Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Polymath257]

How would you go about designing a test that takes these principles into account?

For example, how would you determine whether those that pray believe or whether those that are prayed for believe?

If there is no way to do this, then the efficacy of prayer cannot be determined and it becomes a 'no True Scotsman' problem.

the goal is to find some way to test the efficacy, but of course, there is also a verse that says you shouldn't test God.

Convenient.

 

[paradox]

but of course, there is also a verse that says you shouldn't test God.

good point, which proves why these test cannot succeed.

 

[Polymath257]

good point, which proves why these test cannot succeed.

Which is a good reason to not believe in the efficacy of prayer. If no test can show it works, even in theory, why believe in it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have encountered various quote that the scientific test on prayer showed no change.

My response has always been "I don't think the parameters were set correctly". I can use the analogy that if the blind test for quenching thirst taking a Tylenol, we would say it didn't work but the parameters are wrong. (Exaggeration done to emphasize that parameters are important)

As my signature say, I offer a Christian perspective. I also personally believe that God does answer prayer outside of my faith in as much as His mercy is everlasting and it is His goodness (in answered prayers) that draws people to Him.

So, here goes. What were the parameters that were set? Is just having people pray for someone, enough for a comprehensive study?

Let me share some positions--since the question I would have is "who did they select to pray?".

1) Jesus is quoted as saying from Mattew 6:7 AMPCAnd when you pray, do not heap up phrases (multiply words, repeating the same ones over and over) as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking.

Are there people who call prayer "repeating words over and over"? The answer is yes. Heartfelt I am sure yet Jesus very clearly says they won't be heard by God. If they are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

2) James said, in James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."

if people are praying but praying thinking that God will hear them and then wondering if God will hear them, scripturally God can't get the answer to the person. If these people are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

3) The people who you want to pray for don't believe, they can actually stop God from moving. In Matthew 13 Jesus had the capacity to move, wanted to move but then couldn't as he said, "58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

This is just three of possibilities so my question is:

Are the parameter of the study taking into account prayer principles? Or just saying "Would you pray for these people" without asking how they are going to pray, what do they believe, what prayer are they going to use et al.

Please stay of topic if you want to discuss this.

BTW: all of you examples of things that make the test "invalid" wouldn't actually make them invalid; those tests would just be testing types of prayer that are different than the types you believe in.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is just three of possibilities so my question is:

Are the parameter of the study taking into account prayer principles? Or just saying "Would you pray for these people" without asking how they are going to pray, what do they believe, what prayer are they going to use et al.

They probably are not, no. What study is under discussion? They probably thought that by not adding constraints they were being more general or perhaps generous. In fact your objections seem relevant when it comes to Christian prayer.

 

[paradox]

Which is a good reason to not believe in the efficacy of prayer. If no test can show it works, even in theory, why believe in it?

A lot of people whose prayer was fulfilled (including me) would not agree with you.
Because sincere praying to God doesn't mean testing it.

There is also a verse somewhere in the bible which says we should not stop praying for same thing over and over again.

 

[PruePhillip]

I have encountered various quote that the scientific test on prayer showed no change.

My response has always been "I don't think the parameters were set correctly". I can use the analogy that if the blind test for quenching thirst taking a Tylenol, we would say it didn't work but the parameters are wrong. (Exaggeration done to emphasize that parameters are important)

As my signature say, I offer a Christian perspective. I also personally believe that God does answer prayer outside of my faith in as much as His mercy is everlasting and it is His goodness (in answered prayers) that draws people to Him.

So, here goes. What were the parameters that were set? Is just having people pray for someone, enough for a comprehensive study?

Let me share some positions--since the question I would have is "who did they select to pray?".

1) Jesus is quoted as saying from Mattew 6:7 AMPCAnd when you pray, do not heap up phrases (multiply words, repeating the same ones over and over) as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking.

Are there people who call prayer "repeating words over and over"? The answer is yes. Heartfelt I am sure yet Jesus very clearly says they won't be heard by God. If they are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

2) James said, in James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."

if people are praying but praying thinking that God will hear them and then wondering if God will hear them, scripturally God can't get the answer to the person. If these people are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

3) The people who you want to pray for don't believe, they can actually stop God from moving. In Matthew 13 Jesus had the capacity to move, wanted to move but then couldn't as he said, "58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

This is just three of possibilities so my question is:

Are the parameter of the study taking into account prayer principles? Or just saying "Would you pray for these people" without asking how they are going to pray, what do they believe, what prayer are they going to use et al.

Please stay of topic if you want to discuss this.

If you pray for God's kingdom, to have your faith increased, to learn to love more, strength to forgive, righteousness,
time for worship, insight into scripture and seeking God's holy spirit - doesn't He answer that?

 

[Psalm23]

I have encountered various quote that the scientific test on prayer showed no change.

My response has always been "I don't think the parameters were set correctly". I can use the analogy that if the blind test for quenching thirst taking a Tylenol, we would say it didn't work but the parameters are wrong. (Exaggeration done to emphasize that parameters are important)

As my signature say, I offer a Christian perspective. I also personally believe that God does answer prayer outside of my faith in as much as His mercy is everlasting and it is His goodness (in answered prayers) that draws people to Him.

So, here goes. What were the parameters that were set? Is just having people pray for someone, enough for a comprehensive study?

Let me share some positions--since the question I would have is "who did they select to pray?".

1) Jesus is quoted as saying from Mattew 6:7 AMPCAnd when you pray, do not heap up phrases (multiply words, repeating the same ones over and over) as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking.

Are there people who call prayer "repeating words over and over"? The answer is yes. Heartfelt I am sure yet Jesus very clearly says they won't be heard by God. If they are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

2) James said, in James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."

if people are praying but praying thinking that God will hear them and then wondering if God will hear them, scripturally God can't get the answer to the person. If these people are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

3) The people who you want to pray for don't believe, they can actually stop God from moving. In Matthew 13 Jesus had the capacity to move, wanted to move but then couldn't as he said, "58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

This is just three of possibilities so my question is:

Are the parameter of the study taking into account prayer principles? Or just saying "Would you pray for these people" without asking how they are going to pray, what do they believe, what prayer are they going to use et al.

Please stay of topic if you want to discuss this.

I mostly disagree with the numbered points though I do agree with you that God answers prayer.

For point one, in Matthew 6:7-8, Jesus seems to be providing reassurance that one doesn't have to use repetition for God to hear in my opinion. I believe God knows the heart of the person praying. He knows whether or not they are sincere. He knows the feelings of the person praying.

For point two and three , there was a man who doubted but Jesus healed his son. This is in Mark 9:17-27.

 

[KWED]

You are missing a varible. You don't speak for your God nor does anyone else. They might listen to your prayers but say no. Effectiveness cannot be determined cuz you are assuming if God hears the prayer then they'd heal the person. The point is of prayer is for God to hear you and answer it. You ask God to heal but that's it you can't make him do so. No one can measure how effective prayer is at its purpose-for God to hear you cuz no one can even prove God exists let alone if he can hear anyone.

The point is to show to those who insist that a god does exist, and he does answer their prayers, that they are wrong.
Either their god doesn't exist, or if he does, their prayers are useless.

 

[KWED]

There is something you can add to your list of points that make prayers not heard.

In 1 Samuel 28:3-25 Saul made a mistake of not listening to God commandment (see verse 18), so God didn't listen to his prayer.

The point of this story is that when we don't follow God's will he may stop listening to our prayer.
For us Christians this mean to reset this state we should make reconciliation with God and not repeat the mistake (of sin) again, aka. be in stake of grace.
holy spirit my be with us in state of grace, but sin is what makes it go away, out of us, and the prayer may no longer work.

Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy.
"God answers the prayers of believers"
"But he didn't answer mine"
"You're obviously not a true believer"

Another point that you may add to your list is that prayer must be sincere and about non earthly things.

The majority of claims about answered prayers are about earthy things of self-interest.
So presumably all these claims are false.

See also Matthew 6:30-33 where Jesus says that "God knows that you need to eat", and praying for such things may be superfluous.

So god will provide what you require, whether you pray for it or not. Therefore prayer is again meaningless.

The more people attempt to rationalise prayer, the more incoherent it becomes.

 

[KWED]

If you pray for God's kingdom, to have your faith increased, to learn to love more, strength to forgive, righteousness,
time for worship, insight into scripture and seeking God's holy spirit - doesn't He answer that?

Confirmation bias. If you already believe in a god you will naturally ascribe positive events to him, even though such events happen for non-believers just as regularly.
Do you also blame him for the bad stuff that happens as well as thanking him for the good?

 

[KWED]

A lot of people whose prayer was fulfilled (including me) would not agree with you.

The point is that studies show no difference between "prayer being answered" and "stuff just happening". Belief in prayers being answered are covered by fallacies like confirmation bias, post hoc propter hoc, Texas sharpshooter, etc

What prayers, specifically, have been answered for you?

 

[PruePhillip]

Confirmation bias. If you already believe in a god you will naturally ascribe positive events to him, even though such events happen for non-believers just as regularly.
Do you also blame him for the bad stuff that happens as well as thanking him for the good?

I need not 'blame' God for 'bad' stuff, because 'bad stuff' as well as 'good stuff' happens in this natural world, ie droughts and
good good times. People who 'pray for rain' are not necessarily going to be answered - there's a natural order to this world,
but I do believe it when Jesus said, 'Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they will be filled.' That is
a prayer God is happy to answer, giving people a power over their own lives they would not have ordinarily have had. There's
so many in this world who exhibit a total lack of power over themselves.

 

[viole]

I have encountered various quote that the scientific test on prayer showed no change.

My response has always been "I don't think the parameters were set correctly". I can use the analogy that if the blind test for quenching thirst taking a Tylenol, we would say it didn't work but the parameters are wrong. (Exaggeration done to emphasize that parameters are important)

As my signature say, I offer a Christian perspective. I also personally believe that God does answer prayer outside of my faith in as much as His mercy is everlasting and it is His goodness (in answered prayers) that draws people to Him.

So, here goes. What were the parameters that were set? Is just having people pray for someone, enough for a comprehensive study?

Let me share some positions--since the question I would have is "who did they select to pray?".

1) Jesus is quoted as saying from Mattew 6:7 AMPCAnd when you pray, do not heap up phrases (multiply words, repeating the same ones over and over) as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking.

Are there people who call prayer "repeating words over and over"? The answer is yes. Heartfelt I am sure yet Jesus very clearly says they won't be heard by God. If they are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

2) James said, in James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."

if people are praying but praying thinking that God will hear them and then wondering if God will hear them, scripturally God can't get the answer to the person. If these people are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

3) The people who you want to pray for don't believe, they can actually stop God from moving. In Matthew 13 Jesus had the capacity to move, wanted to move but then couldn't as he said, "58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

This is just three of possibilities so my question is:

Are the parameter of the study taking into account prayer principles? Or just saying "Would you pray for these people" without asking how they are going to pray, what do they believe, what prayer are they going to use et al.

Please stay of topic if you want to discuss this.

If you need a double-blind test to measure the efficacy of prayers, you have already lost.

What you need is something that does not require any test, nor statistics.

Take for instance someone who lost a limb, pray for it, see him grow a new limb, and you are in business.

Ciao

- viole

 

[KWED]

I need not 'blame' God for 'bad' stuff, because 'bad stuff' as well as 'good stuff' happens in this natural world, ie droughts and
good good times. People who 'pray for rain' are not necessarily going to be answered - there's a natural order to this world,
but I do believe it when Jesus said, 'Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they will be filled.' That is
a prayer God is happy to answer, giving people a power over their own lives they would not have ordinarily have had. There's
so many in this world who exhibit a total lack of power over themselves.

So you accept that stuff "just happens", both good and bad. So how do you know it isn't simply coincidence and confirmation bias when prayer is "answered"?

 

[paradox]

Sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy.
"God answers the prayers of believers"
"But he didn't answer mine"
"You're obviously not a true believer"

There is no No True Scotsman fallacy here because in the story I quoted there is no 2nd person who would improperly disqualify Saul's mistakes.
Sorry but, you either didn't understand the point or you don't know what is "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

The majority of claims about answered prayers are about earthy things of self-interest.
So presumably all these claims are false.

I really have no idea nor did I ever go after what other people are praying.

So god will provide what you require, whether you pray for it or not. Therefore prayer is again meaningless.

Did you read the broader context?

The more people attempt to rationalise prayer, the more incoherent it becomes.

obviously to someone who have 0 XP with prayer and encounter with God.

The point is that studies show no difference between "prayer being answered" and "stuff just happening".

Scriptures say not to test God, therefore their tests are useless and impossible to prove anything.

What prayers, specifically, have been answered for you?

I would rather not share that here.

 

[PruePhillip]

So you accept that stuff "just happens", both good and bad. So how do you know it isn't simply coincidence and confirmation bias when prayer is "answered"?

If you pray for rain, and it just happens to rain then you could 'look at the odds.' And it might be there was a ten percent chance
of rain. So you can't tell. And besides, what interest does God have in your rain gauge, given that that whole bible is about the
way to go to heaven, and worrying about earlhly matters?
But if you pray for God's wisdom, guidance, grace, forgiveness etc and you (and everyone else) sees a change come into your
life, things happening that you had no power over, then you might want to consider God has answered an honest and wholly
appropriate prayer.

 

[Kenny]

If you need a double-blind test to measure the efficacy of prayers, you have already lost.

What you need is something that does not require any test, nor statistics.

Take for instance someone who lost a limb, pray for it, see him grow a new limb, and you are in business.

Ciao

- viole

No... I haven't lost. Apparently you didn't read the OP. It seems like you have in your mind something that is tainting what you are reading.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A lot of people whose prayer was fulfilled (including me) would not agree with you.
Because sincere praying to God doesn't mean testing it.

IMO, describing a prayer as "fulfilled" implies you're testing God; you just think that God passed the test.

 

[Kenny]

Proof that the efficacy of prayer should be just as useful? Regardless of the study done?

We have medical verifications. We have a multitude of people who can testify of its efficacy. People who go to church (where prayer is engaged are 55% less likely to die:

Church attendance, allostatic load and mortality in middle aged adults

another study:

Religious Service Attendance and Mortality Among Women

My main point is that I gave just three reasons why "the quotes against prayer" didn't have the correct parameters. Prayer has spiritual principles that are necessary to be effective.