Posted by Peter from Pennsylvania on: 04.19.2006 /
Check out this article from a couple weeks ago from the Christian Science Monitor via USA Today. It’s here.
Here’s an excerpt.
“The results of a long-awaited scientific study aimed at measuring the effect of third-party prayer for hospitalized patients not only did not match the expectations of those conducting the study, but also may have raised more questions for researchers than it answered. Among them: Can even the most carefully designed trial measure prayer’s effects?”
and
“Results were measured in terms of the number of medical complications encountered by each patient after surgery. Just over half of the patients in the study reported postsurgery complications. To the researchers’ surprise, the highest percentage (59 percent) was recorded among those who were told they were being prayed for.”
Take a quick look at the article. Case closed? Or not? What do you think? Can the data (as reported in this article at least) be interpreted different ways? Or not?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
1Peter- nice direction
Comment by: Ir
2Well, interestingly enough the results of that experiment support the views of both atheists and (most) Christians.
Atheists see the results as providing further evidence that either there is no god or if there is he does not behave like a decent person should by stepping in and helping sick people when he has the opportunity and means to do so and moreover when people are drawing his attention to the need at hand.
Most Christians believe that prayer never ‘forces’ God’s hand - prayer doesn’t work like putting money in a slot machine, because God is not a slot machine. God decides which prayers to answer. God is the person inside the slot machine, perhaps, who doesn’t give you candy who intervenes when you put money in and try to get candy out if he deems it not in your best interests (or not in the best interests of the universe) for you to eat it.
There are a few Christians who think God has given Christians a guaranteed method for getting prayers answered. However, most Christians think it’s ridiculous to believe that prayer could ‘force’ God’s hand, as if humans can order God about and tell God what to do.
Here’s the real issue when it comes to Christians interpreting data (in my opinion): if the experiment had shown that people get statistically significantly better when they were prayed for, Christians would probably be claiming that that’s evidence of God’s existence. In other words, what Christians do is latch onto whatever supports their beliefs and ignore/dismiss whatever doesn’t. Atheists see this and get quite frustrated by it. I’m not sure how many Christians recognize that this is what many of them are doing.
It’s an approach similar to this: if the weather forecast says it’s going to be sunny and it is sunny, Christians say “See! You can always trust the weather forecast!” and if the forecast says it’s going to be sunny and it rains, they say “See? You can never trust the weather forecast. Of course not. Weather is too unpredictable - we all know that”.
(In the UK they are probably correct about that - even though UK weather forecasts are about 5 minutes long and often cover all the bases by tentatively suggesting that any combination of somewhat seasonal weather could happen before the end of the day)
Comment by: David S
3Prayer is a difficult thing to try to measure scientifically. However I think well designed experiments will continue to show no repeatable, measurable effect from prayer. That would be consistent with the reality we’ve observed that no supernatural phenomenon has ever been scientifically verified. If we ever verify the supernatural it would be HUGE.
Comment by: Stephan
4Ir, I agree that Christians selectively interpret data, but I think we all do that. There have been other studies that have implied that prayer does help in medical cases, but I have not seen those studies quoted by any Atheists here.
No one ever wants to admit defeat. You see it all the time in the news. No matter what happens in congress, both sides declare it as a victory. When there is a major development in a criminal trial, but defense and prosecution spin it to make their side look good.
I go back to what Twain said - There are lies, damn lies and statistics. You can make the numbers say anything you want if you interpret them your way.
I’m still saddened that this much time and money was spent on this. They had to know going in that the data would be inconclusive. Imagine the good that could have been done if they had put the same effort into providing for material needs of people.
Comment by: Peter from Pennsylvania
5Ir writes
Am I the only one who thinks that Christians don’t have a monopoly on this kind of outlook? I’ve seen what I consider, colored by my experience of course, pretty convincing pointers to God and Jesus being who the Bible says He is. Proof? Or “evidence” in the sense that TXatheist says? No. (btw, TX, come back… I miss you!) But pointers nonetheless.
Comment by: Ir
6Fair enough, Stephan and Peter.
Comment by: Peter from Pennsylvania
7Ir,
Oops, I didn’t mean it as a slam… especially against you! I tend to latch onto things I consider important, but hopefully I’m growing as I learn and get older into a person who can adjust those things. I KNOW you’re like that, too!
So… back to point… why does this trial stink, and why does it not?
Comment by: Stephan
8I’ve used this analogy here, before, so it’s not new, but I think it can be repeated.
I recently helped my twin 6-year-old daughters do a science fair experiment for school. I emphasized to them that the key to getting reliable results was in limiting the number of variables. For our experiment we wanted to test the effect the length of a pendulum has on its frequency. We needed to make sure the weight of the pendulum stayed the same. We needed to make sure the force with which we swung it was the same every time. We needed to make sure it didn’t bump into the edge of the table from which it was suspended. Any changes other than the length of the pendulum would nullify our results.
I think that is what is wrong with this study. How can you possible control the myriad variables in this equation? There are so many different things that can affect the results that we can’t tell what caused the outcome.
I realize that by having a large test group and giving clear instructions they tried to minimize this, but I just don’t realistically see how you can limit variables when it comes to God. We can’t even understand the variables involved, let alone control them. It all just seems like a futile exercise to me.
Comment by: Jayson B.
9There is a reason why they weren’t quoted though. The tests done that showed any positive evidence were bad research. In many of the research you’re talking about there was never a clear hypothesis, so the researchers were committing what’s called the sharpshooter fallacy: unload a whole clip onto a side of the barn, then circle the best grouping and conclude that’s where you were aiming.
It’s one thing to dismiss research for valid reasons, and another entirely to dismiss research just because it goes against what you believe.
Scientists, by the way, are wrong ALL THE TIME, and they admit it, all the time. That’s the beauty of the peer reviewed system that scientists have, it helps clear out bad research.
Scientists have given humanity it’s highest standard of living in its entire history of existence. We owe so very much to them.
Comment by: Julie Marie
10One of my college classes was in how to evaluate research. It was such a valuable course! The media prints what sells, and people in general haven’t been taught to evaluate critically. TX’s “thing” was teaching evolution in schools. I am beginning to realize my “thing” is teaching critical thinking skills. At the high school level; not everyone has an opportunity to go to college.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
11Jayson, you’re so right about scientists being wrong, even rejoicing in it. (Think Tom Edison and his lightbulb… He discovered lots of ways NOT to make one…)
Clinical trials will sometimes reveal things that are disproved later. Drugs will go on the market because of positive trials, then 10 years later, oops… get rid of them, they’re no good. This happens all the time.
Comment by: Julie Marie
12Prayer is one of those “mysteries”. Can we quantify it’s efficacy? I don’t think so. I do experience, at different times, clarity, peace, redirection, and affirmation through prayer, though. I’ve never tried “meditation” (the part of my journey that would have meshed with medidation was late teens; I couldn’t sit still long enough to meditate on anything!) but I suspect it is a similar experience.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
13You think too highly of scientists - The Enlightenment project (aka up with science) has been a failure and many scientists are just as reluctant to admit their failures as preachers are - since they are often in bed with the politicians who finance them.
Comment by: Peter from Pennsylvania
14Julie Marie,
Meditation has a long and storied history in Xianity, maybe as you get older you’ll be able to sit still longer. :-)
I know that happened with me. It’s my favorite part of prayer. I’m not asking for anything… or even really thanking God for anything… I’m just “being” with Him.
Comment by: Jayson B.
15I’m actually surprised to see you say this Jim. The enlightenment project is a bit of a strawman here, because it’s failure doesn’t signify science’s failure, not even remotely.
And yes, scientists are definately bullheaded, but again, that’s the whole reason for a peer reviewed system. A scientist, when wrong, can be rejected to the point where he either goes back to the drawing board to refine his hypothesis, or he gives it up.
However, a preacher, when he’s wrong, merely can keep preaching what he wants to preach, ignoring evidence as he goes along. There’s no peer review, no reason to go back to the drawing board.
Scientists aren’t perfect, but science, not religion, has given humanity a better quality of living.
Some of the things science has given us:
combustion engines
safer vehicles
better highways
safer homes
energy sources
computers
telephones
cell phones
the internet
plastic
vision correction
medicine
genetics
the ability to keep time
better information procurement and retrieval
better sanitation
cleaner water
and these are just sweeping generalizations! this doesn’t even go into the millions of smaller innovations and discoveries that make all of these possible.
How could you not respect that? Everytime you go to the hospital science saves your life.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
16Jayson,
Every time I start my car science saves my life by creating a way for combustion to move me without exploding!
I think I understand where Jim is coming from, but I do appreciate what science has given me.
How bout some of the real simple things that are so important every day. (like your list, but here’s some real simple additions)
refrigeration
toilet paper (imagine life without it!)
BEER!
chocolate
baseball (I know it’s not science, but I still love it!)
Comment by: Donald Bursey
17The funny thing here is that a religious person may say god allowed the human creaters to be able to create such wonders. Thats what the christan club members said to me at least.
The problem with prayer is that test will never prove anything. There are to many variables. Also when the results come it its to easy for people to turn it to their sides.
For example if at the end prayer has a positive effect the it shows god is here
if there is a negative effect then it shows that prayer can work but humans cant push gods hand to make things happen…