Welcome to PINS OF LIGHT!

Pins of Light: Scattered hints to provoke thought and talk about God...


This bible blog was launched for Advent 2007, and began as a daily reflection on scriptural readings until Easter of 2008.  Since every reflection posed a question to God, this initial portion of Pins of Light is called Questions for God.

From March 2008 to December 2009, Pins of Light has featured a weekly reflection on the Sunday readings.

Since 2008, Advent and Lenten recollections have also been conducted on line.   

In September 2010, this web site with its new look launches as the Sunday bible blogs resume.  I hope you enjoy reading them and stumble into some hints about God's whereabouts.

 

DOES PRAYER REALLY WORK? (Luke 18:1-8): 17 October 2010 (Twenty-ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time) PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 1
PoorBest 

But does prayer really work?  What did this study prove?

Here's what the doctors did in the study. They observed a total of 1,807 cardiac arrest patients who are about to undergo CABG surgery.  The patients were divided randomly into 3 groups:

First, Group A:  Patients in this group were assured that prayers would be offered for their surgery and recovery.  Three Christian groups were given a list of their names and these prayed for them for a total of 14 days.

Group B: Patients in this group were not given any assurance about prayer, but their names were also submitted to the Christian groups, who secretly prayed for them for 14 days.

Group C:  These were the unlucky ones since their names were not submitted to any group for prayers.

Obviously, no patient was assured of prayers but was not prayed for. That would be lying.


PRAYED FOR (14 days) NOT PRAYED FOR
ASSURED OF PRAYERS
Group A: 601 patients 0 patient
NOT ASSURED OF PRAYERS
Group B: 604 patients Group C: 597 patients

The researchers figured that based on the results, they could make some conclusions about the effect of prayer.  For example:

1.  What if Groups A and B recover significantly better than Group C?

2.  What if Group A recovers significantly better than Group B?

3.  What if Group B recovers significantly better than Group C?

4.  But what if Group C recovers significantly better than Groups A and B?

For this study, recovery was measured by the incidence of complications after the surgery.  The less complications there were, the better the recovery.

Here are the results:

Out of the 597 patients in Group C, those who didn't get any prayers or any assurances for prayers, 304--or 51%--experienced post-surgery complications. That's half the patients!  Not a very good number.

What about those in Group B, those who no promises of prayer, but actually got prayed for? Out of the 604 patients in Group B, 315--or 52%--got complications!  That's statistically the same as Group C so we can't really make any conclusion about the effects of prayer yet.

Our only hope now lies in Group A, the patients who got both assurances of prayer and actually got prayed for.  Out of the 601 patients, complications were evident in 352 of them. That's 59%--statistically higher incidence of complications than Groups B and C!


PRAYED FOR
NOT PRAYED FOR
ASSURED OF PRAYERS
Group A: 59% (352/601)
NOT ASSURED OF PRAYERS
Group B: 52% (315/604) Group C: 51% (304/597)

The study came up with two major conclusions:

First, prayer had NO significant effect on the patients' recovery.  There was almost no difference between Group B and Group C.

But worse, assurance of prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complication:  Group A patients had more complications than those in Groups B and C.

What happens now?  First, if we think about it carefully, there's something wrong with the study.  It has some flaws or loopholes.  The problem with the research is not so much the results, but the design. Aside from prayer and assurances of prayer, there were two other factors in the study that the researchers were not able to control and these factors could have affected the results.  In scientific lingo, we call these factors "extraneous variables."  What are these so-called extraneous variables?

First, how did the three Christian groups pray for the patients?  Did they use the same type of prayers?  Did they mean their prayers?  Did they even pray at all?

Secondly, who else was praying for the patients of Group C?  How sure are we that these patients did not have relatives and friends praying for them?  Is it possible that some people also prayed for them, maybe even in a more sincere way than the Christian groups officially contracted for the study?

Even a non-believing scientist would notice these flaws in the study.  In other words, we can't say that prayer has no effect because maybe those who were supposed to pray didn't do so properly, if at all, and those who weren't supposed to get any prayers may have actually gotten them. It's like concluding that a particular vaccine doesn't work when you can't say for sure which patients received the vaccine and what type of vaccine they got!

Now, what if we correct the design of the experiment, and we're somehow able to control these extraneous variables?  First, we are guaranteed of the kind and quality of intercessory prayers from the Christian groups; and second, we make sure that the Group C patients don't get any prayers from anyone.  Would the results be any different?

I certainly hope so!  But it's also just as possible to get exactly the same results!  However, it won't mean that prayer doesn't work.  It only means that prayer works differently.

Many people think of God as a virtual vending machine.  For them, prayer is like going to a vending machine, inserting the right number of coins or bills, pressing the right button, and you automatically get the product you ordered.  But the reality is, praying isn't as simple as that.

Just because we go to God, assume the right kneeling position, for example, and say the right words, doesn't mean that we're assured of getting exactly what we pray for.  God is not a vending machine that we can control or manipulate.  That's why He's God:  He is beyond our control and He is free to give us what He thinks is best for us at the right time.  We can't put Him in a box and control or predict exactly what He will do each time.

To understand what true prayer is and what kind of God He is, we should drop the metaphor of the vending machine and use the original metaphor our Lord has taught us in thinking about God.  God is Father, and as we know fathers don't and shouldn't give to their children everything their children want.  They give their children what they need--and our needs aren't always the same as our wants.

It is the same with God.  We may pray to Him asking for something we really want, but like a father who provides well for his children, He will make sure to give us what we need.  Going back to the medical study I talked about earlier, it's quite possible that God, Who knows what is best, has given to the patients exactly what they need--which may not always be a full recovery.

So what are the implications of this?  Does this mean that from now on, we should stop expecting God to give us more than what we need?  Should we stop praying for what we want and if at all, just pray for what we need?

Well, as I said earlier, God is God and we can never limit Him with any set of expectations.  We can never put Him in a box--not even in this box!   If God is God, He is free to do whatever He thinks is good for us, and if He wants to behave like a vending machine, He is actually quite free to do so.

But just between us, I think when God acts like a vending machine and decides to give you what you ask for--and He has been known many times to do that--He will still refuse to be like your typical vending machine.  He will still surely surprise us and give us something else and something more.  I suspect He would most probably behave like the strange vending machine in this Coke commercial.

 

 

Comments 

 
#4 Administrator 2010-10-28 15:46
@docjfw: Here's my two-cents' worth.

I think conversations about religion are exactly what we need today, and for these conversations, everyone is welcome to the table. But I wish everyone who joins this conversation would observe basic courtesy and respect, regardless of one's belief (or unbelief). I take strong exception to your statement that this particular reflection is an example of someone who "denies the truth."

Those who claim to be people of science do not have a sole franchise on truth and reason no more than I'm sure you will agree that people of religion don't either. Thinking correctly and reasonably on the one hand and believing in God on the other hand are not mutually exclusive, as some so simplistically claim. Just because I disagree with you about religious beliefs doesn't mean I don't think correctly and reasonably.

As many intelligent believers and non-believers would tell you today, there is no such thing as a pure fact. The worst form of science is precisely that which is blissfully unaware of how its very instruments and the very act of observation already affect the phenomenon under study. Canonizing a form of reason that is in denial about any human interpretation smacks of 19th-century scientism that is, simply, very much five minutes ago! Scientism and positivism are no less dogmatic, intolerant, and unreasonable--and they are false sciences.

The best form of science today is always essentially self-questioning, always open to data that might falsify its most sacred scientific theories and laws. And the best people of science are far from dogmatic and intolerant as well.

I can't help but wish we had more people like that participating in this virtual conversation because otherwise, we can't have a real and intelligent conversation.
Quote
 
 
#3 Cathy 2010-10-22 07:38
docjfw. Being a fan of peer-reviewed journals and the work of academia, you should remember firstly that experiments do not "prove" a proposition. Rather, they measure whether there is a statistically determined "significant difference" that supports or rejects a hypothesis given the variables being measured, under the specific conditions defined by the particular experiment, within the experiments' limitations. Also, a single experiment, no matter how large the population being tested, never stands on its own, and needs the supplementation of other scientific work as well. One should not discount the value of other peer-reviewed case studies and other non-experimental yet still scientific work. Depending on what you are looking for, you will find studies on both sides of this debate with just a quick search in any academic database.

Secondly. What is being measured here? Prayers working according to the will of God, or prayers working according to the desires of those who are praying? Fr. Johnny discussed that point well.

When people pray, they are making an act of faith - it's a humble recognition of one's limitations, and of the overarching power of God. Perhaps we could put in our petitions in prayer--recognizing what we graces we need in this life is always good--but a good prayer also includes the acceptance that God knows what we need better than we do, He has a plan and His will shall be done. If one "prays" along that mindset, he or she may find consolation.

...And why pick on prayer not being able to procure its desired outcome? There are lots of things people do that "do not work", but bring people consolation as well. For instance, why bother sending flowers to someone who is sick? Why bother writing someone a card? Will being polite save a cardiac patient? Will sending a bereaved family a condolence note bring someone back to life? Probably not. But people do these things anyway. Some people, in difficult situations, pray - and prayer's effects for those who are praying, and those being prayed for, cannot be denied for those who believe in the value of prayer - or for those who believe in God, period. (Ultimately, I think that is what is bugging you. But come on. You must at least know Pascal's wager.)

And until an experiment can disprove once and for all that God exists--which will never happen--I will pray because that is how I and many others choose to recognize and relate to Him. This is my opinion, and I too stick to reason.
Quote
 
 
#2 docjfw 2010-10-20 12:28
Fr. Johnny, I must dutifully inform you that this study IS scientifically VALID in that it satisfied the rigorous demands of clinical/medical trials, was conducted in world class hospitals AND was peer reviewed to be suitable for publication in a reputable medical journal. This was NOT at all a two-bit study by any stretch of the imagination as you counter. Most importantly, it was a study funded by the RELIGIOUS group John Templeton Foundation that has been dead set to indeed prove that prayers actually work.

Everyone's entitled to his/her opinion but nobody is entitled to his/her own facts. And the FACT remains: prayers do NOT work.

Here again is another fine example of how faith faced with compelling evidence debunking your belief would deny the truth. And that's why I stick to reason.
Quote
 
 
#1 ss 2010-10-18 01:39
That these medical researchers (and there were others before them, I suppose) invested time and money to do this kind of scientific investigation on the efficacy of prayer is beyond me. And with a prayer period of 14 days! What were they thinking? (They probably never heard of St Monica.) At any rate, reading this piece led me to sit back and reflect on what prayer is really all about and to examine the quality of my own prayers these days, only to find it woefully wanting. The Lord has His ways of pulling us up short, doesn’t He? I suspect He did just that to me. This, without sending me out on a stormy sea. Thank you, Lord! And thank you, St John (the Baptist).
Quote
 

Add comment

Security code
Refresh