Studies Show No Healing Effect from Prayer
A scientific study on healing prayer would attempt to isolate prayer as a causal factor in healing. The best causal studies use controls, randomize the assignments of the participants to a control group (whose members would not be prayed for, in this case) and an experimental group (whose members would be prayed for), and blind the researchers and the subjects to what groups the participants have been assigned. Ideally, a scientific study on healing prayer would study a significant number of people who need healing for the same reason (say, cardiac bypass surgery patients or AIDS patients). At least 50 participants would be needed. They would be randomly assigned to a prayer group or a control group. The researcher who assigns the patients to their groups would not immediately reveal this information to either the patients or the researcher who will be evaluating the healing process in the patients. After the data have been collected, the first researcher reveals which group each patient was in. Only then do the researchers analyze the data to determine if prayer made any difference.
The researchers would have to define what they mean by “prayer” and “healing” before the study begins. For example, they might consider a patient healed if he doesn’t die or if he is released from the hospital or if he has no complications from a surgery. (Whatever is identified as healing should not be defined after the study has been completed; otherwise, the researchers might go data mining, trying to find anything that seems to support their hypothesis. Since the support for the hypothesis, if it comes, is going to come in the form of a statistic; and since it is known that if you do a statistical analysis of many factors, one or two might seem to support your hypothesis, there is a very good chance that such results would be spurious.) The study should have a specified beginning (say, when a person is admitted to the hospital for treatment) and a specified ending (say, when the patient is released from the hospital or dies, or some specific time frame, e.g., six months from the beginning point). If prayer is a causal factor in healing, then a significantly higher number of people, statistically speaking, should be healed in the prayer group. Statistical significance is determined by mathematical formulae, which we need not go into here.
Have such scientific studies been done? Yes, and the results clearly show that no healing effect from prayer has been found.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Jesus said to several people that were healed, "your faith healed you". People with faith do better in the hospital then people without faith. Jesus said that the power is within us. So what is faith? If there is a power of prayer how do you measure it? A hundred people could say the words but if they don't believe it would have no power. If prayer works, how do you explain when it doesn't? Could the power be enough to cure this person but not that one? I believe in prayer, but if you can't measure it you can't prove it works. That's why they call it faith.
“People with faith do better in the hospital then people without faith.”
[Citation Needed]
“A hundred people could say the words but if they don't believe it would have no power.”
So it would be rather easy to determine if an individual really believed… because those who did would have a higher recovery rate.
“I believe in prayer , but if you can't measure it you can't prove it works.”
Yet above you state that people with faith do better then those without… that is a measurable statement.
“That's why they call it faith.”
Yet without Reason faith is no more then superstition.
Since I know for a fact that all the people in the study were prayed for the results are bogus. Obviously you have never been to a Christian Church. For almost 50 years I have been praying for healing for all people in hospitals, war zones, etc. I'm just one person. I know of dozens of churches that do the same thing. We pray for all the sick not just the ones we know. We may specifically lift some up to God but they are not the only person for which we pray. This is nothing new. Christians have been doing this for centuries.
In order for your study to be valid you would need to get every Christian in the world to stop praying. Good luck with that.
The Catholic Heretic
But not all the time. But God is in control and we should prayer always
So if God is always in control then what effect do prayers have? If God has already decided who will and will not get better then who are any of us to ask for anything different?
We are his childern
If God is all powerful and all knowing then how can we presume to question what he wants.
And, yet again, no study has ever come close to showing that prayer has anything more then a psychological benefit.
If someone were healed right in front of you, you would still not believe. You would spend the rest of your life to prove there was some scientific reason for the spontaneous healing. No miracle is proof enough for you.
The Catholic Heretic
“If someone were healed right in front of you, you would still not believe. You would spend the rest of your life to prove there was some scientific reason for the spontaneous healing. No miracle is proof enough for you.”
In a sense yes… a miracle, by definition, would be improvable from a scientific standpoint.
The question is “What can we rely on when looking to heal someone?” and so far the answer is modern medicine … not superstition. Look at the recent examples of children dying because their parents prayed instead of going for medical attention! That is the end result of the belief that prayer can heal, people who would have survived dying from easily treated diseases.
When my son had cancer his entire Catholic school prayed for him for three years. That's a lot of prayers. He died anyway. Prayer can heal. But how do you explain when it doesn't? What do you tell all those children that prayed for my son?
But can you demonstrate, in a controlled - repeatable, manner that by praying for one individual you can increase their chances for recovery? If not then to medically claim ' prayer can heal' would be inaccurate (to say the least).
I cannot prove that prayer can heal. That's faith based. Just as you (or anyone else) cannot prove that it does not heal. What I can prove is that the study claimed in the article cannot be done. You cannot eliminate prayer because there are too many people praying for all the sick in the world.
The Catholic Heretic
“I cannot prove that prayer can heal. That's faith based.”
Your faith… but not mine. I cannot argue with you on the basis of your beliefs, any more then I could argue with someone who believes that the sun circles the earth. I can just show all the evidence that points to the contrary.
“Just as you (or anyone else) cannot prove that it does not heal.”
By the same token you cannot prove that invisible pixies come along and sprinkle magic dust on people to make them get better.
“What I can prove is that the study claimed in the article cannot be done. You cannot eliminate prayer because there are too many people praying for all the sick in the world.”
Those people need to pray harder then… because a large number of people are still dying from sickness and injury.
If prayer healing cannot be falsifiable then it cannot be demonstrated scientifically.
You are right. There is no way to prove that prayer works and in the end it doesn't. We all die. But studies have shown that people that have faith do better in the hospital then people without faith.
Which studies? And how is "faith" defined in these studies? How about statistics regarding faith in a particular deity versus faith in _any_ deity? I would definitely need to see some methodologies before I can take this claim without a few million grains of salt.
Prayer heals. I know it first hand.JESUS HEALS.You must believe.That is why the studies show no healing effect.
IN JESUS NAME all sickness will flee.JESUS is able, Can you believe.Are you willing?RELIGION KILLS,JESUS SAVE!COME.COME TO JESUS!
Prayer isn't something that has a mystical power of it's own.
God is the one who hears prayer , and he has the freedom to act on it or not.
If you don't even have any faith that God answers prayer, then I agree that he won't answer.
Jesus told a Centurion that he healed that it would be done for him just as he believed it would, and it's the same way for us.
Also, I believe God still favors the oppressed when they pray, since they haven't stored up security for themselves on earth. Do you think you can live a selfish, faithless life, and then call out on God when trouble comes? Still, don't rule out God just because this describes you. He may have mercy yet!
When scientists study something highly relevant to values, I am very suspicious when they publish results. Please do a Google search on "publication bias". There have been cases of scientists fudging data and designing experiments to get the results they want.
If multiple scientific studies contradict my own experiences, I am trusting the latter. Scientists have no authority to tell me what I have and have not observed.
Your statement here certainly smacks of a personal viewpoint that you are incapable of being wrong regarding your own interpretation of those unique experiences. You may be an authority in what you have experienced, however, because of your inherent personal bias regarding those experiences, you can hardly be a trusted authority in their interpretation. Any genuinely good scientist adamantly abstains from claims of infallibility. Interestingly, those most opposed to listening to and even trusting what science can tell them posture as though they themselves possess infallibility. Their judgment is far more in question than that of those who assume fallibility in all things. Theirs is a disconnected and dishonest point of view. They are a potential danger to themselves and to others.
As for "values", they are only accurate and useful as they relate to what is real and true regarding all of nature and of human beings within it. Ironically, science endeavors to explore and discover what is genuinely real and true and how such reality and truth relates to human experience. One might say science is uniquely suited to the examination, discussion and judgment of human values. Naturally, as with religions, the "science" we speak of is a human pursuit and thus vulnerable to human fallibility.
In my mind, fallibility is a natural and good thing. Claims of "infallibility" are immaturity and perhaps even a certain and threatening madness requiring treatment.
But how can you expect others to feel the same as you do, without having similar experiences?
You may have experienced it... but why should I listen to your experience over those who think that crystals can be used to heal people?
I am not telling you not to listen to people who think crystals can heal. I have no idea if they can or cannot. I would suggest, however, that you try to use some crystals to help what ails you and see if they work. But if they don't work for you that does not mean they did not work for others.
When reviewing treatments what would you consider? Unsubstantiated claims by a handful of individuals or the results of a detailed scientific process?
If crystals, or prayer , work then there must be some quantifiable process at work... something that can be tested and defined. So far all that has been demonstrated is that there may be a psychological component, that keeping a positive attitude (which, for a religious individual, would be helped by prayer)... but I'm not about to abandon antibiotics for it.
If scientific articles conflicted with anecdotal evidence I would determine which is more believable on a case-by-case basis.
I do not always believe scientific articles due to bias within the scientific community. Certain claims are met with more bias than others. The peer-review process is not as objective as people are told.
Quote: “That is why Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked ‘publish’ and ‘reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back ‘How do you know I haven’t already done it?" (Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178-182.)
Here are some other articles on publication bias:
Wilson, T. D., DePaulo, B. M., Mook, D. G., & Klaaren, K. J. (1993). Scientists’ evaluations of research: The biasing effects of the importance of the topic. Psychological Science, 4(5), 322-325.
Godlee F, Gale C.R, Martyn C.N. (1998). Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 280, 237–40.
Wall, Stig; Emmelin, Maria; Janlert, Urban; Mustonen, Lena; Skog, Barbro. (2006). Who submits to and publishes in this journal? A peer‐review study of 772 manuscripts 2000–2004. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 34 (4), 337-341.
Easterbrook, P. J., Berlin, J. A., Gopalan, R., & Matthews, D. R. (1991). Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet, 337, 867-872.
Egger, M, Zellweger-Zahner, T., Schneider, M., Junker, C., Lengeler, C., & Antes, G. (1997). Language bias in randomized control trials published in English and German. Lancet, 350, 326-329.
Decullier E, Lhe´ritier V, Chapuis F. (2005). Fate of biomedical research protocols and cohort publication bias in France: retrospective study. British Medical Journal, 331, 19-24.
Stern, J. M., & Simes, R. J. (1997). Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. British Medical Journal, 315, 640-645.
These and many other articles demonstrate the often ignored lack of objectivity and quality of scientific articles. Even if scientific articles demonstrating bias amongst scientists lacks objectivity and quality, this would still be a demonstration of bad science passing the peer-review process. Many people claim that scientific evidence is always more reliable than anecdotal evidence. Interestingly, there is no scientific evidence to support this hypothesis. In other words, the claim is anecdotal.
"If scientific articles conflicted with anecdotal evidence I would determine which is more believable on a case-by-case basis."
In a sense then you are practicing science . Reviewing the studies and seeing if their results match what you observe. The question becomes does your review have enough data to cancel out all the other factors... it is the sample size that elevates anecdotal evidence to scientific evidence. If you say "well one guy I know was prayed over while he was sick and he got better" that would nowhere near cancel out any other variables (did he also change his environment ? did he get better any quicker then someone who was not receiving any treatment? What are the differences between this individual and other people suffering from the same illness? What were the responses of others who were prayed for?)
"I do not always believe scientific articles due to bias within the scientific community. Certain claims are met with more bias than others. The peer-review process is not as objective as people are told."
Nothing is bias free, but the purpose of the scientific method (and the peer review process) is to attempt to cancel out as much of that bias as possible and allow for transparency.
"That is why Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked ‘publish’ and ‘reject’"
He wondered, or he did... because that would be highly unethical. It sounds like a very dangerous situation... because people trust and rely on the Lancet to put forth valid information, and those who do not have the time to conduct detailed studies could have used incorrect information... leading to lost time or even deaths.
"He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom."
Well, though questionable, due to the number of papers that a journal like the Lancet would receive there would have to be some method of selecting papers to publish. As long as the all the papers published went through a review process then what was published is still valid.
"Here are some other articles on publication bias:"
The system is not perfect, but it is one that allows for a level of review and transparency into the research process.
"Many people claim that scientific evidence is always more reliable than anecdotal evidence. Interestingly, there is no scientific evidence to support this hypothesis. In other words, the claim is anecdotal."
Really? So far Science has a huge number of successes... the computer that you have sitting before you is the end result of hundreds (if not thousands) of experiments and studies.
One of the strengths of the system is that, because studies have to publish their methods as well as their results, others can review the results to determine if they are valid.
I'm not a religious person, I don't believe if you pray for someone god will lay his hand on them and magically heal their ills. There is something to be said for a positive attitude though, If you believe that your prayers and you friends and families prayers are going to be answered and it gives you hope then it probably does do some good.
My dad use to have a lazy eye and horrible eye sight! Him and my mom were in a bible study about the power of healing and prayer. One morning he woke us with 20/20 vision and his lazy eye was completely gone! We have a photo album to prove it! crazyness. Anyway, they were too poor for surgery and my parents would just not lie about something like that-their pretty real people. Just wanted to share that with you.
I don't doubt that your parents are honest people but there is always an explanation. They might never know what actually happened because as you stated they couldn't afford surgery, spending money to find out why your dad was suddenly cured was probably out of the question. They just chalked it up to God and went about their business.
Yea, but how could a lazy eye and horrible vision just suddenly go away? What would be your explanation for that?
One could attribute such an event to the intercession of God or some other entity....but one could also attribute it to space aliens, cosmic rays, geological vibrations or the workings of a spell that I cast, and you'd have exactly the same amount of evidence to support any of these alternatives.
Don't believ me? Well, go ahead and prove that it WASN'T space aliens that did it and that is was the result of prayer and/or the work of God.
In this case, there is only one known fact: the lazy eye and horrible vision went away. Any explanation as to how or why that happened is nothing more than conjecture and wishful thinking influenced by one's own religious preferences. A Christian might say that God did it. A Hindu might say that Shiva or Ganesh did it. A rastafarian would undoubtedly praise Jah Ratsafari. An Atheist would reject all of these.
The only truth is that the cause of the phenomenon is unknown. Any other statement about the how and why of it is mere opinion.
That is an interesting theory. Perhaps it is random, but I thought it was pretty cool. I guess some people see the glass half empty and some see it as half full. But everyone is obviously different. Hope we all can learn more from each other.
I'm not a doctor so I couldn't even pretend to guess.