Scientific study on prayer

[S@M]

uh if you knew anything about real chritianity besides from mickey mouse phony christians who dont know what the bible is really about then you would know that according to real christianity, prayer does not change your situation

my interest is not from that perspective, its from a policy/planning perspective. If spiritual belief/activity gives people better or worse quality of life, then I want to find out, a systematic review is a pretty good way of answering that question.

[Massive Quasars]

"financed by the Templeton Foundation" *sigh*

The physics community is blessed by their disproportionate influence.

[MKJ]

The quote about god not changing his plans for a research study in that article...

that's what I find ridiculous about debating this with prayer warriors. they pray for something and it doesn't happen - 'oh well that's god's plan'.

They pray for something and it does happen - 'god is great...what a miracle...amazing grace hallelujah holy shit kumbahyah!'

thats what i always say. i mean if he has some devine plan in which everything makes sense, whats the point of prayer anyways? he'll make it happen regardless :icon11:

[Ryoki]

I propose the Vatican initiates a theological research to determine the effects of science. After that, we can compare the two and see who wins.

[dmmh]

rofl ryoki

[S@M]

The quote about god not changing his plans for a research study in that article...
that's what I find ridiculous about debating this with prayer warriors. they pray for something and it doesn't happen - 'oh well that's god's plan'.
They pray for something and it does happen - 'god is great...what a miracle...amazing grace hallelujah holy shit kumbahyah!'

or is it a good example of your intrinsic bias? both outcomes are described the same way by those people.....they are infact being quite consistent in attributing either outcome as a response by god to prayer...

[ek]

if you replace "god" by a flip of the coin you will have the same results.

[R00k]

The quote about god not changing his plans for a research study in that article...
that's what I find ridiculous about debating this with prayer warriors. they pray for something and it doesn't happen - 'oh well that's god's plan'.
They pray for something and it does happen - 'god is great...what a miracle...amazing grace hallelujah holy shit kumbahyah!'

or is it a good example of your intrinsic bias? both outcomes are described the same way by those people.....they are infact being quite consistent in attributing either outcome as a response by god to prayer...

No, in on case they are talking about god NOT responding to prayer. When that happens, it's god's plan. God has a plan for everything already laid out, yada yada yada. But then, when he does answer a prayer and something different happens, you don't hear anything about 'god's plan' -- so which is it? Does god have a plan laid out for everything that's going to happen - or can people determine what's going to happen themselves?

If you're going to claim to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient god, then don't water it down with all these made up reasons why his omnipotence doesn't seem to apply to certain situations.

In my opinion it's just self-delusion. And people are welcome to delude themselves all they want, or to believe in whatever they need or want to - but it should be private and personal.

There is no reason for anyone to be doing these mental acrobatics to justify what they believe, unless they are trying to push their beliefs on someone else. You don't have to justify anything that is personal and private.

[S@M]

No Rook, in both cases, they believe god iis responding, one is when he says no, the other when he says yes.

Its not that complex parents, etc do the same, sometimes yes, sometimes no. So your welcome to your opinion, but like tnf it appears your preconceived notions prevent you from accepting something fairly basic - that if god listens to prayer he might have more than one answer, in fact, he could say yes, no, or later - these people are simply glad when he says yes (in their pov) and less glad when he says no - its simple and reasonable.

Its also quite worth studying, if as I said previously there is a beneficial effect on quality of life there is no reason not to learn about it

[tnf]

The quote about god not changing his plans for a research study in that article...
that's what I find ridiculous about debating this with prayer warriors. they pray for something and it doesn't happen - 'oh well that's god's plan'.
They pray for something and it does happen - 'god is great...what a miracle...amazing grace hallelujah holy shit kumbahyah!'

or is it a good example of your intrinsic bias? both outcomes are described the same way by those people.....they are infact being quite consistent in attributing either outcome as a response by god to prayer...

Depends on how you define response - if a lack of a response to a prayer can be defined as a response, than sure, they are consistent.

If they were being consistent why would they be praying for any outcome other than God's will - praying that God's will would be done in whatever the outcome is. Some people do pray that way, others ask for specifics. So, they aren't being consistent in their approach because they ask for specifics in the first place.


And I have no qualms about prayer as a means of increasing the quality of their life, and do believe it can be a very effective means of someone coping with something in a more beneficial manner.

[R00k]

No Rook, in both cases, they believe god iis responding, one is when he says no, the other when he says yes.

Its not that complex parents, etc do the same, sometimes yes, sometimes no. So your welcome to your opinion, but like tnf it appears your preconceived notions prevent you from accepting something fairly basic - that if god listens to prayer he might have more than one answer, in fact, he could say yes, no, or later

But why do my preconceived notions prevent me from "accepting something fairly basic?" Because faith is a matter of very personal and private opinion, and it will be different from one person to the next, which is the point I was trying to make.

My opinion on what God will answer will differ from other people's - just as someone said earlier, that a literal reader of the Bible will tell you that prayer cannot change your actual situation.

Yet you tell me that if I cannot see God can say yes, no or maybe, then I am not able to accept something fairly basic?

Its also quite worth studying, if as I said previously there is a beneficial effect on quality of life there is no reason not to learn about it

Maybe you see the point I was trying to make now.

I have always been a strong proponent of religion on a personal level if it helps the quality of life of the believer -- even though I personally don't subscribe to it. My problem with religion does not arise until decisions that affect other people begin to involve religious dogmas. It is a highly personal value system, and everyone in this country is free to believe in it to their heart's content. But believing is much different from using your personally-espoused values as a standard that you believe everyone should live by. It is made much, much worse by the fact that this approach is being slowly accepted into the mainstream consciousness in this country - and that acceptance is what I am fighting when I enter in these discussions.

I see Christians every day who do not follow the Golden Rule unless the other person also does. This is not a personal value system, it is a system for bias, resentment and smug indifference to your fellow man. That is just one example of the many problems that arise when your religion moves beyond a personal ideal for yourself.

And as for this part: "if there is a beneficial effect on quality of life there is no reason not to learn about it....." I agree 100% and would never discourage anyone from studying it. To be perfectly honest, I was pleasantly surprised when I read the original study that claimed to show prayer helped to heal people more quickly. It made me feel good about the overall human consciousness, and reaffirmed my belief that we all share a connection. But that is my personal belief, and even though I may ask someone to think about me when I am sick for that reason, I will never try to convince someone that my beliefs are somehow "real" or that they can make anyone's life better aside from my own. And I don't expect anyone to challenge me on them, unless they are trying to push their own beliefs on me.

Everyone has to find their own way in this life. And I am either sorry for, or suspicious of, any adult who feels that they need to sell their way to me.


Sorry for the rant.

[S@M]

Depends on how you define response - if a lack of a response to a prayer can be defined as a response, than sure, they are consistent.
If they were being consistent why would they be praying for any outcome other than God's will - praying that God's will would be done in whatever the outcome is. Some people do pray that way, others ask for specifics. So, they aren't being consistent in their approach because they ask for specifics in the first place.
But I could say day, and you'd probably say night and kidney stones, so it really doesn't matter.
And I have no qualms about prayer as a means of increasing the quality of their life, and do believe it can be a very effective means of someone coping with something in a more beneficial manner.

I would not always call the opposite to you, that might have something to do with the time zone differences :P
However, its perfectly legit for people of faith to make both kinds of prayers, surely they can ask for specific help if feeling the need for it, and also request gods will be done - I know in christianity both forms of prayer are advocated in the bible, and would not be supprised to find the same from other religions. Asking for specifics is entirely congruent with how...for example the lords prayer showcases prayer - so I dont agree with your reasoning here, your trying to apply some new rules to religion (I think they have enough already)

ps kidney stones

[tnf]

I'm not making new rules for them, but I think for me it boils down to what the role of prayer really is. The Bible does advocate prayer for specific things - and it also says somewhere in there that whatever you ask for in the name of the Lord will be granted...but it isn't always granted, per se.

I guess I'm getting at this - some Christians like to tout the power of prayer in situations where God supposedly 'answers a prayer with a miracle' whereas other times nothing happens, so it was just God's will. In the situations I've encountered, it is the Christian who attempts to use the 'miracle' as proof prayer works. If they are using it as such, then they are implying that their prayer somehow impacted God's will. If there is a God, I believe his will is just that, his will, and that the most a prayer will do is put people at peace with it a bit more, whether they are praying for specifics or not.

[S@M]

I'm not making new rules for them, but I think for me it boils down to what the role of prayer really is. The Bible does advocate prayer for specific things - and it also says somewhere in there that whatever you ask for in the name of the Lord will be granted...but it isn't always granted, per se.

oops, this bit is my response:
this is true per se, but the context is in relation to prayer in "his name" as that chapter is about gods will, the context is prayer within gods will not random requests made outside the context

okay back to you tnf:
I guess I'm getting at this - some Christians like to tout the power of prayer in situations where God supposedly 'answers a prayer with a miracle' whereas other times nothing happens, so it was just God's will. In the situations I've encountered, it is the Christian who attempts to use the 'miracle' as proof prayer works. If they are using it as such, then they are implying that their prayer somehow impacted God's will. If there is a God, I believe his will is just that, his will, and that the most a prayer will do is put people at peace with it a bit more, whether they are praying for specifics or not.

Your right, people tend to be happier with a yes answer, much the same as the rest of us who get a positive response whether it be to a marriage proposal, an extension on an assignment, or a report from the automechanic that its only a cheap part that needs replacing - this is a human not a religious characteristic. People do seem to have trouble accepting no as a good answer, but that also is a human characteristic, not simply a religious one.

if there is a god and his book has said people should pray according to his will, and make specific requests of him, then there is no real reason to consider that he will not listen and respond to those prayers, but your conclusion about accepting his will would be a good addition to any type of prayer.

[S@M]

But why do my preconceived notions prevent me from "accepting something fairly basic?" Because faith is a matter of very personal and private opinion, and it will be different from one person to the next, which is the point I was trying to make.
My opinion on what God will answer will differ from other people's - just as someone said earlier, that a literal reader of the Bible will tell you that prayer cannot change your actual situation.
Yet you tell me that if I cannot see God can say yes, no or maybe, then I am not able to accept something fairly basic?

Its also quite worth studying, if as I said previously there is a beneficial effect on quality of life there is no reason not to learn about it

Maybe you see the point I was trying to make now.

I have always been a strong proponent of religion on a personal level if it helps the quality of life of the believer -- even though I personally don't subscribe to it. My problem with religion does not arise until decisions that affect other people begin to involve religious dogmas. It is a highly personal value system, and everyone in this country is free to believe in it to their heart's content. But believing is much different from using your personally-espoused values as a standard that you believe everyone should live by. It is made much, much worse by the fact that this approach is being slowly accepted into the mainstream consciousness in this country - and that acceptance is what I am fighting when I enter in these discussions.

I see Christians every day who do not follow the Golden Rule unless the other person also does. This is not a personal value system, it is a system for bias, resentment and smug indifference to your fellow man. That is just one example of the many problems that arise when your religion moves beyond a personal ideal for yourself.

And as for this part: "if there is a beneficial effect on quality of life there is no reason not to learn about it....." I agree 100% and would never discourage anyone from studying it. To be perfectly honest, I was pleasantly surprised when I read the original study that claimed to show prayer helped to heal people more quickly. It made me feel good about the overall human consciousness, and reaffirmed my belief that we all share a connection. But that is my personal belief, and even though I may ask someone to think about me when I am sick for that reason, I will never try to convince someone that my beliefs are somehow "real" or that they can make anyone's life better aside from my own. And I don't expect anyone to challenge me on them, unless they are trying to push their own beliefs on me.

Everyone has to find their own way in this life. And I am either sorry for, or suspicious of, any adult who feels that they need to sell their way to me.
Sorry for the rant.

religion is personal yes, but its also a shared experience for these people. People of religion meet together and share their beliefs/experiences so your definition of faith is rather narrow compared to the reality of faith for people of religion (which is your business and I respect that). Yes sometimes this leads to bias, etc, but to apply that more broadly than the person demonstrating it is a) human tendancy to paint everyone with the same brush b) incorrect at best and damaging at worst as it leads to massive typecasting
The point was about supposedly how people go gaga over a yes answer but pretending that teh answer "no" was actually not an answer at all.

anyhow, your thoughts are interesting thanks for posting them up. If i remember, Ill post back when I finish the review report findings.