cicerone imposter wrote:That it might work is not caused by their praying. It's been shown by research that prayer has no effect.
No such thing has been 'shown by research'.
There has never been a scientific study of prayer.
All purported studies that have been discussed here and printed in the news are deeply flawed and not worthy of the term 'scientific'.
To start, there was no common method of prayer exercised. No standardization at all. Laughable in any study purporting to be 'scientific'.
In addition, it must be admitted by all that the absence of evidence surely is not evidence.
'Joe prayed and didn't get an answer' is not an argument for the ineffectiveness of prayer.
Neither is '25 Joes prayed and didn't get an answer'.
real, I'm sure you'll read your own bias into this article, but I highlighted what was "found" in their research.
washingtonpost.com
Prayer's Power to Heal Strangers Is Examined
Cardiac Patients in New Study Fared No Better With Spiritual Intercession
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005; A08
Praying for sick strangers does not improve their prospects of recovering, according to a large, carefully designed study that casts doubt on the widely held belief that being prayed for can help a person heal.
The study of more than 700 heart patients, one of the most ambitious attempts to test the medicinal power of prayer, showed that those who had people praying for them from a distance, and without their knowledge, were no less likely to suffer a major complication, end up back in the hospital or die.
While skeptics of prayer welcomed the results, other researchers questioned the findings, and proponents of prayer maintained that God's influence lies beyond the reach of scientific validation.
Surveys have shown that millions of Americans routinely pray when they are ill or when someone they know is. A growing body of evidence has found that religious people tend to be healthier than average, and that people who pray when they are ill are likely to fare better than those who do not. Many researchers think religious belief and practice can help people by providing social support and fostering positive emotions, which may produce beneficial responses by the body.
But the idea that praying for someone else -- even when he or she is unaware of it -- can affect a person's health has been much more controversial. Several studies have purported to show that such prayer is beneficial, but they have been criticized as deeply flawed. The debate prompted a spate of new studies aimed at avoiding those shortcomings, including the new study, which is the first to test prayer at multiple centers.
For the Mantra II study, Mitchell W. Krucoff, a cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., and his colleagues designed an experiment involving 748 patients who underwent treatment for heart problems at nine hospitals around the country between 1999 and 2002.
The researchers enlisted 12 congregations of various Christian denominations, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists around the world to pray for some of the patients, giving them names, ages and descriptions of the illness. The researchers then divided the patients into four groups. The first quarter had people praying for them. The second quarter received a nontraditional treatment known as music, imagery and touch (MIT) therapy, which involved breathing techniques, soothing music, touch and other ways to relieve stress, such as calming mental images. The third group received both prayer and MIT, while the fourth received nothing.
In the final year of the study, the researchers took the additional step of asking more religious congregations to pray for the prayers of the initial group to work. Neither the patients nor their doctors knew whether someone was praying for them. The prayers varied depending on the religion, lasting between six and 30 days.
The researchers then followed all the patients for six months to see which patients suffered serious complications, were re-hospitalized or died from heart problems. Overall, there was no difference among the four groups, the researchers report in Saturday's issue of the Lancet medical journal.
The researchers did find evidence, however, suggesting that those receiving the MIT therapy experienced less distress before their procedures, and those who received both MIT therapy and the "high-dose" prayer may have been slightly less likely to die in the following six months. Those findings provide avenues for future research, Krucoff said.
The researchers acknowledged that it was impossible to make any firm conclusions because of the difficulty of studying something such as prayer. The study, for example, could not accurately measure factors as fundamental as the "dose" of prayer administered and could not account for the possible effects of family members praying for patients on their own, the researchers noted.
"I really don't want people to think we're dissing prayer," Krucoff said. "This study gives us a sense of where there might be therapeutic benefit that might be worth pursuing in future trials."
Skeptics, however, said they were far from surprised by the findings.
"There's nothing that we know in the universe that could account for how prayer or the healing intention of one group of people could influence the health outcomes of another group at a distance," said Richard P. Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. "It's preposterous."
But the Rev. Raymond J. Lawrence, director of pastoral care at New York Presbyterian Hospital, disputed any suggestion that the study disproved the power of prayer.
"Prayer can be and is helpful," Lawrence said. "But to think that you can research it is inconceivable to me. Prayer is presumably a way of addressing God, and there's no way to scientifically test God. God is not subject to scientific research."
Marilyn Schlitz of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, Calif., said the study showed the need for additional research. She is conducting a federally funded study testing the power of prayer to help wounds heal.
"The fact that the vast majority of people in this country make use of prayer or some type of compassionate intention really demands that we look at these phenomena with rigorous scientific perspective," she said.
hi CI,
Yes, this article has been posted before.
Apparently you didn't read or didn't understand my criticism of this 'study'.
It isn't a scientific study for many reasons, the simplest of which is that there was no standardization of what was purportedly measured.
Do you understand why that would be important in a scientific study?
There are many factors in praying for someone that can't be taken into account. For example, cleanliness, the method, the inner desire, etc. - all these are abstract.
And was mentioned before, no prayer is accepted without salat (worship). If I don't pray my 5 daily prayers and ask day and night for forgiveness or for anything, it will never be answered untill I pray. No good deeds are taken into account without salat (worship). There was an example, even if someone donates as much gold as Gabil Ahoud (the larger mountain Pilgrims use during Hajj) everyday but does not pray, God will not accept a single ounce of it. Salat is essential to faith.
real life wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:That it might work is not caused by their praying. It's been shown by research that prayer has no effect.
No such thing has been 'shown by research'.
There has never been a scientific study of prayer.
Really? Whats this then?
Quote:H. Benson et al., 'Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients', American Heart Journal 151: 4, 2006, 934-42.
And what result did it come up with?
Quote:Dr Benson and his team monitored 1,802 patients at six hospital, all of whom received coronary bypass surgery. The patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 received prayers and didn't know. Group 2 (the control group) received no prayers and didn't know it. Group 3 received prayers and did know it. The comparison between Groups 1 and 2 tests for the efficacy of intercessory prayer. Group 3 tests for possible psychosomatic effects of knowing that one is being prayed for.
Prayers were delivered by the congregations of three churches, one in Minnesota, one in Massachusetts and one in Missouri, all distant from the three hospitals. The praying individuals were given only the first name and initial letter of the surname of each patient for whome they were to pray. It is good experimental practice to standardize as far as possible, and they were all, accordingly, told to include in their prayers the phrase 'for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications'.
The results, reported in the American Heart Journal of April 2006, were clear cut. There was no difference between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not. What a surprise. There was a difference between those who knew they had been prayed for and those who did not know one way or the other; but it went in the wrong direction. Those who knew they had been the beneficiaries of prayer suffered significantly more complications than those who did not. Was God doing a bit of smiting, to show his disapproval of the whole barmy enterprise? It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for sufffered additional stress in consequence: 'performance anxiety', as the experimenters put it. Dr Charles Bethea, one of the researchers, said 'It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?' In today's litigious society, is it too much to hope that those patients suffering heart complications, as a consequence of knowing they were receiving experimental prayers, might put together a class action lawsuit against the Templeton Foundation? (sponsors of the experiment)
from Prof Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion".
Steve 41oo wrote:real life wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:That it might work is not caused by their praying. It's been shown by research that prayer has no effect.
No such thing has been 'shown by research'.
There has never been a scientific study of prayer.
Really? Whats this then?
Quote:H. Benson et al., 'Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients', American Heart Journal 151: 4, 2006, 934-42.
And what result did it come up with?
Quote:Dr Benson and his team monitored 1,802 patients at six hospital, all of whom received coronary bypass surgery. The patients were divided into three groups. Group 1 received prayers and didn't know. Group 2 (the control group) received no prayers and didn't know it. Group 3 received prayers and did know it. The comparison between Groups 1 and 2 tests for the efficacy of intercessory prayer. Group 3 tests for possible psychosomatic effects of knowing that one is being prayed for.
Prayers were delivered by the congregations of three churches, one in Minnesota, one in Massachusetts and one in Missouri, all distant from the three hospitals. The praying individuals were given only the first name and initial letter of the surname of each patient for whome they were to pray. It is good experimental practice to standardize as far as possible, and they were all, accordingly, told to include in their prayers the phrase 'for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications'.
The results, reported in the American Heart Journal of April 2006, were clear cut. There was no difference between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not. What a surprise. There was a difference between those who knew they had been prayed for and those who did not know one way or the other; but it went in the wrong direction. Those who knew they had been the beneficiaries of prayer suffered significantly more complications than those who did not. Was God doing a bit of smiting, to show his disapproval of the whole barmy enterprise? It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for sufffered additional stress in consequence: 'performance anxiety', as the experimenters put it. Dr Charles Bethea, one of the researchers, said 'It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?' In today's litigious society, is it too much to hope that those patients suffering heart complications, as a consequence of knowing they were receiving experimental prayers, might put together a class action lawsuit against the Templeton Foundation? (sponsors of the experiment)
from Prof Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion".
The article makes it clear that there was only superficial standardization ( each praying participant had to include the same single phrase ).
So obviously this study also was not scientific in any real sense of the word.
Only a veneer of standardization was fluffed on to try to claim respectability. What a joke.
The book obviously dealt with delusion, but it apparently had more to do with what the author and his intended audience thought was scientific.
I agree real life. This is more of a joke than a scientific study.
How do you pick people to pray and how do you give them the words to pray.
Prayer is a very personal thing and it also depends on the spiritual maturity and attitude of those who pray. It is not like reading a passage in a book or something.
Those who lack experience of faith will never understand.
Intrepid wrote:
Those who lack experience of faith will never understand.
God has already set a seal on their conscience. They will keep rejecting everything you try to convince them with when in reality it's the truth.
As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). (Quran 2:6-7)
Faith proves to mean any scientific finding that refutes their beliefs is faulty, because we don't believe as they do.
Logic gone haywire.
Raul-7 wrote:God has already set a seal on their conscience. They will keep rejecting everything you try to convince them with when in reality it's the truth.
As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). (Quran 2:6-7)
What does a person have to do in order to have Faith?
Raul-7 wrote:Intrepid wrote:
Those who lack experience of faith will never understand.
God has already set a seal on their conscience. They will keep rejecting everything you try to convince them with when in reality it's the truth.
As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). (Quran 2:6-7)
Ahh! So it is allah's fault that some have no faith. That makes a great deal of sense I suppose.
mesquite wrote:Raul-7 wrote:Intrepid wrote:
Those who lack experience of faith will never understand.
God has already set a seal on their conscience. They will keep rejecting everything you try to convince them with when in reality it's the truth.
As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). (Quran 2:6-7)
Ahh! So it is allah's fault that some have no faith. That makes a great deal of sense I suppose.
I thought exactly the same then read ..and you said it!
What a load of nonsense it all is. So Allah this omnipotent omniscient ever present God of the Arabs determines that those who do not believe in him will not believe in him and hence deserve eternal torture in hell. What sort of an all merciful god is that? Why does the all merciful Allah wilfully condemn the majority of humanity to eternal damnation for following their own Gods/goddesses or indeed none at all? Islam is insane. You have a serious mental health issue Raul if you really believe that the first man God made was 60 miles/metres/millimetres/cubits/marshmallows tall.
real life wrote:The article makes it clear that there was only superficial standardization ( each praying participant had to include the same single phrase ).
So obviously this study also was not scientific in any real sense of the word.
Only a veneer of standardization was fluffed on to try to claim respectability. What a joke.
Would you like to provide an example of a standardized prayer technique that would pass muster?
mesquite, Good q. The following q becomes, at what point does a prayer get listened to and answered by god? The basic requirements.
cicerone imposter wrote:mesquite, Good q. The following q becomes, at what point does a prayer get listened to and answered by god? The basic requirements.
I gave the definitive answer elsewhere
try to find it
The answer would be they get heard when you are doing everything "God's" way. Not perfect mind you. But are sincerely seeking this "God" as "He" sees it and your heart surrendered completely to Jesus.
They do not get heard when you are evil, caniving, wicked heathen who don't give a rats arse about a "God" or "His kingdom". Or if you stop serving "Him". Or if you forget to repent for something for too long. Or if you don't go to church enough. Or if you don't tithe. Or if you don't speak in tongues. Or if you smoke or drink. Or if you don't dress just right. Hmm... better stop there. :wink:
Intrepid wrote:I agree real life... This is more of a joke than a scientific study.
Quote:H. Benson et al., 'Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients', American Heart Journal 151: 4, 2006, 934-42.
So the
American Heart Journal publishes papers like this for a joke? For a laugh...ha ha well it was April, perhaps it was
April 1st. This was a serious scientific study RL/Intrepid and despite the bias of its authors, their honesty compelled them to publish results not favourable to their cause.
cicerone imposter wrote:Faith proves to mean any scientific finding that refutes their beliefs is faulty, because we don't believe as they do.
Logic gone haywire.
Why do you say this? Some scientific findings are arrived at in a purely scientific way. This study is not one of them.
One must "study" before one can understand science. It's a process to investigate natural phenomenon that can be repeated to provide consistency in results or conclusions.
Posted: Some scientific findings are arrived at in a purely scientific way.
BINGO!
