Prayer doesn't help

[InfiniteNow]

Results of a study of over 1800 participants with heart disease, randomly placed into one of three groups were released earlier this week. It is the largest study ever of it's kind. The groups into which heart disease patients were randomly placed are:

 

1) being told that people would pray for them and people actually praying

2) being told that people might pray for them and people actually praying

3) being told that people might pray for them and people didn't pray...

 

The study indicated that 59% of the people who were told that people would definitely pray died or their condition worsened, whereas groups 2 and 3 were about the same at just around 50%. So, this implies that people who knew others were praying for them and actually had those others praying for them did worse than those who weren't sure.

 

 

What do you make of this?

 

 

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract (study)

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5315333 (audio commentary on the study)

[Buffy]

Some would argue that prayer is a form of vanity, and as a venial sin, God is punishing those who have the audacity to believe that they are somehow special and that She would intervene simply because they asked. That's kinda cynical though, and actually, most people I saw interviewed on this story were doing it for others and had no intention of stopping because of this study.

 

It sure is bizzare, because with the sample size, 59% is well outside the expected error margin.... Typically, paranormal tests usually always hit that 50% /pure random result mark, but the thing is, they should have seen a placebo effect (positive results from the belief that a drug was being given, aka the power of positive thinking), but then again, maybe people got depressed when they thought that they were so far gone there was no hope except for prayer....

 

I'm sure someone will get a government grant to do a follow up study...

 

Statistically speaking,

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Slight bump.

 

I just love this because it does a harmonic little dance between science and religion, without accusations and without emotion. Just hard, objective science about soft, subjective prayer. Ooohhh... chills. :)

[sanctus]

The group 1 did worse because they didn't pray! This is not only to interpret in a religious way but the act of praying might initiate something in the body (self-induced placebo) because by praying you want to fight for living (if you are religious)...

 

 

EDIT by InfiniteNow. Mistakenly edited sanctus' post when my intention was to reply. The above is only a portion of the original post. Please accept my apologies, as this JMod multi-tasks entirely too often.

[Zythryn]

We don't yet fully understand the effect the mind has on our health.

 

I am curious if the results were due to the people being told others would pray for them thought that things must be bad if people were praying for them?? In other words one may think 'wow, if people are praying for me it must be serious'?

[HydrogenBond]

In my experience prayer works for what we need, not for what we want. Place oneself in dire straights until real needs arise and then pray. This would be a better experiment. "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just may just may find, you get what you need" Stones.

[TheBigDog]

Prayer helps an optimist keep his glass half full. Does it need to do more than that?

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Prayer helps an optimist keep his glass half full. Does it need to do more than that?

Many people pray for others. Researching the effectiveness of this was the explicit intention of this study.

 

 

Things like:

Dear god, please don't let my dad die today. Let his sickness go away...

 

...apparently do more harm than good. :naughty:

[sanctus]

So here i go again hoping that it is something like before it was edited (to the non-moderators you have to know the edit button is right next to the quote button so it is easy to edit while wanting to answer).

 

The group 1 did worse because they didn't pray! This is not only to interpret in a religious way but the act of praying might initiate something in the body (self-induced placebo) because by praying you want to fight for living (if you are religious) but since they knew somebody was praying for them they fought less. While the others had to pry ergo to fight if they wanted to be sure that they would get some benefit.

Even if the effects of the mind on the body aren't proven yet, I often heard doctors say that somebody is sick since a long time because he/she doesn't want to heal. So not praying ergo not fighting means for the bodynot really wanting to heal (at least if you are religious, otherwise you just fight and don't pray that should have the same effect).

 

I just love this because it does a harmonic little dance between science and religion

 

Sorry, maybe it becomes a pogo now.

[Zythryn]

The group 1 did worse because they didn't pray!

 

Actually we don't know this, there is no information about if the people prayed or not.

 

We can make the assumption that because they were told other people will pray for them they didn't see the need. I think that is a fairly weak assumption to make though.

 

As for the power of laughter/pray/positive thinking, I have heard stories that this has an affect on some illnesses. I honestly would be a bit surprised if it didn't have an effect as our mind and bodies seem to be extremely complicated biological system.

 

I would not be surprised to see that if more people in a group prayed, that group would have a better rate of recovery. I just don't believe this particular study can support or refute that idea.

[Boerseun]

In my experience prayer works for what we need, not for what we want. Place oneself in dire straights until real needs arise and then pray. This would be a better experiment. "you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just may just may find, you get what you need" Stones.

This is a common explanation of the 'Power of Prayer' that unfortunately holds no water. It's sole purpose might be to empower the meme, if you subscribe to that hypothesis regarding religion.

 

Simply put, the 'things that we need' that are purportedly supplied by prayer, would be things that'll keep us alive. Things like food, shelter, clothing, etc.

These basic needs are then said to be supplied by prayer, and those that receive it are testament to their prayers being successful.

 

Where it falls apart, however, is when we consider the simple fact that those who didn't receive it, probably died from hunger or exposure and can't provide any evidence at all about their religious status or habits.

 

Those subscribing to this take on things will probably claim that the deceased most likely were sinners of the most heinous kind, and only got what was coming to them.

[cwes99_03]

Results of a study of over 1800 participants with heart disease, randomly placed into one of three groups were released earlier this week. It is the largest study ever of it's kind. The groups into which heart disease patients were randomly placed are:

 

1) being told that people would pray for them and people actually praying

2) being told that people might pray for them and people actually praying

3) being told that people might pray for them and people didn't pray...

 

The study indicated that 59% of the people who were told that people would definitely pray died or their condition worsened, whereas groups 2 and 3 were about the same at just around 50%. So, this implies that people who knew others were praying for them and actually had those others praying for them did worse than those who weren't sure.

 

 

What do you make of this?

 

 

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract (study)

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5315333 (audio commentary on the study)

 

Since I am not going to listen to an audio commentary, I see at least three major problems off the bat.

 

1) I do not see a group of people that were told that they were being prayed for for sure and were not prayed for at all.

 

2) there is no data provided in that first website that describes the type of surgery undergone by each group. Now you might suppose that a random sampling of 600 people per group would be random enough to overlook that.

 

3) The abstract does not tell what theology the patients were. It does not seem that the theistic standpoints of the patients were considered. If some large percent of them were either atheistic or very religious then the results might be skewed.

 

From my little reading I don't think that the study holds any weight one way or another.

[InfiniteNow]

1) I do not see a group of people that were told that they were being prayed for for sure and were not prayed for at all.

You are correct. This might be a way to improve future studies attempting to replicate these results.

 

2) there is no data provided in that first website that describes the type of surgery undergone by each group. Now you might suppose that a random sampling of 600 people per group would be random enough to overlook that.

The sample size (N) for this type of study is, in fact, very large and it is random enough, not to overlook something, but to cancel out those effects considered to be noise. However, by simply increasing N would further reduce outlier effects.

 

3) The abstract does not tell what theology the patients were. It does not seem that the theistic standpoints of the patients were considered. If some large percent of them were either atheistic or very religious then the results might be skewed.

The point is that if prayer works, it shouldn't matter what the religion of the object of said prayer chooses to practice. If a christian prays for a buddhist, should not the results be the same as if that christian prayed for a baptist, or even another christian? That's the point. You could be praying for a tree, it's just harder to test the effect of that prayer on the tree than on a human.

 

From my little reading I don't think that the study holds any weight one way or another.

Well, thanks for your input all the same. :hihi:

[TheBigDog]

Many people pray for others. Researching the effectiveness of this was the explicit intention of this study.

 

 

Things like:

 

Dear god, please don't let my dad die today. Let his sickness go away...

 

...apparently do more harm than good. :hihi:

Then I promise to pray for you to have a long suffering life and lonely death. :shrug: Do you suppose reverse psychology prayer works the same way? :hihi:

 

Bill (Dear Crom... )

[sanctus]

Actually we don't know this, there is no information about if the people prayed or not.

 

We can make the assumption that because they were told other people will pray for them they didn't see the need. I think that is a fairly weak assumption to make though.

 

I don't think it is such a weak supposition, but I agree that it is a supposition. It's not so weak, because if you know that people are doing something for you then you tend to do less.

[ughaibu]

TheBigDog's remark about optimists is interesting, I would expect optimists to be less likely to pray than pessimists, so a study comparing those who voluntarily pray for themselves to recover with those who dont, might be interesting. Alternatively a study involving insurance commitments and results, might be interesting, as buying insurance amounts to betting things will go wrong.

[cwes99_03]

You are correct. This might be a way to improve future studies attempting to replicate these results.

Thank you Infy.

 

 

The sample size (N) for this type of study is, in fact, very large and it is random enough, not to overlook something, but to cancel out those effects considered to be noise. However, by simply increasing N would further reduce outlier effects.

Yes, I agree. However we know that random sampling is very often not random. If they were to show the statistics of that random sampling, they would be furthering the idea that it was truly random. Always good to provide as much info as possible. Since this was only an abstract, could someone find the actual paper?

 

The point is that if prayer works, it shouldn't matter what the religion of the object of said prayer chooses to practice. If a christian prays for a buddhist, should not the results be the same as if that christian prayed for a baptist, or even another christian? That's the point. You could be praying for a tree, it's just harder to test the effect of that prayer on the tree than on a human.

 

This is an awfully bold statement that shows a serious lack of knowledge about theology.

 

First of all, do Budhists even believe in prayer? Prayer to whom?

 

Prayer in most people's minds will only work for those who truly believe in the value of that prayer.

 

"Prayer is an effort to communicate with God, or to some deity or deities, or another form of spiritual entity, or otherwise, either to offer praise, to make a request, or simply to express one's thoughts and emotions. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer

 

Thus one cannot separate theology from prayer. Of course, Christians also believe that God can read the hearts of his worshippers, that they can pray to God without uttering a word or even being able to form coherent thoughts on what you are trying to pray for and he will understand their condition and motivation.

 

To say that I can pray for someone and God (the Christian one anyway) will do it because I asked him to, is quite arrogant and without understanding of the scriptures.

 

BTW you might want to edit that part about christians and baptists (Baptists are part of Christendom.)