EukekAlert! reports proof that God exists [Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'].
The answer, according to a new Arizona State University study published in the March journal Research on Social Work Practice, is “yes.” David R. Hodge, an assistant professor of social work in the College of Human Services at Arizona State University, conducted a comprehensive analysis of 17 major studies on the effects of intercessory prayer – or prayer that is offered for the benefit of another person – among people with psychological or medical problems. He found a positive effect.Hmmmm ... "one of the most prestigious journal in the field of social work." Well, that does it for me. Where's the nearest church? Pray for me.
“There have been a number of studies on intercessory prayer, or prayer offered for the benefit of another person,” said Hodge, a leading expert on spirituality and religion. “Some have found positive results for prayer. Others have found no effect. Conducting a meta-analysis takes into account the entire body of empirical research on intercessory prayer. Using this procedure, we find that prayer offered on behalf of another yields positive results.”
Hodge’s work is featured in the March, 2007, issue of Research on Social Work Practice, a disciplinary journal devoted to the publication of empirical research on practice outcomes. It is widely recognized as one of the most prestigious journals in the field of social work.
8 comments :
from justpaul
I wonder if his "meta-analysis" included the $2.4 million study mentioned in the 4/11/2006 NYTimes Op-Ed by Raymond Lawrence, an episcopal priest who is the director of pastoral care at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columibia University Medical Center. Quoting:
"In a large and much touted scientific study, one group of patients was told that strangers would pray for them, a second group was told strangers might or might not pray for them, and a third group was not prayed for at all. The $2.4 million study found that the strangers' prayers did not help patients' recovery.
The results of the study, led by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, came as welcome news. That may sound odd coming from an ordained minister. But if it could ever be persuasively demonstrated that such prayer "works," our religious institutions and meeting places would be degraded to a kind of commercial enterprise, like Burger King, where one expects to get what one pays for.
Historically, religions have promoted many kinds of prayer. Prayers of praise, thanksgiving and repentance have been highly esteemed, while intercessions of the kind done in the Benson study - appeals to God to take some action - are of lesser importance. They represent a less-respected magical wing of religion.
In fact, many theologians reject out of hand the notion that any person or group can effectively intercede with God in any respect. Paul Tillich and Karl Barth, the two major Christian theologians of the 20th century (and certainly no opponents of prayer) would have scoffed at the idea. The Lord's Prayer, the central prayer of Christendom, contains no plea for God to influence specific events in people's lives.
The news from science will not lead religious people to stop praying for others. Prayers are expressions of empathy that strengthen a caring community and bring comfort to those who are suffering. Comfort in this context undoubtedly has therapeutic health benefits. But scientists should not leap to the assumption that the ruler of the universe can be mechanically requisitioned to intervene in people's suffering or health.
It is unsurprising and not a little ironic that patients in the study who were told unequivocally they were being prayed for did worse than those who were told only that they might be. When medical personnel dabble in religious practices, we should anticipate that patients might interpret this as a sign of desperation.
Doctors in particular should be pleased that the Benson study demonstrated no benefit from intercessory prayer by strangers. Recently, a colleague told me about a devout, well-educated woman who accused a doctor of malpractice in his treatment of her husband. During her husband's dying days, she charged, the doctor had failed to pray for him. If prayer could be scientifically shown to help, every doctor would be obligated to pray with patients, or at least provide such service, and those who declined to do so would properly be subject to charges of malpractice.
In my several decades as a clergyman working closely with doctors, I have never met one who prays with patients, nor one who prescribes intercessory prayer. There are other ways to express personal care and concern.
Besides, the earlier, smaller scientific studies claiming that intercessory prayer was effective have been exposed as flawed. Perhaps the monumental Benson study will mark the end of all such research.
We should note that the impetus for this recent research has come almost entirely from scientists, not from religious leaders. It seems that no credible theologian has been involved in planning, directing or even consulting on such studies. But scientists who conduct research on religious practice should at least consult reputable theologians. Had they done so to begin with a considerable amount of money could have been saved. Scientists who undertake the work of theologians are as reckless as theologians who pretend to be scientists."
After looking at the journal's web site to see what it's focus is, a question arises: why is it that fringe/pseudosscience claims like this are virtually always presented either in popular outlets or, as in this case, in journals which are not focussed on the sort of research/claims being presented?
I guess this is rhetorical, cause it seems that the only reasonable explanation is that the author, and at times the editor, are trying to slip some shoddily supported ideas into a source so they can then claim the shoody stuff as "science".
I wonder if the meta-study included either the fraudulent Columbia prayer study or the fraudulent study carried out by Elisabeth Targ.
Perhaps a few more meta-analyses and then a meta-meta-analysis is required.
Like Burger King, eh? I like Burger King, I get to top their burgers my way, and I'm generally satisfied with the experience. Religion, on the other hand, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Most of the religious people I know think that God does answer your prayers. Ask and you shall receive and all that. If God doesn't do what you pray for, what the hell's the point?
My wife just prayed for ninja skills...
Quote: I wonder if the meta-study included either the fraudulent Columbia prayer study or the fraudulent study carried out by Elisabeth Targ.
I just downloaded the PDF and indeed, the Columbia and Targ studies are part of the meta analysis. I haven't read the whole thing, but the author appears to dodge the issue by saying:
"As might be expected given the subject matter,
studies on intercessory prayer have been controversial, especially if positive outcomes are reported (Halperin, 2001; Sicher,Targ, Moore, & Smith, 1998; Targ, 2002). Perhaps the most controversial study has been conducted by Cha and Wirth (2001), and the interchange between Cha (2004) and Flamm (2005) illustrates some of the issues in play. No attempt was made to assess the validity of the various arguments in deciding which studies to include in this review. In at least some cases, the central issues seem to be rooted in differing meta- physical assumptions about the nature of reality, a subject that is beyond the scope of the present article. Thus,all studies featured in academic journals that meet the search criteria were included in this study."
That is weak, and a serious problem for this study, since both studies have been thoroughly discredited.
That's a big problem with the idea of meta-studies; can you really included BS studies and have the overall conclusions make sense? If so, you can skew any meta-study by producing BS studies in enough quantity. For many fields of study this is unlikely to happen because there's no incentive, but in prayer studies there is a huge incentive, plus many millions of dollars available to do the studies and publications. The result, I would think, is that prayer studies are likely to be one of the (if not THE) worst candidates for an accurate meta-study.
If this is a proper scientific study, then the scientists conducting the research shouldn't twist findings, fraudulant or not, to suppor a pre-determined idea or belief. The fact that prayer for the sufffering engeanders a positive outcome does not necessarily mean that GOD has answered their prayers. If these people are religious, knowing that they're being prayed for is going to help them psychologically anyway.
In terms of all scientific research, in my opinion it's just bad science to decide on a cause before you do the research, because that's just leads to misinterpretation of the results. But what do I know? I'm just a student, right?
Post a Comment