Ayn Rand Institute "Shocked" by Harvard Medical School Study; And So We Are

guys, don't count me in with your "we". And I think Nick feels the same way.

I actually think that prayer and alternative medicine is an important area of study.

This study represents 1 small study with negative effect. There are many positive studies as well. We need a RCT then some meta-analysis of these.

If prayer is to be trustworthy, there should be quantifiable results. The question is what results should you study. I would argue that the results should not necessarily be the physical health, but the emotional and psychological health and attitude of the patient towards whatever physical outcome.

Enoch, having checked out your personal site, I can see that you and I are roughly on the same page in our beliefs.

However, I take a different stance on studies that attempt to quantify faith-based phenomena. Science is the study of naturalistic events...prayer is fundamentally supernatural. These studies are looking for a statistical link between outcomes and prayer. The next step would be to look for a mechanism. What then? There are two options: look for a psychosomatic/placebo effect (which has been done), or start looking for a scientific explanation of the mechanisms of God's intervention. The second option seems a little dark-ages era pseudoscientific.

There's another perspective to be had: this is all about FAITH. You shouldn't need scientifically sound, statistically significant data to support your faith. A leap of faith isn't much of a leap when the outcome can be predicted with p less than .05

Enoch,

Science is defined as that which does not rely on faith, as being opposite in its foundation from religion. Religious practices are not quantifiable or scientifically measurable in any way. You cannot compare the quality of prayer between one and another person. You can't create a placebo replacement for prayer. And moreover, this study supposes that a proactive God might exist, and the study measures His "reply" to the prayers. If so, then God cannot participate in the study, because you can't run a double blind (or any blind) experiment, since He knows everything in advance. Perhaps God is simply thwarting the study - He never signed an impartiality agreement.
For scientists to study religion in this way is just as disrespectful and inappropriate as for theologians to dissect science to see if it complies with religious law. And if it does not, to declare that science is ineffective rubbish.
Because these two phenomena are inconsistent and fundamentally different from each other, it is simply absurd to study one from the perspective of the other.
So the complaint is not that prayer is good or bad, works or not, but that studying it scientifically is improper and cannot possibly lead to conclusive results. For the Harvard scientists to say that prayer is ineffective is to simply smear religion.

I agree - the whole prayer thing is bunk.

There will never be antigravity devices, time travel, or a cure for cancer as ANY remotely scientific person will surely know. We don't want to spend money for those and surely don't want to spend money researching something that we KNOW has no basis for reality.

BTW Didn't we think the world was once flat? Or was that just religious people?

Hey, it's like the gang's all here -- plus some guy named Adam. For the record, yeah, I wouldn't have used the royal "we" on this post, but am actually glad research like this is conducted.

And I'm guessing that the Ayn Rand Institute would be "shocked" that the research was supported by a government grant, that some successful scientists actually believe in God, and that kids are routinely encouraged to make a wish when blowing out birthday candles, instead of harnessing the productive ability of their minds.

Nick,

You're right that it doesn't take much for the Ayn Rand institute to be shocked yet again like never before. We'll try to stay away from the royal "We" in the future.

The article was posted by DrO, aka "we." So blame "us."

Tim O,

You Write, "Science is the study of naturalistic events...prayer is fundamentally supernatural."

Right. But then you write, "There are two options: . . . or start looking for a scientific explanation of the mechanisms of God's intervention."

The supernatural is, by definition, that which cannot be grasped by reason, i.e., by science. If a scientific explanation of the mechanisms of God's intervention were possible, God would be a natural phenomenon; since that is no one's conception of God, that means God wouldn't be God.

Adam,

What is the connection between seeking the natural causes of cancer, and believing in the supernatural?

Nick,

"And I'm guessing that the Ayn Rand Institute would be "shocked" . . . that kids are routinely encouraged to make a wish when blowing out birthday candles, . . ."

Are you implying that such wishes are as effective as prayers? I agree. If the kids are told to expect the wish to come true, it's dishonest; if the kids know it's just a fantasy game, fine.

". . . instead of harnessing the productive ability of their minds."

Production is what we expect from medical researchers; we expect less from five-year-olds.

Gene,

What else has the Ayn Rand Institute, according to it statements, been shocked by?

V.Z.

What is really ridiculous is when so-called scientists pronounce one area unfit for scientific study -- prayer.

Every news release or published paper reporting some scientific inquiry or other concludes with "more study is needed"..."further investigation is warranted"...and the like.

Except for this one. For some reason, prayer is a priori not appropriate for scientific investigation because..take your pick..it assumes a "God" (it doesn't); it's intrinsically "supernatural" or "religious" (it isn't) or because it threatens the bogus materialist worldview (bingo) or, taken to its logical end, perhaps even the sale of medical products and services touted by this site.

It's not surprising that the Harvard study showed prayer ineffective. What kind of prayer were they doing? Praying for "no complications"? Praying for "no complications" is the same as praying "for" complications...what, did they think God was listening and would be careful to pick up the "no" and write that down?

"Good for them for doing an excellent job in flushing this Harvard research down the sewer pipe, where it belongs" -- flushed because of the research design, not because the subject is not worth investigating.

The underlying message here is that God, who responds only to faith (or the lack of it), has not responded to a scientific study.

Science for the peasants, indeed.

Faith cannot be measured scientifically either in the person who is praying or in the patient who is the intended recipient. You do not always get the result you want when you pray. There is no way to know God's purpose in the way He responds to a prayer; there is no scientific way to measure the actual results of this study. On a personal level, I would prefer a surgeon who prayed, but I recognize and am thankful for the outstanding accomplishments that have been achieved by the hard work of the scientific and medical professions. I don't see how it could hurt to have faith along with your evening dose of medicine.

That being said, there is one obvious but overlooked result of this study. No few people have examined their own belief in the effectiveness of prayer, and by doing so have determined the richness of their faith, or discovered their poverty.

There are peasants...and then there are peasants.