More Proof Prayer Works

That’s what the title story of the Reader’s Digest blared in huge letters. It was sitting in the basket next to the toilet at my mother-in-law’s house. I was also sitting, and I was looking for some reading material. I reached for a nearby shampoo bottle and started reading the ingredients instead. “Gingko biloba”, I thought. “I was right – this IS more interesting than Reader’s Digest”.

I haven’t always hated Reader’s Digest. When I was a kid they were all over my parents’ house. I was too young back then to notice the omnipresent conservative bias, and the “Humour in Uniform” sections made me laugh, back when I could see the funny side of life as a footsoldier in the Imperial Army.

Things have changed since back then, thankfully I thought – that is, until I came across an article from the BBC today called Heart patients ‘benefit from prayer’. Turns out that “intercessory prayer” provided by “seven prayer groups of varying denominations around the world” really did make a difference, according to the study released in 2001 by a group of researchers from Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina.

Fast-forward to 2005, and the BBC is out with another article. This one is called Prayer ‘no aid to heart patients’. What group of medical rebels decided to challenge the group from Duke University? As it turns out, the same group. The researchers conducting the study that first found “evidence” of a benefit from prayer continued to do their research, including expanding their subjects from 150 to 700. Four years later they have concluded there is “no evidence of any benefits”.

Does a study like this actually accomplish anything? Non-believers in prayer have no reason to change their minds as a result of it, and believers will simply ignore it. After all, it is easy for a believer to argue that the prayer didn’t work because the prayer groups chosen were not religious enough or because God doesn’t like scientific studies about prayer. Any number of scientific studies that “prove” prayer doesn’t work will always lack the persuasive power of a prayer that someone believes has been answered.

What this study does illustrate has little to do with the subject of the study itself – prayer – and more to do with the relationship between science and religion. Religion doesn’t need science, because it is based on faith. Faith and the scientific method don’t mix, something we have seen over and over again in the clashing histories of religion and science. But that’s a lesson some just don’t learn.

The reason for this is the high regard that people have for science and the credibility that the word “scientific” brings with it. That prayer works to help people recover from illnesses and injuries is a common claim. Whether or not someone does in fact recover from an illness or injury is something we can easily test, and we can also arrange to have lots of people pray for them. The tempting result of a study like this, from a religious perspective? “Prayer is scientifically proven.”

The problem is that belief systems cherry-pick scientific studies as it suits them. Alevo left a comment a few days ago that included the adage “we are born and given a set of beliefs, we spend the rest of our lives trying to prove they are true.” Nowhere is this more true than in the treatment given to science. Imagine this scenario: a major evangelist preacher comes across the study above in 2001, where the initial results are indicating that prayer works. He asks for permission from the study authors to break the news in a major televised sermon called “Proof Prayer Works”. The study authors agree, with one condition: when the study is over, he must televise the results in the same manner. If the study proves prayer works, he must preach that “More Proof Prayer Works”, but if not, he must preach “Proof Prayer Doesn’t Work”.

This scenario is unlikely, but when someone bases a belief on science, they are by default entering into a deal just like the one I described – not between themselves and scientists, but between themselves and their audience. If they believe that their audience should be informed that prayer is scientific, then they should tell their audience when more rigorous science disproves that claim. Intellectual dishonesty is a danger something every proponent of a belief system makes themselves vulnerable to when they try to use science.

If you pray, you believe it works. If you don’t, it’s probably because you think it doesn’t. Prayer is a personal thing, between a person and the deity they believe in, and that’s how it should be. People who believe in prayer don’t need a scientific study to prop it up, because they never prayed because of science in the first place. Those who try and use science to bolster their faith only end up damaging it when the science changes.

The next time I’m at the in-laws and I need to make a hasty disappearance, I’ll take a look in the basket of reading materials for the Reader’s Digest that clears up their previous claims. I just won’t hold my breath looking for it, because I don’t want them to find me like they found Elvis Presley.