Here’s another bunch who don’t understand science: an article on research on prayer. You know, the creationists are always complaining that all those scientists out there (waves hand vaguely towards the nearest university) are biased and reject supernatural phenomena out of hand, and that their weird metaphysical research program can’t get any funding. Can we just face the fact that there are plenty of crackpot scientists and sloppy bureaucrats in the world, and that lots of nonsense gets funded and studied?
(More below the fold)
But the most controversial research focuses on “intercessory” or “distant” prayer, which involves people trying to heal others through their intentions, thoughts or prayers, sometimes without the recipients knowing it. The federal government has spent $2.2 million in the past five years on studies of distant healing, which have also drawn support from private foundations.
This is kind of the bottom rung of the research ladder; there’s a lower limit, a sort of “your proposal must be this credible to be funded” level, and Intelligent Design doesn’t even rise to that point. How bad is that? You have to read this article to see just how godawful bad some research is…and be embarrassed for the creationists that they are even worse.
This whole “intercessory prayer” business does at least make specific predictions, unlike creationism, so I can sort of see how they might be able to bamboozle some funding for it. You can design a protocol to evaluate any outlandish claim, and you could even design it competently. Unfortunately, the prayer researchers seem to throw out any good design in favor of biasing the results towards the answer they want.
But these and other studies have been called deeply flawed. They were, for example, analyzed in the most favorable way possible, looking at so many outcomes that the positive findings could easily have been the result of chance, critics say. … Other studies have been even more contentious, such as a 2001 project involving fertility patients that became mired in accusations of fraud.
Good scientists don’t waste their time testing prayer. This has nothing to do with the religious beliefs or absence thereof in good scientists, but rather that you have to want it to be tested true to even bother. Look at these justifications:
“Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism — every religion believes in prayer for healing,” said Paul Parker, a professor of theology and religion at Elmhurst College outside Chicago. “Some call it prayer, some call it cleansing the mind. The words or posture may vary. But in times of illness, all religions look towards their source of authority.”
Yes, it’s common—but that makes it a sociological phenomenon. That we look for succor in situations beyond human control does not mean that there is a superhuman source of help.
“It’s one of the most prevalent forms of healing. Open-minded scientists have a responsibility to look into this,” said Marilyn J. Schlitz of the California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco.
She’s assuming her premise. It is not a prevalent form of healing, it is a prevalent way of expressing helplessness. That it helps at all with healing is what remains to be determined.
Oh, and this is just the worst:
“I don’t think it [results of a study] will alter my beliefs one way or the other,” said Trish Lankowski, who started a healing room at Immanuel’s Church in Silver Spring this past Sunday night. “I believe in the power of prayer wholeheartedly. I know it works.”
Then why bother studying it?
I do dismiss prayer research out of hand, for a couple of reasons that have nothing to do with my rejection of gods. If there is a phenomenon that people ascribe to gods, then it may still be worth pursuing to determine if the phenomenon is real, and we can worry about the causal agent later. A good example is native medicine; we don’t reject something out of hand because it is dispensed by a shaman, but will at least look to see if it has effects similar to the concrete ones claimed for it.
So why reject prayer? For three reasons:
- It has failed multiple prior tests. The effect ascribed to it, that people who are prayed for heal better than those who are not prayed for, doesn’t seem to exist. It is empirically dead.
- There is a lack of mechanism. When a shaman claims chewing tree bark cures malaria, there’s at least a hypothetical pharmaceutical mechanism there. If I were to pray over a photo of an infertile woman in South Korea, there isn’t much of a testable conduit for that information or power or whatever to tickle her ovaries and induce conception. The premise is simply silly, and even if a statistical correlation popped out of the results, there is no prospect for deeper understanding. It lacks predictive utility.
- The real killer, though, is personified by Lankowski’s comment above. When we design an experiment, the ideal is to establish ahead of time a set of results that would support the hypothesis, and a set of results that would contradict it. Most grant proposals will spell out these conditions fairly explicitly. However, in the prayer tests, there are no possible results that would cause them to reject the healing power of prayer. At best, you get a laundry list of rationalizations to explain why the absence of any effect is meaningless. It is unfalsifiable.
Here’s an excellent example of the kind of pathetic rigamarole these “researchers” go through to excuse their failures.
Krucoff, a cardiologist, published a study last summer involving 748 heart patients at nine hospitals. That study failed overall to show any benefit. But Krucoff said he did find tantalizing hints that warrant follow-up: A subset of patients who had a second group of people praying that the prayers of the first group would be answered may have done better.
Praying for prayers increases their effectiveness? O Lord, if only we had realized that we could potentiate our signal if our prayers were in series rather than parallel!
Here’s another catch-all rationalization from Krucoff.
“Human physiology is a very delicate equilibrium. When you throw energy you don’t understand into this, it would be naive to think you could only do good,” he said.
So sometimes patients will die when you pray for them, sometimes they will live—there’s some kind of imponderable dosage effect. I think I know who is being naive here.
OK, I have an experiment in mind. I want the first person who comments on this thread to pray that my prayers will work. I want the second person to pray for the effectiveness of the first person’s. The third should pray for the second, and so forth. We’ll get a powerful series going. Then tonight I’ll pray for George W. Bush’s good health.
Let’s try for an overdose.
If it doesn’t work, though, that doesn’t mean Krucoff is full of bologna. <pseudoscientist>All it will take is one commenter breaking the chain for it to fail.</pseudoscientist> Or maybe <pseudoscientist>I’ll cheat and pray that I win the lottery.</pseudoscientist> The excuses are near-infinite in number.
John M. Price tried to get a letter to the editor on this article published, but the WaPo let it slide…so here it is:
“I don’t think it will alter my beliefs one way or the other[.]” Thus Trish Lankowski identifies herself as overly credulous and immune to facts or reasoning. It is a true shame and likely the blame rests on our educational system. The ability to think critically and with information is not an innate trait, and must be learned. Ms. Lankowski has not learned that skill.
As a commentator+ on the Harris et al paper that was lauded in this report, then properly called flawed, I find it disturbing that such studies are still going on. Indeed, for that paper I demonstrated that the effect the Harris group found was due to one item, and one item alone. Removing the catheter from the results would have given a null result. As it was, Harris published a significant F result without any underlying causal component. Essentially a statistical fluke. Further, and missed in this report, he failed to replicate the Byrd study. (I note that Mr. Stein did not comment long on that older paper – he should read it, even Byrd was unconvinced. I’d also suggest that if not yet a part of his repertoire, using Medline would be an excellent skill – it will list the comments on the original papers.)
Listen, as in this part of my life I am a dead to rights atheist (and I will try to be polite toward the credulous in this letter), I can say that prayer does work. It follows all the basic rules of, and has effects to which any social animal would respond. Only that, and for my money, that is no small issue, but nothing more. However as it is limited to this realm of human life, the prayed for person should know that prayers are being said, and it helps, too, if they believe in their efficacy. Even the animistic tribal religions had prayer effects, and likely no god(s) in the sense of our modern culture. (Spirits ruled the attribution of agency.)
Intercessory prayer, though, is an entirely different matter. One’s thoughts don’t reach beyond one’s hair, let alone to a magical being(s) in the sky. This is the basis of the criticism that there is no rational basis for the effect. Let alone that critique, know that in all of the studies of intercessory prayer, there has never been a solid, replicated positive result. One has to wonder why, after what, at least eight of these papers, people are still obsessed with the concept. People: Intercessory prayer does not work. You, the credulous, are not being open minded in that you are refusing to take to heart the results of the work to date.
If you want to pray for folk, and be effective, then it is likely best to follow these little guidelines that I have gleaned from my reading. First, be part of the person’s family and or friends. Second, if the person is involved with a church group, involve them as well – share, for instance, the bulletin listing them as a subject for group prayer. Third, if they themselves pray, pray with them. Finally, I’d suggest praying for and in the present, not any after death material. (I’d also drop the ‘thine will be done’ bit, too – after all, within that belief system you are attempting to change what is already obviously ‘the will.’) Again, from my read, even those who do not pray, or for that matter even believe in the ‘other world(s)’, will benefit from knowing deep down in their very social human nature that they are 1) part of a group and 2) that group actually wants them around and well.
As to spending money on this ‘research’, for my money we might as well be studying how well the spells in Harry Potter work in establishing machine free flight! The question is answered. It is time for the credulous to stop beating this dead horse.
I’ll close paraphrasing a small comment my now deceased father made regarding cloistered, and praying, Catholic orders: It would be of much more good if they got out and worked for the people for whom they pray.
+Arch Intern Med. 2000 Jun 26;160(12):1873; author reply 1877-8.
O.K., I pray that your prayers will work.
I hope that we are seen as part of an experiment and not a conspiracy.
I’m prayin’ for your prayers right now, PZ. But I’m holding the identity of the entity I’m praying to a secret. We don’t want all the other entities up/down/out there getting pissy and interfering, y’know.
*prays for the prayers of others to enhance the prayers of others to enhance PZ’s prayers*
Oh, wait… I don’t pray. DANG! Guess you’ll have to find someone else.
*returns to his regularly scheduled godlessness*
By the way, any chance that we can get some funding? I have some really serious fieldwork I need to do in Bangkok.
God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is “No.” (Makes testable predictions a bitch.) The Onion had a story on this recently, but my pitiful computer and internet skills won’t allow me to find it and link to it. Pray for me.
I hereby pray that the prayers of the people praying for the prayers for PZ Myers’ prayers will be answered.
By the time this chain gets finished it will require omniscience to sort out the massive muddle, and omnipotence to withhold laughter long enough to try.
Dear FSM, please grant the prayer of the person immediately next in line in this prayer daisy chain.
CJ: Here’s that article
Dumb question time:
Where is the well-performed research that shows no effect from prayer? I don’t mean that in the snarky sense…I mean that my understanding was that virtually ALL of the research into prayer was the muddled sort of crud referenced above. I haven’t seen any GOOD research on the subject. Where would I find it?
It think it IS worthwhile to have enough research showing the null before we can responsibly argue there’s no effect. And again, please don’t misinterpret my personal position…I have no doubt quality research will show no discernable effect in the “intercessory” cases. I just would love to have some references I can pull out when arguing.
I hereby pray that the prayers of the people praying for the prayers for the people praying for PZ Myers’ prayers will be answered.
Actually, I’m not sure I’m praying… how do I know I’m not just thinking that I’m praying?
I think I see just a tiny problem with this whole venture, but I pray that I am wrong…
Why so many prayer experiments that deal with physiology? Surely intercessory prayer could work just as well to improve, say, basketball leaping ability or dart throwing accuracy.
Or take the common prayer for wisdom. Can intercessory prayer be shown to change human decision making?
That brings me to a dubious experiment mentioned by Ethan Hawke’s character in “Waking Life,” which I just watched last night (well, half of it before I gave up). The experiment ostensibly proved the existence of a collective consciousness by demonstrating a 20% improvement in crossword puzzle solving by an isolated group when the puzzle had been published in the newspaper the day before. “The answer was just floating out there,” he said.
My question: was there ever such an experiment, or was it made up for the movie? My second question: could someone replicate that result?
What about prayer as a psychological factor? Like an anti-stress thing? Isn’t that part of science that deserves some funding?
There are recurrent themes in pseudoscience, just as in crackpottery. The ability to disregard a huge number of failed tests are one of them. I believe parapsychology and prayer studies are disregarding over 100 years of failures. It’s not only empirically dead, it’s rotten. This parrot has gone visit the fjords. It is no more.
About lack of mechanism – usually it’s even known that the mechanisms can’t be natural. Ie parapsychology, astrology or prayes need forces that have force-distance relationships we know can’t exist. For some reason this is called lack of mechanism instead of contrary to known science when it touches main religions.
There actually is a substantial body of research on the mechanism and psychological benefits of self-deception. Check out work by James Friedrich? I think Lloyd and Nesse and Trivers have written interesting lit.review kinds of things in this area also. Does Dennett say anything about prayer power in his new book? Haven’t read it yet.
Krucoff, a cardiologist, published a study last summer involving 748 heart patients at nine hospitals. That study failed overall to show any benefit. But Krucoff said he did find tantalizing hints that warrant follow-up: A subset of patients who had a second group of people praying that the prayers of the first group would be answered may have done better.
So, would this be the first or second derivative of a prayer?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
…
The “scientific studies” of prayer always remind me of all those shows you see on TV with names like “In Search of Bigfoot” and “Loch Ness, Fact or Fiction?”
None of them EVER firmly conclude that there’s zero reliable evidence for the whatever-it-is they’re “researching,” and good reason to believe they’re just bullshit.
I’d much rather see a scientific study of bullshit … and gullibility.
…
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
What about prayer as a psychological factor? Like an anti-stress thing? Isn’t that part of science that deserves some funding?
I think research was done on that subject and there was a positive effect (can’t remember references, sorry). That’s a placebo-effect type issue that’s unrelated to the idea of someone else’s prayer helping you at a distance, and is indeed vaguely scientific.
I don’t know about deserving funding, though – people tend not to arrange their praying habits in line with their doctor’s orders. There’d be no direct benefit and, IMO, there’s a lot of other basic research that’s more deserving of cash.
Atheists praying? Isn’t that a bit oxymoronic? The biggest methodologic flaw in prayer-experiments, it seems to me, is that the very act of praying (in the genuine sense it which it is understood by those who pray) requires ardent belief in the supernatural efficacy of prayer.
PZ, you do know how to pray!!!
We are supposed to pray for things that are good for us. Not “Lord I pray for a million dollars.” Another thing, an answered prayer means we get it, not a “NO” answer as in Timmy Yu’s case above.
I guess my god is a female. Yes,
Mother Nature Herself.
I don’t get the prayer thing either. I go to church — my dad is a minister — but my view of prayer is that it’s an entirely internal mechanism. When I pray, it’s in self-reflection rather than supplication.
Plus, why research prayer? Unless you’re researching whether or not prayer can hurt, there’s no real reason to research it. Go ahead and pray! If it can’t do damage, why care? One of the prayer heavy ladies in my church prayed for me to get into grad school. I got into grad school, but I won’t attribute that to her unless my advisor someday says “well, I wasn’t going to let you in on your merits, but then I had this funny feeling and woke up on the ground thinking ‘yes, I’ll admit her.'” But it made the old lady feel better about herself, and it did me no damage.
I’d like to see a scientific study into the positive effects of FSM worship.
I’d fund a study on the effect of “intercessory” prayer over interstellar distances. Let’s put a group of evangelicals on a space craft and send them out beyond the limits of the solar system with a list of people to pray for with starting times.
The question: does prayer travel faster than light? If so, think of the practical applications for FTL communication. Transmissions could be coded in the survival of terminally ill patients: 0=die, 1=live. I suppose you’d have the remote prayers be ongoing, and selectively stop praying for certain patients when the message was to be sent.
Would praying to Satan be allowed?
Has prayer been tested on animals; or would that be too cruel ?
PZ’s prayer proposal purported to prevent parallelization of prayers! Pity, the people praying prefer to parallelize than prepend prior prayers’ persons to a prayer-people paragraph…. ;-)
John Ponder says “The biggest methodologic flaw in prayer-experiments, it seems to me, is that the very act of praying (in the genuine sense it which it is understood by those who pray) requires ardent belief in the supernatural efficacy of prayer.”
Why do you assume that? The studies I’ve read about use prayers from those who do believe. Indeed, one study looked at intercessory prayers by evangelical Christians. Of course, that tells you nothing about prayers by Hindus. If the study looks at prayers by various groups simultaneously, there is the problem of what algebra to use. Maybe prayers by protestants cancel out prayers by Catholics. The most likely algebra is like the old song: Nothing plus nothing is nothing. ;-)
We “know” no such thing, no more than we “knew” that empirical statistical distributions needed to be Bell Curves, or “knew” that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Currently, we believe that quarks are bound by a force relationship that doesn’t grow weaker with increasing distance. Have particle physicists gone mad, or do they understand the nature of scientific inquiry better than Mr. Larsson?
I suggested earlier that you hate your previous experiences with religion.
Where did I get the idea? Among other things, for your relentless and generally vituperative attacks upon religion (especially Christianity) and what you see as its scientific stalking horse, ID.
You endless critiques, going on ad nauseam, are vaguely reminiscent of the rabid anti-homosexual minister Fred Phelps, who goes so far as to protest at military funerals because the US deserves to lose as it is, as he puts it in his delusion, a “gay” country. The man loathes homosexuality so much, one wonders if he is attacking the very thing he is attracted to.
One wonders if you are attacking Christianity -or its stalking horse- so relentlessly for a simliar reason: you are still secretly attracted to it.
“Atheists praying? Isn’t that a bit oxymoronic?”
The atheist prayer chain is the control.
There was something a while back at Real Live Preacher, where he described his student ministry at a hospital.
I threw myself into it. I prayed holding hands and cradling heads. I prayed with children and old men. I prayed with a man who lost his tongue to cancer. I lent him mine. I prayed my ass off. I had 50 variations of every prayer you could imagine, one hell of a repertoire.
I started noticing something. When the doctors said someone was going to die, they did. When they said 10% chance of survival, about 9 out of 10 died. The odds ran pretty much as predicted by the doctors. I mean, is this praying doing ANYTHING?
rrt:
RRT then goes on to mention the need for the null to be accepted enough times to call it a day.
I have a statistical comment (written down for the MDs) on the Harris et el prayer paper, and have sent a note to the Washington Post where this article was published. It was flatly a statistical fluke. If you eliminated the catheterization variable, there is no effect. As the post hoc analysis the Harris group did changed the alpha level by a great deal (about twenty tests), that variable was not significant. Hence, a significant F with no significant components (fluke) and, when the only mathematical ‘draw’ for the distributions is removed, the tails of the distributions overlap quite a bit. There is no difference between the prayed for and not prayed for groups in that paper. (I’ve asked PZ not to quote my letter due to prior submission to the Post, etc., but this is previously published in the Arch Int Med.)
As to the other work, one of the earliest was Byrd as mentioned in the Stein article. Even he thought little of his work – he, too, had done multiple tests and come up with his Chi Square. Harris et el failed to replicate Byrd, BTW.
I think there are about eight or so intercessory prayer papers out there. Some well done, none with solid positive, and replicated results in favor of this form of prayer. None. Nada. Zip. The question is answered. Magic does not work in this realm.
There is even fraud involved as Elizabeth Targ’s group, when due to the mundane bit about drugs effecting delays in death of AIDS patients, had her double blind study’s keys broken, and embarked on a fishing expidition. This is fraud. Period. See:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.12/prayer.html
A sad, sad state of affairs. (Of course telepathy guru Russell Targ (Elizabeth Targ’s dad) hates me for pointing this out in more than a few places, and I’ve been banned from emailing on site where this paper was credulously presented – and innocen me, claimed it was a fraud and at least a mention of breaking the keys was in order!)
I should go see if my note to the Post has been published. They’ve not emaile dme back with a rejection….
An hour ago my wife mentioned that Onion “prayer” article and now I see it posted on this thread. Coincidence? I don’t think so!
There is a lack of mechanism. When a shaman claims chewing tree bark cures malaria, there’s at least a hypothetical pharmaceutical mechanism there. If I were to pray over a photo of an infertile woman in South Korea, there isn’t much of a testable conduit for that information or power or whatever to tickle her ovaries and induce conception. The premise is simply silly, and even if a statistical correlation popped out of the results, there is no prospect for deeper understanding. It lacks predictive utility.
I’ve got to disagree here. There is 3,000+ years of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of prayer. Newton didn’t define the mechanism of gravity until 100 years after Galileo figured out the earth revolves around the sun. Just because we don’t know the mechanism doesn’t mean we can’t observe evidence.
The mechanism of action could be “prayer”, it could be some secondary interconnected “global” or local sub-consiousness which increases brainwave activity, and, as the null hypothesis states, there could be no effect at all. The fact is that exploring natural phenomena (we pray, people seem to get better) is the foundation of science. As our knowledge increases, we can safely put the idea of prayer being effective behind us (or change our thoughts on the matter); but as you said in your first article, the little research that exists is flawed.
“One wonders if you are attacking Christianity-or its stalking horse-so relentlessly for a simliar reason: you are still secretly attracted to it.”
Hey, demoman, do most Americans (as recently revealed in a study) hate atheists and engage in relentless and generally vituperative attacks upon atheism because they are secretly attracted to it?
Given Dr Krucoff’s remarkable discovery of series vs. parallel prayer, I think it’s obvious what the problem is: everyone’s praying in DC! We need to get some AC prayer going, so that we don’t lose Prayer Power(TM) when it’s transmitted over long distances. Now, if only I cared enough to pray at 60 Hz…
If prayer really worked then the researchers would only need to pray for funding and…wahlah. Funded to the max.Thereby negating the need to do the research as they would just keep praying for funding as proof that prayer worked. We as a nation would save plenty in fact as we could have the prayer groups pray for fiscally responsible representation and we would have that as well. The results would be endless if we just believed in nonsense. Also why exactly do they need money to test a spiritually quantified idea?
Paul wrote:
“Good scientists don’t waste their time testing prayer.”
You are so incredibly closed-minded that sometimes even I’m astounded.
What is Buddhist Prayer?
The purpose of Buddhist prayer is to awaken our inherent inner capacities of strength, compassion and wisdom rather than to petition external forces based on fear, idolizing, and worldly and/or heavenly gain. Buddhist prayer is a form of meditation; it is a practice of inner reconditioning. Buddhist prayer replaces the negative with the virtuous and points us to the blessings of Life.
For Buddhists, prayer expresses an aspiration to pull something into one’s life, like some new energy or purifying influence and share it with all beings. Likewise, prayer inspires our hearts towards wisdom and compassion for others and ourselves. It allows us to turn our hearts and minds to the beneficial, rousing our thoughts and actions towards Awakening. If we believe in something enough, it will take hold of us. In other words, believing in it, we will become what we believe. Our ability to be touched like this is evidence of the working of Great Compassion within us.
What’s more, it can a function as a form of self-talking or self-therapy in which one mentally talks through a problem, or talks through it aloud, in the hope that some new insight will come or a better decision can be made. Prayer therefore frequently has the function of being part of a decision-making process.
You ought to try it sometime, it might do you a world of good. You might even learn tolerance and forebearance for those with whom you disagree.
In short, we create our own reality.
http://charliewagner.blogspot.com/2004/11/in-every-strangers-eyes.html
“We are a link in Amida’s golden chain of love that stretches around the world, we will keep our link bright and strong.
We will be kind and gentle to every living thing and protect all who are weaker than ourselves.
We will think pure and beautiful thoughts, say pure and beautiful words, and do pure and beautiful deeds.
May every link in Amida’s chain of love be bright and strong, and may we all attain perfect peace.
Namo Amida Buddha.
Of course, if prayer really worked, one would expect highly religious groups to have longer lifespans and/or better health than, say, atheists, given that it seems vastly more likely that people in the first group would pray and be prayed for.
And sgent, I think the point is that there *aren’t* 3000+ years of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of prayer. See PZ’s first point. The lack of a mechanism is just sort of an extra nail in the coffin.
If prayer really worked, then no team would ever lose a basketball game and Iraq would not be a quagmire. The cruelty and randomness of bad things happening in the world is the strongest evidence I’ve seen that there is no God. If there was really a God, Pat Robertson would have been struck by lightning many times while invoking God’s name for his crazy ideas.
Oh Great Capacitor in the sky! Hear our series prayer!
Seriously, this Krucoff guy is allowed to see *patients*?
sgent, care to unmuddle your comment? Just what evidence and just which type of prayer?
People pray, families die. Just as factual a statement as yours.
“It could be some secondary interconnected ‘global’ or local sub-consiousness which increases brainwave activity…” Yah, sure. But that reminds me–happy birthday to Richard Dawkins! He increases my brainwave activity. I have a great idea for a subsitute for National Day of Prayer – or, as I call it, National Day of Bayer (as in aspirin).
Charlie, the purpose of that kind of talk is to nail hippy chicks. Not to bore scientists. Go away.
Mechanophile says, “Of course, if prayer really worked, one would expect highly religious groups to have longer lifespans and/or better health than, say, atheists.”
Well, actually, there is evidence for that. Regular church attendance exhibits a statistical association with a wide range of benefits, including wealth and lifespan. That is not evidence that prayer works, or that religion has any truths to teach. I suspect any sociologist could list a dozen more mundane reasons for these kinds of correlation. Here’s a handful off the top of my head: preselection, social networking, moderation of unhealthy habits, inculcation of positive attitude.
You’re right, pace sgent, that there are not 3,000 years of evidence that intercessory prayer works. There may be 3,000 years of belief that it works. But belief is not evidence.
Okay, this is going to sound crazy in this forum, but Krucoff is actually a top notch interventional cardiologist in one of the top academic medical centers in the country who just happens to have one grant on studying prayer. For what it’s worth coming from me, my personal scientific discussions with him lead me to think he is far from being a nut and is actually a very thoughtful guy who is trying to test hypotheses he’s generated by observing his patient population. He doesn’t just study prayer, but also looks at the effect of music, imagery, and relaxation techniques on outcomes in CABG patients. Personally, I wouldn’t touch the prayer project with a 10-foot pole since I can’t think of a mechanism of action and, of course, I’m not an MD.
I won’t pretend to speak for Mitch, but I’d encourage anyone to talk with him personally and then decide if he really is a crackpot rather than to rely only on how he is quoted in the media.
Just my two cents.
PZ hit the nail on the head here with his comment on mechanism. Even if there were some positive correlation between prayer and good outcome that wouldn’t prove anything about prayer. Do the authors even attempt to factor out the possible ammeliorative effects of believing(falsely) that prayer works?
Who are the d-bags that fund this garbage? Probably me. I just know that there’s federal funding involved. I think I’ll cook up a grant proposal for studying whether prayer can turn lead into gold. My hypothesis is only AC prayer can turn the trick.
“PZ’s prayer proposal purported to prevent parallelization of prayers! Pity, the people praying prefer to parallelize than prepend prior prayers’ persons to a prayer-people paragraph…. ;-)”
My head asplode…
Thanks for the comments, Mr. Price. Would you by any chance have some refs or links…? I wouldn’t mind doing a bit of reading.
Abel PharmBoy:
Unless he’s been misquoted, the bit about energy settled that question for me.
People, people! Look, a prayer answered right in your midst!
“CJ: Here’s that article
Posted by: Red and Black ”
CJ prayed for the reference, and it was answered by the will of God through his humble servant Red and Black! And even if Red and Black doesn’t acknowledge it, God was still using him/her without his/her knowledge! Truly, it is amazing.
I’m going to be boring, and quote myself, again ….
Prayer has no effect on third parties.
(Ref. F. Galton; “Statistical inquiries into the efficacy of prayer.”; 1872. )
I originally wrote that: This should be given further examination, and fresh tests should be devised and performed. This is where experimental, falsifiable scientific tests can be made, as they can for proposition 1. But, now attempts have been made to do double-blind tests over a reasonably large number of subjects. The results so far certainly seem to show that prayer has no discernible effect whatsoever.
Note that religious believers always say that both: (a) “prayer works” AND (b) “It doesn’t work like that, and cannot be tested.”
Why not? If prayer has any effect, or works at all, then that working or effect will be measurable.
Thus: (i) Prayer will affect first parties: those who are doing the praying. In the same manner that any organised directed thought by an individual may, and usually will affect the actions of the person thinking those thoughts.
(ii) Prayer may, and probably will, have an effect on second parties. People who are being prayed at, or over. Thus, even if the effect is to increase the resistance of the victim, it will have an effect. Typical examples would be: A group of Scots’ evangelicals praying at / over a woman who has had a baby out of wedlock, or the condemnation of Shostakovitch for musical formalism in1948
(iii) Third parties, who are not present, will not be affected in any way, provided they are not informed of the prayers. In other words, provided they are kept in ignorance of others’ intentions. Some double-blind trials of this, similar to those used in medicine and experimental psychology have now been performed. The results are being carefully ignored into the ground by the believers.
Corollary: 4a ] There is no such thing as “Psi”.
Similarly, any so-called “Psi” forces and supernatural powers have no real effect, or existence.
If these had any reality whatsoever, consider the enormous evolutionary advantage that such a talent, skill, or ability would give to any person, or any other animal, so endowed. No such advantage has ever been seen, or noted. The simple reason is that “Psi” is not merely a myth, but a possibly comforting lie. It is also a source of great exploitation of the gullible by stage magicians and unscrupulous fraudsters.
All of the above applies to “miracles” as well.
Thus ; superstition: – “If you pray hard enough, you can make water run uphill. How hard do you have to pray? .. Hard enough to make water run uphill, of course!” ( R.A.H.)
Hence, prayer is superstition.
Dang, and all this time I’ve been praying for certain sports teams to win, when I should have been praying for the other people praying for those same teams instead. Man this prayer science is complicated stuff!
I’m going to take out a grant for a million dollars because I have a theory that wearing blue hats during prayer raises its effectiveness by 3%, yellow hats -14%, and praying under the bed by 26%.
Dennett said atheists would gleefully look forward to testing of intercessory prayer, anticipating null results. Clearly he didn’t speak for all atheists.
“Lack of mechanism” seems bogus. Yes, that’s a reason to not anticipate a result, but if a solid study *did* find that prayers made people heal faster, then chanting “lack of mechanism” wouldn’t make the big bad evidence go away. Geologists didn’t have a mechanism for continental drift when the seafloor spreading evidence came in, but that didn’t stop them from saying “oh shit, Wegener was right” and *looking* for the unforeseen mechanism the evidence told them had to be there.
I think I should do a study on the effectiveness of personal attacks that use clueless, maundering pseudo-psychology.
In particular, I’d like to test how strong the correlation is between a high level of clueless, maundering pseudo-psychology and a low level of knowledge and/or critical thought on the titular subject of the discussion at hand. In short, I’d like to test the veracity of the old adage: “the empty can rattles the most.”
I think Metallica wrote a song about that, back in the day.
Glad you covered this bit; as I noted here even their description of the religious issues is dumbed down to the point of mud.
Actually the Seed links below include one to what Dennett has to say about testing science. Very different from PZ’s comments.
The problem, Damien, is that most atheists are not just atheists. As a scientist, I want funding first for the most fruitful and interesting lines of research. As a taxpayer, I want public monies to be well spent. As someone concerned with medical care, I don’t want physicians wasting their time on palpable nonsense. As an atheist, I might have a little glee about the testing of intercessory prayer. Even that is tempered by the knowledge that negative empirical results have no effect on the faithful.
Recent genetic testing has shown that native Americans are not the lost tribes of Israel. The only effect that will have on Mormonism will be the small necessity of patching some theological excuse over that annoying fact. Given the mountain ranges of fact that theology regularly covers, that new genetic evidence isn’t even a molehill.
Re – “One wonders if you are attacking Christianity -or its stalking horse- so relentlessly for a simliar reason: you are still secretly attracted to it.”
This may be the reason that so many fundamentalists attack homosexuality so much, huh? Or maybe those who argue against war secretly love it? People who protest torture really just want to stick those railroad spikes in – is that how it works?
?????
As an aside, there is some kook in Temple (TX) (IIRC) who is doing a study on prayer. When I saw this on the tv I couldn’t help yelling at the stupidity and methodological flaws these studies have. This is what is supposed to pass as science?
Russell says: Well, actually, there is evidence for that. Regular church attendance exhibits a statistical association with a wide range of benefits, including wealth and lifespan. That is not evidence that prayer works, or that religion has any truths to teach.
Bah, you’re right, Russell. Damn sociological factors!
*shakes his fist at sociology*
Damien says: Yes, that’s a reason to not anticipate a result, but if a solid study *did* find that prayers made people heal faster, then chanting “lack of mechanism” wouldn’t make the big bad evidence go away.
The problem with complaining about PZ’s ‘mechanism’ comment is that you’re missing the larger issue. You’re right when you say the above, but the point is that no such studies *exist*. We aren’t saying that prayer’s ‘lack of mechanism’ would make any evidence go away, we’re saying that A) there IS no evidence, and B) the fact that there’s neither any evidence nor any apparent mechanism makes funding research on the subject wasteful.
Besides, comparing prayer to continental drift seems disingenuous. Even without a mechanism for drift, you can make predictions based on the evidence. When it comes to prayer studies, there’s nothing on which to base predictions other than a vague ‘we assume that eventually there will be health benefits of some sort for some people’.
JP: The question: does prayer travel faster than light?
You might look to Ed Mitchell’s unauthorized psychic experiment from Apollo 14. Sure, the result was no better than chance. Worse, in fact. But that’s because the testers on Earth were out of sync with the Apollo mission clock. The negative result shows they were subconsciously aware of the flaw in the experiment!!
Sgent said: “. There is 3,000+ years of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of prayer.”
To which I say, what utter tripe! Ever since people invented superstition, they have been praying to avoid dying, and nobody’s made it out alive yet!
-jcr
I just went outside to help your cause and caught four birds and … Oh, not preying for your cause….
This reminds me of one of the interesting articles on the healing effects of prayer, which found that retroactive prayer 4 to 10 years after the illness could reduce the hospital stay and duration of fever.
The article is at the British Medical Journal.
Wow, the real experiment that I’m currently part of could always use more money, and it will result in a balloon-borne telescope instead of a bunch of nonsense. Kinda makes you wanna whip babies.
Mechanophile: I know such positive studies don’t exist, and as a materialist atheist I’m relieved the studies done so far have been null results. That doesn’t mean it was absurd to do the studies, or that “you have to *want* it to be tested true to even bother”.
Russell: “*no* effect on the faithful”. Well, those fully infected by the memes won’t be affected, and the official religion can patch up the theology, but that doesn’t mean no one professing to be a Mormon will be affected by some doubt. Variable populations and marginal effects, not essentialism; I think I *saw* some shocked Mormon reactions after the study, though I won’t search for them right now. Not a silver bullet, but one more piece of the edifice of science, one more splinter of doubt prying in.
The thing is, no matter how well set up, no matter how solid the experimental protocol, there cannot be a way to accurately test the efficacy of prayer. The one variable that cannot be controlled is the “will of God”. Most religions keep that God is not a cosmic vending machine, and that one can’t simply ask for things and have them come. It’s all based on the whims of the almighty. *If* there were a god, and *if* he works in the way most religions think, then there would be NO WAY TO TEST IT. If the sick person got better, that’s a positive result. If the person didn’t, that’s just because it’s the will of God. It’s the ultimate untestable hypothesis, and I as a taxpayer am outraged that over two million dollars has gone to this kind of offal.
I think the problem is that PZ’s list should have been one item instead of three, since it obviousy makes him sound like he might reject evidence if it *were* there. (I’m NOT saying that he actually says/thinks that, but if you’re determined to read that into PZ’s article, he’s making it easier to do so. :) )
There is no evidence that this “intercessory prayer” works. Perisd. End of list. If there *was* evidence, then we might try to figure out some sort of mechanism. Until then, why bother? If repeated studies show no evidence of this kind of prayer working, then that’s reason enough to not bother to fund more of the same.
And no, thousands of years of counting the hits and ignoring the misses of prayer does not count as “evidence”. The body, after all, can heal itself.
I would like to know a few things. First, how does one set up an experiment with prayer that covers every single variable?
For example, how do you measure someone’s faith? If an experiment is to be testable and valid, things should be exactly the same- correct? So, how does one validate, through the next experiment, that each person has the same amount of faith? The same amount of commitment? The same amount of sincerity?
How do you ensure that each person prayed for is getting the same “quality” of prayer? If I am getting prayed for by a neophyte to the faith, and the guy next to me is being prayed over by the person who has believed all their life, will there be a difference? How about type and length of prayer?
This may seem silly, but I am completely serious. People who consider themselves “real” Christians – fundamentalists especially – essentially reject outright that praying to any other god besides theirs is valid. So, again, we come to another question- how many people of each faith are included in this study? If there were more Buddhists and Muslims and Athiests(?praying?) than Christians, would this skew results? What faith has the best results in its prayer efforts? If one faith shows a clear “win” then should we not pursue the experiment with that faith?
I am not being a smart ass, I am completely puzzled. I grew up in a religious environment that completely rejected the possibility that religions other than mine could be true. So their prayers would not be answered, but mine would. And if it looked like their prayers were answered, it was the Devil’s work, and it was his way of making it look like they were on track- but he was really leading them to Hell by his deception.
I am not making this stuff up, nor am I an expert. Like I have read, anecdote is not the root of data, or somesuch saying. I am putting forward what I lived through as an example of why I think these studies cannot be replicated in any meaningful way, because not only can faith not be measured, but many faiths disagree as to the validity of the others.
This kind of research receiving funding is a bit bizarre in my mind. If this stuff really works so well, then we would be better off hiring a bunch of people to pray for us rather than operate, prescribe, counsel (insert whatever else docs do), and then use the money we save on health care for something else (tongue firmly planted in cheek here).
There is too much “whoo hoo” being posited here, and not enough science.
But is that not what happens when a society goes form separation of church and state, to faith based programs? It infiltrates all aspects of the citizens lives, and insinuates itself into every institution.
I wonder why so many Christians insist on conducting these experiments when both the old testament (Deut. 6:16) and the new testamanet (Matt. 4:7) specifically say that one should not put God to the test.
Since God is omniscient, clearly he knows he is being tested. Even from a Christian perspective, God is not likely to look favorably on this kind of test. I mean, if he wanted to make it obvious that he answers prayer, I think we’d all know by know that every time we pray we get what we want.
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/03/doctors_orders_go_to_church.php?utm_source=SB-rightcol&utm_medium=linklist&utm_campaign=internal%2Blinkshare
This is an interesting article on “Should Doctors Prescribe Religion? ” in SEED MAGAZINE……
Damien: So let’s say that I want to spend $2.2 million of US federal money on studying the effect of prayer on preventing corrosion in steel. Or on studying the effect of sanctifying motor oil, to see whether it increases engine life. Or how about spending that money on studying whether transubstantiation actually occurs? Hey, why not see if AC prayer works better than DC prayer over long distances? How fanciful does a proposal have to be before it stops deserving funding, in your view?
In an ideal world, sure, every bizarre proposal would be approved and every woo would be able to get funding for their research. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and there are far too many worthwhile avenues of research to justify spending millions on this tripe.
A number of posters have hit the nail on the head: the people who always talk about prayer being effective have the ultimate escape clause, in that they can always claim ‘the Will of God’. Your dad died, even when you prayed for him? Oh, sorry, Billy, it was the Will of God. Your dad survived that car accident? Praise Jesus, our prayers were answered!
The purpose of all of the studies is to break down the 1st Amendment. That is, to start making laws about, or funding grants for, religion. Nothing more or less.
“Let’s put a group of evangelicals on a space craft and send them out beyond the limits of the solar system with a list of people to pray for with starting times….”
Do you think Hinn, Robertson, and Falwell could be on the ship?
Obviously, experimental prayers aren’t the same as real prayers. There’s an obvious difference between, “Dear God, please heal my loved one (and any other people you feel like healing), and “Dear God, please heal the people in the experimental group but withhold healing from the people in the control group.”)
I don’t think it’s possible to design an experiment that doesn’t contain an implicit prayer that the control group shouldn’t be healed. But a prayer to withhold healing is a malicious prayer, and a loving God would ignore it.
So the negative results from the prayer studies are iron-clad proof that a loving God exists.
Here’s another idea for an experiment: see whether prayer is more effective when carried out in a closet, like in Matthew 6:6. ;)
“Here’s another idea for an experiment: see whether prayer is more effective when carried out in a closet, like in Matthew 6:6. ;)”
As I suggested earlier, an atheist prayer chain acts as a control group. I don’t think you?ll get any atheists into the closet to act as a control group.
Does anyone else see the massive amount of money flowing through questionable/bogus projects and think “money laundering”?
I’m not sure whether that thought is bubbling to the surface as a potential explanation or an entrepreneurial inspiration.
“Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder” –Homer Simpson
It’s been done. In 1872, Francis Galton published a lengthy paper called Statistical Enquiries into the Efficacy of Prayer. His conclusion: prayer doesn’t work.
I am linking to the book review because people can use the book ID to register their comments about it. Just click on the link within the review to get to the actual text online as well as some facts about Galton’s life.
Testing god prohibited?
Nope. See 1Kings18: 26 et seq.
See, even if the experiment doesn’t work, it is money very well spent.
Wow! There you have exposed the thought processes of the closed-minded believer.
As usual I just can never wrap my mind around the “logic” of religion, anytime I try my mind starts boggling out of control.
My understanding is that the almighty “Deity” (insert the diety popular/and or legaly requrired in your neighbourhood)is all powerful and all knowing (ie. perfect), right?
That means he/they already know whats going to happen especially because He/it are the creator and controller of “life, the universe and everything”,er, right?
But if we pray hard and/or corectly enough we can influence the course of events which means that the “allmighty” doesn`t know whats going to happen and/or is open to suggestions, providing that we muster enough prayers of the correct kind, from the right people, at the right time to the “right” deity, ah, right?
But the almighty is “perfect” (all knowing, right?)so things are going to turn out just the way he planned, but then again he hears prayer and that means that the result is uncertain without our input, so god isn`t allmighty or is he just screwing with us and just what is the point of his whole creationgame, however we MUST pray because god answers prayers……. but god is all knowing so he already knows….but intercedes in the chain of events..
Wait my mind is starting to boggle…. I´m losing the thread… help…boggle-boggle
religion is stupid.
Still boggling….
Does god have divine amnesia, is he just bored, is it eternally april 1st in paradise?
Must he smite New Orleans killing thousands of people to send me and other sinners like me a message about abortion, is he just a lousy shot or, like most “guys”, just a poor comunicater? (Sorry that message went over my head god, wouldn´t a personal telegram be more effective?)
I´m a father and I love my kids. If I was all powerful I would certainly give them a mercedes and buy the next round, protct them in the valley of death, not lead them into temptation and not give them some sort of horrible disease or death or handicap, they wouldn`t even have to ask and I could guarantee that it would happen. If I was all powerful etc. and if I loved my children.
Now I know that religious believers will claim that my arguments and questions are simplistic and sophomoric, they may even be right.
But the logic of religion and god, it´s workings and trappings and “explanations” doesn´t even reach the level of simplistic and sophomoric intelligence.
My mind boggles.
still praying…
I think you have failed to consider what it would mean if prayer actually worked. Read Sheri Tepper’s The Visitor and you could see why it would be a good idea. Just saying.
“He hoped and prayed there wasn’t an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction there, and merely hoped there wasn’t an afterlife.” – Douglas Adams
I asked a theologian friend what the point of prayer was. After all, if God knows everything, including one’s thoughts, then ‘praying’ is a bit redundant for the Almighty, and it must seem like spam to Him. What could He possibly get out of it?
My friend says God doesn’t gain anything but people do. ‘It brings them closer to God.’ He went on to say that prayer can give a person self-confidence, a feeling of well-being, succor when one if feeling alone, etc. To which I said the existence of God is irrelevant to these effects — just the belief is such an entity is necessary. He didn’t like that.
OK, so what about attitude? Positive attitudes are supposed to be good for health. People constantly ask me how it is that I can have a positive attitude, and ethical behavior, without belief in God. How old are they really…pre-K?
No real need, unless the PI wants to do soem of that. At this point, these are effectively ‘outcome’ studies. Once a positive outcome is established, the next step is to parse it all out in meaningful and empirically validated terms on the basis of hypothesized and discovered variables.
But Krucoff said he did find tantalizing hints that warrant follow-up: A subset of patients who had a second group of people praying that the prayers of the first group would be answered may have done better.
This is the fucking stupidest thing I’ve read in a long time.
Doesn’t Krucoff know that thousands of my friends and I sacrifice animal meat daily to ensure that Parguanchuan the Invisible Rat Elf foils Krucoff’s studies?
Surely Krucoff hasn’t located the Ten Tomes of Sarcongwak, where the only appropriate controls are disclosed? If Krucoff had located the Tomes, the beak on the chicken at the base of the statue of Parguanchuan would be dripping rhino blood, as written in prophecy.
All,
Here is link to an article in the Journal of Religion and Society. I think most of you participating in this discussion should read this. It is a study that defines societal dysfunction very specifically, then looks at the correlations between the level of dysfunction and religiosity or secularism in different countries or regions (at least among prosperous democracies). Very eye opening even if you are a skeptic. I haven’t done any digging to check their work, but it looks very well put together and referenced.
Caledonian,
Since you are using an ad hominem you have lost the argument, and since I can’t be sure that you are interested in discussing the facts you are loosing me too.
But before I go, I will have to answer the rest of your comment.
“About lack of mechanism – usually it’s even known that the mechanisms can’t be natural. Ie parapsychology, astrology or prayes need forces that have force-distance relationships we know can’t exist.”
We “know” no such thing,”
Actually we know that there are precious little place for forces outside the already known fundamental ones, with putative different force-distance relationships. We also know that the brain EM field is too weak to be used for telepathy, prayer transmission or parapsychology readings, and that EM and GR from stars are too weak and constrained by light speed for astrology. They all drown in the background.
The weakness and useful range of the brain EM field is relatively easy to find out.
“no more than we “knew” that empirical statistical distributions needed to be Bell Curves, or “knew” that the Sun revolved around the Earth.”
This is obviously wrong in details. Not all distributions are Gaussian, not even imprecision or error distributions. A generous interpretation is that you are thinking about the central limit theorem.
“Currently, we believe that quarks are bound by a force relationship that doesn’t grow weaker with increasing distance.”
Why would I discuss the strong force, a force that isn’t longrange for everyday Earth energies but confined to the nucleus of an atom as residual color exchange forces or predominantly inside baryons made up of quarks?
“Have particle physicists gone mad, or do they understand the nature of scientific inquiry better than Mr. Larsson?”
This is an absurd question since their research would give them different but not necessarily better insights into the nature of scientific inquiry than my own which is from a slightly different area of physics.
But since you brought up particle physicists, an even better area here is probably string physics since it explores basic mechanisms in all fundamental interactions.
I think string physicist Lobos Motl of blog fame, was responsible for the observation of the current constraints on more interactions that I mentioned above. I have a weak memory that he has discussed parapsychology specifically in similar terms a year or so ago. I recommend his blog archive, if you need to find out.
“Paul wrote:
“[something eminently sensible for a scientist, based on much experience]”
You are so incredibly closed-minded that sometimes even I’m astounded.”
“*EVERYBODY* expects the Wagnerian Inquisition!
[We return to the torturing of a dear old blog]
– I suppose we make it worse by shouting a lot, do we? Confess, blog. Confess! Confess! Confess! Confess!”
John M Price
Thanks- I looked up outcome studies which are similar to longitudinal studies if I understand correctly. Then I stole the quote at the end. The problem with prayer being studied is that there are no ways to measure all the variables involved in faith.
Outcome studies, like meta analysis studies are flawed in my very small opinion because they are not precise. There may be some good information there, but unless you have a huge population base and some pretty clear questions you want answered you are kind of guessing. And depending on who you are working with, you may be working on consensus. Consensus is good if there is a way to re test what you are deciding upon. Otherwise it is the opinion of the guy in charge that rules the day.
Am I close on this? Or am I just picking my own opinions and trying to prove them right? I would love to know.
Quote:
Committee of the InternationalContinence SocietyAnders Mattiasson,* Jens Christian Djurhuus, David Fonda, Gunnar Lose,Jørgen Nordling, and Manfred Stöhrer
INTRODUCTIONScientific evaluation of the outcome of therapeutic interventions in patients isnot possible without assessment both before and after the intervention. The methodsand measurements used must conform to set criteria in order that they may be appliedto all interventions so that comparison between studies may be made. They must bevalid, accurate, precise, reliable, and repeatable using a test-retest variation. Evalua-tions should be properly directed, such that the right variable is measured. Eventhough methods of intervention and evaluation may vary, certain domains of mea-surement should be represented and a multidimensional approach undertaken. Thetime scale for evaluations and interventions and the composition of the study groupare important factors, so that some standardization exists, enabling understanding ofthe results by other investigators and comparison between studies.Unfortunately, no consensus of opinion presently exists on the way in whichstudies should be performed, including interventions and evaluations, nor on how theresults thus obtained should be represented. The scientific basis for many methods isalso frequently unclear. A recent American survey of the literature on outcome ingenuine stress incontinence classified almost all of the investigations as unsatisfactoryand only a few as excellent. We thus have a dilemma between what we know asbased on reliable scientific data, and what we believe based on clinical practice.
by David Harmon
I actually tried to read this thing, thinking David was getting on to everyone for not paralleling our prayers but when …ha , ha, ha,
Since trackbacks seem not to work (along with commenting via firefox, for that matter):
Praying for an open mind
Last Friday, the Washington Post published an article on the effectiveness of prayer for healing. It’s not surprising that this was done; scientists and doctors have studied the effect of prayer on individuals for years, and as one researcher said, “It’s one of the most prevalent forms of healing. Open-minded scientists have a responsibility to look into this.” Indeed, over the years, it’s been shown that…
So this is science? Scientists testing the untestable and the unproveable. Publishing papers in journals and getting funding. If this is science then why is ID research not science?
P.S.
If you tell me this isn’t “real” science, then I’ll be forced to tell you that you’re not really qualified to define the term. That’s how the No True Scotsman fallacy works ya see.
I need mucho prayer… I need to heal, this blood sugar thing…Come to think of it, God already healed me and heard my prayer.. I just have, to walk and act, like I got it… I believe… Please believe: God does answer ,prayer…Joseph Raphael Dante