Proofs that prayer doesn't work.
Unless of course the goal is talking to yourself, prayer doesn't work.
We review the following article at the beginning of show 15 featuring Amanda Bloom. You can download that show for free right here.
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
Published: March 31, 2006
By BENEDICT CAREYStory from New York Times and all over web. Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
Because it is the most scientifically rigorous investigation of whether prayer can heal illness, the study, begun almost a decade ago and involving more than 1,800 patients, has for years been the subject of speculation.
The question has been a contentious one among researchers. Proponents have argued that prayer is perhaps the most deeply human response to disease, and that it may relieve suffering by some mechanism that is not yet understood. Skeptics have contended that studying prayer is a waste of money and that it presupposes supernatural intervention, putting it by definition beyond the reach of science.
At least 10 studies of the effects of prayer have been carried out in the last six years, with mixed results. The new study was intended to overcome flaws in the earlier investigations. The report was scheduled to appear in The American Heart Journal next week, but the journal's publisher released it online yesterday.
In a hurriedly convened news conference, the study's authors, led by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, said that the findings were not the last word on the effects of so-called intercessory prayer. But the results, they said, raised questions about how and whether patients should be told that prayers were being offered for them.
"One conclusion from this is that the role of awareness of prayer should be studied further," said Dr. Charles Bethea, a cardiologist at Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City and a co-author of the study.
Other experts said the study underscored the question of whether prayer was an appropriate subject for scientific study.
"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."
The study cost $2.4 million, and most of the money came from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into spirituality. The government has spent more than $2.3 million on prayer research since 2000.
Dean Marek, a chaplain at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a co-author of the report, said the study said nothing about the power of personal prayer or about prayers for family members and friends.
Working in a large medical center like Mayo, Mr. Marek said, "You hear tons of stories about the power of prayer, and I don't doubt them."
In the study, the researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.
The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.
The researchers asked the members of three congregations St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City ? to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names.
The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."
Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not.
In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for ? 59 percent ? suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain. The authors left open the possibility that this was a chance finding. But they said that being aware of the strangers' prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety.
"It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?" Dr. Bethea said.
The study also found that more patients in the uninformed prayer group 18 percent suffered major complications, like heart attack or stroke, compared with 13 percent in the group that did not receive prayers. In their report, the researchers suggested that this finding might also be a result of chance.
One reason the study was so widely anticipated was that it was led by Dr. Benson, who in his work has emphasized the soothing power of personal prayer and meditation.
At least one earlier study found lower complication rates in patients who received intercessory prayers; others found no difference. A 1997 study at the University of New Mexico, involving 40 alcoholics in rehabilitation, found that the men and women who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse.
The new study was rigorously designed to avoid problems like the ones that came up in the earlier studies. But experts said the study could not overcome perhaps the largest obstacle to prayer study: the unknown amount of prayer each person received from friends, families, and congregations around the world who pray daily for the sick and dying.
Bob Barth, the spiritual director of Silent Unity, the Missouri prayer ministry, said the findings would not affect the ministry's mission.
"A person of faith would say that this study is interesting," Mr. Barth said, "but we've been praying a long time and we've seen prayer work, we know it works, and the research on prayer and spirituality is just getting started."
Here's a youtube video from our friends at godisimaginary.com:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A
Here's a thought from honorary Squad member, the Infidel Guy:
What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already?
1.) Humans can't change God's mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.
3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)
Stop talking to your ceiling, prayer doesn't work.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
I never said I knew everything about the bible, history, languages, ect…but that doesn’t change that I know I need to read the bible with all the other factors/context in mind to understand it.
As for the passages above here is one explaination:
"This is a case of over-interpretation. Paul does not say that what he writes is not inspired by God; merely that the Lord has not commanded what Paul says. Paul was almost certainly inspired by God in each word he spoke (preached) following his conversion (cf. 1 Cor 2:4,7,13; 1 Thess 2:13). --RS
I'd also note that in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul could be citing an actual tradition from Jesus' earthly ministry, while in verse 12 he is not. Thus, he is not saying the teaching is not inspired from God, only that it didn't stem from the teachings of Jesus when He was on earth. 2 Cor could merely mean that Paul was not speaking as Jesus would when He was on earth. But this doesn't mean that the Spirit is not speaking through him."
Regarding the issue of Paul being historical, I can't help but wonder what possible reason could there be for not saying that he was real? After all, we have a number of documents which shaped an early religious movement in a massive way, claiming to be written by "Paul", an otherwise unknown figure, and then we have even more writings (such as the Pastorals etc.) which were not written by him but claim to be. Surely the simplest explanation is that there was indeed a guy called Paul who was important in said religious movement? Besides the internal evidence that the writer was a Jew well trained in Hebrew thought, and the split between Jews and Christians occurred in the first century, so that Christianity was basically a gentile religion by the second century.
Regarding the "No Jesus" theory:
(a) Christianity was originally a Jewish, not Hellenistic movement. Contrary to what "no Jesus" people I have read say, the writings of Paul do not attribute deity to Christ. The most credible interpretation is that originally Jesus was seen as a human Jewish Messiah by a certain group, and over time as the movement Hellenized, he came to be seen as God.
(b) What about the Ebionites? I haven't seen how the "no Jesus" theory can explain this first century movement.
I have no idea why your bringing paul into the discussion. God could have written the Bible. Jesus could have written a Bible. Obviously neither of them did. The Bible was written by Man and is full of error. So the real question is why did God or Jesus let man write the Bible in his own words with no divine inspiration at all?
God had no time to create time.
I'm sorry I am no bible scholar...I'm not sure what you are talking about? I'd love to see if I can find you some answers but you'd have to take it slow for me.
There are many different explanations/theories for why God didn't write the bible. Do we know for sure why he didn’t write it...not that I am aware of, but there are sound theories.
God had no time to create time.
Here is the exact quote:
"Matthew 18:19-20 (King James Version)
19) Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20) For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
You can do the interpretation dance all you want but i think the words are pretty plain.
"Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."
The prayer studies where many more than two are gathered have shown results no better than chance.
Bottom line, folded hand do not help!
Damn you I said I didn't want to talk about this, YOU JUST KEEP SUCKING ME IN!!!!! I'll put it simply, I don't think that this passage is talking about prayer.
The Greek word used is συμφωνέω it means agree, in every passage that it is used in the New Testament it means agree, never prayer. I think that this passage might have something to do with the passage before it dealing with ecumenical discord. I don't think that that this passage is an island unto itself which is the problem with your interpretation.
You're not taking the passage in with what's going on in the rest of the chapter. It doesn't make any sense that Christ would just be talking about Ecumenical issues and all of a sudden he's like "Oh yeah!!! BTW, if ya'll get together and pray, whatever you want to happen, will happen", and then he just goes right back to talking about disputes in organizations (presumably the church).
But what’s obvious to me is that this passage is not talking about prayer, there is a Greek word for prayer and it's NOT in this passage.
(Why do I have to dispel bad interpretations of scripture from Christians and Atheists?)
ttdm.blogspot.com
Because your interpretations are based on your own biases, which differ from the biases of other.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
But my "biases" don't want that passage to say that this is dealing with excommunication and it honestly doesn't make ANY sense there.
ttdm.blogspot.com
If he was inspired by god, then what's the point of clarifying that what he's writing is not commanded by god?
Do you want to think this one over and try again?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Your biases DO want to solve the problem, however. The bias on the atheist is to see problems.
What matters then, is who has a non arbitrary method of determing accurate interpretations. And you yourself concede that you disagree even with theists...
Which means that at least some theists clearly are not using no arbitrary methods of interpretation....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
ttdm.blogspot.com
FROM OTHER THREAD
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
No causal argument can be made for the supernatural, its oxymornic. The only claim that could potentially work would be a miracle claim, which is a claim for acausality (i.e. magic) , where the laws of physics are overturned, but even this is highly problematic, seeing as it requires that one make a certain claim about what the laws of nature are....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Yes.
I should have said " There would have to be something natural involved"
Actually, that is how I read your post. I was just clarifying.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/747
How's a newspaper article on it.... I would be willing to bet that most of the difference was not statistically significant (thereby meaning equal). the difference in the informed group is fairly well explained in the article, and since there isn't a god it only makes since that the observed effects of the study were RANDOM. I would expect prayer to make no difference what so ever ( positive of negative), and it didn't.
No Gods, Know Peace.
Agreed, but if a study were to show that prayer does not help it wouldn't be proof against a divinity either.
ttdm.blogspot.com
A similar method of reasoning would be to study what effect a group of people who are imagining themselves floating through the air would have on heart patients, when there is no evidence that anyone floats through the air.
* I can think of one reason and that is to establish the illusion that there is divinity.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.