Quote:Scientific investigation and experiments on praying and healing have been done in the US. As far as I know, no beneficial effects of prayers could be established in those surveys.
inyen,
As far as YOU know is not scientific evidence of anything. Can you provide documentation of these claims?
Another study showed the following:
"Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"
What scientific evidence do we have that God exists? A crucial doctrine of Christianity is that God listens to and answers prayers. So why not test this doctrine scientifically, using a double-blind, clinical trial? This is the exact premise that two groups of cardiac doctors used in double-blind "drug" studies of the efficacy of Christian prayer on healing. Both papers are available online.
1. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population"MethodsCardiac patients from the San Francisco General Medical Center were randomly divided (using a computer-generated list) into two groups. The names of the patients in the "test" group were given to a group of Christians, who prayed for them while they were in the hospital. The intercessory prayer team members were chosen on the following basis:
Born again Christians on the basis of John 3:35
Led an active Christian life on the basis of daily devotional prayer fellowship in a local Christian church
The "placebo" group received no prayer. Neither the "test" nor the "placebo" group of patients knew if they were receiving prayer. Likewise, the hospital staff, doctors, or nurses were "blinded" since they did not know which patient belonged to which group.
ResultsStatistics were acquired from the prayer and placebo groups both before and after prayer, until the patients were discharged from the hospital. There were no statistical differences between the placebo and the prayer groups
before prayer was initiated. The results demonstrated that patients who were prayed for suffered "less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated." Statistics demonstrated the the prayer group had a statistically significantly lower severity score based upon the hospital course after entry (p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis of all the parameters measured demonstrated that the outcomes of the two groups were even more statistically significant (p < 0.0001). In science, the standard level of significance is when a "p value" is less than 0.05. A value of 0.01 means that the likelihood the result is because of chance is one in 100. A p value of 0.0001 indicates that in only one study out of 10,000 is the result likely to be due to chance. Table 2 from the study is reproduced below. The remarkable thing which one notices is that nearly every parameter measured is affected by prayer, although individually many categories do not reach the level of statistical significance due to sample size. However, multivariate analysis, which compares all parameters together produces a level of significance seldom reached in any scientific study (p < 0.0001). The author points out that the method used in this study does not produce the maximum effect of prayer, since the study could not control for the effect of outside prayer (i.e., it is likely many of the placebo group were prayed for by persons outside of the study). It is likely that a study which used only atheists (who had no Christian family or friends) would produce an even more dramatic result. However, since atheists make up only 1-2% of the population, it would be difficult to obtain a large enough sample size.
When I spoke of spiritual healing, I was referring to ones own spiritual growth and maturity being worked on through their prayer life. The individual benefits derived are not negated or diminished by what others receive.
Can 2 billion Christians be wrong?
