What is God?
Scientific Religion
It is impossible not to have an opinion; the very statement of not having an opinion is enough to classify a person within a certain area of the religious spectrum. To the extreme right there are the believers and to the extreme left there are the atheists. In the middle are agnostics. It is difficult to write a paper on this topic without showing bias to one side or the other so I plan to investigate the scientific evidence that people use to make their decisions and the affects these conclusions of scientific papers have on the science community and the larger population. This paper will focus mainly on the god as defined in Christianity, but should reflect the basic idea of god, which is similar throughout other religions.
Role of god
To understand god's role in science it is helpful to examine early science. When science began it was a means to praise and glorify the wisdom and beauty of god's creation. Robert Boyle, a famous natural theologist, thought that learning the finer details of the planet would be an insight into the mind of god (Kimler 2005). As science progressed, it began contradicting some religious teachings of that time so some scientists began looking for new, compatible ways to view god. One of the most common views was that of only a creator and not a controller. God designed a set of rules and principles and all things conformed to them. Therefore the role of the scientists was then to determine what these rules and regulations were. Scientists today have completely ruled out god as an explanation to a scientific inquiry. No researcher would ever conduct research on a protein pathway and conclude that god performed the missing relay mechanism. Science has gotten around things that it does not understand, such as gravity, by labeling it as a 'force' and measuring it rather then explaining it. As a consequence, science and religion have dissociated and driven the view of god to polarized viewpoints.
Society views god in a different way then the scientists. God, like in science, is the source of rules and regulations, but in this case they are rules and regulations on the way life is supposed to be lived, rather than how things work mechanically. God provides the moral backbone that supports and directs human behavior. For those who don’t believe in a god, this doesn’t mean that they lack morals or are unethical. Most agnostics and atheists do have morals, but they are seen more as guidelines that are intrinsic to being a human, rather than applied externally by a god. For some believers, social phenomena such as love, or medically related phenomena such as healing, are still thought to be under the control of god. The use of prayer for healing and health is common and the feelings of love are often thought to be influenced by the presence of god. God's love and healing are common topics in many sermons. Concrete evidence for or against a god would have enormous impacts on science and society and could destroy the moral backbone that supports religion if god were scientifically proved nonexistent.
Can it be proved?
With advances in scientific thought came the attempt to prove or disprove the existence of a god through scientific reasoning. It seems a logical conclusion that a good way to measure the presence and affect of a god would be to test his powers on earth. Since prayer is the communication between man and god, the affects of prayer could be argued to prove gods presence and power. An experiment performed by Krucoff et al. (2001) looked at patients with coronary syndromes to determine the effectiveness of noetic (non-pharmacological) therapies. Informed consent was acquired and patients were randomly assigned into one of five categories that would receive stress relaxation, imagery, touch therapy, prayer, or standard medical treatments. It was demonstrated that patients receiving noetic therapies had a 25-30% reduction in adverse outcomes and patients receiving off-site intercessory prayer had the lowest rates of complication (Krucoff et al. 2001). In an experiment performed by Leibovici (2001), the effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was found to reduce mortality, length of hospital stay, and fever duration in patients with bloodstream infections.
Despite having real data to support the claims from people who believed in prayer and god, scientists remained very skeptical about the results being produced in some experiments. Scientists cite lack of controls, non-blinded participants, no repetition, and a poor understanding about what exactly is being measured as contributing factors to their skepticism. It appears that the data from these scientific experiments have lost their credibility because they do not account for differences in religion or differing opinions as to what god is and in what specific way he interacts with humans on earth (Avalos). Results of experiments of this nature have inspired more questions than answers. Questions such as, if prayer works, why isn’t everyone prayed for healed, or why would god only relieve the suffering of those being prayed for when the prayer, and therefore god, obviously knows of the suffering in the group that is not receiving direct prayers? What about the general prayers said everyday to cure all sick people? Does twenty minutes of prayer equal two sessions of ten-minute prayer? Does the prayer of two people have twice the power of one person's prayer? These and many other questions remain completely untouched.
It is obvious that a lot of people have a lot a stake in the conclusions of these experiments. I have found many websites that make claims saying that finally the evidence of god and the affects of prayer have arrived. Sources from a variety of experiments are listed in their references list, but the claims made are sometimes far removed from the conclusions of the actual data. Often times the writers of these papers say definitively that science proves that prayer heals, and then cites a source whose data only shows minute differences in the results of the prayed for and non-prayed for groups. Other times the sources seem to be made up or in text citations don’t have anything to do with the experiments cited. In many instances I could not find the sources that they used, or the source that they used was completely irrelevant. For example, on one website I found a source whose title was “Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization–Embryo Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial,” from the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. The link to the source they cited was actually “Repeated Antenatal Corticosteroid Treatments: Do They Reduce Neonatal Morbidity?”
More questions
What is god like? Some people believe that god is an all-knowing, all-caring god that cares for his children. The next question is then, if god knows that people are suffering and has the ability to relieve that suffering, why then would he rely on the prayers of humans? If you had the ability to cure pain and suffering around the world, eliminate poverty, and cure disease you wouldn’t sit back and wait for someone to ask you to do it. Then after being asked, would you heal only a select few, and let the rest suffer or die? Serious questions lie in the arguments of an all-knowing, all-caring god.
In ethics, it is often helpful to compromise between the two extremes to develop a dynamic understanding of the issues involved. How then can a compromise in beliefs be reached?
My opinions (skip for less biased interpretation)
What is God? We all think we know the answer to this question, but on more careful examination we don't. We are more likely to ask, who is God; how does God work; what is God's message? While this series of questions is answerable, the responses will surely vary among the individual. Let's return to the original question though. What is God? We speak of ‘Him’ as a person, we capitalize 'His' name, and we use possessive pronouns and refer to 'Him' as a male. Is God really male, is 'He' a person? Then why do I capitalize his name? The problem is that we refer to God as a thing, or a person, instead of god the idea. We speak of god's actions and god's teachings. This is known as personification. We attribute characteristics of ourselves and impose them onto this idea to make it more comfortable or easier to grasp and doing so is an inherent flaw in religion. When I pray, is god really listening? This would mean that god has an ear, a tympanic membrane, cochlea, etc. Does god answer prayers? This one is a little vaguer. So if I pray and ask for a new a car will I wake up the next day with a new car in my driveway? Of course not you would say, god does not respond to selfish prayers. What if I ask that my little brother with leukemia will be cured immediately? This is morally superior to what I initially asked for so will my brother be magically cured? You know the answer to that question, no matter how strong your religious beliefs are. The problem is that when we speak of god as a person, separate from ourselves, that can accomplish miracles we are degrading the truth of what I think god really is.
A strong advocate for creationism, William Paley explains that just as there is a designer and engineer who created a watch to work in exactly right way, god to created the earth and the amazing variety of animals and plants that inhabit it. He says that surely if god took all the time to design even the smallest creations that he indeed cares a great deal about humanity. The marks of design are too strong to be gotten over. He says, "Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD" (Paley 1802).
This is another example of a person applying physical characteristics to something completely unrelated. We have made god a person, and in doing so have discredited the principles and values of what god is. If god is none of those things that we suggested, then what is god? This is where my opinions and beliefs come into play. I think that every person should find a belief system that is right for him/her. As a part of trying to find what I believe in I have asked myself the previous questions and I have an answer that in my mind explains these discrepancies. I think that god is an idea. God lives because we live. Good work can be done through god because he is in the hearts and minds of the people doing that work. God doesn't do good work; people do good work because they believe in god.
Prayer without god?
Not all the research performed on the effects of prayer on healing has had problems with its scientific method. A number of researchers have used double-blinded situations in which neither the doctors nor the patients knew who was being prayed for, which should therefore eliminate a variable that could effect patient outcomes. These studies still demonstrate that people who are prayed for have decreased mortality rates, decreased suffering, and faster recovery. Is this information enough to convince atheists and agnostics to believe in prayer and god? Debora Williams of PLIM INC., a nonprofit, metaphysical, philosophical, biblical, research, and educational organization, thinks that “even if we mumble our prayers only when we are ill or if there is no God to hear them, the new research indicated that religious thoughts could help to heal” (Williams 1999). This statement would mean that healing and physical health are partially dependent on psychological factors rather than the influence of god. Could the mere belief in a religion, regardless of its validity, positively influence people’s lives and health? Absolutely. People of faith are more likely to live healthy lifestyles that do not involve them in hazardous behaviors such as drinking and smoking. Also, when sick, religious people are more likely to have a positive outlook and more mental strength because they expect to recovery based on their prayers and community support. Consider part of this healing prayer from alighthouse.com.
Christ has redeemed me from the curse of the law. Therefore I forbid any sickness or disease to come upon this body. Every disease germ and virus that touches this body dies instantly in the name of Jesus. Every organ and every tissue of this body functions in the perfection to which God created it to function and I forbid any malfunction in this body in the name of Jesus. (Prayer for healing)
Let’s examine the language used in this prayer as an indication to the mindset of the person repeating it. For this example we must make the assumption that this person completely believes the words they are saying, not just reading it. If we can determine that the person who says this prayer is relaxed and hopeful, then this provides evidence of the psychological differences in people who pray and people who don’t. The first sentence says “I am special;” I have been chosen and somebody important cares about me. How does this make you feel? Everybody likes to be special and know that someone cares for them, so this would induce a positive attitude. Consider the next two sentences. These sentences assure the person praying that they will be healed. If no germ or virus can affect them, then surely they will be healed. This attitude shows hope and gives people assurance that everything will be ok.
A study by the American Journal of Psychiatry examined depressed patients on the basis of religious beliefs to see if religious people had higher rates of remission (Koenig et al. 1998). The researchers concluded that “depressed patients with higher intrinsic religiosity scores had more rapid remissions than patients with lower scores” (Koenig et al. 1998). Although this study sounds intriguing, the results are quite honestly common sense. They say that people who become inspired and loved are more likely to overcome depression more quickly. Isn’t the lack of these things responsible for their depression in the first place? Now that scientists have begun studying the effects of positive attitude, the correlations between it and health are becoming stronger and stronger.
Carol Ryff, a psychology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, says in an article in USA Today that "there is a science that is emerging that says a positive attitude isn't just a state of mind, it also has linkages to what's going on in the brain and in the body" (Jayson 2004). Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, says that the link between the mind and the body has been scientifically established and that the affect of a positive attitude allows people to focus on something other than their pain; it gives people a purpose to life and reduces their level of stress which leads to increased recovery rates (Jayson 2004). The article by Jayson also mentions the difficulty in measuring happiness. Although the connection is not made by Jayson, this difficulty parallels the experiments performed on prayer. They are essentially the same thing. At this point, it is impossible to determine what someone is thinking. There is no scientific way to measure hope or happiness; they are subjective observations that can only be recorded by interactions and discussions with the patients. It would be extremely difficult to compare happiness levels to patient recovery rates, but many people agree that there is a strong correlation between these variables.
Effects on Science
The effects that these initial studies have had on science have not provided the crisis that Kuhn deems necessary to initiate a paradigm shift. It has however, initiated a new area of scientific research that deals less with objective facts, and more with subjective human behavior. More studies examining the effect of prayer on healing will undoubtedly occur, but I feel that they will not have profound effects. The more interesting research, I think, will investigate how the thoughts and feelings in our head affect our health and well-being. It may be that science will have to give up understanding love, faith, and prayer, and label them as ‘forces.’ These forces could then be analyzed, much like gravity and electrostatic interactions, by understanding the effects of love, faith, and prayer on human diseases and healing.
Effects on Society
I do not think that the evidence presented in any of the scientific studies have shifted the spectrum of religious involvement. The debate will continue, but the personal decisions made about spirituality are unlikely to change at this point. There are too many questions left unanswered by science. I think that the most important piece of information found in this paper, and in the science regarding this issue, is to be happy. Whether you find happiness in your faith, in your family, or in your community, the biological consequences will increase the amount of time you have to appreciate that happiness. Each person, despite his/her religious beliefs, can benefit from a positive attitude. Maybe that is what god wanted all along. It is said that life is too short to be unhappy, and it is ironic that life is actually shorter because of that unhappiness.
Conclusions
What then can be concluded about the presence and power of a god or gods from the scientific experiments performed so far? In my opinion, nothing. The results of even the most well designed experiments have so far been inadequate to prove anything but the amount of information we still do not know about the functions of the human brain. There are too many uncontrollable factors when dealing with human behavior and human psychology to experimentally control. The intent of this paper was initially to answer questions, but I have found no good answers so I am left to ask only questions. Maybe asking the question is more useful than finding the answer. Science is about answering questions and might not be the best tool in probing for answers in this area.
Sources:
Avalos, Hector. “Can Science Prove that Prayer Works?” Free Inquiry magazine Online. Volume 17, Number 3. 27 March 2005. <>.
Jayson, Sharon. “Health and Behavior: Power of a super attitude.” USA Today Online. 2004. 29 March 2005..
Kimler, William. “The Mechanists' Conception of God.” 2005. North Carolina State University. 25 March 2005..
Koenig, Harold G., M.D., M.H.Sc., George, Linda K., Ph.D., Peterson, Bercedis L., Ph.D. 1998. “Religiosity and Remission of Depression in Medically Ill Older Patients.” Am J Psychiatry 155:536-542.
Krucoff, M. W., S. W. Crater, C. L. Green, A. C. Maas, J. E. Seskevich, J. D. Lane, K. A. Loeffler, K. Morris, T. M. Bashore, and H. G. Koenig. 2001. “Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot.” Am. Heart J. 142: 760-767
Leibovici, Leonard. “Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomized controlled trial.” British Medical Journal 323 (2001) 1450-1451.
Paley, W. 1802. Natural Theology. Excerpts published in: Ruse, M. (ed.)1996. But Is It Science? Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York. pp. 46-49.
“Prayer for healing.” Online. 30 March 2005.
Williams, Debora. “Scientific Research of Prayer: Can the Power of Prayer Be Proven?” 1999. PLIM REPORT, Vol. 8 #4. 27 March 2005..
It is impossible not to have an opinion; the very statement of not having an opinion is enough to classify a person within a certain area of the religious spectrum. To the extreme right there are the believers and to the extreme left there are the atheists. In the middle are agnostics. It is difficult to write a paper on this topic without showing bias to one side or the other so I plan to investigate the scientific evidence that people use to make their decisions and the affects these conclusions of scientific papers have on the science community and the larger population. This paper will focus mainly on the god as defined in Christianity, but should reflect the basic idea of god, which is similar throughout other religions.
Role of god
To understand god's role in science it is helpful to examine early science. When science began it was a means to praise and glorify the wisdom and beauty of god's creation. Robert Boyle, a famous natural theologist, thought that learning the finer details of the planet would be an insight into the mind of god (Kimler 2005). As science progressed, it began contradicting some religious teachings of that time so some scientists began looking for new, compatible ways to view god. One of the most common views was that of only a creator and not a controller. God designed a set of rules and principles and all things conformed to them. Therefore the role of the scientists was then to determine what these rules and regulations were. Scientists today have completely ruled out god as an explanation to a scientific inquiry. No researcher would ever conduct research on a protein pathway and conclude that god performed the missing relay mechanism. Science has gotten around things that it does not understand, such as gravity, by labeling it as a 'force' and measuring it rather then explaining it. As a consequence, science and religion have dissociated and driven the view of god to polarized viewpoints.
Society views god in a different way then the scientists. God, like in science, is the source of rules and regulations, but in this case they are rules and regulations on the way life is supposed to be lived, rather than how things work mechanically. God provides the moral backbone that supports and directs human behavior. For those who don’t believe in a god, this doesn’t mean that they lack morals or are unethical. Most agnostics and atheists do have morals, but they are seen more as guidelines that are intrinsic to being a human, rather than applied externally by a god. For some believers, social phenomena such as love, or medically related phenomena such as healing, are still thought to be under the control of god. The use of prayer for healing and health is common and the feelings of love are often thought to be influenced by the presence of god. God's love and healing are common topics in many sermons. Concrete evidence for or against a god would have enormous impacts on science and society and could destroy the moral backbone that supports religion if god were scientifically proved nonexistent.
Can it be proved?
With advances in scientific thought came the attempt to prove or disprove the existence of a god through scientific reasoning. It seems a logical conclusion that a good way to measure the presence and affect of a god would be to test his powers on earth. Since prayer is the communication between man and god, the affects of prayer could be argued to prove gods presence and power. An experiment performed by Krucoff et al. (2001) looked at patients with coronary syndromes to determine the effectiveness of noetic (non-pharmacological) therapies. Informed consent was acquired and patients were randomly assigned into one of five categories that would receive stress relaxation, imagery, touch therapy, prayer, or standard medical treatments. It was demonstrated that patients receiving noetic therapies had a 25-30% reduction in adverse outcomes and patients receiving off-site intercessory prayer had the lowest rates of complication (Krucoff et al. 2001). In an experiment performed by Leibovici (2001), the effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was found to reduce mortality, length of hospital stay, and fever duration in patients with bloodstream infections.
Despite having real data to support the claims from people who believed in prayer and god, scientists remained very skeptical about the results being produced in some experiments. Scientists cite lack of controls, non-blinded participants, no repetition, and a poor understanding about what exactly is being measured as contributing factors to their skepticism. It appears that the data from these scientific experiments have lost their credibility because they do not account for differences in religion or differing opinions as to what god is and in what specific way he interacts with humans on earth (Avalos). Results of experiments of this nature have inspired more questions than answers. Questions such as, if prayer works, why isn’t everyone prayed for healed, or why would god only relieve the suffering of those being prayed for when the prayer, and therefore god, obviously knows of the suffering in the group that is not receiving direct prayers? What about the general prayers said everyday to cure all sick people? Does twenty minutes of prayer equal two sessions of ten-minute prayer? Does the prayer of two people have twice the power of one person's prayer? These and many other questions remain completely untouched.
It is obvious that a lot of people have a lot a stake in the conclusions of these experiments. I have found many websites that make claims saying that finally the evidence of god and the affects of prayer have arrived. Sources from a variety of experiments are listed in their references list, but the claims made are sometimes far removed from the conclusions of the actual data. Often times the writers of these papers say definitively that science proves that prayer heals, and then cites a source whose data only shows minute differences in the results of the prayed for and non-prayed for groups. Other times the sources seem to be made up or in text citations don’t have anything to do with the experiments cited. In many instances I could not find the sources that they used, or the source that they used was completely irrelevant. For example, on one website I found a source whose title was “Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization–Embryo Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial,” from the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. The link to the source they cited was actually “Repeated Antenatal Corticosteroid Treatments: Do They Reduce Neonatal Morbidity?”
More questions
What is god like? Some people believe that god is an all-knowing, all-caring god that cares for his children. The next question is then, if god knows that people are suffering and has the ability to relieve that suffering, why then would he rely on the prayers of humans? If you had the ability to cure pain and suffering around the world, eliminate poverty, and cure disease you wouldn’t sit back and wait for someone to ask you to do it. Then after being asked, would you heal only a select few, and let the rest suffer or die? Serious questions lie in the arguments of an all-knowing, all-caring god.
In ethics, it is often helpful to compromise between the two extremes to develop a dynamic understanding of the issues involved. How then can a compromise in beliefs be reached?
My opinions (skip for less biased interpretation)
What is God? We all think we know the answer to this question, but on more careful examination we don't. We are more likely to ask, who is God; how does God work; what is God's message? While this series of questions is answerable, the responses will surely vary among the individual. Let's return to the original question though. What is God? We speak of ‘Him’ as a person, we capitalize 'His' name, and we use possessive pronouns and refer to 'Him' as a male. Is God really male, is 'He' a person? Then why do I capitalize his name? The problem is that we refer to God as a thing, or a person, instead of god the idea. We speak of god's actions and god's teachings. This is known as personification. We attribute characteristics of ourselves and impose them onto this idea to make it more comfortable or easier to grasp and doing so is an inherent flaw in religion. When I pray, is god really listening? This would mean that god has an ear, a tympanic membrane, cochlea, etc. Does god answer prayers? This one is a little vaguer. So if I pray and ask for a new a car will I wake up the next day with a new car in my driveway? Of course not you would say, god does not respond to selfish prayers. What if I ask that my little brother with leukemia will be cured immediately? This is morally superior to what I initially asked for so will my brother be magically cured? You know the answer to that question, no matter how strong your religious beliefs are. The problem is that when we speak of god as a person, separate from ourselves, that can accomplish miracles we are degrading the truth of what I think god really is.
A strong advocate for creationism, William Paley explains that just as there is a designer and engineer who created a watch to work in exactly right way, god to created the earth and the amazing variety of animals and plants that inhabit it. He says that surely if god took all the time to design even the smallest creations that he indeed cares a great deal about humanity. The marks of design are too strong to be gotten over. He says, "Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD" (Paley 1802).
This is another example of a person applying physical characteristics to something completely unrelated. We have made god a person, and in doing so have discredited the principles and values of what god is. If god is none of those things that we suggested, then what is god? This is where my opinions and beliefs come into play. I think that every person should find a belief system that is right for him/her. As a part of trying to find what I believe in I have asked myself the previous questions and I have an answer that in my mind explains these discrepancies. I think that god is an idea. God lives because we live. Good work can be done through god because he is in the hearts and minds of the people doing that work. God doesn't do good work; people do good work because they believe in god.
Prayer without god?
Not all the research performed on the effects of prayer on healing has had problems with its scientific method. A number of researchers have used double-blinded situations in which neither the doctors nor the patients knew who was being prayed for, which should therefore eliminate a variable that could effect patient outcomes. These studies still demonstrate that people who are prayed for have decreased mortality rates, decreased suffering, and faster recovery. Is this information enough to convince atheists and agnostics to believe in prayer and god? Debora Williams of PLIM INC., a nonprofit, metaphysical, philosophical, biblical, research, and educational organization, thinks that “even if we mumble our prayers only when we are ill or if there is no God to hear them, the new research indicated that religious thoughts could help to heal” (Williams 1999). This statement would mean that healing and physical health are partially dependent on psychological factors rather than the influence of god. Could the mere belief in a religion, regardless of its validity, positively influence people’s lives and health? Absolutely. People of faith are more likely to live healthy lifestyles that do not involve them in hazardous behaviors such as drinking and smoking. Also, when sick, religious people are more likely to have a positive outlook and more mental strength because they expect to recovery based on their prayers and community support. Consider part of this healing prayer from alighthouse.com.
Christ has redeemed me from the curse of the law. Therefore I forbid any sickness or disease to come upon this body. Every disease germ and virus that touches this body dies instantly in the name of Jesus. Every organ and every tissue of this body functions in the perfection to which God created it to function and I forbid any malfunction in this body in the name of Jesus. (Prayer for healing)
Let’s examine the language used in this prayer as an indication to the mindset of the person repeating it. For this example we must make the assumption that this person completely believes the words they are saying, not just reading it. If we can determine that the person who says this prayer is relaxed and hopeful, then this provides evidence of the psychological differences in people who pray and people who don’t. The first sentence says “I am special;” I have been chosen and somebody important cares about me. How does this make you feel? Everybody likes to be special and know that someone cares for them, so this would induce a positive attitude. Consider the next two sentences. These sentences assure the person praying that they will be healed. If no germ or virus can affect them, then surely they will be healed. This attitude shows hope and gives people assurance that everything will be ok.
A study by the American Journal of Psychiatry examined depressed patients on the basis of religious beliefs to see if religious people had higher rates of remission (Koenig et al. 1998). The researchers concluded that “depressed patients with higher intrinsic religiosity scores had more rapid remissions than patients with lower scores” (Koenig et al. 1998). Although this study sounds intriguing, the results are quite honestly common sense. They say that people who become inspired and loved are more likely to overcome depression more quickly. Isn’t the lack of these things responsible for their depression in the first place? Now that scientists have begun studying the effects of positive attitude, the correlations between it and health are becoming stronger and stronger.
Carol Ryff, a psychology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, says in an article in USA Today that "there is a science that is emerging that says a positive attitude isn't just a state of mind, it also has linkages to what's going on in the brain and in the body" (Jayson 2004). Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, says that the link between the mind and the body has been scientifically established and that the affect of a positive attitude allows people to focus on something other than their pain; it gives people a purpose to life and reduces their level of stress which leads to increased recovery rates (Jayson 2004). The article by Jayson also mentions the difficulty in measuring happiness. Although the connection is not made by Jayson, this difficulty parallels the experiments performed on prayer. They are essentially the same thing. At this point, it is impossible to determine what someone is thinking. There is no scientific way to measure hope or happiness; they are subjective observations that can only be recorded by interactions and discussions with the patients. It would be extremely difficult to compare happiness levels to patient recovery rates, but many people agree that there is a strong correlation between these variables.
Effects on Science
The effects that these initial studies have had on science have not provided the crisis that Kuhn deems necessary to initiate a paradigm shift. It has however, initiated a new area of scientific research that deals less with objective facts, and more with subjective human behavior. More studies examining the effect of prayer on healing will undoubtedly occur, but I feel that they will not have profound effects. The more interesting research, I think, will investigate how the thoughts and feelings in our head affect our health and well-being. It may be that science will have to give up understanding love, faith, and prayer, and label them as ‘forces.’ These forces could then be analyzed, much like gravity and electrostatic interactions, by understanding the effects of love, faith, and prayer on human diseases and healing.
Effects on Society
I do not think that the evidence presented in any of the scientific studies have shifted the spectrum of religious involvement. The debate will continue, but the personal decisions made about spirituality are unlikely to change at this point. There are too many questions left unanswered by science. I think that the most important piece of information found in this paper, and in the science regarding this issue, is to be happy. Whether you find happiness in your faith, in your family, or in your community, the biological consequences will increase the amount of time you have to appreciate that happiness. Each person, despite his/her religious beliefs, can benefit from a positive attitude. Maybe that is what god wanted all along. It is said that life is too short to be unhappy, and it is ironic that life is actually shorter because of that unhappiness.
Conclusions
What then can be concluded about the presence and power of a god or gods from the scientific experiments performed so far? In my opinion, nothing. The results of even the most well designed experiments have so far been inadequate to prove anything but the amount of information we still do not know about the functions of the human brain. There are too many uncontrollable factors when dealing with human behavior and human psychology to experimentally control. The intent of this paper was initially to answer questions, but I have found no good answers so I am left to ask only questions. Maybe asking the question is more useful than finding the answer. Science is about answering questions and might not be the best tool in probing for answers in this area.
Sources:
Avalos, Hector. “Can Science Prove that Prayer Works?” Free Inquiry magazine Online. Volume 17, Number 3. 27 March 2005. <>.
Jayson, Sharon. “Health and Behavior: Power of a super attitude.” USA Today Online. 2004. 29 March 2005.
Kimler, William. “The Mechanists' Conception of God.” 2005. North Carolina State University. 25 March 2005.
Koenig, Harold G., M.D., M.H.Sc., George, Linda K., Ph.D., Peterson, Bercedis L., Ph.D. 1998. “Religiosity and Remission of Depression in Medically Ill Older Patients.” Am J Psychiatry 155:536-542.
Krucoff, M. W., S. W. Crater, C. L. Green, A. C. Maas, J. E. Seskevich, J. D. Lane, K. A. Loeffler, K. Morris, T. M. Bashore, and H. G. Koenig. 2001. “Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot.” Am. Heart J. 142: 760-767
Leibovici, Leonard. “Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomized controlled trial.” British Medical Journal 323 (2001) 1450-1451.
Paley, W. 1802. Natural Theology. Excerpts published in: Ruse, M. (ed.)1996. But Is It Science? Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York. pp. 46-49.
“Prayer for healing.” Online. 30 March 2005.
Williams, Debora. “Scientific Research of Prayer: Can the Power of Prayer Be Proven?” 1999. PLIM REPORT, Vol. 8 #4. 27 March 2005.
posted by Damon at 1:02 PM
0 comments
