Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Kenny]

God always answers our prayers. He just usually says "no".

The thing that should bother you (if you really believe that your god answers prayers) is why god so regularly seems to answer people's prayers for trivial, everyday events based on self-interest, like passing exams, getting a loan, etc. Yet he never seems to answer the prayers of devout parents of children dying in agony, etc.

Why are his priorities so ****ed up?

I find that prayers, when understood, are usually "yes".

Certainly some prayers are superfluous (like praying for a loan). But, if a child asks for bread (self-interest) - would you as a parent not answer the self-interest prayer?

 

[Kenny]

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.

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

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.

Yes... this list can go on.

There is also the point of:
James 4:3
Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Those aren't "medical verifications" of anything to do with prayer.

Socialization provides mental and physical health benefits. People socialize at church, too.

Being able to get out of the house regularly correlates with mental and physical health, too. There's a healthy dose of selection bias in those studies.

For a fair test, you'd need to compare health outcomes for people who go to church regularly (and don't participate in any other social clubs) against, say, people who go to gardening club meetings regularly (and don't participate in any other social clubs, including church).

You can't test the efficacy of prayer unless you control for all the other variables.

 

[Sheldon]

Effectiveness cannot be determined

Just claimed to work then, using selection bias and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, doesn't that rather desperate rationalisation infer something rather obvious about such claims?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find that prayers, when understood, are usually "yes".

Certainly some prayers are superfluous (like praying for a loan). But, if a child asks for bread (self-interest) - would you as a parent not answer the self-interest prayer?

Apparently, the answer from God when a starving child asks for bread is often "no":

Around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. This is more than from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined.

A child dies from hunger every 10 seconds

The World Counts

 

[Kenny]

Apparently, the answer from God when a starving child asks for bread is often "no":


The World Counts

Open a new thread please to keep this on track. with the OP.

 

[VoidCat]

Just claimed to work then, using selection bias and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, doesn't that rather desperate rationalisation infer something rather obvious about such claims?

Hey im not a christian. I pray but not to the christian god. My gods aren't all powerful and often dont help in the real world. To me the point of prayer is to talk to my gods not ask for stuff. They might help but that's not my goal in prayer.

 

[Sheldon]

I can say with certainty that the Christian God never answered any of my frantic prayers when I was a child. I asked God to save me from the abuse I was suffering at home and from the bullying I endured in school, but he never saved me from either one. I suffered abuse for 13 1/2 years while growing up, and I endured 12 years of bullying while I was in school. I found the courage to save myself shortly after I turned 18. As far as I'm concerned, God is no different from my extended family, the neighbors, my teachers in school, and everyone else in the town where I lived who knew that I was being abused at home and bullied in school. None of these people ever lifted a finger to help me, and neither did God. And as a result of the abuse and trauma I suffered while growing up, I've had to deal with PTSD for the majority of my adult life. The "loving, merciful" God that I had been taught to believe and trust never relieved my suffering with PTSD either, despite the years I prayed for deliverance or for peace of mind. I was a fool to keep believing in God.

So, after about 40 years of being outright ignored by God, I disclaimed my false hope in him and abandoned my Christian faith about a year ago. I finally realized that I didn't need God in my life and that having faith in him was completely pointless. I'm much better off in my life now without having a false hope in God. I can honestly say with a clear conscience that disavowing my faith in him was the best decision that I've ever made for myself and my mental health. I'm experiencing peace and joy in my life, and that's something I never felt in the 30 years I was a Christian or in the years before I became a Christian. My only regret is that I didn't do this years ago.

My sympathies for the abuse you suffered, I am truly sorry to hear this, and I greatly admire the way you have taken charge of your life, and done your very best to move on and build a positive life for yourself.

On a lighter note, when one of my grandsons was 6 he was diagnosed with a nut allergy, and it was hard to see him denied things and all the other children enjoy them. So one day he announced to his parents he was an atheist, his fathers family are Catholics. I had never spoken to him to him about religion so was intrigued, and his mother told me he prayed earnestly for months to god to cure him, but god didn't do anything, so he wasn't going to believe in god anymore. He was always a smart kid, bless him.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes... this list can go on.

There is also the point of:
James 4:3
Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

Handy to line up handwaving excuse in advance, when the evidence inevitably doesn't go your way. The irony of course if it did, we all know theists would leap on it as proof for a deity. I have yet to see any argument for intercessory prayer that didn't involve such obvious selection bias. It appears to work, it's evidence, it doesn't work - it's not evidence and can be waved away, the way you did with the double blind clinical trials conducted on post op heart patient recovery.

I'm afraid the bias is too obvious too ignore,

 

[Clara Tea]

DOUBLE-BLIND EFFICACY TEST [OF PRAYER]--REALLY?

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.

Great point. God wouldn't answer prayers of wavering faith or boring mantras.

In the sci-fi Red Dwarf, their computer is the most intelligent thing in the universe, yet, it has to take the trash out. I would imagine that God, creator of the universe, omniscient, and all-powerful, would be a bit bored listening to monks droning "ahhhhhhmmmmm" over and over again. God would rather be in here, with stimulating conversation, plotting how to throw lightning bolts at the back-sides of atheists (then pretending that he doesn't exist, just to confuse them).

So many worship Christ with a figure of Jesus on a cross. Is that what they think will please Christ in his second coming? A little reminder of the great time he had the last time he was here?

We should put ourselves in their shoes (God and Christ), and try to determine what their needs are.

 

[Kenny]

Handy to line up handwaving excuse in advance, when the evidence inevitably doesn't go your way. The irony of course if it did, we all know theists would leap on it as proof for a deity. I have yet to see any argument for intercessory prayer that didn't involve such obvious selection bias. It appears to work, it's evidence, it doesn't work - it's not evidence and can be waved away, the way you did with the double blind clinical trials conducted on post op heart patient recovery.

I'm afraid the bias is too obvious too ignore,

Well, it is obvious why it doesn't work for you as Jesus said, "Be it unto you according to your faith". It doesn't work for you because you don't believe (one of the points).

You simply have "unbelief" as Jesus said. (In the Christian perspective). Which is fine.

You don't have to have the benefits of prayer and you have the free will to exercise your capacity in your own strength.

I'm just glad I can reap the benefit.

 

[Clara Tea]

My sympathies for the abuse you suffered, I am truly sorry to hear this, and I greatly admire the way you have taken charge of your life, and done your very best to move on and build a positive life for yourself.

On a lighter note, when one of my grandsons was 6 he was diagnosed with a nut allergy, and it was hard to see him denied things and all the other children enjoy them. So one day he announced to his parents he was an atheist, his fathers family are Catholics. I had never spoken to him to him about religion so was intrigued, and his mother told me he prayed earnestly for months to god to cure him, but god didn't do anything, so he wasn't going to believe in god anymore. He was always a smart kid, bless him.

I understand. He was an atheist because he couldn't tolerate nuts.

 

[Kenny]

Great point. God wouldn't answer prayers of wavering faith or boring mantras.

In the sci-fi Red Dwarf, their computer is the most intelligent thing in the universe, yet, it has to take the trash out. I would imagine that God, creator of the universe, omniscient, and all-powerful, would be a bit bored listening to monks droning "ahhhhhhmmmmm" over and over again. God would rather be in here, with stimulating conversation, plotting how to throw lightning bolts at the back-sides of atheists (they pretending that he doesn't exist, just to confuse them).

So many worship Christ with a figure of Jesus on a cross. Is that what they think will please Christ in his second coming? A little reminder of the great time he had the last time he was here?

We should put ourselves in their shoes (God and Christ), and try to determine what their needs are.

I'm trying to see how this fits into the OP. Should this be a new thread?

 

[Clara Tea]

Well, it is obvious why it doesn't work for you as Jesus said, "Be it unto you according to your faith". It doesn't work for you because you don't believe (one of the points).

You simply have "unbelief" as Jesus said. (In the Christian perspective). Which is fine.

You don't have to have the benefits of prayer and you have the free will to exercise your capacity in your own strength.

I'm just glad I can reap the benefit.

You get presents if you believe in Santa.

 

[blü 2]

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 this one worked ─

James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.​

then nearly all the hospitals would be empty and Covid deaths would be remarkably lower for Christians.

But that's not the case.

There are also the more generalized promises eg

Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!


John 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.
​

And these aren't the case either. If they were, the world would be very different and so would religion.

​

 

[Sheldon]

We have medical verifications.

No you don't, you have studies that are demonstrably conflating correlation with causation.

We have a multitude of people who can testify of its efficacy.

So an argumentum ad populum fallacy, hardly compelling since it is irrational by definition.

People who go to church (where prayer is engaged are 55% less likely to die:

Religious Service Attendance and Mortality Among Women

From the first paragraph:

"Religiosity has been associated with positive health outcomes. Hypothesized pathways for this association include religious practices, such as church attendance, that result in reduced stress."

So the research is about the alleged health benefits of regularly attending church. It presents no evidence for the efficacy of prayer. Several Scandinavian countries are now almost entirely atheistic, but have some of the highest life expectancy rates even among developed nations. There might be any number of other variables the research has failed to account for for early mortality, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone would dispute doing something you enjoy that makes you feel good, and in a cohesive social group can have obvious health benefits. Nothing supernatural is needed to explain that at all.

My main point is that I gave just three reasons why "the quotes against prayer" didn't have the correct parameters.

The research involving post op heart patients I linked, represents the gold standard of medical research, a large test group, and double blind protocols for a start, recovery measured against an objective median standard. The trials were designed to remove subjective bias, and other variables that might influence the results.

Prayer has spiritual principles that are necessary to be effective.

And you just want to assume this wasn't there, because the objectively measured results didn't reflect what you believe, again this is simple selection bias. Yelling success when you perceive a result you want, and then foul when you don't, is so obviously biased it's hard to know what to say. It is clear though that you either can't see, or don't care that you are reporting to subjective bias.

 

[Clara Tea]

I'm trying to see how this fits into the OP. Should this be a new thread?

I paraphrased your statement. I said exactly what you said, except in different words. So, if I am not on target, you were not on target when you wrote the OP. We both wrote about a very intelligent being (robot or God) who would be bored with repeated mantras.

The Cancel Culture tries to claim that someone is not sticking to the subject, so their messages will be erased. Gagging people is not consistent with forum rules. This forum is supposed to be about interchange of ideas of various faiths. Free speech/press is in the First amendment of the United States constitution, and is known as the "American way." The alternative is the Iron Curtain of the former Soviet Union, which blocked radio, TV, and any other form of communication.

I realize that I can't agree with you without being the victim of the Cancel Culture. So, I suppose I'll have to be shut up and ignored.

Can't we all just get along (as Rodney King said)?

If you can't get along with someone who agrees with you, how can you get along with other faiths? Faiths that might disagree with some slight point? Maybe this is why there is such a feud between the various denominations of the Christian religion? It is a very devisive religion. . . one that has created a lot of wars, tortures, and killings. Surely we can heed Rodney King and try to get along and not try to cancel one another?

President Donald Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter. So was billionaire inventor Elon Musk, who bought majority shares of Twitter in order to assure that American freedom would continue. Musk said "I may not like what some people say, but I defend their right to say it."

Your continued vicious attempts to cancel the messages of those who agree with you will not succeed. Give it up.

 

[Sheldon]

I find that prayers, when understood, are usually "yes".

Of course you do, your bias in ignoring failures as flawed, while only accepting perceived successes as evidence, can only result in this kind of biased perception of the results.

Certainly some prayers are superfluous (like praying for a loan). But, if a child asks for bread (self-interest) - would you as a parent not answer the self-interest prayer?

I think you have rather missed KWED's point.

 

[Sheldon]

Apparently, the answer from God when a starving child asks for bread is often "no":

Indeed, but more importantly how are the perceived successes being differentiated from random chance? All I have seen offered are subjective selection bias. Research that leaps from correlation to causation while ignoring any number of affecting variables, and didn't remotely evidence the efficacy of prayer in any objective way.

 

[Kenny]

Those aren't "medical verifications" of anything to do with prayer.

.

Prayer Prevents Sickness and Heals According to Several Studies - RachFeed

There are multiple sites by medical professions that support ti.

did you try searching for them?