|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject: Study: Prayer doesn't affect heart patients |
 |
|
Food for thought.
Study: Prayer doesn't affect heart patients
| Quote: |
Study: Prayer doesn't affect heart patients
Thursday, March 30, 2006 Posted: 1926 GMT (0326 HKT)
NEW YORK (AP) -- In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.
Researchers emphasized their work does not address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.
They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.
The work, which followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers, was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion. It will appear in the American Heart Journal.
Dr. Herbert Benson of Harvard Medical School and other scientists tested the effect of having three Christian groups pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for "a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" for specific patients, for whom they were given the first name and first initial of the last name.
The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600 apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were prayed for but only knew it was a possibility, and those who weren't prayed for but were told it was a possibility.
The researchers did not ask patients or their families and friends to alter any plans they had for prayer, saying such a step would have been unethical and impractical.
The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery. Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But 59 percent of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52 percent of those who were told it was just a possibility.
Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, who did not take part in the study, said the results did not surprise him.
"There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either," he said.
Science, he said, "is not designed to study the supernatural."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've read studies on both sides of this, and I have two questions:
This centre for the study of medicine and religion-- there's no clue about their affiliation. Were they hoping to find this effect, or the opposite?
Also, why would they tell each group that it was a possibility? That surely introduces a complicating factor-- why not have a control that doesn't know they're being prayed for?
I've studied psych and stats, and I'm scratching my head over this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
I've read studies on both sides of this, and I have two questions:
This centre for the study of medicine and religion-- there's no clue about their affiliation. Were they hoping to find this effect, or the opposite?
Also, why would they tell each group that it was a possibility? That surely introduces a complicating factor-- why not have a control that doesn't know they're being prayed for?
I've studied psych and stats, and I'm scratching my head over this one. |
Why does it have to have an affiliation? Sometimes people actually question things that they don't know because they don't know them. They tend to be the ones who actually move our race along.
For your second bit, remember they weren't looking for the complication factor. That just happened to show up. That has nothing to do for how they conducted the experiement.
EDIT
by the way, what does "I have studied psych and stats" mean? So have I , in uni, but I would not even consider going against something that was actually published in the American Heart Journal done by Harvard Medical School without having something other than a gut instinct that it is wrong. Plus Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, said he is not surprised, so as a Christian, he obviously read it and agreed with it.
I am not saying you should never look into things, we all remember Dr Hwang over here in Korea, but still, a bit more than
| Quote: |
I've studied psych and stats, and I'm scratching my head over this one. |
is needed to try to refute the study. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just confused-- not trying to refute.
I wish I could believe that people pooled together money, time and expertise in search of pure truth, but I think you'll find that most studies are done because they're trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis, and people with a vested interest in the outcome will contribute to studies that set out to confirm their own beliefs.
| Quote: |
For your second bit, remember they weren't looking for the complication factor. That just happened to show up. That has nothing to do for how they conducted the experiement. |
I'm interested in the higher rate of complications, but the article doesn't say how much higher the rate was, or how "statistically significant" that difference was.
No, I don't mean medical complications, I meant the dreaded statistical "Confounding Factor." The knowledge that one is being prayed for/could be prayed for has a psychological effect, quite apart from what's being ostensibly studied.
Again, I'm not trying to take on Harvard with my own basic skill set- I'm just asking questions. Maybe there's more of a problem with the article and the information it omits than the study itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
I'm just confused-- not trying to refute.
I wish I could believe that people pooled together money, time and expertise in search of pure truth, but I think you'll find that most studies are done because they're trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis, and people with a vested interest in the outcome will contribute to studies that set out to confirm their own beliefs.
|
I know, but it does sometimes happen. A lot of Astronomy has been figured out on this basis alone.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
For your second bit, remember they weren't looking for the complication factor. That just happened to show up. That has nothing to do for how they conducted the experiement. |
I'm interested in the higher rate of complications, but the article doesn't say how much higher the rate was, or how "statistically significant" that difference was.
|
But 59 percent of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52 percent of those who were told it was just a possibility. (Is this what you were talking about, not sure???)
| Quote: |
No, I don't mean medical complications, I meant the dreaded statistical "Confounding Factor." The knowledge that one is being prayed for/could be prayed for has a psychological effect, quite apart from what's being ostensibly studied.
|
Yes, but wouldn't this have had the opposite effect. It has been proven that spiritual people tend to lead healthier lives, so if anything, telling them should have had the opposite effect. I was a little surprised myself.
| Quote: |
Again, I'm not trying to take on Harvard with my own basic skill set- I'm just asking questions. Maybe there's more of a problem with the article and the information it omits than the study itself. |
 Ok |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wasn't the original study that found an effect cowritten by a convicted fraud artist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Wasn't the original study that found an effect cowritten by a convicted fraud artist? |
I don't know, was it? The article doesn't say anything, and the things I said aobut it being published and by who are still in effect (Kermo and me). If you find any proof, please post it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| kermo wrote: |
I'm interested in the higher rate of complications, but the article doesn't say how much higher the rate was, or how "statistically significant" that difference was.
|
But 59 percent of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52 percent of those who were told it was just a possibility. (Is this what you were talking about, not sure???)
|
[/quote]
Whoops- I missed that bit about 59% vs. 52% but the statistical significance still isn't there. It means "What are the odds that this difference isn't just a random variation?" I'm not sure how to calculate it, i.e., how big does the sample have to be, how wide does the difference have to be, before some kind of cause can be attributed and not just ascribed to chance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| kermo wrote: |
I'm just confused-- not trying to refute.
I wish I could believe that people pooled together money, time and expertise in search of pure truth, but I think you'll find that most studies are done because they're trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis, and people with a vested interest in the outcome will contribute to studies that set out to confirm their own beliefs.
|
I know, but it does sometimes happen. A lot of Astronomy has been figured out on this basis alone. |
I forgot to mention this earlier, but I don't think this is a great example. We look up into the sky, and no one can deny that there's something out there (if only a great speckle curtain stretched out by the hand of Chronos.) We can all see that there are celestial laws at work-- the constellations race across the sky quite predictably. Most people who have dedicated their time to studying space actually want to find something. So everyone's observing, assuming that they will find something, assuming it will conform to certain physic laws.
As for God-- some people passionately want Him to exist, others hate the idea. There's a polarizing force at work here in a sense that I don't think astronomy has seen since the days of Galileo.
By the way, I have another question about this study. Who was doing the praying, and who were they praying to? Were they nuns? Convicts? Born-agains or agnostics? Were the prayers directed to Jesus/Allah/Buddha/Great Spaghetti Monster? That sort of thing would be interesting to know, and to some people, quite relevant to the outcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| kermo wrote: |
I'm just confused-- not trying to refute.
I wish I could believe that people pooled together money, time and expertise in search of pure truth, but I think you'll find that most studies are done because they're trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis, and people with a vested interest in the outcome will contribute to studies that set out to confirm their own beliefs.
|
I know, but it does sometimes happen. A lot of Astronomy has been figured out on this basis alone. |
I forgot to mention this earlier, but I don't think this is a great example. We look up into the sky, and no one can deny that there's something out there (if only a great speckle curtain stretched out by the hand of Chronos.) We can all see that there are celestial laws at work-- the constellations race across the sky quite predictably. Most people who have dedicated their time to studying space actually want to find something. So everyone's observing, assuming that they will find something, assuming it will conform to certain physic laws.
|
I disagree. An easy example would be black holes. The whole point is you can't see them, but you can see things around them and guess. Also, the methods of detecting new planets too.
Also, we could see if the prayers were working. There was no extrapolation from the data. The data clearly showed what the praying did or did not. Here I have to disagree again.
| Quote: |
As for God-- some people passionately want Him to exist, others hate the idea. There's a polarizing force at work here in a sense that I don't think astronomy has seen since the days of Galileo.
|
This may not go over so well, but the reason astronomy is not polarizing anymore is Christianity finally gave up trying to control astronomy. It just became impossible with the facts and that people could see it themselves. But it tried and looked pretty stupid for a couple of centuries. In my opinion, I don't know why anyone wouldn't think the same thing would happen here.
| Quote: |
By the way, I have another question about this study. Who was doing the praying, and who were they praying to? Were they nuns? Convicts? Born-agains or agnostics? Were the prayers directed to Jesus/Allah/Buddha/Great Spaghetti Monster? That sort of thing would be interesting to know, and to some people, quite relevant to the outcome. |
Now I agree with this and am interested myself. I would assume they chose spiritual Christians, but that is only a supposition and like I said, would like to find out.
Also, I am agnostic, not athiest. If one way was proved, I would accept it. Along these lines, you could also say that if God existed, even if it was the most devout virgin nuns doing it, he still wouldn't help out as he doesn't want to prove (show) it. He only helps with true faith, not for some show or statistic. Through this, the study would be moot.
On another note, my theory of why people who were sure they were being prayed for had worse recoveries is because they possibly didn't fight as hard thinking they had help. The others weren't sure, so possibly fought a bit harder. Just a thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| kermo wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| kermo wrote: |
I'm just confused-- not trying to refute.
I wish I could believe that people pooled together money, time and expertise in search of pure truth, but I think you'll find that most studies are done because they're trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis, and people with a vested interest in the outcome will contribute to studies that set out to confirm their own beliefs.
|
I know, but it does sometimes happen. A lot of Astronomy has been figured out on this basis alone. |
I forgot to mention this earlier, but I don't think this is a great example. We look up into the sky, and no one can deny that there's something out there (if only a great speckle curtain stretched out by the hand of Chronos.) We can all see that there are celestial laws at work-- the constellations race across the sky quite predictably. Most people who have dedicated their time to studying space actually want to find something. So everyone's observing, assuming that they will find something, assuming it will conform to certain physic laws.
|
I disagree. An easy example would be black holes. The whole point is you can't see them, but you can see things around them and guess. Also, the methods of detecting new planets too.
Also, we could see if the prayers were working. There was no extrapolation from the data. The data clearly showed what the praying did or did not. Here I have to disagree again.
| Quote: |
As for God-- some people passionately want Him to exist, others hate the idea. There's a polarizing force at work here in a sense that I don't think astronomy has seen since the days of Galileo.
|
This may not go over so well, but the reason astronomy is not polarizing anymore is Christianity finally gave up trying to control astronomy. It just became impossible with the facts and that people could see it themselves. But it tried and looked pretty stupid for a couple of centuries. In my opinion, I don't know why anyone wouldn't think the same thing would happen here. . |
I'm not offended by this suggestion-- I wouldn't have brought up Galileo otherwise. The church/establishment was using political authority and their interpretation of scripture to duke it out. This time, both "sides" are using the scientific method, looking for empirical evidence, testing rigorously.
However, bias is always present, and we all know that people see what they want to see, just like the historical church refused to see what astronomy was trying to reveal.
You could be right-- this study could be funded and conducted by merely curious people who are completely dispassionate about the issue but I have my doubts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
However, bias is always present, and we all know that people see what they want to see, just like the historical church refused to see what astronomy was trying to reveal.
You could be right-- this study could be funded and conducted by merely curious people who are completely dispassionate about the issue but I have my doubts. |
I edited that last post. I think I shot myself in the foot. I basically came up with a theory showing the entire study could be moot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, here's the answer:
The Templeton Foundation's Mission Statement:
Overview
The Foundation seeks to promote a deeper understanding of the influence spirituality, beliefs and values can have on human health. By promoting collaboration and clinical research into the relationship between spirituality and health, and by documenting the positive medical aspects of spiritual practice, the Foundation hopes to contribute to the reintegration of faith into modern life.
http://www.templeton.org/science_and_religion/index.asp
http://www.templeton.org/about_the_foundation/index.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Firstly, there are many cases of Christians being healed of all symptoms etc after prayer. Doctors/science etc cannot explain this so far.
Secondly, Studies have shown Christians live longer than non-christians. Contributing factors include: they usually don't smoke/drink: they lack the stresses common to non-christians..etc. side issue I know but maybe of some relevance.
Thirdly, the bible says that the prayer of the righteous is effective. This doesn't include prayers by people who don't believe, or have a cynical intent.. The bible also says not to test God. Not to put him to the test to see what result you get. His ways are different to ours, so why would he respond to some scientific experiment designed to see if he's there? Its an insult. Its like your class of 5 yr olds conducting a test on you to see if you react to dong chimming or not.
Faith is not subject to science and never was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
Also, I am agnostic, not athiest. If one way was proved, I would accept it. Along these lines, you could also say that if God existed, even if it was the most devout virgin nuns doing it, he still wouldn't help out as he doesn't want to prove (show) it. He only helps with true faith, not for some show or statistic. Through this, the study would be moot.
On another note, my theory of why people who were sure they were being prayed for had worse recoveries is because they possibly didn't fight as hard thinking they had help. The others weren't sure, so possibly fought a bit harder. Just a thought. |
Interesting, though I don't know if God would deliberately thwart an effort to document his work. Say, for example, if scientists/mathematicians/physicists/cosmologists announced an irrefutable "proof" for the existance of God, I wouldn't immediately discount it on the grounds that God would never participate in something so blatant. There are a few examples in the Bible of God putting on some pretty impressive shows (e.g., Elijah v. Prophets of Baal.)
Anyway, I think your theory about certainty of help is an interesting one, and I'm still annoyed that there wasn't a control group for the effects of knowing one has prayer.
By the way, I'm going to have to backtrack too-- the article says that Christians were asked to pray, which pretty much rules out any involvement on the part of the Great Spaghetti Monster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
