Is Prayer Harmful?

[lordofelt 0]

Came across this study that was done to determine whether or not praying for people after surgery helped them recover faster and furthermore whether if they knew about the prayer affected their recovery.The study was divided into 3 groups: one receiving prayer that they didn't know about, a control group receiving no prayer and a 3rd group who was informed they were being prayed for. Those receiving prayer that they did not know about had no noticable difference then those receiving no prayer however those informed they were being prayed for actually did WORSE in their recovery then either of the other two groups. The study was mostly funded by the John Templeton Foundation- an "organization devouted to promote religous beliefs." After coming across these unexpected results those conducting the study concluded that those who were told they were being prayed for felt that if they were being prayed for their situation must be incredibly dire and this mental state affected their body and it's ability to recover.You can read about the entire study hereAlso the article where I initially found out about the study is here

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I would guess that the effect of being informed that one is being prayed for depends on how one views prayer in general. Those who believe in the power of god and prayer mostly likely will recover faster because they will believe they will. Those who don't believe in it will possibly experience the above effects for the above reasons. I think the vast majority will show no effect.

[lordofelt 0]

I would guess that the effect of being informed that one is being prayed for depends on how one views prayer in general. Those who believe in the power of god and prayer mostly likely will recover faster because they will believe they will. Those who don't believe in it will possibly experience the above effects for the above reasons. I think the vast majority will show no effect.

You're probably right the person being prayed for interpretation of what that prayer means is probably a large factor. If they believe in god and that god will help them get better than it is likely a good thing. However if they believe it means they are in dire straights and need the help of the almighty to recover then it will probably hurt their recovery. Also if they are believers that the prayer is for god to accept them into heaven when they die they may give up and accept their fate. I think the biggest surprise of this study was the fact that prayer could be harmful, I think the general consensus in the scientific community had always been that it might be positive or likely no effect but the fact that it may be harmful was quite surprising.

[jmkiser 0]

Any non-believers that take part in these forums would love to find something that says "score one for our side", but I don't think this is one of them.The conclusion to the "study" doesn't say much at all. The study really doesn't prove anything either. I mean, what about the prayer itself? Was it heartfelt the same each time? Was it the same prayer? Was it the same people saying it?Also, the medical conditions of the patients prior to surgery, the surgery being done to them, etc.The study, from the beginning, just sounds goofy. There's not even the slightest bit of evidence that prayer affects anything more then the air that the words were spoken into. How are they now skipping to a test on the way it affects surgery patients? At first, it sounded like some people who just wanted to discredit something at all costs. Now it just sounds kind of weird.Lois, BG, brv, that's all you get from me for now

[lordofelt 0]

Any non-believers that take part in these forums would love to find something that says "score one for our side", but I don't think this is one of them.The conclusion to the "study" doesn't say much at all. The study really doesn't prove anything either. I mean, what about the prayer itself? Was it heartfelt the same each time? Was it the same prayer? Was it the same people saying it?Also, the medical conditions of the patients prior to surgery, the surgery being done to them, etc.The study, from the beginning, just sounds goofy. There's not even the slightest bit of evidence that prayer affects anything more then the air that the words were spoken into. How are they now skipping to a test on the way it affects surgery patients? At first, it sounded like some people who just wanted to discredit something at all costs. Now it just sounds kind of weird.Lois, BG, brv, that's all you get from me for now

The medical conditions of the patients prior to surgery were all very similiar and they were divided into 3 groups that were as close as possible to even and the study was double blind so there was no way to bias the groups when dividing patients into various groups. They also all had the same operation. The people completing the study never made any claims about prayer beforehand they simply completed the study and published its results.Certainly people of the faithful community could make a number of claims that the prayers were the wrong prayers, said by the wrong people or for the wrong people but this still doesn't explain why those who knew they were being prayed for did worse in recovery than those who werent sure about prayer. This study will ultimatley mean very little as those who believe will discredit it anyways and those who don't believe will now continue to not believe. I thought the most interesting aspect of the study was the psycological aspect of those who knew they were being prayed for and how that hurt their recovery.

[NickZepp 0]

I doubt prayer does anything one way or another. But they can calm down the minds of the loved ones especially if they believe. What really helps/hurts a person is the situation they are in and if the doctors can help. If it's a terminal patient there's not much anything can do.

[Balloon guy 158]

That's cause you guys have never seen a person be healed through prayer.Changes your opinion a bit.Don't expect my saying this to change your opinion though.

[speedz99 145]

That's cause you guys have never seen a person be healed through prayer.Changes your opinion a bit.Don't expect my saying this to change your opinion though.

Thousands of people die every day even though they are being prayed for. Thousands more die without prayer. On very rare occasions someone heals without a medical explanation while they were being prayed for. On other very rare occasions someone heals without a medical explanation and without prayer. My opinion is that prayer can't hurt (this particular study that says it might is ridiculous)...so if it makes you feel good to pray, you should.

[Balloon guy 158]

Thousands of people die every day even though they are being prayed for. Thousands more die without prayer. On very rare occasions someone heals without a medical explanation while they were being prayed for. On other very rare occasions someone heals without a medical explanation and without prayer. My opinion is that prayer can't hurt (this particular study that says it might is ridiculous)...so if it makes you feel good to pray, you should.

I once had an experience that really made me look hard at this. While I was a heavy equipment operator, I had a fish on my car and this was during the Jim Baker fiasco so I took a lot of ribbing, but for the most part the guys liked me so I took it and didn't give back. So anyway the result was a lot of guys would come to me on the side to ask for my help with problems they were having. One guy was in a custody battle with his wife over the kids. He was going into court the next day and had really bad expectations. I was about to tell him I would pray for him, but being a person that believes in prayer, I didn't want to help him if it turns out he was abusive etc and I didn't know. So I didn't say anything about praying for him, and I didn't pray for him to get the kids back.The next day he comes in and is all excited telling me he gets weekends, which is way more than he thought was possible. My first thought was: "I should have told him I was going to pray for him cause then he would give God the credit" Didn't take but a second or two to relize what I had just said. I wanted God to get credit for something He may not have done. I had many long prayerful meditations on what my role as a prayer is from that. The end result is that mostly I pray to change myself, to see things the way God wants them seen. When I pray for others I mosty pray for God to reveal His will for them. I no longer try to force God to be my bellhop and do what I tell Him. I consider myself to be about a 1 on the 1-10 scale of prayers with 10 being Jesus.

[speedz99 145]

The end result is that mostly I pray to change myself, to see things the way God wants them seen. When I pray for others I mosty pray for God to reveal His will for them. I no longer try to force God to be my bellhop and do what I tell Him. I consider myself to be about a 1 on the 1-10 scale of prayers with 10 being Jesus.

Actually, I'd put you much closer to Jesus than that. If I've judged him correctly, he would have been pleased that you don't assume to know so much that you should be telling* God what to do. I can appreciate the fact that you don't pray for him to do something and then don't do the whole after the fact "He answered my prayer/it just wasn't his will" thing.*Technically people ask, but in doing so they assume to know that 'correct' end result.

[jmkiser 0]

I no longer try to force God to be my bellhop and do what I tell Him. I consider myself to be about a 1 on the 1-10 scale of prayers with 10 being Jesus.

Being a non-believer, I have a lot of respect in that honesty. I believe if more Christians lead only their own lives (instead of others) and lived (to the best of their abilities) the way that god would want them to, then I think this world would be a better place. Obviously pending that their god didn't want them to do anything that would breach moral boundaries.That seems to be a very common thing among the rise of most atheists lately. Most of us don't mind what you do... we believe in the freedom of religion, but there are certain boundaries that should never be crossed that either already are (tax breaks to churches) or are about to be (invasion of ID in the classrooms).

[Balloon guy 158]

Being a non-believer, I have a lot of respect in that honesty. I believe if more Christians lead only their own lives (instead of others) and lived (to the best of their abilities) the way that god would want them to, then I think this world would be a better place. Obviously pending that their god didn't want them to do anything that would breach moral boundaries.That seems to be a very common thing among the rise of most atheists lately. Most of us don't mind what you do... we believe in the freedom of religion, but there are certain boundaries that should never be crossed that either already are (tax breaks to churches) or are about to be (invasion of ID in the classrooms).

Not to nit pick but Madeline Murrey Ohare (sp?) received tax exempt status for her church of atheism. and her church's doctrine of evolution is taught in public schools today. I'm sure the ACLU is getting right on that after they defend their leader in Mass' child pornography charges.But don't pat me on the back, this is what every guy I know in my church believes. I attend a weekly morning Bible study with 5 guys and we challenge each other to be better servants to our wives, our community and our God. Par for the course in most churches.

[jmkiser 0]

Not to nit pick but Madeline Murrey Ohare (sp?) received tax exempt status for her church of atheism. and her church's doctrine of evolution is taught in public schools today. I'm sure the ACLU is getting right on that after they defend their leader in Mass' child pornography charges.But don't pat me on the back, this is what every guy I know in my church believes. I attend a weekly morning Bible study with 5 guys and we challenge each other to be better servants to our wives, our community and our God. Par for the course in most churches.

Eh, I've never ever heard of a church of atheism nor a Madeline Murrey Ohare. Should I look it up? Sounds ridiculous enough to me already (under the pretenses that you speak). And no, I don't believe any church at all should get tax exempt status. Not even "atheist" ones.Also, teaching evolution in public schools stands on its own merits. One interesting, though, you say that every man you know in your church agrees with you. Does your church get any breaks from the government? If they do, then why would they still stand for it? If I was a conservative Christian, I would be trying to get churches (especially mine) to break away from the government as fast as possible.... but I just happen to be a conservative atheist so they really don't listen to me

[Balloon guy 158]

Eh, I've never ever heard of a church of atheism nor a Madeline Murrey Ohare. Should I look it up? Sounds ridiculous enough to me already (under the pretenses that you speak). And no, I don't believe any church at all should get tax exempt status. Not even "atheist" ones.Also, teaching evolution in public schools stands on its own merits. One interesting, though, you say that every man you know in your church agrees with you. Does your church get any breaks from the government? If they do, then why would they still stand for it? If I was a conservative Christian, I would be trying to get churches (especially mine) to break away from the government as fast as possible.... but I just happen to be a conservative atheist so they really don't listen to me

Stepping away from the Christian side of this argument and onto the conservative side. Why do you feel the government is entitled to any money? The burden should be on the government to prove it is entitled to money, not the other way around.Churches provide many tangible results; from shelters during natural disasters, places for people to go seeking help, community wellness etc. The money they recieve is all donation, with a tax right off being a pitence considering that only dumb poor uneducated slobs attend and they make up the bottom rung of the socio-economic class of society, which pays less than 3% of the entire tax burden. So the tax exempt status of churches is mearly a problem because of what they represent?The ACLU sues the government, and uses tax dollars to pay the legal fees.Planned Parenthood recieves government grants, and lobbies congress with 'other' money.Unions are one of the largest lobbying groups in the country, and their dues are 100% tax deductable.There are much better things to be upset about over then tax exempt status for churches in our political tax free for all.And I am a bit shocked you do not know the patron saint of atheism, so I wikied her for you:Don't shoot the messenger

[jmkiser 0]

Stepping away from the Christian side of this argument and onto the conservative side. Why do you feel the government is entitled to any money? The burden should be on the government to prove it is entitled to money, not the other way around.Churches provide many tangible results; from shelters during natural disasters, places for people to go seeking help, community wellness etc. The money they recieve is all donation, with a tax right off being a pitence considering that only dumb poor uneducated slobs attend and they make up the bottom rung of the socio-economic class of society, which pays less than 3% of the entire tax burden. So the tax exempt status of churches is mearly a problem because of what they represent?The ACLU sues the government, and uses tax dollars to pay the legal fees.Planned Parenthood recieves government grants, and lobbies congress with 'other' money.Unions are one of the largest lobbying groups in the country, and their dues are 100% tax deductable.There are much better things to be upset about over then tax exempt status for churches in our political tax free for all.And I am a bit shocked you do not know the patron saint of atheism, so I wikied her for you:Don't shoot the messenger

"Stepping away from the Christian side of this argument and onto the conservative side. Why do you feel the government is entitled to any money? The burden should be on the government to prove it is entitled to money, not the other way around."Oh, you're right. I definitely don't think the government is 'entitled' to money. I'm not as extreme a Libertarian as most in the sense that I do believe certain taxes are good (fire, police, possibly healthcare, etc), and I think the system can work if politicians weren't trying to raise the government's bank just to spend it for political pressure purposes. The amount of taxes / usefulness per citizen is absolutely horrific in this country. The amount the government takes and how much they waste is a crime and we, the people, should make the politicians pay.My point about churches is that they should be taxed on an equal level as everyone else... and that level for everyone should be fair."Churches provide many tangible results; from shelters during natural disasters, places for people to go seeking help, community wellness etc. The money they recieve is all donation, with a tax right off being a pitence considering that only dumb poor uneducated slobs attend and they make up the bottom rung of the socio-economic class of society, which pays less than 3% of the entire tax burden. So the tax exempt status of churches is mearly a problem because of what they represent?"Your statement is generally correct, but is very much a blanket. "Donation" is a tricky word since the holy book of the religion asks for a tithe. We can debate about tithing, but it's unimportant since we both know that churches receive plenty of money that isn't just donated. The church I used to attend had their location on the highest hill in our county. The radio and cell phone companies were dying to use the property and the church profited immensely from renting/selling space. They went from a small sized one room sanctuary to a gigantic building with classrooms. They also built a separate two-story building for the youth group with a stage on the ground floor and a game room on the second. God knows what has happened with that church in the last 8 years that I haven't been around. That money is profit, not donation, and we both know that the majority of major churches (and even smaller ones) don't operate on donation alone.Then you have to talk about what churches spend their money on. The good things they do are just that, good... but it's not like that is all the churches do. Plenty of churches have motives completely separate from 'helping the poor poor helpless people'. Why do the churches deserve a blanket tax exempt status for just 'being' churches? If the church does something that any other company or person does (donation for example), then treat those cases in the same manner. Separate churches from government and treat them like every other business. Then you can debate what tithing is compared to donating and possibly allow an organization apply for non-profit status regarding what is tithed. But when my pastor does nothing but preach at church and pulls out of the parking lot with the newest fully loaded Corvette...... while at the same time, the director at the local Red Cross lives at an apartment building with a beat-up old Mercury.... just...... eh... churches aren't just donations"The ACLU sues the government, and uses tax dollars to pay the legal fees.Planned Parenthood recieves government grants, and lobbies congress with 'other' money.Unions are one of the largest lobbying groups in the country, and their dues are 100% tax deductable."I do not believe the ACLU should get special treatment. I do not believe Planned Parenthood should deserve special treatment. Unions are a very tricky subject and I know very very little about them. From what I know, there are good unions that serve the purpose they were created for back in the early 1900's....... and then there's the mother****ing Teacher's Union. blugh. Point being, I don't really know as much about the ACLU and their transgressions as much as you probably do. If they are as you say, then I agree. The same goes with Planned Parenthood. But the greatest thing about my political views is that there doesn't have to be "special cases". "There are much better things to be upset about over then tax exempt status for churches in our political tax free for all."That could very well possibly be true. But I don't know about them. Right now, I just happen to know a little more about churches because my personal life experience has crossed paths with the issue in detail.No political tax free for all. ACLU, churches, Planned Parenthood... keep the government out of all of them. To fix the government, you have to fix the politicians. Ron Paul '08! "patron saint of atheism"Kind of hard to play the Ted Haggard card to get a reaction out of me(see what i did there? ) when I've, sadly, never heard of her. I briefly skimmed over the article. I know a little about American Atheists and their message and purpose is fine with me. Very many people I respect (that deserve respect) have been to a few of their conventions. All I hear are good things about the event and how refreshing it is to be with like-minded people. I don't know anything about their leaders. It's interesting about the case on prayer in school. If it wasn't her, it would be someone else and I would support them, too.... but that's another thread altogether.

[Balloon guy 158]

No political tax free for all. ACLU, churches, Planned Parenthood... keep the government out of all of them. To fix the government, you have to fix the politicians. Ron Paul '08! "patron saint of atheism"Kind of hard to play the Ted Haggard card to get a reaction out of me(see what i did there? ) when I've, sadly, never heard of her. I briefly skimmed over the article. I know a little about American Atheists and their message and purpose is fine with me. I don't know anything about their leaders. It's interesting about the case on prayer in school. If it wasn't her, it would be someone else and I would support them, too.... but that's another thread altogether.

You and I could run the world. I'm sure we would agree on more than we disagree. As long as you are for guns in every home I mean, otherwise you're a commie lib. sw?

[jmkiser 0]

You and I could run the world. I'm sure we would agree on more than we disagree. As long as you are for guns in every home I mean, otherwise you're a commie lib. sw?

DEFINITELY for guns. One thing we might disagree on is national health care. I admit that I'm still undecided on the issue, but I lean on it being as important as fire, police, etc. Yes, very different from other Libertarians, I know, but I think there is some line out there were we can at least provide the minimum for everyone without hassle. On top of that minimum standard comes the free market which I still believe would flourish in the medical community.But c'mon... a minimum standard at least...right? No?And no, I don't think the current standard cuts it. One of the top financial issues that ruins people's lives (other then house and car) involves health care. We can pay police to protect us and firefighters to save us...well, I think we can cover basic health care for everyone and allow specialized medicine to flourish above the minimum government standard in the same way that security companies are still flourishing and innovative outside of our police. Seriously, I can buy unnoticeable cameras that smaller then my pinky finger, put them all over my house and have them capture second by second footage in high definition and have absolutely no square inch uncovered. Then I can wire my own house with sound devices that would pick up sounds that a mice would make. On top of that, I can relay the signal wirelessly to a computer that has live time running software that can receive and put together data so that it re-portrays what it captures on your monitor in realistic manners. At the same time, I can utilize security software that will read the body language of subjects given to the system that will tell what the freaking mood of the intruder is that is trying to rob your house... add the gun industry and I think I've made my point ;)yes?please?

[jmkiser 0]

<-------- the master of the double post+1

[lordofelt 0]

I've been thinking over this for the past couple days and am wondering whether or not this study will lead to more indepth studies on the same topic.It seems that most people either accept or discredit this topic based on their own personal beliefs ie. no believers think it doesn't do anything believers believe in it and i actually believe both thought lines are dangerous especially the athiest one despite leaning that direction myself. Athiests use as their main debate tool the backing of science and the scientific method. That is they observe the world and try and determine why things happen from observation and what we know about the world. When they come up with a theory they test that theory to see if it holds true under similiar circumstances and if it does it becomes accepted, the more times the theory holds true the more accepted the theory becomes. If the theory fails to hold under different circumstances then it is either rejected or ammended to explain why the results that were observed happened. Open-mindedness is the key to good scientific discoveries.In relation to prayer healing I find it dangerous to discount it without proof one way or another. The studies could bring about a number of possibly outcomes all which help society as I see it. IF the studies show that prayer healing has no effect on patients recovery then doctors can discount it and focus on other research. This evidence can also be used to help us explain the universe if only in some very small way. IF continued studies show that praying for patients has a positive impact on patients then I would hope to see doctors implement it in the cases where it showed a positive impact, to me it would seem unimportant whether it was because God intervened or the patients thought god was intervening etc. The fact that patients had more improvements seems to be all that matters at this point. Ask anyone who has a sick relative and they'll likely tell you they don't care how they just want to see an improvement. Finally IF they studies show that prayer can be harmful to patient recovery this should also be taken into consideration, most people will tell you that nothing in medicine is 100% and that doctors weigh all the information they have and go with the procedure that gives the patient the best odds (eerily like poker).My whole point is that everyone has a theory on healing prayer and whether it is good, bad or irrelovant to a patient but very little has ever been done to test such theories so they remain nothing more than guesses without any repeatable scientific evidence to back them up one way or another. By moving forward and testing these theories, while keeping an open-mind to the results doctors may be able to find a way to use prayer to increase a patients chances; whether it be through praying or not praying only and how it differs from patient to patient only time will tell.

[Uniqueuponhim 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.htmlPrayer itself has absolutely no effect, however there is some (inconclusive) evidence that people that know they are being prayed for tend to fare worse. This may be due to some sort of psychological effect that occurs when the patient is told they are being prayed for, or it may be a statistical anomaly.edit - woops, I only saw the last reply in the thread for some reason. Sorry for the redundancy of my post

[strategy 4]

Thousands of people die every day even though they are being prayed for. Thousands more die without prayer. On very rare occasions someone heals without a medical explanation while they were being prayed for. On other very rare occasions someone heals without a medical explanation and without prayer. My opinion is that prayer can't hurt (this particular study that says it might is ridiculous)...so if it makes you feel good to pray, you should.

According to my psyc instructor, they've actually done studies with controls for lifestyle etc. that show religious people leading healthier, longer lives. I believe it. I don't think it's a ringing endorsement of religion, however.