Results of Study find that "Intercessory" Prayer is ineffective

[Mímirswell]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation

"The largest study yet on the therapeutic power of prayer by strangers has found that it provided no benefit to the recovery of patients who had undergone cardiac bypass surgery.

In an unexpected twist, patients who knew prayers were being said for them had more complications after surgery than those who did not know, researchers reported Thursday.

The complications were minor, and doctors surmised that they could have been caused by the increased stress on patients worried that their conditions were so bad they needed prayers."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_4368130.htm

The 2.4-million-dollar study was funded by the John Templeton Foundation, a group dedicated to studying the intersection of spirituality and science, and the Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.

The study was designed as a random and controlled trial, involving more than 1,800 patients, the largest ever to weigh the effectiveness of third-party prayer, also called intercessory prayer. The patients were studied at six hospitals across the U.S., including St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa.

Most patients did not know whether they were being prayed for. About 65 percent of these patients said they strongly believed in the power of prayer.

Interesting topic, anyone wish to weigh in on the matter?

[Lee1026]

Proves nothing. Repeat after me: Corrolation is not causation.

[Mímirswell]

While Correlation doesn't imply causation; I'm sure you are aware of the Principle of the Common Cause which asserts that robust (read as: scientifically or mathematically validated) correlations have causal explanations, and if there is no causal path, then there must be a common cause.

If your unfamiliar and have some time, I recommend you read On Reichenbach’s common cause principle and Reichenbach’s notion of common cause:

It is shown that, given any finite set of pairs of random events in a Boolean algebra which are correlated with respect to a fixed probability measure on the algebra, the algebra can be extended in such a way that the extension contains events that can be regarded as common causes of the correlations in the sense of Reichenbach’s definition of common cause. It is shown, further, that, given any quantum probability space and any set of commuting events in it which are correlated with respect to a fixed quantum state, the quantum probability space can be extended in such a way that the extension contains common causes of all the selected correlations, where common cause is again taken in the sense of Reichenbach’s definition. It is argued that these results very strongly restrict the possible ways of disproving Reichenbach’s Common Cause Principle.

[RazorOutlaw]

Perhaps I will regret this later, but: Oh don't worry, God just doesn't want us to know that it's him working behind the scenes.

[Removed_user_012521]

It proves nothing. Heres a prayer story that convinces me of the power of prayer: My Grandpa was really sick, something happend in his intestines and he devrloped and infection that the doctors equated to being gangrenous. Hes liver, kidneys, other stuff like that started to shut down, and the doctors couldn't do anything and said he was going to die. So before I went to bed each night I prayed that God would help him through this and that he would become healthy and strong. And now he is recovering from what everyone expected him to die from. He's recently gone back home (from like 3 months in a nursing home) and can even walk around a little bit.

[Mímirswell]

What Lee erroneously accused the study of does apply to you due to your lack of a "robust" correlation. Ergo, your anecdote may be useful to convince you but it has no merit in convincing others. I would advise you to read about Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.

Your Example
Event A (You prayed) happened immediately prior to event B (your uncle was healed).
Therefore, C (praying) caused E (healing).

Counter Example
Event A (Rooster crowed) happened immediately prior to event B (the sun rose).
Therefore, C (roosters crowing) caused E (the sun rising).

The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its "effect". While it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not by itself a sufficient condition. Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.

Where Lee1026 erred in calling this study a logical fallacy was in the methodology the study utilized to ensure a "robust" correlation. Typically his claim would be true. The study is by no means definitive though, it's just one step closer to proving its hypothesis.

[Tostig]

But according to David Hume, there is no justification for knowing that one thing ever causes another - all we see is one thing happening and then another thing happening in turn. The reason we don't doubt that they aren't linked is because we never see one not happening after the other - for instance a brick falling upwards or a window melting. There is no reason that it couldn't because all the laws of physics and so on are based on concepts deduced from empirical observation.

[Removed_user_012521]

Your Example
Event A (You prayed) happened immediately prior to event B (your uncle was healed).
Therefore, C (praying) caused E (healing).

The point is My Grandpa was going to die, there was nothing anyone could do about it. They couldn't operate cause that would kill him, they coouldn't put amount od drugs needed to help him cause that would kill him, all we could do is watch him die and pray. And he lived. Now I know thats not going to convince many people I just wanted to add a little to the conversation ok? Not everything can be explained by sheer logic alone.

[imb39]

It proves nothing. Heres a prayer story that convinces me of the power of prayer: My Grandpa was really sick, something happend in his intestines and he devrloped and infection that the doctors equated to being gangrenous. Hes liver, kidneys, other stuff like that started to shut down, and the doctors couldn't do anything and said he was going to die. So before I went to bed each night I prayed that God would help him through this and that he would become healthy and strong. And now he is recovering from what everyone expected him to die from. He's recently gone back home (from like 3 months in a nursing home) and can even walk around a little bit.

So, if no one had bothered to pray for your Grandpa, then God would have done nothing? This is my gripe with this aspect of prayer. The idea that God will be moved to intercede on another's behalf if someone else asks for it. This is not a God of love as far as I am concerned. I pity those who suffer alone then, as they are forsaken.

[Cluny the Scourge]

It proves nothing. Heres a prayer story that convinces me of the power of prayer: My Grandpa was really sick, something happend in his intestines and he devrloped and infection that the doctors equated to being gangrenous. Hes liver, kidneys, other stuff like that started to shut down, and the doctors couldn't do anything and said he was going to die. So before I went to bed each night I prayed that God would help him through this and that he would become healthy and strong. And now he is recovering from what everyone expected him to die from. He's recently gone back home (from like 3 months in a nursing home) and can even walk around a little bit.

Yes, that's right. YOU have an "in" with God. You're the guy "who can get it for you." Someone gets a serious illness, they use their contacts to network with you, and you get it taken of - no worries, no stress.

Of course, if you had hated him and prayed for him to DIE, you'd have been a bit confused when he recovered. Heh heh.

[Lee1026]

While Correlation doesn't imply causation; I'm sure you are aware of the Principle of the Common Cause which asserts that robust (read as: scientifically or mathematically validated) correlations have causal explanations, and if there is no causal path, then there must be a common cause.

I am indeed aware of that. But when we are discussing humans, things get even more touchy; as I hope you are aware, there is indeed a corrolation bewteen race and grades. Now, assuming that you are not racist, that would mean that there would have to be a common cause. But we are sure that there are no common cause bewteen grades and race.
What, then, would explain it? If we are discussing this purely academically, we would say that being black causes poverty, and that being poor causes poor grades. But even that is that is incorrect - being black does not cause poverty, on its own, it came from the cycle of poverty, etc. All of this is quite incomprehensible to most, and so we just say that being black really have no causation effect on grades, because it is certainly true in one very important way - a white kid and a black kid in the same situation will turn up more or less the same.
This is more important if we are trying to decide on what to do - in my previous example, shooting every black preson would bring the average grades up (note to anyone who is going to do that - there is a better way) But dropping a can of paint on every black man certainly is not going to help a thing.

next, there are no way to actually prove this. As I hope you are aware, statisical analysis can tell you if a result is significient at a particular P-value, or the odds of getting a result that far off by random. Most people use 5%, but that still means that 1 in 20 of them will be wrong. (Yes, I am oversimplifing, but I don't have that much time on my hands)

[MaximiIian]

Obviously Mr.Kikla has never heard of the "immune system"...

[Lee1026]

Oh, it is valid in the sense that all science is valid - it does prove anything about the way that the two variables interacts, with the likeihood of it being wrong the same as the P-value.
The problem is that the two variables may not be what you think they are - in this case, it merely proves that praying in this particular way is ineffective. Proving that prayers do not help are inherently futile - there are a infinite number of ways to pray.

[Mímirswell]

Oh, it is valid in the sense that all science is valid - it does prove anything about the way that the two variables interacts, with the likeihood of it being wrong the same as the P-value.
The problem is that the two variables may not be what you think they are - in this case, it merely proves that praying in this particular way is ineffective. Proving that prayers do not help are inherently futile - there are a infinite number of ways to pray.

You will find no disagreement from me. However, as I concluded in my previous post; the point was aimed towards a more efficient use of funds (I suspect, I really couldn't say for certain) than determining that prayer doesn't work.

[Kscott]

I agree with the Bishop, it isnt if you pray then like magic it will come true. Praying has a much different meaning than that...

[Removed_user_012521]

Obviously Mr.Kikla has never heard of the "immune system"...

Begging your pardon but the Doctors didn't exactly have to much Confidence in his immune system.

Yes, that's right. YOU have an "in" with God. You're the guy "who can get it for you." Someone gets a serious illness, they use their contacts to network with you, and you get it taken of - no worries, no stress.

Yep, just completely put a self absorbed spin on my innocent post. Great for you...

[Sétanta]

In the words of many who posted before me :ninja

This proves nothing. Prayer doesn't mean God is standing by your bed making everything better, its just your form of knowing he cares.

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[crazyj]

Well considering that prayer is linked to forces beyond our world, its silly to suppose that results in this would would correspond exactly to the number of people in this world being prayed for. Prayer is not some magic spell that works every time, or else it would be classified in its own section in physics or science. "Pray for this, and that happens, pray for something else and something else specific happens". The whole idea is that we are appealing to a force beyond our ken whose motivations remain obscure to us, thus whatever decisions (if any) are made as a result of intercessory prayer are incapable of being understood as a result or absence of prayer.

Maybe God thought it was worthwhile to save your Grandpa because he recognized some critical need for you to have your faith reaffirmed, becuz if it didn't then you might lose your faith and kill people in an anarchistic frenzy at some later point in life, whereas others would still have the "strength" to fulfill whatever "plan" was in store for them? What I'm saying is that the very nature of prayer by being linked to a being beyond our understanding is that the results of actions taken by that being are also beyond our understanding, thus it is pointless to say that becuz some weren't healed prayer is ineffective or becuz some were healed prayer should ALWAYS be effective.

As has been said before, science and metaphysics don't mix.

[Ummon]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation



http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_4368130.htm



Interesting topic, anyone wish to weigh in on the matter?

It is not intercessory prayer which causes faster improvement, but personal prayer.

Furthermore knowledge of the fact that people pray on your behalf is an experiment-crippling effect. In any psychological experiment the subject must be ignorant of h0 and h1 (null hypothesis and hypothesis). Any experiment on psychosomatic effects is psychological as well.

The experiment looks like having been designed by a moron.