The Problem With Prayer Studies

[11 to 1 0]

Why is it so diffucult to study prayer and why do so many of the studies yield such different results? I beleieve that 1 - it's impossible to control because ethically patients must be told they are part of the study - whether they are prayed-for or not, there is a "placebo effect" especially because the patient may, at this sugegstion, begin to pray for themselves. There are also very likely no patients not being prayed-for as area churches almost all have prayer groups of some kind that pray for the "unknown" sick and injured. Second, as soon as the first study hit the media, there was a reported increase in personal prayer among persons with hospitalized loved ones. You simply cannot control who is being prayed for or how much prayer is going on. I personally believe they should design the studies around dogs - they use animals in a lot of other experiements, why not these? No one is ethically bound to tell either the animals or their caretakers or doctors that the study is in progress. The trick is just to get medical records, since all this stuff at vet hospitals these days is on computer, seems like a reasonable solution. Though I must admit, even nonreligious people are more likely to pray for their pets then for people. But this should be balanced-out by the lack of placebo-effect. (As long as no one slips up and tells the dogs someone might be praying for them.)

From http://www.dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=5056DURHAM, N.C. - Cardiac patients who received intercessory prayer in addition to coronary stenting appeared to have better clinical outcomes than those treated with standard stenting therapy alone, according to researchers at Duke University Medical Center.Their results further suggest that using rigorous scientific methods to study the therapeutic value of prayer and other noetic interventions appears feasible and warrants larger-scale, more definitive investigations. Noetic interventions are defined as "a healing influence performed without the use of a drug, device or surgical procedure," said the researchers.Results of the phase I feasibility-pilot, known as the MANTRA (Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic TRAinings) Project, appear in the Nov. 1 issue of the American Heart Journal."We now know that clinically meaningful, high-quality research can be done in this area," said Duke cardiologist Dr. Mitch Krucoff, who co-directs the study with Suzanne Crater, a Duke nurse practitioner. "The data are suggestive that there may be a measurable therapeutic benefit related to noetic therapies in patients undergoing angioplasty."Patients who received noetic therapies showed a 25 to 30 percent reduction in adverse outcomes (such as death, heart failure, post-procedural ischemia, repeat angioplasty or heart attack) than those without such therapies, according to the researchers. While increasingly popular outside of mainstream medicine, noetic therapies have not been widely studied with rigorous, scientific research methods. This study represents one of the first such efforts."We know patients are very interested in these types of treatments, particularly in the role spirituality and prayer play in their health and health care," added Krucoff. "To best understand how to respond to such widespread interest, we examined whether good, mainstream, fundamental research science could be applied to these areas."One hundred and fifty patients with acute coronary insufficiency at the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center were enrolled in the prospective, randomized study from April 1997 to April 1998. All were scheduled for invasive cardiac procedures based on their clinical needs. In a five-way randomization, all patients were assigned (in equal distribution) to coronary stenting with standard care or to coronary stenting plus one of the following therapies: guided imagery, stress relaxation, healing touch or intercessory prayer. Of the 120 patients assigned noetic interventions, 118 (98 percent) completed the therapeutic assignment.Differences in clinical outcomes between treatment groups were not statistically significant. However, those receiving noetic treatments "had lower absolute complication rates and a lower absolute incidence of post-procedural ischemia during hospitalization," said Crater."These noetic interventions help a patient achieve a state of calm equilibrium, or homeostasis, which puts them in a better state to help in their own recovery process," said Jon Seskevich, a Duke nurse clinician, who along with Crater, designed the non-prayer interventional therapies. He further noted that those assigned to receive prayer appeared to fare even better than those receiving the other types of noetic treatments and the control group.To be eligible for enrollment, patients had to be experiencing chest pain at rest (with or without acute electrocardiographic changes) and be scheduled for invasive diagnostic angiography. All patients were managed in the coronary care unit of the hospital before and after angioplasty.Off-site, intercessory prayer was provided by seven prayer groups of varying denominations around the world. The groups included Buddhists, Catholics, Moravians, Jews, Fundamentalist Christians, Baptists and the Unity School of Christianity."The name, age and illness of each patient assigned to prayer therapy was sent to each prayer group," Crater said. "These patients had prayers from all over the world said on their behalf for healing and recovery."Denomination did not play a factor in the design of the study. Prayer and standard therapy assignments remained double-blinded to patients, family and staff. A trained volunteer performed the other noetic therapies at bedside within one hour of the cardiac procedure.Although small, the researchers believe the study is an important advance in this area of medical research."This is an important study because it provides preliminary information suggestive of a positive effect that needs further study in a larger study sample," said Dr. Harold G. Koenig, associate professor of psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center, and one of the study authors. "Some of the greatest scientific achievements have come from those who step outside of the box, and I believe that is what this study does. The results tend to lean toward prayer helping people, but more study is needed."Research is continuing. Phase II of the MANTRA project has already enrolled nearly 500 patients out of an enrollment target of 1,500 patients. The larger study is underway at nine sites throughout the U.S., including Duke University Medical Center, Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital in New York City, Washington Heart Center in Washington, Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis, Scripps Clinic/Scripps Mercy Hospitals in San Diego, Geisinger Clinic in Danville, Pa., Florida Cardiovascular Center in Atlantis, Fla., and the Durham VAMC.Preliminary data from this pilot study were previously reported at the 71st meeting of the American Heart Association in 1998. The American Heart Journal article represents the complete, tabulated, peer-reviewed results of the phase I study. Funding was provided in part by grants from G.E.-Marquette Electronics, Milwaukee; the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Sausalito, Calif.; the Bakken Family Foundation (Hawaii); the Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center; and the Duke Clinical Research Institute.Other authors of the study include: Cindy L. Green, Ph.D., Arthur C. Maas, MD, James D. Lane, Ph.D., Karen A. Loeffler, Kenneth Morris, MD, and Thomas M. Bashore, MD.

[jmkiser 0]

Are you trying to make any underlying point about God or mainly informing on your views on the power of prayer?

[BigDMcGee 3,367]

the problem with Prayer Studies?!? Bwhahahahahaha hahahahha hahhah oh man, I thought this thread was going to be about, like, groups of people reading the scripture and prayer books.. but.. you mean.. studying the.. power of prayer?!!?!?!!? HAhahahahahahahhah this is why I read this forum, for gems like this to brighten my day.

[renaedawn 1]

Yep, I'm sure God's that bored.

[11 to 1 0]

The progress of prayer study - these are two of the very first studies - note the differences with the report above and the character ofthe objections...(bolding is mine)

Cardiologist Randolph Byrd conducted a rigidly designed randomized, double-blind experiment in 1988 to determine the effects of prayer on patients in the Coronary Care Unit at San Francisco General Hospital over a ten-month period. A computer made the random assignments of which of the 383 newly-admitted patients involved in this study would be prayed-for, and which would not. The statistically significant findings of this study were that prayed-for patients were five times less likely to require antibiotics, three times less likely to develop pulmonary edema... and none of the prayed-for patients required endotracheal intubation (in which a tube is placed in the patient's throat) whereas twelve of the non-prayed-for patients required this procedure.Byrd's remarkable findings might have been widely accepted when they were first reported, were it not for some rather sharp criticisms directed at the study participants (only born-again Christians were selected) and the lack of consistent directions given to the prayers about how they should pray (no directions at all had been given). Furthermore, the study could not confirm that those doing the praying actually prayed, nor could it tell anyone how experienced those doing the praying were at praying -- and some very serious ethical questions were raised about praying for people who feel morally opposed to prayer intervention and/or not praying for people who devoutly believe in the power of prayer to heal. Due to these shortcomings, many felt that Byrd's study was inconclusive.

Huh? How does a researcher who hasn't studied prayer or understand it, tell people how to pray? How many patients felt "morally opposed to prayer intervention," anyway? If skeptics don't believe in prayer, if they don't know someone is doing it, what would it matter? As for only choosing born-again Christians, I supoose he wanted poeple who would be likely to do what he asked them to do, people who had made a committment to prayer as you cannot "confirm" anyone is praying at anytime, until they perfect mind-reading machinery.

In 1999, researchers from the Mid America Heart Institute at Saint Luke's Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, set out to conduct a more scientifically valid version of the Byrd study. Researchers William Harris, Manohar Gowda, Jerry Kolb, Christopher Strychacz, James Vacek, Philip Jones, Alan Forker, James O'Keefe, and Ben McCallister designed a randomized, controlled, double-blind, prospective, parallel-group trial to determine whether remote intercessory prayer for 990 hospitalized coronary care unit (CCU) patients would reduce overall adverse affects. This time, the intercessors represented a variety of Christian traditions, with 35% listing their affiliations as non-denominational, 27% as Episcopalian, and the remainder as other Protestant groups or Roman Catholic. Intercessors were recruited no particular denomination by investigators via contacts in the local community for their experience in prayer, and were required to agree with the following statement, "I believe in God. I believe that He is personal and is concerned with individual lives. I further believe that He is responsive to prayers for healing made on behalf of the sick."The results of this replication of Byrd's study were that the prayed-for patients stayed in the hospital the same average length of time as those not prayed-for, but their overall CCU course scores were significantly lower. In this study, only 51 (10.9%) of the prayed-for patients required major surgery, whereas 76 (14.5%) of the control group did; and only 12 (2.6%) of the prayed-for patients required intra-aortic balloon pumps, whereas 20 (3.8%) of the control group did.Researchers William Harris and his colleagues were careful to point out some of the factors that they were unable to control for in their prayer study: "In evaluating the results of this trial, it is important to note that we were most likely studying the effects of supplementary intercessory prayer. Since at least 50% of patients admitted to this hospital state that they have religious preference, it is probable that many if not most patients in both groups were already receiving intercessory and/or direct prayer from friends, family, and clergy during their hospitalization. Thus, there is an unknowable and uncontrollable (but presumed similar) level of 'background' prayer being offered for patients in both groups; whatever impact that group assignment had on healing was over and above any influence background prayer may have had."

[BigDMcGee 3,367]

I personally believe they should design the studies around dogs - they use animals in a lot of other experiements, why not these? No one is ethically bound to tell either the animals or their caretakers or doctors that the study is in progress. The trick is just to get medical records, since all this stuff at vet hospitals these days is on computer, seems like a reasonable solution. Though I must admit, even nonreligious people are more likely to pray for their pets then for people. But this should be balanced-out by the lack of placebo-effect. (As long as no one slips up and tells the dogs someone might be praying for them.)

I also am doing a study, involving dogs. It's to test the effectiveness of a particular head gear in protecting oneself from electromagnetic fields.We should compare notes when we are done..

[11 to 1 0]

We should compare notes when we are done..

Not actually doing one, just saying it would get rid of a lot of those pesky control issues.

[BigDMcGee 3,367]

Not actually doing one, just saying it would get rid of a lot of those pesky control issues.

I'm not actually doing one, either.

[timwakefield 69]

I also am doing a study, involving dogs. It's to test the effectiveness of a particular head gear in protecting oneself from electromagnetic fields.We should compare notes when we are done..

I'm literally laughing out loud. That dog is so cute!

[11 to 1 0]

I'm not actually doing one, either.

Ohhhh. And I was so sure you were what with the sophisticated equipment.

[WrongWay 0]

Here is a study on "the power of prayer".We take a few million people. We put them in hand cuffs and leg irons. Attach the chains of the leg irons to a few heavy bricks, and then toss them out of a boat into a really deep place in the ocean. Let's see how many are "saved" by the power of prayer.But, it would be unethical to pray for people that are non-believers, and there would be NO WAY to stop a beliver from asking for help from God themselves. Therefore, each and every one of our test subjects must be STRONG believers.AND, who could be assured of getting the most people to pray for them? Well, prominant religious people of course!!!!! We start with the televangilists, move to the heads of the major churches, people that lead religious based political organizations like Christian Coalition!!!Yeah, that is a scientific study I could really get behind. Heck, I wouldn't even mind government funding to buy the chains and bricks!It is amazng how the "power of prayer" is only testable in situations where the outcome is so uncertain that it is nearly (TOTALLY) impossible to separate the power of prayer from random chance.

[11 to 1 0]

It is amazng how the "power of prayer" is only testable in situations where the outcome is so uncertain that it is nearly (TOTALLY) impossible to separate the power of prayer from random chance.

From above:

The results of this replication of Byrd's study were that the prayed-for patients stayed in the hospital the same average length of time as those not prayed-for, but their overall CCU course scores were significantly lower. In this study, only 51 (10.9%) of the prayed-for patients required major surgery, whereas 76 (14.5%) of the control group did; and only 12 (2.6%) of the prayed-for patients required intra-aortic balloon pumps, whereas 20 (3.8%) of the control group did.

So, do you know what "statistically significant" means?

[WrongWay 0]

From above: So, do you know what "statistically significant" means?

My last job I wrote software that performed statistical analysis of sales history looking to predict future usage, including things like seasonal profiling, linked product profiling, promotion profiling....My current job is to write software that does statistical probability match of members from multiple data sources to link them together as the same entity. Primarily used in healthcare to match people from multiple dr offices, hospitals, insurance companies, billing records, CRM, etc.Yeah, I know what statistically significant means? Do you?You break a samples down into randomly assigned groups(BEFORE you have the results). You than use the groups to determine a mean. You then sum the absolute value of the difference between each group and the mean. Devide the sum by the number of groups and then square root of that.This is your standard deviation. You then decide the confidence level you want. If you want to be 70% confident, then your range is the mean, + or - one standard deviation. 95% confident, + or - 2x standard deviation. 99.5% confident use, 3x standard deviation.So, to determine if the 10% vs 14% is statistically significant, we'd have to know their statistical calculation.Let's say they hit: 10% +/- 3% and 14% +/- 2% Or.... 7%-13% and 12%-16%. Would the study be significantly significant? No, because the ranges overlap. The actual could be 12 or 13% for both.Let's say they hit:10% +/- 1% and 14% +/- 1% Statistically significant? Yes.HOWEVER, we don't have the exact numbers on statistical analysis, do we? Nope! All we have is arathemetic mean. NO WAY to say if it is statistically significant on arethmetic mean alone.And with only 990 patients, half in each group category... There are not really enough members to get a good statistical significance anyway. Let's make it simple. Let's assume 500 prayed for with 50 major surgeries. If it was broken down into 10 groups of 50 "prayed for", with a mean of 5 major surgeries each group. If they happened to be 3, 7, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 7, 3 Then you have a standrd deviation of .9.This means you're 70% confident that for every 50 people, there will be 4-6 major surgeries. 99% confident there will be 2-8.....Let's say 500 not prayed for and 70 major surgeries. That's a mean of 7.14. Already we'd be inside the 99% confidence range... But we haven't even looked at the proable range of that 7.14If they happend to be 5,5,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,9,9 then your statistical significance is again .9. So, 70% confident it is 6-9 per 50. 99% confident it is 4-10 per 50. So, with these vey reasonable numbers, we're looking at 2-8 major surgeries per 50 in the prayed for and 4-10 major surgeries per 50 in the non-prayed for. That gives us a HUGE overlap, meaning no statistical difference.This is why studies that proport to show statistically significant data always give results in terms of "per thousand" or larger. You just can't get a good probability without a lot of groups, each having a lot of memebers.So, was this study statistically signifacnt or not. No way to know from the info you provided, but I'd bet some SERIOUS money that the results are not.

[11 to 1 0]

My last job I wrote software that performed statistical analysis of sales history looking to predict future usage, including things like seasonal profiling, linked product profiling, promotion profiling....My current job is to write software that does statistical probability match of members from multiple data sources to link them together as the same entity. Primarily used in healthcare to match people from multiple dr offices, hospitals, insurance companies, billing records, CRM, etc.Yeah, I know what statistically significant means? Do you?You break a samples down into randomly assigned groups(BEFORE you have the results). You than use the groups to determine a mean. You then sum the absolute value of the difference between each group and the mean. Devide the sum by the number of groups and then square root of that.This is your standard deviation. You then decide the confidence level you want. If you want to be 70% confident, then your range is the mean, + or - one standard deviation. 95% confident, + or - 2x standard deviation. 99.5% confident use, 3x standard deviation.So, to determine if the 10% vs 14% is statistically significant, we'd have to know their etcetcetcetc......

This is cute, I like the check-raise all-in quality of the post. I can almost hear the JamieGoldlike "Gotcha!" as you typed. Or copied and pasted, whatever. But I am old and experienced and what I know is: you apparently aren't very familiar with how science is done, especially with the fact that very little statistical analysis is done with sample sizes in the thousands. Research just isn't conducted that way because data sets can't be ordered to specifications, they are what they are, not what we wish they were. And if we choose them, they are what we can afford. Not just in prayer studies, but in any studies, most especially where human subjects are involved or when animals expensive to acquire and maintain are involved. Yet, mathematicians manage to analyze this data and reach conclusions of statistical significance often enough to get the FDA to approve drugs, for instance. And, as impressive as your response was to someone, I am sure, - it's also non-responsive. What you said that I was responding to was:

It is amazing how the "power of prayer" is only testable in situations where the outcome is so uncertain that it is nearly (TOTALLY) impossible to separate the power of prayer from random chance.

So, let's start with "The outcome is so uncertain." See, there are data sets in the thousands to mine, the data of all the patients previous to the study that went through the same procedures. These doctors know what to expect, they know how much medication and of what types on average per patient they will need, how long a hospital stay is on average, what kinds of complications are common and how often they manifest. You know that if you do what you say you do for a living. The article here is from a popular publication, it certainly isn't the journal article. So, I asked you so that I knew whether I had to explain that it is clearly already known what the random chance result would be.

You break a samples down into randomly assigned groups(BEFORE you have the results).

And this makes it pretty clear you didn't even read what was presented here. As this was, of course, how the study was conducted. At any rate, until you (assuming you are a mathematician and not just a computer programmer, if you are being truthful about your profession) examine the original report of the data and see how the analysis was done, well, neither you nor I are qualified to even have an opinion about it.I think the result of prayer is observable and a valid area of inquiry as it is also unexplainable at this time. I don't think prayer is easily "testable" as I already said. I also think smug arrogance closes the mind. Maybe before you decide you already know all the answers, you might want to look at the evidence yourself.

[WrongWay 0]

This is cute, I like the check-raise all-in quality of the post. I can almost hear the JamieGoldlike "Gotcha!" as you typed.

Just answering your question. Yes, I do know what statistical significance means.Any "gotcha" was inferred, not implied.

you apparently aren't very familiar with how science is done, especially with the fact that very little statistical analysis is done with sample sizes in the thousands. Research just isn't conducted that way because data sets can't be ordered to specifications, they are what they are, not what we wish they were. And if we choose them, they are what we can afford. Not just in prayer studies, but in any studies, most especially where human subjects are involved or when animals expensive to acquire and maintain are involved. Yet, mathematicians manage to analyze this data and reach conclusions of statistical significance often enough to get the FDA to approve drugs, for instance.

http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/drugsbiologics.htmlBefore a new drug or biologic can be marketed, its sponsor must show, through adequate and well-controlled clinical studies, that it is effective. A well-controlled study permits a comparison of subjects treated with the new agent with a suitable control population, so that the effect of the new agent can be determined and distinguished from other influences, such as spontaneous change, "placebo" effects, concomitant therapy, or observer expectations. FDA regulations [21 CFR 314.126] cite five different kinds of controls that can be useful in particular circumstances: (1) placebo concurrent control (2) dose-comparison concurrent control (3) no-treatment concurrent control (4) active-treatment concurrent control, and (5) historical control No general preference is expressed for any one type, but the study design chosen must be adequate to the task.[clip]There are three principal difficulties in interpreting active-control trials. First, active-control trials are often too small to show that a clinically meaningful difference between the two treatments, if present, could have been detected with reasonable assurance; i.e., the trials have a high "beta-error." In part, this can be overcome by increasing sample size, but two other problems remain even if studies are large.In short, you can get away with a small study if the control is 50% +/- 5% and the study group is 10% +/- 5%. You know, statistically significant.However, if your numbers come up 10% +/- 10% and 14% +/- 10%, then you are gonna need a MUCH bigger group.And, don't beleive thay require sample sizes in the thousands?????Got a new cancer drug you want tested?http://www.fda.gov/Cder/drug/cancer_endpoi...ller/sld012.htm

I think the result of prayer is observable and a valid area of inquiry as it is also unexplainable at this time. I don't think prayer is easily "testable" as I already said. I also think smug arrogance closes the mind. Maybe before you decide you already know all the answers, you might want to look at the evidence yourself.

Thing is, the people putting out this research don't proport statistical significance. From the article you link to:Clips from the article:Differences in clinical outcomes between treatment groups were not statistically significant. However, those receiving noetic treatments "had lower absolute complication rates and a lower absolute incidence of post-procedural ischemia during hospitalization," said Crater. "This is an important study because it provides preliminary information suggestive of a positive effect that needs further study in a larger study sample," said Dr. Harold G. Koenig,....The results tend to lean toward prayer helping people, but more study is needed." Oh, and science isn't done with sample size in the thousands??????From the linked article:Research is continuing. Phase II of the MANTRA project has already enrolled nearly 500 patients out of an enrollment target of 1,500 patients. The larger study is underway at nine sites throughout the U.S., including Duke University Medical Center, Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital in New York City, Washington Heart Center in Washington, Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis, Scripps Clinic/Scripps Mercy Hospitals in San Diego, Geisinger Clinic in Danville, Pa., Florida Cardiovascular Center in Atlantis, Fla., and the Durham VAMC. Smug GOTHCA implied!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I repeat!!!! Yes, I do know what statistical significance means. Do you?As for my job, my last job was at JDA Software, headquartered off 87th st in Scottsdale AZ.. Man was that a sucky commute from my house in Glendale. My new job at Initiate Systems is 2 miles up the street, off 59th ave and Bell, 2 miles up the street from my house. If you look up the companies, you'll see their software does exactly what I said it does. If it is a lie, then even you will have to admit it is a well constructed one.AND, How do you reconcile your belief in the power of prayer, with Jesus's words in the sermon onthe mount?Matthew 6 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

[11 to 1 0]

How do you reconcile your belief in the power of prayer, with Jesus's words in the sermon onthe mount?Matthew 6 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

You have an interesting debate style, everything is just sorta-kinda on topic with your responses. This for instance: whatever are you talking about? What do you think Jesus was saying here and to whom do you think He was speaking? And what does that have to do with the efficacy of prayer and why would you think there is any reconciliation necessary between what I know about prayer and what Jesus said?

[WrongWay 0]

You have an interesting debate style, everything is just sorta-kinda on topic with your responses. This for instance: whatever are you talking about? What do you think Jesus was saying here and to whom do you think He was speaking? And what does that have to do with the efficacy of prayer and why would you think there is any reconciliation necessary between what I know about prayer and what Jesus said?

Just sort-of on topic?Pray all you want, but chain to a heavy brick and tossed into the deep ocean, your gonna die. The power of prayer is ONLY effective in things that the outcome is so random that it is impossible to isolate the NON-POWER of prayer from random chance.That is directly on topic.An explaination of why this 10% vs. 14% is WELL within the expected range of statistical scatter, and therefore completely irrelivant? TOTALLY on topic.And, what Jesus says in the section of the Bible I quote, is that prayer should be between you and God, and used to give glory to God. Don't go to church to pray, but rather do it in your own home. Don't ask him for things, because he already knows what you need. Why would prayer have power if Jesus says not to ask for stuff? Why would he tell you not to do it, if God then listens and gives you what you ask for?You don't see a contradiction?

[11 to 1 0]

Just sort-of on topic?Pray all you want, but chain to a heavy brick and tossed into the deep ocean, your gonna die. The power of prayer is ONLY effective in things that the outcome is so random that it is impossible to isolate the NON-POWER of prayer from random chance.

So you have said before but failed to demonstrate. What is the random chance that someone burned over so much of their body that there is no chance of recovery and a %100 percent chance they will die in a few hours, of being completely healed with perfect skin, no scars - in those few hours with no medical intervention? Less than the chance of some porpoise depositing you on shore with your brick, I imagine. Yet, this happened, after the person was prayed-over. The truth is, you simply don't know when you will die, as that outcome is never in anyone's hands but God's.

And, what Jesus says in the section of the Bible I quote, is that prayer should be between you and God, and used to give glory to God. Don't go to church to pray, but rather do it in your own home.

Not exactly. What He was saying was that hypocrites are acting for their own benefit to seem pious and get the respect or admiration of others. And He doesn't say "Don't pray in church." He says not to be like hypocrites who love to stand in public in the synagogue in order to display how much they pray. This is not the same as "don't pray in church." He also says, "Where two are gathered in my name, there I will be also." And, being in church praying doesn't necessitate some show for others or even having others present. There are "closets" in churches, too. Even if you are in a pew.

Don't ask him for things, because he already knows what you need.

I think it is very clear that in our personal relationship with God, we are completely ignorant of what is best for us, and so we can only ask for God to bless us abundantly. I believe this is fundamentally different than healing prayer, in which Jesus has set us a model by showing us how to do it, sending His apostles out to do it, and being the power by which that healing is acconplished through us. When Jesus healed people, He didn't run hiome and kneel in His closet, He worked where the people were, as did the apostles later and others. He also, in the gospel of Saint John told us we would do greater miracles than He after He was raised up. So, it cannot be a bad thing to do anything Jesus has done and it makes sense to believe Him when He gives us assurance of His desire to heal us.

Why would prayer have power if Jesus says not to ask for stuff? Why would he tell you not to do it, if God then listens and gives you what you ask for?You don't see a contradiction?

Well, I'm familiar with a lot of things Jesus said all through Scripture, and I know that you can't take one thing out of context and try and make it fit all situations, so no, there is no contradiction at all. Jesus also said, "If you ask for a fish, do you think your Father would give you a stone? Ask and you will receive." Prayer, anywhere, everywhere and constantly, is a good thing. It is only acting as if you are praying with many words to impress people that Jesus objected to. This brings us around to some of the topic. First, the pray-ers may very well be praying in whatever they use for a closet, it isn't like they are all walking about wearing their Prayer Ninja t-shirts. More to the point is: prayer is known to work, there are too many examples to simply dismiss, so the real question is: how? The thing is, prayer doesn't just work for Christians, there are historically and in modern times, many cases of healings as well as other miraculous events reported as occurring in direct response to prayer by all sorts of people from all kinds of belief systems. In point of fact, an atheist should be able to do the same thing a theist can do. Which is why it makes sense to me to study the actual process instead of trying to set up impossible to control prayer interventions as has been done in recent years.

[WrongWay 0]

What is the random chance that someone burned over so much of their body that there is no chance of recovery and a %100 percent chance they will die in a few hours, of being completely healed with perfect skin, no scars - in those few hours with no medical intervention? Less than the chance of some porpoise depositing you on shore with your brick, I imagine. Yet, this happened, after the person was prayed-over.

Well HELL, why are you wasting time with stupid studies that show 10% for this group and 14% for that. Prove the above, and you don't need no scientific studies... you've got all the proof of magic that you'll ever need.You going to be the volunteer to be lit afire, then prayed over?

The truth is, you simply don't know when you will die, as that outcome is never in anyone's hands but God's.

Truth is, God is the invention of man.

I think it is very clear that in our personal relationship with God,

My personal relationship with God? Sorry, but I don't have imaginary friends.

More to the point is: prayer is known to work, there are too many examples to simply dismiss, so the real question is: how?

Again, why waste you time posting studies that show results well within the expected range of statistical scatter. You "know" it works only because you are deluded. The examples are all in the imagination of other deluded people who pray to they imaginary friend.You started talking about scientific study, and when backed into a corner, suddenly scientific stydy is irrelivant since you "know" it to be true.Give it up dude. There is no power in prayer since there is no God. He is your imaginary frined whom you imagine does good things at your request.

[11 to 1 0]

You "know" it works only because you are deluded. The examples are all in the imagination of other deluded people who pray to they imaginary friend.You started talking about scientific study, and when backed into a corner, suddenly scientific stydy is irrelivant since you "know" it to be true.Give it up dude. There is no power in prayer since there is no God. He is your imaginary frined whom you imagine does good things at your request.

Give it up, yourself. You might want someday to read the thread and premise. Which is: studying prayer as it has been studied is so problematic as to be useless. You have made a decision about something based on no evidence whatsoever. When evidence appears to the contrary of your own beliefs made outside of evidence, you simply dismiss it as "deluded." For instance, people healed of grave injury and illness with not only no medical explanation but in the face of a science that says what happened is not possible, number in the thousands, and the ones in modern history with unassailable medical documentation number easily in the hundreds. But, as this flies in the face of the reality you created for yourself, the one in which such things just don't happen, well - ALL the doctors were deluded, the burn patient didn't exist, all the photographs were doctored, all the tests results faked, all the witnesses lying, yadayadayada. I believe myself and my own observations. Therefore, I know healings occur, miracles happen and prayer works. I know what I witness. You see nothing, even if it is readily available to be seen, and believe in nothing. The invention seems to be all on your part. Dude.

[11 to 1 0]

You started talking about scientific study, and when backed into a corner, suddenly scientific stydy is irrelivant since you "know" it to be true.

I'm sure you believe you "backed me into a corner" but, of course, did not. You assumed something, again, outside of any evidence that it is true: that what I posted was intended to show prayer was "real." Of course, that wasn't why I posted what I did, but, as you are not actually following the thread but only your own inner voice, you wouldn't know that.So, to address one of your points (unrelated to any of my points) there are certainly prayer studies that show statistically significant results. I still say they are not good ways to study prayer, but be that as it may, you seem to be all invested in the statistics. I will post one and a link, but I am sure you will now graduate from math expert to science expert and tell us all why the numbers should be dismissed because the study was wrong in some way you know better than those who conducted it. God forbid anything interfere with your prejudice against prayer. Whatever - here it is: Prayer Study LinkFrom the Journal of Reproductive Medicine (Online)

Volume 46 September 2001 Number 9Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization–Embryo Transfer?Report of a Masked, Randomized TrialKwang Y. Cha, M.D., Daniel P. Wirth, J.D., M.S., and Rogerio A. Lobo, M.D. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential effect of intercessory prayer (IP) on pregnancy rates in women being treated with in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer (IVF-ET).STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial in which patients and providers were not informed about the intervention. Statisticians and investigators were masked until all the data had been collected and clinical outcomes were known. The setting was an IVF-ET program at Cha Hospital, Seoul, Korea. IP was carried out by prayer groups in the United States, Canada and Australia. The investigators were at a tertiary medical center in the United States. The patients were 219 women aged 26–46 years who were consecutively treated with IVF-ET over a four-month period. Randomization was performed after stratification of variables in two groups: distant IP vs. no IP. The clinical pregnancy rates in the two groups were the main outcome measure.RESULTS: After clinical pregnancies were known, the data were unmasked to assess the effects of IP after assessment of multiple comparisons in a log-linear model. The IP group had a higher pregnancy rate as compared to the no-IP rate (50% vs. 26%, P=.0013). The IP group showed a higher implantation rate (16.3% vs. 8%, P=.0005). Observed effects were independent of clinical or laboratory providers and clinical variables.CONCLUSION: A statistically significant difference was observed for the effect of IP on the outcome of IVF-ET, though the data should be interpreted as preliminary. (J Reprod Med 2001;46:781–787)

The full journal article is available, use the link.

[WrongWay 0]

I'm sure you believe you "backed me into a corner" but, of course, did not.

Whatever. You made the first agressive post mockingly asking if I even know what statistically significant means.When I proved I did, you then said I had no clue how scientific research is done.I again proved I do indeed know... that it was you that had no clue.As soon as it was shown this study showed no statistically significant difference between the prayed for and non-prayed for groups, suddenly scientific study is irrelivant since you know there is power in prayer.Typical.

I still say they are not good ways to study prayer, but be that as it may, you seem to be all invested in the statistics.

Oh, I disagree. There are certainly ways to test the power of prayer, and to do so in a situation where the outcome is not so random that the power of prayer can't be isolated from random chance. My suggestion was to throw belivers into the deepest part of the ocean chained to heavy bricks.Alll go with your suggestion of 2nd and 3rd degree burns over most of their body with no access to medical aid. We'll pray as hard as we can, and see if they survive with no scars.... works for me.

I will post one and a link, but I am sure you will now graduate from math expert to science expert and tell us all why the numbers should be dismissed because the study was wrong in some way you know better than those who conducted it. God forbid anything interfere with your prejudice against prayer. Whatever - here it is: Prayer Study Link

From the link you provided:Specifically, intercessory prayer (IP) has been studied, and while preliminary experiments have been interpreted as suggesting a possible improvement in patients with heart disease and AIDS, a recent review of the literature does not indicate any conclusive benefit overall.As for this study... Too small to be important... In the words of the authors."we view these data as preliminary.""Our data suggest a benefit of IP on IVF-ET. However, we reiterate that we view these data to be preliminary and that they may not be confirmed in future investigations."Look at the statistis:Eggs retrieved: 10 +/- 6Eggs fertalized: 8 +/- 5Eggs Implanted 4.3 +/- 1.5Hell, we don't know if the average number of eggs implanted in IVF is 3 or 5. We don't know if they usually fertalize 3 eggs or 13 eggs.AND, when they give the %, it is just flat %. I want the range.Is it 26% +/- 15% and 50% +/- 20%! If so, the ranges overlap blowing away the statistical difference.So, both I and the authors of this study agree. Nice proof of concept. Now repeat it with a study group 10+ times as large so we can narrow those ranges A TON!!!!!!Sorry 11-1, but you're going to have to do much. much better.No, seriously.... Let's start lighting the most ardent believes on fire, don't give them medical aide, pray real hard, and see if they survive with no scars. It was a great suggestion. Much more painful way to go than just dumping htem into the ocean chained to heavy bricks.

[11 to 1 0]

Whatever. You made the first agressive post mockingly asking if I even know what statistically significant means.

Nope, I didn't. You see how you have created your own reality based on no fact but only what comes out of your own mind? I wasn't mocking, I didn't say "even" means, I was looking for information so I knew how much you knew before proceeding. No one attacked you or mocked you, you did that all by yourself. The answer "yes" would have sufficed.

When I proved I did, you then said I had no clue how scientific research is done.I again proved I do indeed know... that it was you that had no clue.

Another good example of you creating your own reality. You haven't "proven" anything. What I see you have done is mis-read, mis-interpreted and mis-understood pretty much everything I posted. This comes, as I have previously stated, from having a closed mind and preconceived notions of what reality must be. For instance, you said: My suggestion was to throw belivers into the deepest part of the ocean chained to heavy bricks. Alll go with your suggestion of 2nd and 3rd degree burns over most of their body with no access to medical aid. Of course, I suggested no such thing, I informed you of a case, a medical case with plenty of medical evidence, of this happening. This was in response to your claim that prayer cannot be studied because the result is always within the limits of "random" probability. So, I gave an example of the result of prayer falling well outside any possible probability, random or otherwise, as the result was then, and is now, considered impossible, except that it happened. Ergo, your statement about results always falling within some parameters you have imagined to exist, is not correct. Your comments on the study are about what I expected, your opinions are your own and welcome to them, but they are not persuasive of anything except that you interpret data to fit your beliefs. Most of us do. As for this:

Sorry 11-1, but you're going to have to do much. much better.

No, I'm not. You see, you've done that thing again where you create reality for yourself - you think I am trying to convince you, or anyone, of something. I'm not. I don't care what you do or do not believe, you have great faith in your convictions, so be it. Have that faith. But try to keep in mind as you grow older that faith is all it is - you have chosen a belief system. But it doesn't satisfy you to simply believe what you believe, you seem to always be trying to convince everyone how very smart you really are - especially people you believe are too stupid to understand your posts. Whom you have already decided cannot, so, you can keep telling yourself you really are smarter, better, whatever, than they. You are, in a word, unhappy with your choice of the world you have created to live in. I'm sorry about that. You take care, though. You seem to be a good guy at heart. And try not to be surprised someday, when you find the universe holds a little bit more than you decided it did.

[WrongWay 0]

Okay, maybe I over-reacted to the "do you know what statistically significant means". I get this kind of crap all the time from people that don't.As for the comment on the study based on lighting people on fire.... of course you didn't say it. I was being sarcastic. You made a passing comment aboutt the power of prayer fully healing a burn victim. I find this "magic thinking" so utterly ridiculus that I opted to ridicule you by saying it was a great idea to set religious people on fire and watch the power of prayer (not) heal them.Does prayer have real power (beyond placebo)? Oh course not. It would require real magic (meaning non-trick magic), and there is just no such thing. There are no ghosts, there are no good luck charms, there are no curses, lightining is not God's vengance, good fortune is not his reward. There is no heaven above us, and there is no hell below. Mentioning the posibility of something does not jinx it, and knocking on wood doesn't undo the jinx. Crossing your fingers, wishing on a star, really...really....really hoping for something doesn't make it more likely.There are no vampires or zombies. There are no fire breathing dragons. Garlic and burning sage don't ward off evil. Yogi flyers can't really levitate. Budhists won't be reincarnated and they can't acheive "oneness". Muslims that die for Alah won't really be rewarded with a flock of virgins.You don't have a relationship with God. You have a relationship with yourself through an imaginary friend.It is all just make believe.

[11 to 1 0]

You made a passing comment aboutt the power of prayer fully healing a burn victim. I find this "magic thinking" so utterly ridiculus that I opted to ridicule you by saying it was a great idea to set religious people on fire and watch the power of prayer (not) heal them.

Either you are not hearing me, or you just think I am lying or gullible beyond belief. This isn't a suggestion, this happened. Cases like this are numerous, and, in our age even easier to document than in times past when all we had were witness acounts. Now we have hard medical data, x-rays, test results, photographs of injuries, testimony from numerous medical witnesses. This isn't something I am assurring you of just because I have read accounts, this is something I experienced myself and have seen in friends. So, when you say it doesn't happen, we are not having a difference of opinion, it would be like you saying no trees grow in my yard when, as I type this, I see the trees through my window. Your belief that these things do not happen is simply factually incorrect. But, what about when you said this:

Does prayer have real power (beyond placebo)? Oh course not. It would require real magic (meaning non-trick magic), and there is just no such thing.

There must be a few hundred stories and movies and such about modern people being transported back in time and "doing magic" because people a thousand years ago could not imagine how a lighter works. Prayer has worked, this really is not disputable. How and why it works is entirely unknown to us, also indisputable - with caveats. There is theory. Think about physics ten years before quantum theory hit the scene. Or twenty years before Einstein. We are in that place now relative to healing prayer, "heaven" and what you called "ghosts." In 50-100 years we will understand enough about the way things work that "prayer" will have a new name and trained practitioners, "heaven" will just be dark matter and living cooperatively with those on the Other Side will start to be commonplace. As an atheist, you have rejected a lot of things placed in religious context. Take the phemomena out of religious context and then we have an interesting scientific mystery to be solved. Come to think of it, I can't imagine anyone with better credentials going in to make a study than you - a guy who seeems pretty smart, understands themaths, can propbably design computer models and work with a physicist to understand what energy is being transferred where and how. And, being an atheist, you wouldn't be afraid of any result - finding the science doesn't negate the "miracle" because to you, there never was. Of course, you'd have to be at least open and indifferent to finding the presence of persons on the Other Side (ghosts) who may play a role.