Scientific Methodology vs. Prayer: And the winner is...

A fractal-like prayer rugMy post on March 19, 2006, described the Templeton Foundation, whose mission is to

"pursue new insights at the boundary between theology and science through a rigorous, open-minded and empirically focused methodology."

The Templeton Foundation appears to do a creditable job in following their mission. But what happens when scientific methodology meets faith-based belief and science wins (or appears to win)? The clash between religion and science, most recently in full view during the Dover evolution vs. intelligent design imbroglio, is much more subtle, but still inescapably present.

A case in point is the recent "rigorous, open-minded and empirically focused study" funded by the Foundation attempting to find the effect of prayer on healing. Titled STEP (Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer) , researchers studied the effects of prayer on 1,800 patients recovering from heart bypass surgery. The results, published in March 2006 and published in the American Heart Journal did not find any statistically significant effects.

At their site, The Templeton Foundation appear true to their mission of being open-minded, reporting the results of the study:

Prayer research is a fascinating topic and may well continue in additional modes to that presented as the outcome of the STEP project. However, the null results obtained by the methodologically rigorous STEP experiment appear to provide a clear and definitive contrasting result to an earlier published finding (Byrd study) of a positive effect for patient-blind distant intercessory prayer in a prayer experiment involving recovery of patients in a cardiac care unit.* Result: The STEP project did not confirm these findings.

*Note: The Byrd study also involved randomization to receive or not receive patient-blinded distant intercessory prayer

On closer reading, however, note that the report is hedged: " Prayer research...may continue in additional modes" to those studied by STEP, and that a fine distinction is made between STEP and an earlier study by Byrd. (Click here for the full statement, and a set of links to reports of the results from major media publications. )

Clearly, the null result is troubling, and I assume that the Foundation will fund studies looking for those "additional modes." And, at a funding level of $2.4 M - the cost of STEP - there should be many more research proposals coming in.

Naturally, there are many bloggers on both sides of the science/religion chasm who have weighed in on the results. Most are predictable, polarized responses, but they do share a common theme: in addition to the staggering amount spent on the study, the question of the efficacy of prayer is just not researchable, and will never be.

To understand why, just read Jeff Mullin's commentary for the Enid News & Eagle in Oklahoma:

One of the study's co-authors, Dr. Charles Bethea, a cardiologist at
Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City, told the Associated Press "Intercessory prayer under our restricted format had a neutral effect." To which I say, how do we know? How do we know some of the people being prayed for wouldn't have died without pleas for divine intervention? How do we know some of the people who developed complications despite prayer wouldn't have been much worse off without it?The point is, we don't. Prayer and its effects are not something scientists can measure, study or accurately quantify. But one thing I know is, prayer works.

I assume that, if STEP had produced a positive result, there would be an equivalent posting, explaining the results in a way independent of prayer. (On the other hand, I would like to see how someone would mathematically model this situation for understanding and prediction of the phenomena!)

What, then, is the purpose of funding future research when both null and positive effects are guaranteed to be refuted by half the population?

Comments

[Bryan Nelson]

Dear Dr. DiDio,

If I understand your posting correctly you make the point that the results from prayer studies are unable to be interpreted because the specific answer to an individual's prayer itself cannot be known. You quote Jeff Mullin's argument against the Templeton Study where he points out, "How do we know some of the people who developed complications despite prayer wouldn't have been much worse off without it?" You conclude by writing that "the efficacy of prayer is just not researchable, and will never be" for the same reason. Simply put, you are arguing that the way a prayer is answered (if it is answered) is unknowable and therefore unable to be used as evidence of a supernatural being’s involvement with earthly life.

While I believe this point is valid, I do think is has an effect (or should have an effect) on the way that people express their faith in a religious setting. The “expression of faith” I am referring to is the use of positive results from prayer to “prove” the existence of a supernatural being that is directly involved in our day to day lives. Your point applies equally to this positive correlation. Again, I am in agreement.

Related to this point is the philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard, an extremely devout theist, who believed that any “scientific” evidence against the existence of God serves only to strengthen his faith that God in fact does exist. If I understand him correctly he saw that doubt, caused by evidence/rationality, was essential to faith of any kind and that if there was no doubt, there would be very little reason for faith. He is fond of the phrase “leap of faith” to describe his reaction to rational and seemingly irrefutable arguments challenging his faith. Where Kierkegaard’s philosophy departs from your point is that he uses evidence contrary to his beliefs to strengthen his faith and your point is that evidence should not even be considered in either support or negation of faith. What effect might the Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" have on the spiritual life of someone firmly rooted in scientific thinking?

Have I represented your point correctly?

[R.A. DiDio]

Bryan - I do believe that efficacy of prayer is not researchable. In a more recent post I describe a recent opinion piece from the Skeptical Inquirer on whether prayers can be heard by a Creator. The illogical result there is that, because intercessory prayer has not been shown to be verifiable, then we can't even be getting our message across if and when we do pray.

This just bolsters my argument, which you do summarize appropriately: "Simply put, you are arguing that the way a prayer is answered (if it is answered) is unknowable and therefore unable to be used as evidence of a supernatural being’s involvement with earthly life."

The Kierkegaard argument seems to me to be rooted in some sort of irrational defiance. A 'don't tell me that what I believe in doesn't exist' chip on the proverbial Danish shoulder. I don't believe that SK uses "evidence contrary to his beliefs" then as a way to shore up his faith. Because of his faith, he doesn't accept anything that deviates from his beliefs as evidence at all. I wonder whether SK would change his tune today given the spectacular advances in understanding self-organization via chaos and complexity.