From: ingles@cclittle.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Does theory of evolution affect belief in God?
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 16:00:11 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: na


In article <164@ccscola.Columbia>, tmason@ccscola.Columbia (Timothy E. Mason) writes:
> In article <1992Apr4.022721.29979@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus 283-4283) writes:
> >back to watch, but what's the point?  I don't believe in this god (Occam's
> >Razor; show me evidence!).  But even if you do, there is no point to prayer
> >and no reason to expect survival after death.  Science rejects the notion
> >that any form of prayer can influence events or violate the laws of nature.

 Actually, 'science' doesn't reject it so much as, so far, there hasn't
been evidence for it. I'm still not sure there is any.

> I haven't bothered to look up the reference, so take this or leave this if 
> you wish...
> I heard recently (within the last few months) about a study
> published in a respected medical journal (may have been JAMA) about the 
> effects of prayer on patient recovery.
> 
> This wasn't a "power of positive thinking study"; volunteers prayed for people
> in the experimental group.  These people had a statistically significant fewer
> number of serious complications than the control group.  The subjects didn't
> know if they were in the experimental or control group.

 They had a (statistically significant) smaller number of three specific
types of complications, and were not otherwise signficantly different.

> Has this study been debunked yet?  Anybody know the reference for this study?
> Has this been discussed before, or do I need to get off my tail and look up
> the reference?

 I do not know if it has been 'debunked' yet. I don't think it's
been replicated yet, though.

 The exact reference is:

 Byrd, R.C. "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer
in a Coronary Care Unit Population," Southern Medical Journal,
#81 vol. 7. (July 1988)
 
> >	If you can't even *conceive* of a "critical experiment" on which a given
> >theory will stand or fall, then your theory is meaningless.  A difference
> >which makes no difference IS no difference.  If there is no conceivable
> >experiment that will reveal the existence of god (some theologians seem
> >to think this is the case), then there is no point in believing in god
> >or behaving accordingly.  After all, it WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE! A = A!
> 
> This is what makes the study above so interesting.  If the study is valid,
> it must surely prove something (although I'm not sure what).  To me, this
                                  ^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
> experiment seems like a "critical experiment."  If prayer were shown to 
> have no statistical effect, it would have denied the power of prayer (at
> least for the prayer volunteers in the study.)

> Tim Mason

 As you say, even if it's a valid study with a reproducible effect
(something that has not been established yet) it seems to me that
it would count *against* traditional views of a deity.
 I mean, a being that helps out only those that are prayed for? And
only in certain ways? If so, I might hire a few people to pray for
me nightly...
 An equally valid alternative hypothesis (again, assuming that the
study was done correctly and the diferences really are significant)
is that psychic powers of some form exist, and are invoked or focused
through the ritual of prayer. If the 'prayer teams' were telepathically
(subconsciously) communicating with the patients, this might have
given them needed encouragement to get well.
 Anyway, this is an interesting topic but not really relevant to
talk.origins.

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.