Atheists: do you know scientific studies have shown the effectiveness of intercessory prayer?

Question

Here are two:

Byrd, Randolph. 1988. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Population," Southern Medical Journal 81:7.

Harris, W.S., M. Gowda, J.W. Colby, C.P. Strycharz, J.L. Varck, P.G. Jones, et el., 1999. "A randomized control trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit." Archives of Internal Medicine, 159.


So do you actually familiarize yourself with the scientific literature on a subject before you make pronouncements, or do you just have dogmatic opinions like fundamentalists? Is that a scientific attitude?

Acid Zebra, maybe you want to cite this, too:

Dossey, Larry. "Prayer and Medical Science: A Commentary on the Prayer Study by Harris et al and a Response to Critics." Archives of Internal Medicine, Jun 2000; 160: 1735 - 1738.

A storm of controversy? I'm perfectly happy with a "storm of controversy" in a journal associated with the AMA. That's what *science* usually is: a storm of controversy. Read Kuhn's "Structures of Scientific Revolutions." The old paradigm defends itself to the death until enough anomalous phenomena are observed that ad hoc extensions can't salvage it anymore, and then a new paradigm emerges.

Red Mage -- "I don't care what scientific data you have on prayer" -- pretty much says it all. What if the effectiveness of intercessory prayer is the result of an as-yet poorly understood natural phenomenon that could be more effective if properly investigated?

Answer 1

I have read those but there are many more that indicate prayer doesn't work.

I work in an intensive care unit and have never seen someone terminally ill get better from prayer.

I like that you backed yourself up with studies. I may not agree with you, but it gives you more credibility and relevance.

Answer 2

Here is the most comprehensive one to date. It included 1800 patients and a control group and fixed some of the objections from the scientific community to the earlier studies you sighted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338be4900000&ei=5088

As you can see the control group actually faired slightly better. There are other studies around the same time as yours that had different results and most scientists write off the studies you site as the placebo effect since the group being prayed for knew because adequate care was not taken in either study. The groups were also considerably smaller and as you can tell from the newer study it is possible to get statistical anomiallies in groups about 10X as large since the control group did better..

Answer 3

If you are going to quote a 1999 article be sure to include the followups.

From the Archives of Internal Medicine, 2000;160:1735-1738
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/160/12/1872-a?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=intercessory+prayer&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

In the recent article by Harris et al,1 the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on the medical course of patients in the coronary care unit (CCU) had borderline statistical significance at best. Of 40 measures (35 Mid America Heart Institute–Cardiac Care Unit [MAHI-CCU] score components, the weighted and unweighted overall MAHI-CCU scores, length of CCU stay, length of hospital stay, and Byrd score), 2 were significant (P<.05). One in 20 is classically what one would expect to be significant by chance; the 2 significant measures reported by Harris et al were the overall MAHI-CCU scores—essentially the same thing.

In fact, the whole article drew a storm of criticism:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/search?fulltext=intercessory+prayer&quicksearch_submit.x=0&quicksearch_submit.y=0

But I bet you are not so interested in that, right? You only wanted the part that sounded good. Like the bible, you can't just cherry pick the bits you like. You have to take the good with the bad. Science requires you to look at all the available evidence.

update: could you take the trouble to actually find these items and link to them? It can't be that hard, I managed it. I will look at all the sides but if you have read them you will know it is slow going. It's not like the Daily Telegraph paper.

update update: I also can't believe you cite what is obviously a very controversial story and pretend it is unbiased fact: "do you know scientific studies have shown the effectiveness of intercessory prayer". Misrepresentation, anyone?

Answer 4

Referencing Rev Red Mage's response:

Yeah, how would prayer help an amputee? Where are the statistics on that one? Up to date, I've heard of no amputees growing limbs.

I have to chuckle, but so far, this is correct!

Though, I will not stop at this and will examine the studies of both sides myself.

Wonderful questions with studies to back it up, as always.

Answer 5

I would have to look it up, but there are other studies that showed the opposite. One study even showed that the outcome is worse for those who were aware they were being prayed for.

I am glad you brought up some interesting articles and cited your source. I wish there were more like you on the board.

Answer 6

Scientific studies have also shown evidence that homosexuality is a natural, inborn trait, strait out of the genetic handbook. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

Answer 7

I've never seen that one. I have seen the one done in Boston that shows how ineffective it is, and how more complications arose because of it.

I will, of course, look into it. That's the difference between the atheists and the Fundies. We will look at the "proofs" from the other side and assess them before we make a decision on them. Fundies automatically declare it of Satan before they even look at any evidence that goes against them.

Answer 8

OK...

So, the next time you get sick, don't go to the doctor, and don't buy any OTC medicines. Just get on your knees and pray about it.

Maybe if more believers did that, insurance rates wouldn't be so high.

Answer 9

One question.

So what??

I don't care what scientific data you have on prayer... it's all metrics. No matter how hard you pray for someone with a terminal illness, they're going to die. Prayer isn't all that effective, skippy... why won't God heal amputees?

Answer 10

my reasons for being athiest are not scientific, nice try. and i will always be athiest.