Scientific proof that pray doesn't work

“The very thing that makes prayer "effective" is that we do it for the right reason. I wonder if doing it for an experiment is the right reason. Perhaps if scientists would stop altering the defintion of 'science' to meet their needs from conversation to conversation, we could have a discussion as to what science is and is not.”

“Who said people were praying for the sake of the experiment and not for the sake of the patient?

How is this experient an example of how scientists alter the definition of Science to meet their needs?”

“The volunteers prayed for "a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" for specific patients, for whom they were given the first name and first initial of the last name.

As soon as they were told they were praying for a monitored experiment, their prayers took on a whole new purpose from what typical prayer is designed for.

Unless, of course, as a scientist you'd approve of this methodology.
last edited: 4/02/06 5:28:13 PM”

“...which doesn't show that the scientists tried to alter the definition of Science to meet their needs.”

“You (a scientist) called this "scientific proof" because it allowed you to "prove" your hypothesis, even though it did not follow scientific methodologies.

... which shows that scientists alter their defintion of science to meet their needs.”

“I am not a scientist.

How do you know that the experiment did not follow the scientific method?”

“It's actually pretty good scientific methodology and, looking into - I see that it was designed to improve on the methodology and precision utilized in much heralded studies that purported to demonstrate the effectiveness of prayer in healing.

Sarge: your claim that studying the phenomenon scientifically alters nature of the prayer, while not impossible is basically the same as that offered by supporters of all kinds of supernatural healing techniques. Debunked psychics made the same claims.

Furthermore, if scientific measure corrupted (for lack of a better term) the prayers for healing, then the studies to which this study responded would have also been studies of corrupted prayer.

I'm not sure why you are taking this line of attack on the study. It seems to be a well designed replication study of a prayer effect others claim to have found.

Of course, no single study can prove that prayer does not heal and the designers were careful not to claim that. A single study is going to be the last word. Replications and modiciations are essential. It's usually impossible to design a study that will refute all possible objections to the findings.”

“I agree with Sarge's first criticism and the comments that end the article:

Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, who did not take part in the study, said the results did not 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.

Science, he said, "is not designed to study the supernatural."”

“It's actually pretty good scientific methodology and, looking into - I see that it was designed to improve on the methodology and precision utilized in much heralded studies that purported to demonstrate the effectiveness of prayer in healing.

Good scientific methodology ignores the interpersonal relationship of the test subjects? Interesting.

Sarge: your claim that studying the phenomenon scientifically alters nature of the prayer, while not impossible is basically the same as that offered by supporters of all kinds of supernatural healing techniques. Debunked psychics made the same claims.

The nature of other claims does not alter the fact that prayer is designed to foster a relationship with God. It is to be done with that intent, not for "scientific study". Incidentally, my reasoning sounds an awful lot like what you'd hear in quantum physics.

Furthermore, if scientific measure corrupted (for lack of a better term) the prayers for healing, then the studies to which this study responded would have also been studies of corrupted prayer.

Yep.

I'm not sure why you are taking this line of attack on the study. It seems to be a well designed replication study of a prayer effect others claim to have found.

I don't care what other people claim. I care about methodology. Maybe your concerned about what people claim and not the science behind it?

Of course, no single study can prove that prayer does not heal and the designers were careful not to claim that. A single study is going to be the last word. Replications and modiciations are essential. It's usually impossible to design a study that will refute all possible objections to the findings.

It is impossible to design a study about prayer that doesn't ignore that God says not to test Him? Isn't science concerned about context?”

“I agree with Sarge's first criticism and the comments that end the article: - pedxing

So, you agree that pitts is wrong then?”

“How do you know that the experiment did not follow the scientific method? - pitts

Because if you knew anything about science, you wouldn't have needed the guy who did the experiment to tell you. But then again, the experiment "proved" what you wanted it to, hense your heading "scientific proof that pray doesn't work".

whooop There it is ...”

“It's actually pretty good scientific methodology and, looking into - I see that it was designed to improve on the methodology and precision utilized in much heralded studies that purported to demonstrate the effectiveness of prayer in healing. - pedxing

Yet you claim that science doesn't measure the supernatural??

Ya hear this folks ... these "experts" were all into this study .... blinded by the fact that it seemed to "prove" their claims.

Hmmm ... I wonder if that could happen with other things too? Like "Intelligent design" for example?

Interesting to ponder ...”

“I'm going to save this thread for the history books...

Oops! Is that ok? Or do I have to run it by Clinton first so he can rewrite it???”

“Is everything in Science true?”

“Sarge: You really don't seem to understand what's going on here.

As I said, the methodology was fine. It was a solid test of prior research claims - which is what most science is supposed to do.

If you are asking do I think JS was wrong, I think his headline was way over-stated. The study authors didn't claim that the study demonstrated prayer didn't work.”

“Sarge run that history by the VP ,I'm sure he could put some holes in it.”

“So if prior research uses poor methodology, it's ok by you if they repeat it?

I suppose if it comes to the conclusion you want, it's cool.

I'm going to go do a crappy experiment, and that will set a precedent so future "scientists" can repeat it over and over and it will be considered science.

Yeah, I'm really confused by all this pedxing. It's so mysterious.
last edited: 4/03/06 5:10:09 AM”

“I wonder how the scientists controlled for outside prayer influence. I mean, these patients - at least some of them - would have had close ones or relatives praying for them regardless of the presence of a study.

Personally, I feel people who are positive either way (on this issue in general) are fools.”

“You know Government don't work worth a crap either...but the socialists keep praying to it.

Actually how long have we had the belief that God was SANTA CLAUS? I guess to me prayer should be asking for God's Will to be done. At best I ask to see the wisdom of God's plan in my life.

Maybe we should revisit Gene Wilder in "The Frisco Kid" when he explained his God to the "Indian Chief"?”

“Sarge, you are fighting in futility. It has been made very clear by many that they do not believe in heaven or hell, nor in prayer, nor in God, nor in any other thought that may have to do with God. Luke 9:5 says, "If the people of the village won't receive your message when you enter it, shake off its dust from your feet as you leave. It is a sign that you have abandoned that village to its fate." Complete and total belief will come to all one day, both you and I know this, and they will believe in heaven and hell. Coming to accept this verse has been very difficult for me, as I do not want to see anyone go to hell. However, no matter how I try, there are those that will be there no matter what I do or say. I don't like it, but it is not my decision to make. Grin and bear it Sarge, and keep on praying!
last edited: 4/03/06 11:53:22 AM”

“Sarge, you are fighting in futility.

Not fighting TrailKicker - just getting the word out. The apostles (who that message was geared to) were looking for believers. I'm not.”

“Understand Sarge. I see the angle at which you're coming from, good luck!”

“That post an excellent example of why so many look down upon fundis, trialkicker. I guarantee you - with God as my witness - that your xtian mythology is pure rubbish. This will become apparent "to all one day", I promise you that.”

“Says you Mutt. Good luck with that one.”

“TrailKicker ... Does Mutt remind you of anything from the OT? (wrestling w/ God)”

“LOL! Sarge, I never thought about that but now that I have, he sure does remind me of Jacob.”

“Says you Mutt. Good luck with that one.

It has about as much validity as your assertions. Sorry, trailkicker. I know your type need to have an answer to life and to feel special and saved, but the truth is, your faith and belief system are as arbitrary as anyone else's - your ancient magic book of myths notwithstanding.

Just trying to show you how you come across to others, and why you're universally reviled outside your own personal interpretation of your religion.
last edited: 4/03/06 12:12:01 PM”

“It's OK Mutt, I don't mind what anyone thinks of me or what I believe in. If one wishes to believe in something else, then that is their business. It would appear by your words, you believe in something different and that is fine with me, good luck to you. I know what others think of Christianity, and I still knock the dust off my feet and move on. Have a nice day!”

“Yes, I know you don't mind - you have the typical xtian persecution complex. You *need* to have people who aren't duped by your religion to criticize you. It's called pattern maintenance. Social psychology 101.

At least you acknowledge by silence that your assertions have no more validity than anyone else's! That's all I was looking for. Thanks.”

“Mutt, what are you talking about? If you are looking to get into some kind of heavy debate with me over this, you are barking up the wrong tree, it's not going to happen. But if you get some sort of personal satisfaction out of all of this, then by all means, please don't let me stop you. Have a nice day!
last edited: 4/03/06 12:28:51 PM”

“Not that you don't know exactly what I meant, but for the record, I was referring to your remarks like: Complete and total belief will come to all one day...and they will believe in heaven and hell.

Oh, and I have no doubt you don't want to debate your beliefs, as that would simply end up on the point I already made and you implicitly agreed with.”

“....and I'm not sure where you got your idea from, but I don't need anyone to criticize me for my religion. If they do, it is their choice to do so and I could care less. Everyone has an opinion, some just like to express their opinion more than others.”

“As Sarge would say, pffft

eta: your use of the word "opinion" is further implicit agreement. Thanks!
last edited: 4/03/06 12:33:37 PM”

“Wow Mutt, you have some serious issues. Have a nice day!”

“Yeah, I've never much cared for christianity, 'tis true.”

“My point exactly! That is your "opinion". Thanks!
last edited: 4/03/06 12:37:39 PM”

“No, it's fact that the xtian myth is false. ;-)”

“Whatever floats your boat Mutt. Have a nice day!”

“Mutt, don't waste your time. He demonstrated earlier in the thread that he's the type who takes shots and then runs. It's exactly the cheap way he treated me...”

“I haven't followed the thread at all, nor have I read the original study thingy (no need to for me!), but scientific or not, I know for a 100% fact that true, sincere prayer works. I know this firsthand in my own life. It's something between God and the prayee. I don't need a scientist nor a theologian to tell me one way or another.”

““Mutt, don't waste your time. He demonstrated earlier in the thread that he's the type who takes shots and then runs. It's exactly the cheap way he treated me...”

I apologized to you Treebeard, was that not enough? You feel it necessary to keep attacking me? Now I know what kind of person you are. Have a nice day.”

“Trail, and Sarge, you know the really cool part about people who work so hard to deny God's Presence? I see them everyday when I do my volunteer work with addicts. They have spent SO DA*N much time trying to deny God and show how THEY ARE GOD. Then one day the whole thing collapses they are at the bottom of life.
I watch as they finally turn and surrender (if they are lucky) and in a REALLY COOL turn of events. They ARE forgiven. See they are not big enough to accept God, but God has always been big enough to accept them.”

“Thanks XL, you are so right. Nice to know there are a few folks on this board that can carry on an adult conversation.”

“Amen XL”

“Sorry Treebeard. I don't care to get into a war of words with anyone.”
TrailKicker67
6:22:16 PM

This was the apology? It's the only time you addressed it. I read it as a dodge from addressing what you said. I guess there could be a bit of ambiguity there. If that is what you say it was, then I will back off.

And, BTW, you don't know enough about me to determine what type of person I am. So, back off yourself!!!
last edited: 4/03/06 1:37:37 PM”

““[insert cutsie kicking dead horse picture here]”
Sarge
2:37:52 PM

This, coming from you, is a laugh!”

“Ok Treebeard. My sincerest apologies to you if I have offended you in anyway. You can be absolutely sure it will never happen again. Have great day.”

“Thanks. It's the last you will hear from me. Enjoy your day, too...”