The Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) is widely considered one of the most scientifically rigorous in an area fraught with heated debate and emotion. Its findings surprised not only clergy members, but also the researchers themselves, who expected to see results in keeping with past studies, which showed at least a neutral effect of prayer on the health of patients. In 2005, the MANTRA II study produced that very result, going even further by including music, imagery, and touch at the bedsides of pre-op cardiac patients.
The history of studying the correlation between prayer or distance-healing with the health effects on patients shows a fuzzy mixture of varied scientific standards, poor research methods, and disagreement on what constitutes a workable study. Bob Barth, Director of the Office of Prayer Research, underscores this by asserting if prayer is to be measured scientifically, then a scientific definition of a prayer “dosage” must be determined.
“Medical science tells us that if we are to study the relationship between remedy and cure, we must have a concept of dose. Is a 'dose' of prayer from one denomination different from that of another? How many people must pray to constitute a 'dose'? Is one long prayer a stronger 'dose' than four short prayers?"
Yet Barth’s office claims to have collected over 300 studies, of which a majority shows the positive healing effects of prayer. Barth even asserts there are 14 foundational studies, which conclude prayer has a measurable effect on health, nearly always positive, but sometimes negative.
Yet, in a recent interview, Barth stated there is a probable line of mystery which science will never be able to cross.
“I believe there is a divine mystery to God’s plan for the universe. The scientific part of me is excited and energized by scientific efforts to decode part of that mystery; the spiritual part of me believes that some aspects of that plan will always remain mysterious to the physical world.”
A final answer, however, may not be arrived at for some time and studies of this nature could even negatively impact medical practice. In 1999, the Lancet medical journal published a scathing report by university researchers who analyzed worldwide studies on the efficacy of prayer and the role of religion in medicine. The researchers found nearly all studies lacked proper scientific controls or their conclusions were too broad and inconsistent to be useful. Additionally, they cautioned the number of studies showing no effect at all of prayer may lead some doctors to delve into ethically questionable areas of patients’ lives. To promote prayer as a complementary aspect of healing simply because there is no definitive proof either way is a position the Lancet researchers caution against taking.
“Although physicians may choose to engage patients in discussions of these matters to understand them better, we would consider it unacceptable for a physician to advise an unmarried patient to marry because the data show that marriage is associated with lower mortality. This is because we generally regard financial and marital matters as private and personal, not the business of medicine, even if they have health implications. There is an important difference between “taking into account” marital, financial, or religious factors and “taking them on” as the objects of interventions.”
The following year, 2000, the Church of England issued a report calling for more attention to faith healing and greater cooperation between clergy and medical practitioners. It also sought to establish guidelines for assessing which alternative medicines and theories were compatible with Christian theology. Yet, no internal reports have been released showing the outcome of such efforts.
Bob Barth remains undeterred in his belief that prayers can be studied scientifically, even if some of the most crucial aspects forever remain a “divine mystery”. Arguably, he would have prayer in itself remain the object of study with little or no scrutiny given to Biblical passages, which describe the alleged power of prayer. For example, in reaction to a passage from Mark 11:24 wherein Jesus promised his followers tremendous power with their faithful prayers, Barth stated that interpretation of theological works is well outside the realm of science, despite his excitement in science addressing a matter of the supernatural. As he ostensibly argues the point, prayerful healing is not a strictly Christian tenet. This is true, as would be the statement of an intelligent designer of the universe not being a uniquely Christian perspective. Yet, the major proponents of both theories are almost wholly from mainstream sects of Christianity, despite protestations of non-specific religiosity.
To physicist Victor Stenger, however, scientific studies seeking answers about prayer are merely more in a long line of attempts at reconciliation between science and religion. In his book “Has Science Found God?” Stenger likens studies like STEP and MANTRA II to other, more sensational headlines wherein some fundamental aspect of nature has confounded science once again.
Prayerful science and those who advocate it, like Bob Barth, ultimately fall back to logical fallacies in their explanations for the failure of science to prove them correct. First is the absence of proof fallacy wherein lack of contrary evidence is equated to proof positive that prayer works as described. However, when asked why a devout Christian could not simply walk into St. Jude’s hospital and pray every cancer-ridden child into wellness, Barth responds with the “mysteries of God” fallacy. All prayers are answered and that answer is sometimes a flat “no”. This flies in stark contrast to the very firm and clear promises given in the sacred writings of nearly all religions, which promote prayer healing at a distance.
The STEP results will likely fuel an already passionate debate among clergy, scientists, and skeptics alike. Just as some people still carry rabbit’s feet for luck or give a start when black cats cross their paths, so too will prayers be uttered by those who believe in “covering their bets”. The evidence is a multi-billion dollar and growing industry marketing prayer remedies and distance healing. Yet, even with the promotion of commercial industry, the sponsorship of world religions, and the anecdotes of pastors and doctors, hospitals remain full of sick and dying people, and the health care system remains burdened with the rising cost of their treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment