page_title: Efficacy of prayer
section_title: Religious and philosophical issues
hierarchical_section_title: Efficacy of prayer / Religious and philosophical issues
context_page_description: What prayer does, if anything, is a question that has been addressed in various religious traditions and more recently in scientific studies. The question is complicated because there are myriad ideas about what prayer is, what functions prayer has, and what are expected outcomes of prayer. Moreover, while some religious groups argue that the "power of prayer" is obvious, others question whether it is possible to measure its effect. Basic philosophical issues inform the question as to whether prayer is efficacious, for example, whether statistical inference and falsifiability inform what it means to "prove" or "disprove" something, and the problem of demarcation, i.e., as to whether this topic is even within the realm of science at all.
  Various scientific studies have addressed the topic of the efficacy of prayer at least since Francis Galton in 1872. According to the Washington Post, "...prayer is the most common complement to mainstream medicine, far outpacing acupuncture, herbs, vitamins and other alternative remedies". Medical studies on prayer have generally shown mixed results when it comes to the efficacy of prayer in recovery from illnesses.
context_section_description: Religious and philosophical objections to the very study of prayer's efficacy exist. Many interpret Deuteronomy (6:16 "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test") to mean that prayer cannot, or should not, be examined.
  The religious viewpoint objects to the claim that prayer is susceptible to experimental designs or statistical analysis, and other assumptions in many experiments, e.g. that a thousand prayers are statistically different from one. The objections also include the complaint that religion generally deals with unique, uncontrollable events; statistics, and science in general, deal with recurring phenomena which are possible to sample or control and are susceptible to general laws.
  
  Religious objections also include the complaint that as prayer starts to be measured, it is no longer real prayer once it gets involved in an experiment and that the concept of conducting prayer experiments reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of prayer. The 2006 STEP experiment indicated that some of the intercessors who took part in it complained about the scripted nature of the prayers that were imposed to them, saying that this is not the way they usually conduct prayer: 
  Prior to the start of this study, intercessors reported that they usually receive information about the patient's age, gender and progress reports on their medical condition; converse with family members or the patient (not by fax from a third party); use individualized prayers of their own choosing; and pray for a variable time period based on patient or family request.
  With respect to expectation of a response to prayer, the 18th-century philosopher William Paley wrote:
  To pray for particular favors is to dictate to Divine Wisdom, and savors of presumption; and to intercede for other individuals or for nations, is to presume that their happiness depends upon our choice, and that the prosperity of communities hangs upon our interest.
  During the 20th-century, philosopher Bertrand Russell believed that religion and science "have long been at war, claiming for themselves the same territory, ideas and allegiances". And Russell believed that the war had been decisively won
  by science. Almost 40 years earlier, a 22-year-old Russell also wrote: "For although I had long ceased to believe in the efficacy of prayer, I was so lonely and so in need of some supporter such as the Christian God, that I took to saying prayers again when I ceased to believe in their efficacy."
  
  The 21st-century evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, describing how Richard Swinburne explained away the STEP experiment's negative results "on the grounds that God answers prayers only if they are offered up for good reasons", says that some elements of religion are testable.
  Other theologians joined NOMA-inspired sceptics in contending that studying prayer in this way is a waste of money because supernatural influences are by definition beyond the reach of science. But as the Templeton Foundation correctly recognized when it financed the study, the alleged power of intercessory prayer is at least in principle within the reach of science. A double-blind experiment can be done and was done. It could have yielded a positive result. And if it had, can you imagine that a single religious apologist would have dismissed it on the grounds that scientific research has no bearing on religious matters? Of course not.
caption: Praying to the Madonna of the Rosary, by Caravaggio, 1606-1607
exif: {}