprised if there wasn't a net positive effect given what we know about the mind-body connection and the effect of positive thinking on a person's well-being. Given the limitations of science, it could never attribute the effects to a non-physical cause, however, even if it was potentially due to such a cause.

Perhaps because of this, I don't quite understand the fixation some have on studies like this. It doesn't offer tangible proof of non-physical deities, and it never can. Science can neither confirm nor deny certain ideas found in certain religions if they involve non-physical causes like a transcendent deity or supernatural agent. They'd say the prayer was effective not because of supernaturalistic deities, but because of the mind-body connection or placebo effect.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Personally, I'd be extremely surprised if there wasn't a net positive effect given what we know about the mind-body connection and the effect of positive thinking on a person's well-being. Given the limitations of science, it could never attribute the effects to a non-physical cause, however, even if it was potentially due to such a cause.

Perhaps because of this, I don't quite understand the fixation some have on studies like this. It doesn't offer tangible proof of non-physical deities, and it never can. Science can neither confirm nor deny certain ideas found in certain religions if they involve non-physical causes like a transcendent deity or supernatural agent. They'd say the prayer was effective not because of supernaturalistic deities, but because of the mind-body connection or placebo effect.

The point of the science is not to disprove a non-physical entity. The point of the science is to test claims regarding the intervention (an observable) of such a deity. If observable prediction are made, then science should be able to test those claims. No experiment ever results in 'proof' of anything. The results are either consistent with or inconsistent with the claim.

The 'problem' you point to does not even arise until we have repeatable support for the predictions. Until then it's not really even a hypothesis. It's a search for a phenomena. Usually science attempts to formulate a hypothesis to explain an observed phenomena, and then test that hypothesis. In this case science is looking for the phenomena based on a claim of how things work.

If support for intercession is demonstrated, then there is no reason to think at that time, in fact already, the search for the mechanism would begin. While the discovery of a purely natural mechanism that explains how intercession works (if it does) would not disprove god exists, it would certainly show he is not needed to explain the (hypothetical) power of prayer.


So what can science do?

1) Keep an open mind and look into claims that intercession works. If current experiments have problems, overcome them and continue to search for the observable predictions made by such claims.

2) If these predictions are ever repeatably supported, search for purely natural mechanisms to explain the observables.

I don't think any questions can ever be 'finally put to bed.' There will always be someone who can point to a gap. But I believe that the 1000s of experiments that do nothing more that attempt the two tasks above, whether consistent or inconsistent, are incredibly powerful tools.

No one, not even god, can hide forever, and expect to have believers. Show yourself!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Personally, I'd be extremely surprised if there wasn't a net positive effect given what we know about the mind-body connection and the effect of positive thinking on a person's well-being. Given the limitations of science, it could never attribute the effects to a non-physical cause, however, even if it was potentially due to such a cause.

Perhaps because of this, I don't quite understand the fixation some have on studies like this. It doesn't offer tangible proof of non-physical deities, and it never can. Science can neither confirm nor deny certain ideas found in certain religions if they involve non-physical causes like a transcendent deity or supernatural agent. They'd say the prayer was effective not because of supernaturalistic deities, but because of the mind-body connection or placebo effect.

The point would have been that if they had the benefits if they were told someone was praying for them even if they weren't or vice versa. This would be the definitive evidence.

 

[shawn001]

"Those who conducted the study are quick to say that its results do not challenge the existence of God. Also, it did not try to address such religious questions as the efficacy of one form of prayer over others, whether God answers intercessory prayers, or whether prayers from one religious group work better than prayers from another, according to the Rev. Dean Marek, a chaplain at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Other researchers in the study, who include investigators from Harvard Medical School, Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Mind/Body Medical Institute, agree. Also involved were teams from medical institutions in Oklahoma City, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and Rochester, Minn."

Harvard prayer experiment - FreeThoughtPedia


The aim of the study itself was to find ways to help coronary artery bypass patients and to see if prayer helps, no different really then to study meditation and see if it helps and by what mechanisms.

As I mention Herbert Benson is famous for his work on the relaxation response. His work has helped millions and millions of people and the medical community.

"The relaxation response is a physical state of deep rest that changes the physical and emotional responses to stress... and the opposite of the fight or flight response."

Stress can effect recovery, both physical and mental stress, and even perceived stress, because the brain reacts the same way to real and perceived stress, its hardwired into our brain and connected to how our autonomic system and subconscious work.

A lot of these techniques elicit the relaxation response which is extremely beneficial to health.

One thing I noticed was this

"Not only that, but patients who knew that others were praying for them fared worse than those who did not receive such spiritual support, or who did but were not aware of it."

It may have stressed them into feeling like they had to get better, others are praying for me. Just a thought.

He did another study in 2010, although this one's method was different. This is not where he spends most of his work in however.

Relaxation response and spirituality: Pathways to improve psychological outcomes in cardiac rehabilitation.

Relaxation response and spirituality: Pathwa... [J Psychosom Res. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[George-ananda]

but science can address anything which makes an observable prediction.

I agree with this statement but .....

I was thinking about this. Do people really predict that prayer for random people has such an obvious effect that it would show up statistically. I think most people think prayer's effect is more elusive than that and may show obvious effects in a few anecdotal cases; and in those cases rather dramatic. A random person recovering faster? I'm not sure people make that prediction.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I agree with this statement but .....

I was thinking about this. Do people really predict that prayer for random people has such an obvious effect that it would show up statistically. I think most people think prayer's effect is more elusive than that and may show obvious effects in a few anecdotal cases; and in those cases rather dramatic. A random person recovering faster? I'm not sure people make that prediction.

Good point! I would say that peoples concept of prayer and it's effects are broad and vague. Studies like this may serve to tease out and explicate various methods of prayer. There certainly are people who believe the power of prayer can affect strangers, even curses. All this study can do is show that in these particular circumstances, prayer did not work as predicted.

If numerous studies continue to chop off specific circumstances where prayer does not work, that could be seen as a narrowing of the gap. At some point, very specific methodology could be studied.

So I think it's all in the prediction and the methodology. But there is always the counter claim that prayer does not work when someone is watching.

 

[Iti oj]

Wow. This is... amusing. The limitations of the study mostly make me find it... quaint? It tells us a whole lot of nothing? Major problems I see with the study:

• Prayers were methodologically limited to Christian groups only, and on top of that, to three specific Christian groups whose methods don't seem to have been closely monitored (i.e., we have no idea what prayer methods these groups actually used).
• Prayers were delivered by perfect strangers, as opposed to people who have an actual connection and concern for the patients; having prayers delivered by actual relations in the patient's life would much more closely resemble real-life prayer situations (doubly so for people who *gasp* aren't Christian!).
• As noted in the study, no controls were made for "background noise" for metaphysical activities outside of those provided by these three Christian groups (which again, we have to guess at what they actually did, since no details are provided).
• Scope is limited to extreme medical conditions rather than the full array of life-situations a person might utilize prayer for.

Some of these are false. Pray groups an d churches routinle pray for people they do not know.

 

[Quintessence]

Some of these are false. Pray groups an d churches routinle pray for people they do not know.

Well, that's only part of what I was saying; I'm aware of this. The other part of what I wanted to say is we wouldn't necessarily expect the quality or efficacy of a prayer to be the same under different circumstances. This probably wasn't clear, so let me elaborate.

Forgive my comparison of prayer to spellcraft and ritual magic for a moment, but one of the things emphasized in such practices is the importance of will. The quality of the energy you raise - or in the context of prayer, the loudness of your voice and the likelihood it'll be heard by the gods - is sometimes believed to depend on will. Are you going to be more impassioned and willful doing a spell or prayer for a perfect stranger or someone you have a deep emotional connection to?

So basically I was questioning the efficacy of their chosen prayer method, and its ability to produce results in the first place. This also relates back to my criticism of the group not controlling for the prayer methods used, because not all methods are equal and many would not consider their efficacy to be equal either.

 

[George-ananda]

Good point!

Thanks. My reason for that point came from my thoughts in the Padre Pio thread actively burning in Religious Debates. Check that out. It appears, when there is intercession it can be dramatic. But then the case is anecdotal and unpredictable which doesn't play well with the kind of rigorous study the scientists are trying to do.

I think prayer can work but the evidence remains anecdotal.