| Debunking Medical Prayer Studies Let Us Pray That People Stop Praying By James W. Williamson, M.D. This article can be found in the April 2002 Vol. 19 No. 3 issue of Freethought Today on pp 8-9 Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, already keen interest in prayer has increased as part of the frenzied upsurge in religion in general. Topping The New York Times’ bestseller list is a small book called The Prayer of Jabez, with “its message that lives in can be profoundly changed by the power of prayer.” Images bombard us on television regularly of masses of humanity kneeling in supplication, praying to some all-powerful deity. These images only increase the perception that prayer is a potent force in dealing with the world’s problems that is endorsed by almost all of humanity. Many religious people want to cling to the ancient belief in the supernatural, including prayer, and yet accept the conclusions and benefits of modern science. They can’t have it both ways. To study the natural world, scientists must have in an implicit assumption that it operates only by natural, predictable processes, which cannot be affected arbitrarily by an all-powerful deity. One of the major ways that scientists provide proof of theories is through well-designed studies, of which the “gold standard” is the large, randomized, prospective, controlled, double-blind type. If such a study could be influenced by a personal god who responded to prayers to change the results, science would be in shambles. There would be no way ever to do a valid experiment since investigators couldn’t be sure that someone, somewhere, hadn’t uttered a specific or generic prayer that would affect the study. In short, science by its very nature, rejects any influence of prayer on the physical world. Even though prayer is an irrational concept, could it nevertheless be tested scientifically? Francis Galton, the brilliant and eccentric cousin of Charles Darwin, thought so and gave the idea scientific legitimacy. Galton was the father of biometry and the central figure in the founding of modern statistical analysis. He argued that regardless of how the prayers “may be supposed to operate, the efficacy of prayer . . . is a perfectly appropriate and legitimate subject of scientific inquiry” because it can be tested statistically. He then proceeded to set up such studies. In one statistical study, Galton examined the longevity of clergy. He reasoned that clergy should be the longest lived of all since they were the most “prayerful class” of all and among the most prayed for. When Galton compared the longevity of eminent clergy with eminent doctors and lawyers, the clergy were the shortest lived of the three groups. In this study of the clergy, he cited a pervious study by Guy (Galton wasn’t the first to think of analyzing prayer statistically but usually gets the credit) where Guy found prayer did not protect royalty, who were much prayed for, when compared to other members of the aristocracy. In analyzing the data on royalty, Galton concluded: “Sovereigns are literally the shortest lived of all who have the advantage of affluence.” Galton looked for other statistical data. He examined the insurance rates for ships. He reasoned that ships carrying missionaries and pilgrims should have lower rates since frequent praying by the occupants should decrease the number of accidents. He found that the rates were the same; ships carrying missionaries and pilgrims sank just as often as other ships. Following up on Galton’s statistical studies on prayer, Rupert Sheldrake, a Cambridge-trained plant biologist, did one of his own, examining the effects of prayer in -> page two |