Time zones and the creation story

[Gun Nut]

No link, but as a student of behavioral psychology, I know the power of positive thinking, including prayer.

Am I the only one that finds it funny, in a contention between the efficacy of prayer and science, the power of prayer is confirmed by science?

Because science IS the means of finding things out. Not prayer.

apples and oranges... they are two paths to discovery of different aspects.

 

[James Brown]

Maybe I'm confused. The placebo effect is well documented, sure. So if someone says, "I'm going to pray for good health in order to kick in the placebo effect," in what sense are we saying that prayer--in and of itself--is demonstrated to work?

If I have a headache, and I take aspirin and say a prayer for healing, and if in an hour my headache is gone, is it accurate to say the prayer was effective?

 Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

Meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that there is "no discernible effect" while a 2007 systemic review of intercessory prayer reported inconclusive results, noting that 7 of 17 studies had "small, but significant, effect sizes" but the review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings

 

[Politesse]

Maybe I'm confused. The placebo effect is well documented, sure. So if someone says, "I'm going to pray for good health in order to kick in the placebo effect," in what sense are we saying that prayer--in and of itself--is demonstrated to work?

If I have a headache, and I take aspirin and say a prayer for healing, and if in an hour my headache is gone, is it accurate to say the prayer was effective?

 Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

Meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that there is "no discernible effect" while a 2007 systemic review of intercessory prayer reported inconclusive results, noting that 7 of 17 studies had "small, but significant, effect sizes" but the review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings

If it reliably generates that effect, that is of interest. Simply being given a pill doesn't necessarily.

Nothing works "in and of itself"; the body either heals itself or not. Whether it is a pill or a therapy or a surgery, a treatment of any kind is meant to prompt that system to kick in.

 

[James Brown]

Sure, but if two actions do a thing, and a single action does the same thing, then one of the two actions is superfluous. The way to know is to test each action singly.

If rubbing blue mud into your navel is just as effective in healing as saying a prayer, then the only advantage prayer has is it's less messy.

 

[rousseau]

Placebo is exactly the purpose of prayer, although by most definitions that's not what we'd call 'working'.

Prayer exists to resolve existential worry. The problem might be solved, or if not it was all part of God's plan and not me who screwed up, resolving anxiety and esteem issues.

No different from pretty much every other religious phenomena. It's all irrational shit we do to give ourselves a feeling of control over our environment, in lieu of actually being able to do something material about our problems.

 

[skepticalbip]

Maybe I'm confused. The placebo effect is well documented, sure. So if someone says, "I'm going to pray for good health in order to kick in the placebo effect," in what sense are we saying that prayer--in and of itself--is demonstrated to work?

It can't be said that a specific person praying for good health will see significantly better health. What can be said is that, statistically, over a large group that truly believe that their praying for good health will work will see a measurable effect. My understanding is that it is the belief that what they are doing will bring health that makes the brain more effective at energizing the immune system or self healing systems.

ETA:
I would expect that, statistically, those who trust that their doctor really knows what they are doing will have better results than those who think their doctor is a quack - even though it was the same doctor.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

No link, but as a student of behavioral psychology, I know the power of positive thinking, including prayer.

Am I the only one that finds it funny, in a contention between the efficacy of prayer and science, the power of prayer is confirmed by science?

Because science IS the means of finding things out. Not prayer.

Once again you are not reading what is written and only seeing what you want to see. Sad. Others, with more scientific minds, can certainly see the science in my posts about the mind/body relationship and how meditation, of which prayer is a form, can assist in the health or healing of an individual.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No link, but as a student of behavioral psychology, I know the power of positive thinking, including prayer.

Am I the only one that finds it funny, in a contention between the efficacy of prayer and science, the power of prayer is confirmed by science?

Because science IS the means of finding things out. Not prayer.

Once again you are not reading what is written and only seeing what you want to see. Sad. Others, with more scientific minds, can certainly see the science in my posts about the mind/body relationship and how meditation, of which prayer is a form, can assist in the health or healing of an individual.

No, no, I DID see the science in your post. That's what I was talking about.

GunNuts brought up the placebo effect in an effort to pretend that religion is on the same playing field as science. You're defending the placebo effect with science, in response to someone poo-pooing GN's attempt to make a point. I saw your science.

TONS of discussions about the power of prayer refer to scientific studies, or studies that pretend to be scientific, or name-dropper anecdotes about this one time (famous name) became convinced of (insert woo), or unsourced tales of nameless people at unidentified universities who did something not peer reviewed...

But sciencey.

Because that's the route to gain knowledge about how things work. If they work.

 

[Gun Nut]

Maybe I'm confused. The placebo effect is well documented, sure. So if someone says, "I'm going to pray for good health in order to kick in the placebo effect," in what sense are we saying that prayer--in and of itself--is demonstrated to work?

If I have a headache, and I take aspirin and say a prayer for healing, and if in an hour my headache is gone, is it accurate to say the prayer was effective?

 Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

Meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that there is "no discernible effect" while a 2007 systemic review of intercessory prayer reported inconclusive results, noting that 7 of 17 studies had "small, but significant, effect sizes" but the review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings

only if it is accurate to say that aspirin is placebo.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Once again you are not reading what is written and only seeing what you want to see. Sad. Others, with more scientific minds, can certainly see the science in my posts about the mind/body relationship and how meditation, of which prayer is a form, can assist in the health or healing of an individual.

No, no, I DID see the science in your post. That's what I was talking about.

GunNuts brought up the placebo effect in an effort to pretend that religion is on the same playing field as science. You're defending the placebo effect with science, in response to someone poo-pooing GN's attempt to make a point. I saw your science.

TONS of discussions about the power of prayer refer to scientific studies, or studies that pretend to be scientific, or name-dropper anecdotes about this one time (famous name) became convinced of (insert woo), or unsourced tales of nameless people at unidentified universities who did something not peer reviewed...

But sciencey.

Because that's the route to gain knowledge about how things work. If they work.

Sorry for the confusion. For starters, religion and science are definitely not on the same playing field regardless if religious groups have funded scientific research in the past.

No reputable studies have claimed any "supernatural" forces at work in their studies of "prayer" and meditation. The idea that many people are wishing a sick person well can have a positive effect on their recovery. Same goes for "prayer"/meditation. Since "supernatural" forces cannot be measured, there is no scientific way to include them in a study.

Those points aside, there are also the "miracle" recoveries. IMO, those are statistical anomalies; example: 1000 people have stage IV cancer, all have other's praying for them. One makes a full recovery while the other 999 are dead. A miracle of prayer? No.

 

[James Brown]

Maybe I'm confused. The placebo effect is well documented, sure. So if someone says, "I'm going to pray for good health in order to kick in the placebo effect," in what sense are we saying that prayer--in and of itself--is demonstrated to work?

If I have a headache, and I take aspirin and say a prayer for healing, and if in an hour my headache is gone, is it accurate to say the prayer was effective?

 Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

Meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that there is "no discernible effect" while a 2007 systemic review of intercessory prayer reported inconclusive results, noting that 7 of 17 studies had "small, but significant, effect sizes" but the review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies failed to produce significant findings

only if it is accurate to say that aspirin is placebo.

In double-blind studies, aspirin is not a placebo.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

only if it is accurate to say that aspirin is placebo.

In double-blind studies, aspirin is not a placebo.

Agreed. Aspirin has been proved to be an effective medicine on its own. However, a person with a positive attitude is more likely to see the maximum effects of aspirin than a person who thinks it has no value, won't work and a strong belief they'll continue to be in pain.

 

[Gun Nut]

only if it is accurate to say that aspirin is placebo.

In double-blind studies, aspirin is not a placebo.

Then it would be most accurate to say that you don't know what cured the headache because you failed to isolate all of the variables.
It would be accurate enough to ASSUME the headache was cured by the aspirin.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Those points aside, there are also the "miracle" recoveries. IMO, those are statistical anomalies; example: 1000 people have stage IV cancer, all have other's praying for them. One makes a full recovery while the other 999 are dead. A miracle of prayer? No.

When Self Mutation was posting here, he maintained that cancer remission was just a term doctors used so they didn't have to give credit to God. Obviously, prayer to God was effective against cancer.
When asked why only certain types of cancer could be cured by spontaneous miracle God remission, no matter how many people prated over the other types, he blamed, IIRC, the radiation from people's electronics.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Those points aside, there are also the "miracle" recoveries. IMO, those are statistical anomalies; example: 1000 people have stage IV cancer, all have other's praying for them. One makes a full recovery while the other 999 are dead. A miracle of prayer? No.

When Self Mutation was posting here, he maintained that cancer remission was just a term doctors used so they didn't have to give credit to God. Obviously, prayer to God was effective against cancer.
When asked why only certain types of cancer could be cured by spontaneous miracle God remission, no matter how many people prated over the other types, he blamed, IIRC, the radiation from people's electronics.

ROFL. Maybe it was the cellphones.

 

[Keith&Co.]

only if it is accurate to say that aspirin is placebo.

In double-blind studies, aspirin is not a placebo.

Wouldn't a double-blind study actually be testing a treatment AGAINST a placebo?

If every drug was no more effective than prayer, then double-blind studies would never produce any results. None.
Then Nut's claim that studies have proven prayer to be just as useful as sugar pills would merely be an unsupported anecdote.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

only if it is accurate to say that aspirin is placebo.

In double-blind studies, aspirin is not a placebo.

Wouldn't a double-blind study actually be testing a treatment AGAINST a placebo?

If every drug was no more effective than prayer, then double-blind studies would never produce any results. None.
Then Nut's claim that studies have proven prayer to be just as useful as sugar pills would merely be an unsupported anecdote.

You two are in agreement and I agree with you.

A double-blind study is standard methodology and is used to test many things including medication. The purpose is to prevent someone administering the medication from knowing who is getting the drug being tested and who is getting the placebo. There is a placebo effect, something to be ruled out when testing a new drug. To say prayer is as effective as a placebo recognizes this point and I believe both work for the same reason, just not as well as actual medication.