Slashdot Mirror
Prayer Does Not Help Heart Patients
mu22le writes "A recent study conducted by the Duke University Medical Center on 700 patients, found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. Researchers emphasized their work does not address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf.
This result seems to contradict a previous study by the same authors that reported "cardiac patients who received intercessory prayer in addition to coronary stenting appeared to have better clinical outcomes than those treated with standard stenting therapy alone"."
What is the point of this study? Its not like it is going to convince the millions of people who don't like mixing science with their religion that they shouldn't waste time praying for their loved ones. Those people can trust science to make more fuel efficient SUVs, better bombs for Iraq and cure diseases. But when it proves that the earth is round, that the universe is 13-15 billion years old and that prayer doesn't really do anything, they think its hogwash.
And the people who scientifically minded already think that this fact is just plain obvious.
So while a study like this may be a amuzing anecdote, in the end its completely pointless.
In 3....2....1.....
You say you want a revolution....
In other news... wishing upon a star will not make dreams come true. Details at 11.
Where's your Messiah now?
**whump**
I could give a shit what this study says as any positive focused thoughts such as prayer & meditation absolutely do help. Does this mean its based on some godly force? Heck no, it is just the power of positive thinking.
Giving people a reason to think good thoughts about others is what we should be doing, not shooting down another avenue for people to feel good.
Now that they have two conflicting results they'll need a new grant to conduct another study so they can conclude which of their first two studies was correct. Yay! 5 more years of research funding.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
"Prayer Does Not Help Heart Patients"
Well 'Duh'!
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
Praying for loved ones may not physically help a loved one, but certainly helps the mental state of the patient and their family. I don't think anyone ever expects a miracle, but if it helps any one, in any manner, then more power to them.
btw, I dare ANY body who's watched a loved one suffer to deny that they said a few words to God 'Just in case'. It certainly can't hurt. I'm not religious, but I've been there.
As summed up on BoingBoing.. Maybe they were praying to the wrong god?
-- jimmycarter
Talking to your imaginary friend probably doesn't help either.
Ed Almos
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
Remember that there were different results when the patient was told they were being prayed for. Once that's done, it introduces an interesting twist:
They're praying for me? Oh, crap, I must be a goner.
Sure enough, those who were told they were being prayed for had more complications than those who weren't told.
On a more serious note, I think it's important to do this as a counter to the other "experiments" that showed that prayer helped people. Science is about reproducing results. If a scientist claims something is true, it's the obligation of others to prove them wrong or back up the findings.
'positive thinking' and other techniques of 'focused thought' can even allow people to convince themselves beyond all doubt of things which they want to believe, but which are patently untrue..
my password really is 'stinkypants'
The religious will just claim that God doesn't like working in a controlled environment.
That prayer still works for all other non heart-bypass related maladies? Way to go!
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
From the article:
The prayer portion of the randomization was double-blinded, meaning that patients and their care team did not know which patients were receiving intercessory prayer. Per Institutional Review Board policies governing clinical research, all patients were aware that they might be prayed for by people they did not know, from a variety of faiths.
While double-blind tests are generally a good idea, perhaps another study should be carried out in which the patients themselves know whether people are praying for them (perhaps including people they know, as well as people of the faith they request). The increased optimism and placebo effect may produce something desireable (not saying it will, but it might be worth a study by the same people who expended their resources on this one).
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
And yet ... Weekly religious attendance nearly as effective as statins and exercise in extending life, according to a story today at Science Blog.
As a heart patient myself, it always gave me a mental boost to know that others were taking time to pray for me when I had to go in for surgery. Even though prayer may not directly affect the outcome of a surgery, letting the patient know that there are people who care about them can make a big difference.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Prayer comes from the heart, and can't be done in a cold and scientific manner in the name of research. Or at least that's what I have come to think very religious people would probably think. This disregards what I consider to be the main way spirituality helps too. It gives people hope and strengthens them. Mind over matter isn't just a useless saying, it's a pretty significant tool in medical recovery as I understand.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
...I generally avoid large metal structures. It has worked for me so far.
Marshall Brain of How Stuff Works fame wrote a little book called Why Won't God Heal Amputees? (The Most Important Question We Can Ask about God).
Chapter Five deals with the title question and is especially pertinent to this discussion. There are some minor flaws with the conclusions drawn, but I have written the author about these and he intends to address them; they don't really detract from the conclusion.
A highly recommended read. A little wordy at times, but that is because it is trying to be conversational with a potentially hostile audience (I think).
Yes and I'm sure they'll be just thrilled to hear that.
come on, i mean...come on... i can understand that in the world you cant always be the first but showing this article that's 4 days old is making slashdot look like a retard.
. ap/index.html/
This topic was actually covered last thursday on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/03/30/prayer.study
which you can prove by looking at what fark.com (http://www.fark.com/ published last thursday (30/04/06). (looking at the date on the CNN article is also a proof).
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
... after all, he's not a tame lion!
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Recently when my sister-inlaw was diagnosed with lukemia my wife and I were left stunned. We had chosen to live half way around the world, too expensive to travel when most of our family was still there to comfort her.
We instead decided to take our prayers to the Wester Wall (HaKotell), as jews have done for thousands of years. It's one incedent, and no basis for a conclusive "Prayer Works" post. But it did at least let us do something, other than sit and worry.
What is the alternative of a loved one to prayer? Nothing, nadda, zilch. Prayer may help, it may not. But if it's a choice between possibly useless prayer and definetly useless worrying, prayer makes more sense. (Pascals wager) If nothing else it makes you feel better.
I would be curriuos to know if there is a difference in stress related illnesses between people who pray (in one form or another) and those who dont. I know for me the worst source of stress is to have a problem and no pragmatic way to affect it.
I would rather be ashes than dust!
I don't want to have to make this point, but I feel obligated in light of all the Smug that's about to enter the thread -- but this study isn't really useful for debunking anything except the previous "studies" that it did help patients. "Prayer is more about changing the person doing the praying, than about bringing changes to world events." "Even if all the things that people prayed for happened -- which they do not -- this would not prove what Christians mean by the efficacy of prayer. For prayer is request. The essence of request, as distinct from compulsion, is that it may or may not be granted. And if an infinitely wise Being listens to the requests of finite and foolish creatures, of course He will sometimes grant and sometimes refuse them. Invariable "success" in prayer would not prove the Christian doctrine at all. It would prove something more like magic -- a power in certain human beings to control, or compel, the course of nature." (C.S. Lewis) I'm not religious by any means, but I think Lewis has a fair point.
From the article:
"Patients treated with "two-tiered" prayer had absolute six-month death and re-hospitalization rates that were about 30 percent lower than control patients, statistically characterized as a suggestive trend."
"Six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT."
So, prayer did have a statistically significant benefit, according to the study. Note that the entities prayed to were drawn from many religions, suggesting that the act of prayer is the important thing, not so much entity prayed to. So you should be fine praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"I'm not, like, that smart. I, like, forget stuff all the time." -- Paris Hilton
Cthulhu was displeased with the family's offerings.
Unfortunatley since they awoken the great Ancient one with their pleas for mercy, the heart patients and their family (and next of kin and family pets) will be eaten first and slowly.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I don't know how many flamewars I'm going to have to go through before the message starts sinking in, but because I'm an obstinate fellow I always seem to be good for at least one more. There are two main points: 1 - You can be devoutly religious and also logical/rational/scientific. 2 - Some "scientific" and anti-religious people are just as bigotted, and illogical as the religious nuts.
1 - Devoutly Religious and Also Scientific
Where's the big surprise here? Take a look at the Jesuits. In other surveys, the level of activity a Mormon has in his or her religion is actually positively correlated to the level of education. There are tons of religious doctors, lawyers, physicists, etc. I'm a statistician moving into systems engineering - and I have no trouble at all distinguishing between religious beliefs and scientific beliefs. This point is so obvious I shouldn't even have to bother restating it.
2 - The "Scientific" Bigots
It's pretty simple. You can be religious and you can be bigot (or not). You can be a scientist and you can be a bigot (or not). Anyone that thinks that being a scientist somehow frees people from their biases and prejudices needs to do a little research into things like eugenice. Hell, even setting aside nasty racism and such there's the simple fact that scientists, mathematicians, etc. are people. They have egos. They like to be right. And a lot of the time they don't care whether they're stating their opinion based on research or based on personal bias. They should - but they don't.
Anyone that believes in "blind faith" - the type of faith that essentially amounts to wishful thinking - is a religious nut in my opinion. There's no logical basis for this type of theology, but it is nonetheless extremely prevalent in American society. But there are also those who believe that faith should be reasonable or who at least make an interesting case for blind faith. Existentalist philosophy, for example, was started by Christian theologians like Kierkegaard.
In short, I'm sick of this tired old bullshit: Those people can trust science to make more fuel efficient SUVs, better bombs for Iraq and cure diseases. But when it proves that the earth is round, that the universe is 13-15 billion years old and that prayer doesn't really do anything, they think its hogwash. Those nutjobs are a SUBSET of religious people. A proper subset, if you want to get technical.
Meanwhile: And the people who scientifically minded already think that this fact is just plain obvious. is just plain wrong. Plenty of scientifically minded people believe in the efficacy (under certain conditions) of prayer. The types of people who think it's "obvious" that prayer does nothing are (again) a proper subset of scientifically-minded people. And if they think it's obvious, I'm inclined to say they're not really any different, in terms of their fanatic dogmaticism, than the religious nuts they criticize.
It comes to this: I don't care if you're religious or an atheist. All I want to see is that you're not a knee-jerk adherent of whatever worldview you subscribe too. It's the reason that people believe - more than the object they believe in - that really matters. As long as you believe rationally and honestly - you're always in a position to be proved wrong, admit mistakes, and develop improvements to your own worldview. But if you are dogmatic in your belief system then you are doomed to perpetual, slavish obedicance to concepts you never question or challenge. I don't care of those concepts are Newtonian physics, Einsteinian physics, quantum physics, or the 10 Commandments. It's the slavish obediance itself that I find most reprehensible and dangerous.
-storrmin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
I read a couple of days ago that the Pope and all his toadies were supposed to have been praying for the safe deliverance of that 17-month-old baby that got kidnapped (and subsequently killed).
Looks like his hotline to God must be running through a dodgy telco...
*ducks*
But we can PROVE that 2+2=4, you can't PROVE God exists.
Unless you can. And if you can, please do... I'll be waiting.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
Now me, I'm a confirmed Agnostic. And I'm not going to attempt to pester what ever supreme being there is out there to cure my ailing Grandpa (who has lead a long and rewarding life). But what effect does praying have on the participants in the study?
Anecdotally speeking, if two men go into the hospital for open heart surgeries, and one wive prays and the other doesn't, is there any statistical link between the praying wife and non-praying wife when it comes to their own health? Will praying for a loved one reduce stress or reduce depression?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
There was a group that was told that someone was praying for them. They actually did worse than everyone else. So much for desireable effects.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Of course the real problem is that God is too busy helping rappers get their bling bling. This is obvious if you've ever watched a music awards show.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Science's task is to test hypotheses.
The belief that prayer has beneficial medical effects is a widlely-held hypothesis that can be tested.
The results of such a test could improve treatment and life in general. Therefore, it's a worthwhile pursuit.
That *you* think it's silly doesn't change anything. Much sillier theories have been put to the test -- and gotten unexpected results.
Tom Geller
Seems to me the summary doesn't match TFA (big surprise). Which makes me think all the smug "well, duh" respondents didn't RTFA. Another surprise.
"The researchers found no significant differences among the treatment groups in the primary composite endpoint. However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT."
How is a decreased 6-month death rate not helpful?
-1 redundent
From the article: "The researchers noted 89 percent of the patients in this study also knew of someone praying for them outside of the study protocol altogether."
So much for control!!! The study is invalid on this alone.
A friend of ours has the ultimate rejoinder to telephone psychics:
"If they were really psychic, they'd call you!"
Several years back, when I knew this friend was coming over for dinner, I arranged with a female co-worker to call her at our house, and begin with, "Hello (name), I'm a psychic, and you're having a problem with..." (I filled the co-worker in with a not-too-personal problem.) Something came up, and the whole thing fell through. Darn.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
quite a diverse group: Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists. Are prayers heard equally from everyone?
As somewhat of a Catholic I'd prefer a convent of nuns pray for me rather than a monastery of Buddhist monks.
Perhaps the real reason is that the people studied were not worthy of divine intervention? Did anyone check their level of evil before praying for them?
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
A similar study was done in the UK a while back. They also wanted to test if being prayed for could extend life. However, they had a flash of inspiration that allowed them to eliminate all the messing around finding experimental subjects, setting up control groups etc..
The idea was simple but brilliant. They realised that as Britain was a monarchy, the Royal Family must be the subject of an awful lot of prayers. So they just looked at the average age that members of the Royal Family lived to and compared it against the national average.
It turned out that members of the Royal Family did indeed live longer than average, thereby proving the power of prayer!
Results of this study or *test* are not surprising really...
Matthew chapter 4 anybody? Hmm? Thou shall not what?
Note: This sig contains nine S's, nine I's and five O's which... means absolutely nothing.
Not too many people, even among "fundamentalists," are so wound up in their faith that they'd say the "You didn't pray enough" version out loud... we hope. The assertion is always there, though, implicit in the stories of those who were spared a death from cancer or whatever, when they attribute the results to prayer.
Another example that always makes me sick to my stomach is people who, after surviving an airline disaster or something like that, tell us "God must have had plans for me in order to spare me this way." You've just emerged from a disaster in which a whole bunch of people around you died horribly abruptly. What you're saying amounts to "God didn't have plans for those other people, I must be special." Imagine how that makes the families of those other people feel. I know, it's an emotional time, but think about what you're freaking saying. That's not about God, it's about self-absorption.
So as you say -- it's not just the right to consolation that's being asserted, here, is it? It's something a liiiiittle bit more aggressive than that. Like, say, the right to evangelize based on a tragedy, or on an illness.
And getting back to our study, the people funding this stuff are on both sides of the "faith" wall. There are plenty of folks wanting to show a double-blind study that proves prayer is effective, for reasons to do with asserting the earthly power of their God.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
They should do a similar study on the ability to recover data off of a hard drive. I know I've said a few prayers as I wait for the unit to spin up. A few requiems, too, actually. Sure seems like it helps, but I'd try anything. Chicken blood and pentagrams if I thought it'd work.
--
$tar -xvf
He's not a slot machine or a bottled genie granting wishes. The problem is that you don't know a priori what He will do in response to prayer or non-prayer in the case of the experimental and control group, respectively. What you need is that the control group be outside of His jurisdiction - but no such persons exist.
btw, I dare ANY body who's watched a loved one suffer to deny that they said a few words to God 'Just in case'. It certainly can't hurt. I'm not religious, but I've been there.
And that's how they catch people.
Like a pedophile, religious prosyletists seek out those who are neglected, vunerable, fearful and in search of some kind of solace. They groom them with tales of a happy afterlife and that praying can help them get what they want. Finally they win them over completely, body and mind and use their new converts to seduce others. Those who are not converted, or eventually break free, are left scarred and violated by the expierience.
Unlike pedophiles however, the activities of religious prosyletists are not only lawful, but are in many countries constitutionally protected from arrest of any kind. Even if such activities include pedophillia, as in the case of the Catholic Church, an organisation which, despite facilitating the abuse of thousands of children, is still allowed to operate in every country such abuse has taken place in.
Essentially, religion is a gigantic legal loophole by which one can get away with; just about anything. Studies like this only serve to show how inappropriate, useless, and counterproductive protection of religion really is. These people would be better off doing something concrete and valid instead of wasting time and energy "praying".
May the Maths Be with you!
btw, I dare ANY body who's watched a loved one suffer to deny that they said a few words to God 'Just in case'. It certainly can't hurt. I'm not religious, but I've been there.
True. The trouble in this case is knowing just which god to pray to!
Just to be sure, I be sure to hit most of the major Greek gods, the major Roman gods, Yahweh (old and new testament variants), Allah, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Vishnu, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I figure the odds of there only being one true god, and it being some obscure god I didn't pick, are even lower than the odds of there being *any* gods, so I'm probably safe. If you really want to be sure, though, you better go down the whole list -- coming up with a way to appease the gods that hate the other gods on your list, of course.
I believe God hears all prayers, even if the answer is 'No.'
-sid
It may be that while prayer doesn't do anything for the outcome of a patient, it and other rituals do wonders for everyone else. We go to weddings, funerals, baby showers, and celebrate things like Halloween and Easter. I'm not religious, but I very much appreciate those rituals in my life. It's something to look forward to and enjoy, moments of stability in an otherwise chaotic life.
Instead of praying, our family tends to get together to eat and talk. We may be plumper for it, but it's a much tastier experience.
You miss the point, no amount of scientific studies are going to convince believers that their belief system is false. That's the whole point of the disease of religion - it convinces people something that is demonstrably false. An appropriate quote:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" - Mark Twain
Does this state that the heart patient actually prayed or someone prayed for them? I am a firm believer that your own laughter, prayer, and positive thinking DO in fact help. But if someone is praying for you I am not quite sure how that would necessarily help if you don't prayer yourself. You have to believe in the prayer FIRST.
"...having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery"
No shit? And there was I thinking it might! Duh... just goes to show, eh?
I'll first admit that I didn't read the *whole* article, but in what I skimmed over, I saw nothing regarding the patients' beliefs. If they wanted to be thorough, they'd have had 4 groups:
1) a non-religious patient with no one praying for them
2) a non-religious patient with people praying for them
3) a religious patient with no one praying for them
4) a religious patient with people praying for them
They could have been even more throrough and had intermixing of the patient's religious beliefs and that of those praying for them...but all in all, my guess is that those in group 4 (above) would have the best rate of recovery, mainly due to the "mind over matter" factor and the ability of the mind to heal the body in ways that still baffle scientists and physicians.
1 is the square root of all evil.
See, I was going to do a huge study and monitor the prayers by type. I'd have a bunch of Baptists pray for one set of patients, Methodists another, Mormons, Anglicans, Mennonites, etc.
This would finally determine scientifically who God listens to, then we can kill the rest as infidels.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I read the original report a few days ago and it's been milling around in my head for some time. I've come to the conclusion that the study is flawed because of the Hawthorne Effect.
If a subject knows it is being studied, the outcome is affected. If there is a God, he/she/it outght to be aware of the study being performed if he/she/it has the power to heal somebody. Therefore, the study is fundamentally flawed and the results should be discredited by any real scientists.
-THE END-
Speaking as an atheist who watched his devout wife die slowly over a seven-year period, of course prayer doesn't help the sick. But it does give comfort to the ones doing the praying, which is not a bad thing. If someone believes in God and can get even a false sense of comfort from it, then far be it from me to try and dissuade them from prayer.
Interesting paragraph in the article mentioned seems to completely contradict the poster's point...
The researchers found no significant differences among the treatment groups in the primary composite endpoint. However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT. Patients treated with bedside MIT also showed changes in self-rated emotional distress prior to catheterization and stenting.
I wonder who was prejudicing the report...
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." - Steven Jay Gould "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked him to forgive me." - Emo Philips "The basic need for faith, in something, by far exceeds the need to keep one's worldview intellectually honest." - Someone on Slashdot whose name I don't remember.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
I've been content for the past several years to just read /. and never participate, but I want to respond to this issue. My youngest son spent the first 3 years of his life undergoing a series of open heart operations at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. I am a christian, and I believe in prayer. We received emails, letters, phone calls from people we didn't know, all over the world, who were praying for my son. Belief in prayer requires a belief in God, something that many slashdotter's seem to think is naive, and pointless. In my time at CHOP, and the Ronald McDonald House, I saw several kids not make it. By our last visit, I felt like we were running a gauntlet. I really think that my own sanity was starting to fray. Maybe prayer didn't affect my son's survival, maybe it did. I don't understand how it works. I do know that it helped me survive: just knowing how many people cared about my son, and were asking God to spare him; I knew that there was nothing I could do for my son, that I was helpless in this situation. I had to give it to God, the surgeons, the cardiologists, the amazing nursing staff.
Does this make me weak-minded? Am I foolish to have faith?
The problem is that no Christian who is not completely theologically naive is going to suppose that their prayer can make God do something. God does what God chooses to do, according to his own logic. That's why the Lord's prayer opens with (my translation):
There is, right from the start, a recognition that the answer to prayer is at God's will (or whim if you prefer).In other words, prayer is not a deterministic process. You don't push a "pray" button and reliably expect a certain action from God. God's will is much more important than the will of the person praying. Because of this, prayer is not really susceptible to statistical analysis: God knows not just what you're praying, but why, and he has his own agenda that's perhaps rather different from yours. Worse, this sort of analysis generally cannot distinguish between "impossible" and "rare". Perhaps God only answers prayers for Anabaptists, or Pentecostals, or that truly dedicated fraction of the church that actually has better morals, lower divorce rates, and is what really keeps the church going. This sort of "fringe" reaction is going to be quite difficult to detect in the sort of study done.
Why pray then? Perhaps for the same reason that death row inmates keep petitioning the governor, even though clemency is rare indeed: ultimately, there are circumstances in which only God has the power to do something, and once in a great while he does, for reasons that we find inscrutable. More importantly, for we Christians, Jesus told us to. Of course, just like that death row inmate, we don't /only/ pray. We pray and pursue every other option that we believe can help. But neither do we give up prayer just because it rarely "works" according to our agenda.
One effect, incidentally, is that of maintaining hope. When a person loses hope, they've lost everything.
Now this, of course, leads to a much more complicated problem (viz. theodicy, the study of why God allows suffering and evil.) But I'm certainly not going to tackle that in a slashdot post.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I don't understand the mechanism by which prayer could help. I cannot conceive how G-d could care more about a person prayed about than a person not prayed about. So I can't easily come up with any method, either scientifically or "religiously," where prayer would improve outcomes, (Disclaimer: I'm just a confused citizen of the world, not a theologin) but I pray anyways. If I hear somebody I care about is terribly ill, there's no usually no logical action I can take. Prayer makes me feel a little better about the situation.
I can come up with a way their control group could've been badly polluted. Some, perhaps many, "prayers" may have felt that it would be unethical or uncaring to not pray for the control group. So if every person in the study gets a prayer or two, but the anonymous control is getting the combined prayers of many, well, the control group would get more prayer. "Anonymous" means nothing to an omnipotent, omnipresent G-d.
A priniciple part of any good scientific study is the use of controlled experiments. How do you setup a control group here? You can't expect people not to pray for someone, and you certainly can't be sure they are not. Even if you contact everyone that knows this person (or at least knows their sick), find out they are atheists or get them to sign a contract not to pray, that doesn't exclude the effects of indirect and general prayers for the well-being of others. People pray for groups or people they don't know all the time. There is simply know way to create a real control group for this study.
Now personally, I am an atheist (simply meaning not a theist) and am highly skeptical of anything effect of prayer beyond a social/psychological effect, but it just doesn't seem to be something you can falsify with science; just as you cannot falsify the existance of a god. Even if you get past all of these problems, the believer can just say, "It wasn't the will of god, and that 'he' knew what was best". They certainly can't prove that since no one can know the will of "god", but you can't really disprove such an ad hoc hypothesis either.
Prayer simply becomes a matter of faith. To skeptics, this study shouldn't really matter because it is absurd and a type of question that rationalit cannot really answer. To true believers, it shouldn't really matter because prayer is a matter of faith, and it doesn't matter what anyone else says.
Now, praying may not help the patients. Actually, it won't. Provided that God exists (if he doesn't, the whole thing is moot anyway), he could have avoided the harm in the first place, so why should he change his mind? After all, according to all records he's supposedly omniscient and able to transcend space and time, so he knows things before they happen, and thus he would know whether the person repents or not without the need to resort to cheap tricks like that.
It helps the patient's friend and relatives, though. They feel useless. Helpless. Unable to help their friend/relative. Hell, how do YOU, ordinary person, want to help a human in a serious medical condition when trained specialists, i.e. docs, can't do much? So praying might not help the patient, but it sure as hell helps his peers, giving them a way to deal with it and feel less helpless. Whether God exists or not doesn't even matter. It's something they can do to feel less useless and helpless.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This study does at least show that, if whatever pertinent deity exists, it cares more about its ego than the needs of people who may die as the result of an illness. (Which, because the fact of existence remains hidden, ensures that more people will suffer eternal damnation.) In otherwords, “God” cares les about human life and than about being worshipped by those with superstition. (Which is ironic because if we were created, we were created with logical, thinking minds which drive us to discover cause and effect rather than pursue blind faith.) So whether or not such a supernatural entity exists, we must find ways to advance and rely upon our science rather begging for help from invisible men in the sky.
Join Tor today!
The study, valid as it was, entirely FAILS to support the conclusion that PRAYER does not help heart patients. According to the study, people "were given written prayers and the first name and initial of the last name of the prayer subjects." I'm sorry, but reciting written words does in no way constitute as PRAYER. According to dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prayer), the closest definitions to prayer (as concerning this study) are:
1) A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship.
2) The act of making a reverent petition to God, a god, or another object of worship.
3) A fervent request.
The written prayers may have been elaborate, highly-poetic requests, but that does NOT make them reverent petitions. Even if the written prayers were reverent, they were NOT necessarily prayed reverently or fervently.
By definition, the study fails to support the conclusion.
This is by far the most pitiful attempt I've ever heard of to try to negate the power of prayer. It's a total mockery.
The comment that this study contradicts the results of a previous http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=50 56 stenting study is incorrect. While that study found a different in the number of adverse effects, the difference was not statistically significant. While the headline for the earlier press release suggested some benefit, the study itself did not.
You missed the point. There are religions that fervently believe in the power of prayer. Many states still allow for religious exemptions to medical treatment, because there is a belief that (b) faith-healing is legitimate religious practice, because (b) it is effective. If the latter is false, then the former is in serious trouble. Faith-healing will start to look less like a mere exercise of religious freedom and more like negligence. For example, this kind of study could (and should) have very real consequences for parents who refuse medical care for their children on religious grounds.
God: "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
From the Futurama episode "Godfellas"
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
But reducing cholesterol certainly helps.
Prayer does not help Heart Patients not die.
other things, well, that wasn't studied here.
-- The above may have once been believed by me, but any truth or application you find is your own problem.
I really don't care what all some university's science study says. Several years ago my mother was basically dead from congestive heart failure. After she collapsed and was rushed to the emergency room, the cardiologist could barely detect that she still had a heartbeat at all with an ECG. Two hundred people, family and friends, began praying her fervently and she recovered enough to live three more good years with no brain damage at all much to the doctors amazement. They had no medical explanation at all why she didn't die then and there and was able to live some more useful life as her heart was still only about 3% to 5% functional. The cardiolgist was not a religious man but told us that the only reason why she did not die was due to divine intervention. My mother was able to go shopping, cook, do some household chores, and get fairly well with basically no heart muscle left, and all the valves in her heart totally shot. She was not a transplant candidate at all since she was too old and the rest of her organs were in bad shape too. I'm thoroughly convinced that prayer does indeed work, as I have seen it work first hand, up close and personal. I've also recently experienced God answering another prayer of mine to solve a huge financial burden within 24 hours of my asking, and in a manner that was truly bizzare and too sudden and off-the-wall to be any kind of accident. He has also spoken directly to me in a voice and a picture in a dream-state one morning as I was waking up. He said into my head in a very soft voice "Embrace this woman and you shall live", and showed me a picture of a young woman who is the daughter of one of my friends, and is a single mother who just left a bad relationship. The trouble is, this woman is half my age, I'm not really interested in raising someone else's kid and I'm not even particularly attracted to her. If you are a believer, please pray for me, as you can imaging I'm struggling with this deal.
What about religious choice - was that also cotrolled? Did they have Christians praying for Jews, Buddhists praying for Born agains?
Maybe it was a bandwidth problem - i.e. God only has allocated 50 PPS (prayers per second) for cardiac patients, and God got Slashdotted by the study.
..........FULL STOP.
when you repeat the experiment until you get "proper" results...
Matthew 4:5-7 (New Living Translation)
New Living Translation (NLT)
Holy Bible. New Living Translation copyright © 1996 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers.
5Then the Devil took him to Jerusalem, to the highest point of the Temple, 6and said, "If you are the Son of God, jump off! For the Scriptures say,
`He orders his angels to protect you.
And they will hold you with their hands
to keep you from striking your foot on a stone.'[a] "
7Jesus responded, "The Scriptures also say, `Do not test the Lord your God.'[b] "
It's obvious, God has a financial interest in stenting.
Richard Dawkins claims that the biggest problem with religious faith is that it rewards the suspension of critical thought
The irony of that though, is delicious, is that, in order for science to learn new things, one generally forms a mental of image of how they believe the universe is, and, then, seeks to prove it by producing repeatable results.
Alas, science these days has become a religion in its own right, focused less on the utility of its results, and more on the politically correct interpretation of its findings. Having failed to cure cancer or disease, deliver nuclear fusion, give us flying cars, science is increasingly competing with religion using essentially religious arguments.
"Buy into our way of life, because its better for humanity".
So what, I say, give me a flying car and a cancer cure and nuclear fusion... so I can get to church and then the bar! Until that time, you got nothing!
This is my sig.
Obviously the One True God got pissed off that the researchers couldn't even decide which one of them He was, so He sat this one out.
This study is sham science at its best. It is utterly ridiculous in determining if prayer helps heart patients. It makes the assumption that God is an on-demand service and that if someone prays for something they automatically get it. So I guess they have proved that God does not give us everything we demand. Most religious people don't believe that God just does whatever we tell him, so this doesn't really show anything.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28812/
...doesn't have the ability to know about a study to detect his presence and skew the results?
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Perhaps the all knowing one (read GOD) changed the results becuase he wanted to stay hidden to the study. some food for thought. :P
Think about the conclusion that some of you have drawn: One study conducted by scientists at Duke University involved patients rigidly grouped into categories, where specific prayers were composed and read to some, and not to others. The group that was read the prayer did not do better than the group without the prayer. Therefore, prayer does not work. Therefore God does not exist. Therefore religion is bad. I'm sorry, but the scientific conclusions that some of these posts I've seen are just not scientific at all. If you want to say that prayers ordered to be read by doctors over heart surgery patients does not work, that's fine. That's about all you can draw. Even that's a stretch - it's not been proven that there was no confounding of variables.
Do not mark in this space. For official office use only.
Take away the name and you are still praying to a higher power, be it God, Allah, Buddha, Zeus or King of the Potato People.
I have come to expect so much ignorance and religion bashers on slashdot.
Either threads degrade into "MS is the Devil, Apple/Linux is the greatest" OR
Americans suck OR
people of Faith suck
You ignore the dozens of studies that show that when "people who actually beleive prayer works" pray for quicker/easier/better outcomes, but then when one comes along when a bunch of scientists who probably think its all hogwash "pray" and it doesn't have any significant effect (huh, how about that, what a surprise)
Its NOT about prayer. Its about faith. But carry on as you were, bash what you don't understand, lump all people of faith into "flat earthers" and "evolution haters" and everything else. What ever makes you feel better about your self and your own limited world view.
Maybe one day you will realize logic is the begining of wisdom, not the end. Maybe one day you will realize that the universe and life itself is like an iceberg. Science and analytical thought can only see and understand a small fraction of the whole of existence. Instead of mocking those who at least make an attempt at understanding the rest, maybe you should conduct your own spiritual journeys.
And dont lump all people of faith into the terrible person category because of a few vocal idiots in Kansas or in the middle east or anywhere else.
Even if you do believe in the superstition of religion, all of the current relgions seem to worship cynical and evil 'gods', that are alleged to believe in vengance and terror, and promise consequences if you don't conform. It is telling that relgion is implicated in most of the world's problems, from the warmongering extremism of the unhinged Bush junta, to the fascism of the Zionists in occupied Palestine, and the fundementalism of some of the Islamic regimes in the Middle East.
Little positive can be said about religion, and I certainly wouldn't want someone performing medieval rituals like praying while I was suffering from some serious illness. How stupid can some people be?
Blessed be ye faithful followers of His Noodly Appendage! Disregard this hogwash, your prayers will be answered (in the order they were received)!
If it makes one or both parties feel better, then it is a Good Thing, regardless of the action/inaction of the Higher Power.
God exists outside of time. He doesn't follow the rules of cause and effect. The prayers could be extremely helpful, just not in ways that this experiment was measuring.
Did it ever actually occur to people that:
A) Maybe God has a reason for them not healing faster or what not?
or
B) God is PISSED because he specifically states 'Thou shalt not test thy God' and it seems like we're testing and tempting Him in this situation.
Pointless study.
Assuming God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni theater, what good is Prayer?
If I truly need something, God most likley already knows about it, and it's up to Him if he does anything about it.
If I truly am thankful, God will know.
Moreover, saying Grace always seemed like a cruel joke: Thanks God for making me dependent upon a scarce resource. Sure, food isn't scarce in the U.S. (for unto us was given Agribiz, and it was deemed good by the markets...) but it is scarce elsewhere.
The biggest failure is the prayer for peace. Every Sunday Charlantan says "Pray for Peace," but it never comes. And, based upon the ministerial world view, the Peace they want is completely different than the peace a different faith wants.
Prayer as a meditation? Now, that sounds a good thing. Reflect on the days events. Question if I'm really doing the right thing. Probably not a bad thing. But asking the Holy Game Show Host for stuff? Well, seems like a waste of everyone's time.
Nowadays you can do a study to prove anything.
God created man in his own image, but somehow he evolved into a hairless monkey.
No self respecting creationist denies that species adapt to different environmental conditions, such as new drugs.
This is called the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
No suprise. The "healing touch" etc etc. etc. stuff essentially comes down to weather or not you (as the patient) need a little extra push to be ok. Nothing fancy their- All it realy says is that misery loves company. and having friends and family, around while you recover psychologicly is benificial. No need for fancy psychobabel.
... finally.
Now i have to confess that i wanted to make a bad G.W. Bush joke.
How exactly did they control for divine intervention. Was there a no-prayer group? How do we know someone didn't secretly pray for someone in the no-prayer group and mess up the results? Did they receive a placebo prayer - where it looked like someone was praying for them but they were really praying for the marmot in the backyard, or peace on earth or the killing of lots of non-US people in iraq?
Prayer works under the following conditions... 1) Person being prayed for knows they are being prayed for 2) Person being prayed for is a "believer" 3) Person being prayed for has a positive and hopeful outlook Otherwise, praying is useless... because there is no God. What is real is the power of the human mind to heal your own body.
Meh.
All this "proves" is that God will reveal Himself in His own terms.
Think about it:
And we pat ourselves on the back for being logical...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Prayers are telemarketing calls to God. He ignored most of them and was mildly offended by the ones that got through- hence more post-op complications.
God does heal people with amelias (congential) and amputations (acquired). Such healing works not by regenerating the missing limb but by helping the person to learn to work with what he or she still has. So if you're born looking like one of the Weebles, God helps you not fall down.
I'm going to take off my scientific-mind hat for a moment and put on my christian hat.
/me takes off christianity hat.
You're right. This is pointless because the data is tainted and useless.
Why? Because it isn't a controlled environment. For accuracy in a study you need to be able to replicate a situation, and this isn't it. The reason is that you cannot measure, as a human being, the state of one's spirit during prayer. What I mean by this is that if you claim christianity (if you're an aetheist, I'll respect that, but this won't apply to you), then you must have a working faith for prayer of this magnitude to have much effect. Our relationship with God is not one where we give the orders and God does what we tell h im to do. Prayer is our opportunity to communicate a willingness to do God's will for us, not the other way around. If his will is for us to be healed, and we our receptive to his will, then so be it.
That said, it is interesting to note that near the end of the book of James, James' letter states that the elders of the church should be doing the prayer in the situation, annointing the one being prayed for with oil as a symbol of their faith and willingness, the presumption being that if anyone within the chruch would have a heart for the Lord and know how to appropriately pray in such an instance, it should be the elders, and (in theory) the elders would have an appropriately working faith.
So, yes, the study is flawed. Things start to fluctuate wildly when you try to throw a being we don't understand and the vast majority of us don't personally know into the equation. As another poster mentioned as well, the "Observer Effect" may come into play here as well. God generally doesn't appreciate being judged for measured himself, as he deems himself (rightfully so) above judegement.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Unlike pedophiles however, the activities of religious prosyletists are not only lawful, but are in many countries constitutionally protected from arrest of any kind.
Lawful Evil, huh?
That's why I only pray to Heironeous.
Who will be eaten first?.
"Who's going to believe a talking head?" - Herbert West
> Concrete and valid? What for? If we're just self-aware animals, if death is the end of everything and the universe has no meaning, anything we do is for nothing.
No wonder you hide behind your religion. I'd say that if the fear of God is the only reason you don't commit barbarous acts, then society would be well rid of you. Do you really think that without God, the end of your life is the end of your influence on the world, for better or worse? Do you really need more meaning than "I'll try not to turn the society that my kids have to grow up in into anarchy"? Maybe what you do without God is all for nothing, but that's because you've proven that you suck at the concept of "society". The rest of us seem to understand that the world that will exist after we leave it is as we make it while we're here, and act accordingly.
Virg
What's interesting is my Religious Education Book already states this, and it was published some 5 years ago...
Obviously, they were praying at the wrong God.
Or in a way He doesn't like.
Where is your god no--*urk!* :(
Most people accept that postive thinking biochemically helps a person in various ways. If said person has good thoughts they may recover more quickly. Obviously these benefits are directly related to the placebo effect, which is directly related to a person's ability to heal themselves.
The real question comes when people ask if someone who does not know people are "sending good thoughts" to them will get better more than placebo (no good thoughts.) Doesn't seem like there's evidence either way on this, though I do find it within the real of possibility-- REMOTE possibility.
Luckily the article puts an asterisk on their findings to say they won't make a statement about relgion based on these findings. Nor should they. One has nothing to do with the other, and it's yet more proof to people willing to accept it, that there is no God and, dammit, they might have to fend for themselves.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
Amazing how many commenters dont seem to have even read the article! "However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT." Wow, I'd like to be in the lowest mortality rate group myself, in fact, Id even say the treatment worked! Read on please: "While it's clear there was no measurable impact on the primary composite endpoints of this study, the trends and behavior of pre-specified secondary outcome measures suggest treatment effects that can be taken pretty seriously..." Krucoff added. Im not arguing for or against prayer, but I'd like to point out to you that the pre-secondary outcome showed mesuarable success. And for me SURVIVING is a pretty important outcome. Ok, now go back to your squabbles over whether God is overrated.
Prayer is about trusting a Higher Power no matter what the future brings. In that sense it is the best way to keep your sanity when faced with trauma. Prayer is not a magic cantation that gives you the power over the health and lives of other people. Sorry Pat Robertson. Prayer is supposed to be private and personal. Not something you grandstand. In a situation like someone having heart surgery, you don't pray to TELL God to make the person live, you pray to find guidance for what YOU can do to help that person and those he/she loves no matter what the outcome is. Real prayer is about trusing God, which in my opinion is all He really wants.
The study in this article didn't account for normal friends-and-family prayers, it only varied the presence of arranged prayers from strangers (who probably had ulterior motives). At most this study might show that "prayer bulletins" and praying for complete strangers isn't particularly useful. The study says nothing about prayers from loved-ones, which many people would say are the most sincere and thus the most useful.
Practically speaking, it's impossible to do a scientific test that would clear up this issue for everyone. You're never going to convince loved-ones to *not* pray for the patient, so double-blind studies are out. And post-analysis of outcomes for religious vs. non-religious patients/families would be contaminated by the differences in the patients' own beliefs and attitudes.
The prayers used in this experiment were from randomly selected church congregations. But 95% of the patients recieved small amounts of unsanctioned prayer from their relatives and friends. The experimenters did not even make a decent attempt to limit these prayers...
from the article:
"The researchers found no significant differences among the treatment groups in the primary composite endpoint. However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT."
and:
"While it's clear there was no measurable impact on the primary composite endpoints of this study, the trends and behavior of pre-specified secondary outcome measures suggest treatment effects that can be taken pretty seriously when considering future study directions."
I find this, coupled with the previous (similar - definitely not contradictory - check the article) results, pretty interesting. At least.
It's most interesting that just last night, the Sopranos episode had Tony getting sewed up before leaving the hospital and the pastor from the church came in and one person said that prayer helps surgery patients. The pastor said that it leads to less complications.
Is this why this got posted (to contradict last night which really does come from a real study)? (Not that I believe prayer does anything...)
2.4 MILLION DOLLARS! therecord.com's story
To quote, "The researchers emphasized that their $2.4-million US study could not address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study could look only for an effect from the specific prayers offered as part of the research, they said." And adding insult to injury, "The study 'did not move us forward or backward' in understanding the effects of prayer" and Dr. Herbert Benson of Harvard Medical School, a co-investigator said, "We cannot come to a conclusion, except to say that by this study design, with its limitations, this is what we found."
Not only do I see this as a complete and utter waste of money (try and prove your religion through science when religion is purely faith based in its foundations, with no connection to science whatsoever -Scientology excluded- and you'll quickly find out that you have nothing meaningful to prove, except that you really should have used that money for a better purpose), it's also an insult to the scientific community in general as this was (I'm saying this from what I have heard reported on MSNBC, etc. last week when this story broke) the most expensive reasearch study of its kind to date.
Let's spend $2.4 Million to study the effects of placing flowers in the hospital rooms of these heart patients and figure out if they help the patient recover in any way, or do they merely make the patient wonder if these flowers might just transfer over to their funeral, and that they'd be none the wiser. Get real.
"The hands that help are better than the lips that pray."
A sentiment that remains unaffected by the outcome of such a study, IMO...
You (and family members) may as well pray - it's unlikely that there's a God out there that will respond "he's praying to me. Smite him! Smite him now!". Just don't rely on prayer as the only course of action.
If there is a god, I pray that he strike me dead right....
The *purpose* of praying for someone is to help *ourselves* get through the day (whether most people believe it or not is another issue).
Otherwise, we're implying that God works on a point system, and that those that have more people praying for them score more points (so they have a better chance of winning). I don't how God works, but somehow I don't think that's it.
A far more interesting study would be looking for how much better off (if at all) patients that pray for themselves might be. Those who believe in a "guiding hand" might be that much less stressed, and I wouldn't be surprised if they turned out to have a better success rate.
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
This reminds me of a great bash.org quote that I'd like to share with you all:
Fractured Element
Did anyone bother to actually read the linked articles?
2001 Study:
"Differences in clinical outcomes between treatment groups were not statistically significant. However, those receiving noetic treatments 'had lower absolute complication rates and a lower absolute incidence of post-procedural ischemia during hospitalization,' said Crater."
2005 Study:
"The researchers found no significant differences among the treatment groups in the primary composite endpoint. However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT. Patients treated with bedside MIT also showed changes in self-rated emotional distress prior to catheterization and stenting."
The new study did not find that prayer has no effect, it reinforces the previous finding that prayer improves recovery. What prayer has no effect on is the actually outcome of surgery, which is exactly the same thing that the orginal study found. Before people go off an debate the meaning of these studies they should at least bother to read them.
Prayer did affect six month mortality.
"...six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT..."
So the death rate is the same right away but six months later, if you were prayed for, you have a much better chance of being alive. You will also have less of a chance to be re-hospitalized.
As a physician myself, I find it interesting that the authors chose to pitch this as a failure for prayer rather than a success.
I remember praying with my grandpa the night he died. It was actually the last thing anyone but doctors got to say to him. I prayed, "God, give grandpa the strength of your Son."
He died that night. But I actually felt as if the prayer had been answered, in a weird way: just as Christ had to let go of life in order to live, my grandpa did too. He had been in pain that night from not being able to pee -- which I'm sure must really suck! He finally had the strength to let go. When the world is remade, he'll have a new body.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Film at 11
One thing I've noticed that some people assume about prayer is that prayer means doing nothing and hoping God will perform some miracle.
Prayer operates on the following principles:
a) we have to do everything in our power to make the desired result happen first
b) the desired result has to be God's will
When the leader of a nation at war did not send enough troops to the army, the frustrated general wrote to the leader and said:
"11 Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain."
"21 Or do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us?"
(http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/60)
That's why the 'religious' person in New Orleans who says "I know a huge flood is coming, but I'm going to just stay here and pray, because I know God will protect me," isn't going to be protected, because they are not doing all they can do to protect themselves first.
Similarly, if I get sick and say "I'm not going to a doctor; I am just going to pray to be healed!" then I am very likely not going to receive any help from God, because I am not making use of the means that He has provided for me (a doctor, medical help, etc).
I definitely know that prayer can and does work. The key is that we have to do all we can do first.
Is the placebo effect does not work in these cases either...IIRC
Thats a dumb study. First of all, if you dont believe in God - to whom are you praying? You might wanna try to talk to the wall with the same result.
... doctors didnt even want to do an operation and all of them said he had less than 1% that he'll live .. well, guess what, he's alive right now and is getting well pretty quickly.
;)
Second of all, God - is not a robot or ATM where you push a button or say something and get a result. Before you even start praying, consider few things:
1. Who are YOU that God should help you?
2. Why would He help you if you dont even believe in His existance?
I can make a study that there is no air:
1. I dont see it
2. I dont feel it
3. I dont believe in science
4. I asked people that dont believe in scinece as well - and everybody said the same thing - there is no air.
Therefore - there is no air. Sounds dumb, but this is exactly what this "prayer" study is.
And last thing, prayer DOES help - both physically and mentaly. I know lots of examples from my own life where I've seen it working. One of my friends about month ago got into accedent at work - bunch of wood fell on him or something like that
My point is - if you havent seen or experienced something - dont say it doesnt work
So do we know which is the right god by a checksum of some kind? How many bits?
I suppose you could say that we've successfully proved that science doesn't work because two apparently valid clinical studies contradicted one another.
That's my perfectly reasonable claim.
According to your logic, it would be impossible to ever disprove the existence of God via any scientific method. It amounts to the same kind of thinking which says the earth really is 7k yrs old -- God put the dino bones there to test our faith. The same kind of thinking allows a person of faith to believe anything they want (for example, that there is a multitude of virgins waiting in heaven for him if he slaughters thousands of civilians).
What if the study took special pains, so that the people praying didn't know they were part of the study, and so that the people being prayed for were near-and-dear? Would that ameliorate your concerns?
I'm guessing it wouldn't. You would doubtless say (assuming that prayer was again shown to be ineffective) that God may have decided not to reveal himself, and was willing to sacrifice the intended prayer beneficiaries in order to prevent nosy scientist types from proving his existence.
Reminds me of something Homer once said...
"What if we picked the wrong religion? Every day we're just making God madder and madder."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer_the_Heretic/
The headline and article summmary are misleading.
While prayer did not help for primary clinical outcome, it did help for secondary clinical outcome. Secondary clinical outcome includes criteria such as:
"six-month death or re-hospitalization, as well as measures of emotional distress prior to a patient's procedure."
"The researchers found no significant differences among the treatment groups in the primary composite endpoint. However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT."
MIT is thearapy consisting of bedside music, imagery and touch therapy (MIT), and is categorized as a "Noetic" interventions along with prayer.
"pray and MIT therapies are defined as "an intangible healing influence brought about without the use of a drug, device or surgical procedure," according to the researchers."
I'm an atheist, but such a misleading headline shows how slanted this site's postings can be. Please read the article before accepting such a misleading headline.
you're probably right, on all counts. but i wasn't saying a deity would actively hide his/her existence, just that he/she/it would be under no obligation to respond in a particular way simply to reveal it. if a god chooses to miraculously heal someone of something, for whatever reason, it should be taken as a miracle. studies like this assume miracles (violations of natural causality) are commonplace enough to be picked up in a small net, and to be statistically significant therein. i don't think many religious people really believe that.
dino bones and mortality -- as far as i'm concerned, they're all part of a world which was created to function as a world. even if you're a 7-day-creationist, you're presented with a world on the 7th day which has things like dirt (made of decomposed organic matter and ground up rock) and full-grown trees (with lots of rings) and full-grown animals (with bellybuttons). so either the world was made to be x billion years old, or x billion years passed during its creation...but either way, there's no "deception" since the account itself said the world mankind first inhabited contained rocks (sedimentary?) and trees (full grown) and animals (full grown). so an honest reading of Christian lit doesn't contradict evolution/big bang stuff, it actually confirms it (the world appears/is old), but it gives a "why" and a bit of "how" to that understanding.
that's only relevant because the processes of healing and death are part of the religious person's understanding of his/her world -- as far as they're concerned, every person that got better received temporal mercies, and every person who didn't, didn't. so -- yes, any study that reveals that the world, in fact, works the way it seems to work, with some dying and some living, won't affect the religious person's faith in any way, since that's a given in their understanding that the world gets along alright just fine as it is.
so...yes, worldview theories tend to be unfalsifiable. frustrating, yes, but doesn't mean they're foolhardy.
I liken this experiment to searching for a lost sock in a drawer with a metal detector...
So, because the test comes up negative, it automatically includes the assumption that the correct testing method was used in the first place?
Am I the only person who thinks that using the scientific method to prove the validity of religion / spirituality...retarded?
Silly people -- did they really believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster would allow his plans to be unraveled by such a blatent manipulation? Hasn't he said, "Thou shalt not tempt thy FSM, except it be with grated cheese?" These silly mortals have no idea who they're messing with. Beware the noodly appendage filled with wrath!
According to your logic, it would be impossible to ever disprove the existence of God via any scientific method. It amounts to the same kind of thinking which says the earth really is 7k yrs old -- God put the dino bones there to test our faith. The same kind of thinking allows a person of faith to believe anything they want (for example, that there is a multitude of virgins waiting in heaven for him if he slaughters thousands of civilians).
It is impossible to prove or disprove any theory without empiricle evidence. To that end, there may never be resolution. But for me it seems illogical to be so certain that God isn't real.
Imagine every physics law, every piece of history, and everything that will one day happen is represented on a sheet of paper. If a person were to try to color in a ratio of our knowledge of life the universe and everything, he/she wouldn't even be able to see a visible mark. How can one say there isn't a God knowing how little we do know?
Granted there is a much bigger leap to make from acknowledging that we dont know if there is a god or not, to believeing in a Christian God, or any other religion for that matter.
Sadly, this is something that will never be settled on slashdot, there were many smarter minds than myself, that believed in the Christian God, and many people smarter than myself who believed in a Muslim or even Hindu god.
Kent Simon Multitheft Auto
Mod parent offtopic, mostly because it is.
"Dangerous" is the word I'd use.
All I have to say is 'wow'. This story is definitely going cause some frustration in people.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
Did the patients believe that the prayer could heal them though? I wouldn't be at all surprised about the placebo effect of prayer, if the person knows they're being prayed for, and believes it will help them. A quick look through the article doesn't make this clear.
for yours as well, or just mine?
i find worldview hubris far more troublesome, historically, than worldview belief -- religious or irreligious. take what you belive with a grain of salt (even believing your belief is the only belief is ok if you're respectful of other opinions) and you'll be a nice, quiet, functioning member of society -- perhaps annoying (door to door proselytes), but benign -- assume you're perfect and you get jihadi, inquisitors, and atheist/communist pograms.
all to say: calling people like me dangerous is fine, but only if i can say the same about you, and then we can shrug and go out for a beer and some poker.
Indeed, it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. But, assuming It doesn't, we can pin down what It could be to almost nothing. It's not much of a god if it has no causal influence on the world, now is It?
After all, I am strangely colored.
did the results of the study surprise you?
I mean. Since when does thinking wishful thoughts make anything happen?
Apart from the small impact due to lower stress levels, endorphin release, due to mediation/calming effects...
And... since everyone has different thoughts about prayer/meditation, and I imagine it varies wildly from religeon to religeon and region to region, a study of this type would have to be very widespread to determine the impact from calming/endorphin effects... to include a very diverse range of people... i.e. do the study in some mainly secular state, or one where the relious are all fakers (you know who you are), and you probably wont see a lot of effect due to mental excercises (i.e. if you don't believe it, you wont be calmed by your meditation)...
anyway, this study doesn't really surprise me. should it?
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
I agree...
"The earth is flat" - is analogous to - "We should pray to make things better"...
two scenarios
- who knows, maybe the world is flat. Oh, we've proven it's round? oh...
- who knows, maybe praying does nothing. Oh, you say we've proven it does nothing? cool...
move along nothing to see here...
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.' "
Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' "
-Matthew 4:5-7 (NIV)
I direct you to http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1122. Hamlet there. Geeks here.
Ham. Seems, madam, Nay, it is. I know not 'seems.'
'Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forc'd breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected havior of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
'That can denote me truly. These indeed seem,
For they are actions that a man might play;
But I have that within which passeth show-
These but the trappings and the suits of woe.
In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
If you don't believe in their faith, you don't respect it.
... but it doesn't matter.
Maybe for the one example you cite (Islam), but not necessarily all of them. One of my favorite exchanges from the Matrix was:
"Not everyone believes what you believe."
"My beliefs do not require them to."
Those of us with non-mainstream religious beliefs pretty much have to take this position.
Scientists, too, should have no trouble following this. Is light really made up of tiny particles? Do electrons really zoom around a blob like planets orbiting a sun? Does F=ma? No
As a scientist, you can always argue about whether a particular model is *useful*, but often you can't argue about whether it's *correct*. I've used lots of models that weren't "correct" in any sense of the word (including the above three), but were plenty useful.
I don't disrespect people who think that F=ma, nor do I disrespect people who think that Jesus is the son of god. I don't believe either one, but your belief in these things is not inconsistent with my belief system.
-- Jim Morrison "The Soft Parade."
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
And wholeheartedily concur with the poster you are dsimissing.
In civilized societies more and more people are receiving the logical conclusssion about the logical falacies associated with religions and most of theology.
Our knowledge about the inexistence of any deity is reaching the stage in which it is no longer necessary to go and read all those books you are mentioning.
We do not read Galileo, Copernicus and Keppler because we know it has been done to dead by others before and most people know the Earth is not the center of the Universe and that it is not flat without refering directly to the people that first discovered this.
There will be one day when religious people will be put in their right place amongst evolution deniers and flat earth apologists (there are still some in such nice countries as Sauid Arabia).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I have to say slashdot never lets me down.
there is no Justice with God/Judge/Afterlife
We already knew that people are getting nuts these days , but why should Slashdot start fuelling this idiotic stuff?
I don't see much sense in how you think. The Bible says God only listens to those who serve him. If you "aren't religious", then God won't bother answering your prayer. If the Bible isn't true, then you're also wasting your time praying. Either way, your prayer is pointless.
So take the next step--put your faith in Jesus like I have. Maybe you'll see that it's the truth, and the path to life. God intends for us to come to him by faith--that's why he doesn't plainly reveal Himself to all of us.
Wish I had mod points right now ...
Why does Slashdot post this garbage... obviously a news post like this is going to attract comments where people bash christians and treat them like idiots, not to mention it contradicts previous studies... so either Slashdot thought that christians could use a good bashing or they're not exactly the "brightest of the bunch." If this were bashing a minority that was more outspoken and was unafraid to use the justice system this would be taken down (maybe not soon enough), but all this article is is an excuse for people to treat others like morons.
How credible is this... Did they have an unbiased group of researchers? What method did they use for collecting the data? and How many christians did they actually collect prayer data from? Were the people praying part of a religious group or were they non-believers praying as a "last hope"? This study can be flawed in so many ways it would be stupid to put ANY trust in it at all.
You guys need to get some respect, seriously... I think your beliefs in cults, the occult, new age, pantheism, and atheism the are flawed, and you think my belief in God is flawed... just get over it and move on with your life... or at least look into it and test it in detail.
Think of this... WHAT IF IT'S TRUE?... just look into it, don't bother bashing something if you've already prejudged it by it's "cover" and not taken any deeper looks into it... take just a little time in your long life to look at it with someone; I think what you'll find is much more than what the "cover" presents (and I don't mean just read the Bible, look at Scientific FACT... archaelogical evidence, dates and times corresponding to the timeline (in a shorter amount of years) most atheists believe in, flawed carbon-dating tests that time and evolutionary theories are based on, etc...)
There was an article in National Geographic once of a man who had claimed that he found a bone from millions of years ago, and scientists studied it and carbon-dated it and came to the conclusion that it was from hundreds of millions of years ago. Later the same man confessed that he had simply microwaved the bone. The next month National Geographic had a note at the back of the magazine stating that the previous article had been flawed and that the bone was microwaved. Doesn't that make you question things a little? Obviously this scientific basis forming the estimation of a "13-15 billion year old" universe is very flawed!
From the first comment: "But when it proves that the earth is round, that the universe is 13-15 billion years old and that prayer doesn't really do anything, they think its hogwash."
One last question...
What if your world as you see it is flat and mine is round?
-avanderveen
God has no faith in these studies.
am i the only one who thinks the amount of emotions people are putting into this is a bit much? stop reading into things and just take it for what it is. its just research. its not killing god, its not lessening the value of religion. its JUST A STUDY. step down from your soapboxes and calm yourselves.
According to Carmella, patients who are prayed for have 11% chance of fewer complications, or something to that effect. I'd assume the show was referencing some real study from the way it was presented, not just something fabricated for the show, but who knows.
ALL polymers are long chain.
p.s. if you're trying to reference Gibson he said long-chain monomers.
good grief...
None of you, including me, are qualified for this debate... In fact I'd venture no one is.
Do you have ANY clue how much is written on G_d, gods, atheism, ant-theism, etc? By the time you've absorbed enough to be qualified you've probably spent the better part of your life doing it. And I've yet to meet the person who didn't have to take a side to support themselves (financially, or scholarly), by which point your obligated to stay to that side to avoid collapsing your entire house of cards. (Yeah, I'm aware this is a "slippery slope" argument, but if you can find a way, or better still an example off the slide I'd love to hear it)
Atheism, may or may not be a religion; but the way some people treat it, it might as well be. I believe this, you believe that; can't we all just get along? Granted, there will come a time when a religious issue goes to a vote. And if me and mine, choose to vote based on our personal moral values, that's not coercion: it's democracy. You do have the right to vote based on yours, the fact that there are more religious than non/anti-religious is irrelevant.
I understand why Christians/Muslims spend much time seeking to convince others of their faith, it's an (IMHO) unfortunate aspect of their belief. But why atheists get so hot under the collar every time G_d's name comes up, is a bit of a mystery to me. I spent the majority of my life as an atheist, and never once had the inclination to convince someone else to agree with me.
"religious apologists always turn the argument around saying 'god is beyond proof, you can't prove him'"
It's called un-falsifiable, and it's a two way street. If you could give proof to G_ds' existence or non-existence, G_d would instantly become an admissible component of scientific theory; the scientific community would either have to accept it or their own hypocrisy if they didn't. On the other hand I don't think it would have much affect on the worlds religions. Careful what you wish for.
"I'll refer you to 'bible errancy'"
Who's bible? And why does it matter? If ones life is happier for having "known G_d", then kay sara sara.
FYI: most 'bible errancy' is hog wash. Largely using peoples lack of knowledge on a subject against them, nit picking details that are resolved in other sources. I've rarely seen a 'bible errancy' that held up against a professional minister of faith (who ostensibly has a broad enough base of information to avoid, "not in this text" type errors).
I would rather be ashes than dust!
result seems to contradict a previous study by the same authors
In other news: The authors of the study, which conclusion was that "cardiac patients who received intercessory prayer in addition to coronary stenting appeared to have better clinical outcomes than those treated with standard stenting therapy alone" were heavily bashed on the popular Slashdot newsportal while their Karma reached the all-time record lowest possible level. From unofficial sources we got to know that the authors prepare themselves to fight off the bad Karma and we may expect more interesting results from them in the future.
Now, mod me down freely. My karma can't get any worse...
How about Abraham arguing with God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Does that count?
Prayer is not [necessarily] religion. Nor is it, for any logical reason known to me, the wholly owned real-estate of the religious. Only the "God told me so.." people should disagree with this (thereby giving up their stake in the logical.)
:) ), but let's be clear that, not only are we talking about "prayer is not owned by a specific religion", but should also allow for "prayer is not owned by any religion at all".
Prayer can, alternatively, be viewed as an act of acceptance (which I know is going to sound a little new-agey, but bear with me). I'm just saying prayer (being defined as an act of acceptance and the recognition that the person offering the prayer is not himself the creator of everything) has positive benefits (health+ social) and I don't think it should be given over so readily to those who clearly can't think for themselves ("the religious").
I know that this is a problem for "rugged individualists" (and so, it's a problem for me personally
Misses the real question: If I pray for someone to die, are they more likely to die?
The comments posted about the Duke study on prayer are based on a posting that- in error- posted only PART of the results...and I quote:
...AND more recent TOP science professionals...realized there is more to be learned with an OPEN mind...
"DURHAM, N.C. - Distant prayer and the bedside use of music, imagery and touch (MIT therapy) did not have a significant effect upon the primary clinical outcome observed in patients undergoing certain heart procedures, researchers at Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University Medical Center, the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) and seven other leading academic medical institutions across the U.S. have found. Therapeutic effects were noted, however, among secondary measures such as emotional distress of patients, re-hospitalization and death rates. "
THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS WERE NOTED...AMONG DEATH RATES?!
It seems to me that says it ALL.
As for "pseudo -science"...Even Einstein
Namaste'
Annaly
I think that is incorrect and is perhaps one of the greatest tragedies of Christianity and similar religions because of the psychological damage it does. This nonsense that all people are born sinners is a remarkably effective tool for subjugation. When a person is born, that person is totally innocent. He or she is guilty of no crime and is not responsible for his or her actions. That may change once the person learns socially unacceptable behavior (which is relative to the society, by the way) from others, but nevertheless, the person has the will to choose to not do anything wrong. Supernatural beings do not enter into the equation and there is nothing to indicate that the person is “born bad.”
So, the clergy in some religions are real happy to tell everyone they are sinners or have a sinful nature from birth. But why? Because... they said so? Because some religious book written by purveyors of said religion said so? Is there any defense of this? There is no reason other than they get to define both the problem (your problem) and the solution. Pretty lucrative position for them to be in.
I think people are born neutral but with moral tendencies. Any one of us is capable of doing both good and harm. Furthermore, our morality is a product of evolution. It is essential for our survival that we function in a “herd” (what we call civilization) and that causing injury to members of the herd harms the herd in general. Some people certainly do choose to ignore this morality if they somehow think that the risk and consequences outweigh the reward, but in general everyone can identify a desire to not inflict harm on others. This is why, for instance, we cringe or attain a heightened state of alertness when we observe the misfortune of others. It is hardwired into us that injury and insult is bad and should be avoided. It negatively impacts our survival if others we depend on are hurt. So ultimately, ensuring the wellness of those around us is a naturally selected mechanism to help our survival.
Which makes us not innately sinners.
Join Tor today!
Seems to me that either (a) he was miraculously responding to claims that scientists wouldn't get around to making for hundreds of years before they were even made or (b) the Christian position has not changed in the manner you suggest. Perhaps you could slice it with a razor belonging to another Medieval fart, Occam, and get back to me.
Or, you could just admit that you know one hell of a lot less about theology than theologians these days know about the philosophy of science.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I suppose you would strangle him for promoting irresponsibility and superstitions?
Your tax dollars at work.
Sounds downright Orwellian to me. You want the impossible: free will without freedom.
Most Christian theology has taught that the one law governing God is the law of non-contradiction: God can't be both A and not-A at the same time. (The apothatic tradition seems to say that he can--e.g., Pseudo-Dionysius spoke of God as a "luminous darkness"--until you understand that the point of the via negativa is to show the limitation of human language in describing the almighty.)
If this is true, and God can't contradict himself, then neither can he make us free without giving us the freedom to sin.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Except for a few heretical Calvinists, Christian theology--going back to the patristic period and, yes, even the new testament--has always maintained the reality of free will. Per Boethius (from the 6th century), God's foreknowledge is not the same as human foreknowledge, since God knows /everything/ in one instant. So, it's not really foreknowledge at all, although the human word "foreknowledge" is as close as we get. God's foreknowledge doesn't involve causation.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
he one extremely important point you left out is that scientists are trained to be skeptical of their own theories
You mean like South Korean doctors?
This is my sig.
Although it makes me quite unhappy, my understanding of scripture is that not everyone is saved. God /desires/ that everyone be saved, but he also desires that we choose him freely, according to our own character. So, you get into this very tough situation of having to acknowledge that there are some God has chosen (because they chose him, but which came first?) and others that God has not chosen (for whatever reason.) Those he chooses enjoy the fruits of his benevolence, if not now then in the last day, and those he has not chosen ... don't. (Note that I'm NOT advocating double-Predestination here.)
I'm afraid that the notion of omni-benevolence, which really comes from Platonism, not the Bible, creates a false image of God. God is (or is supposed to be) kind of a pushover parent who just keeps doing nice things for their kids no matter what sort of brat they've become. The problem is that we look at benevolence in very human terms, and not in divine term. His eyes see further than ours, and accordingly he makes decisions that to us just don't make sense.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1