Proposed Prayer Study

Re: human nature - inherently good or evil?

A Cup Of Tea said:
I would say mass is the most straightforward way to go. You'll have to rip them out of the soil root and all, but you can always replant afterwards.
Click to expand...
I suppose I could go the hydroponic route and drain the solution before weighing them. Sounds like it is getting to be more labor intensive and expensive! :eek:

Nick the Pilot said:
"Does prayer constitute an environmental factor in the development of plants?"

--> The one thing missing from the list of steps in the scientific method in this thread is the use of a control group. Controlled studies of meditating on plants (with a control group of plants that do not receive meditation) have shown that 'prayer' does effect the development of plants.

Regarding heart patients, it would be fascinating to run three groups; one group who are told they are receiving prayer, one group who are told so but are lied to about receiving prayer (a placebo group), and one group with no prayer and not told anything.
Click to expand...
Three groups not receiving prayer in proposed study (post #568) :p


Wil! Do you think you could split this prayer study discussion off to a different thread? {I can tell you how to do it if you need that info--thanks!}
 
Re: human nature - inherently good or evil?

"Three groups not receiving prayer in proposed study (post #568)"

--> Cool!
 
Re: human nature - inherently good or evil?

seattlegal said:
I suppose I could go the hydroponic route and drain the solution before weighing them. Sounds like it is getting to be more labor intensive and expensive! :eek:
Click to expand...

Sure, Dr Mengele
 
Re: human nature - inherently good or evil?

Nick the Pilot said:
Regarding heart patients, it would be fascinating to run three groups; one group who are told they are receiving prayer, one group who are told so but are lied to about receiving prayer (a placebo group), and one group with no prayer and not told anything.
Click to expand...

Nick - see post 561. Actually you need 4 groups, IMHO:

Group #1: told they are receiving prayer and actually receive prayer

Group #2: told they are receiving but don't actually receive (control group #1)

Group #3: not told anything but actually prayed for

Group #4: not told anything and not prayed for (control #2)

Now, if prayer is actually independent of the mind/placebo effect, i.e. there is divine intervention involved, then group #1 should show more improvement than group #2; and group #3 should show more improvement than group #4. Group #1 and #3 should show the same amount of improvement (both prayed for), as should group #2 and #4 (not prayed for).

OTOH, if the benefits of prayer is all mental, group #1 and #2 will show the same results (TOLD prayed for), and group #3 and #4 will show the same results (not told). The results of groups #1 and #2 will be better than groups #3 and #4 due to the power of positive thinking/self-fulfilling prophecy/placebo effect.
 
Originally from the Human Nature thread:

hospital setting, all patients have same malady, double-blind study, enough people in each group for statistical significance, all people in study believe in the power of prayer, measure how well patients recover

Group #1: told they are receiving prayer and actually receive prayer

Group #2: told they are receiving but don't actually receive (control group #1)

Group #3: not told anything but actually prayed for

Group #4: not told anything and not prayed for (control #2)

Now, if the "power of prayer" is actually independent of the mind/placebo effect, i.e. there is divine intervention involved, then group #1 should show more improvement than group #2; and group #3 should show more improvement than group #4. Group #1 and #3 should show the same amount of improvement (both prayed for), as should group #2 and #4 (not prayed for).

OTOH, if the benefits of prayer is all mental, group #1 and #2 will show the same results (TOLD prayed for), and group #3 and #4 will show the same results (not told). The results of groups #1 and #2 will be better than groups #3 and #4 due to the power of positive thinking/self-fulfilling prophecy/placebo effect.

If power of prayer is combination of divine intervention and positive thinking, then group #1 should show the best results and group #4 the worst.

Thoughts or suggestions on how to improve the study? I have seen other medical prayer studies, but none with 4 groups, which is the ideal, IMHO.
 
IowaGuy said:
Originally from the Human Nature thread:

hospital setting, all patients have same malady, double-blind study, enough people in each group for statistical significance, all people in study believe in the power of prayer, measure how well patients recover

Group #1: told they are receiving prayer and actually receive prayer

Group #2: told they are receiving but don't actually receive (control group #1)

Group #3: not told anything but actually prayed for

Group #4: not told anything and not prayed for (control #2)

Now, if the "power of prayer" is actually independent of the mind/placebo effect, i.e. there is divine intervention involved, then group #1 should show more improvement than group #2; and group #3 should show more improvement than group #4. Group #1 and #3 should show the same amount of improvement (both prayed for), as should group #2 and #4 (not prayed for).

OTOH, if the benefits of prayer is all mental, group #1 and #2 will show the same results (TOLD prayed for), and group #3 and #4 will show the same results (not told). The results of groups #1 and #2 will be better than groups #3 and #4 due to the power of positive thinking/self-fulfilling prophecy/placebo effect.

If power of prayer is combination of divine intervention and positive thinking, then group #1 should show the best results and group #4 the worst.

Thoughts or suggestions on how to improve the study? I have seen other medical prayer studies, but none with 4 groups, which is the ideal, IMHO.
Click to expand...


I thought one that I gave you included your group #4...I know one did. I'll ask around.
 
IowaGuy said:
I believe this is true if you tell that person that you are praying for them.

Actually, I think if you tell them you are praying for them it doesn't really matter if you pray out loud, pray silently, or don't pray at all. They think you are praying for them, and their power of positive thinking acts as a placebo effect to help them in their given situation.
Click to expand...
That is not what I meant. If old Ben prays in his mind and says to God,

"God, these storm troopers ahead behave as droids, taking orders without question, and doing evil as a result. Whereas, these droids that are with us, while their programming is adaptive and complex, can only do what they were programmed to do. These true droids never really get to question whether their programming is good or evil. These storm troopers here fail to question whether their programming is good or evil. If they are looking for droids who do evil, they are looking for themselves. If you agree with me, could you please reprogram these storm troopers ahead, in an effort to help them come to see that these droids that are with us, were not the ones that they were looking for? I believe it may also help this boy in his journey to do the same. Whatever is good in your eyes, our lives are in your hands."

Is that what you would call the placebo effect? Those sad, sad storm troopers.
 
IowaGuy said:
Group #1: told they are receiving prayer and actually receive prayer

Group #2: told they are receiving but don't actually receive (control group #1)

Group #3: not told anything but actually prayed for

Group #4: not told anything and not prayed for (control #2)

Now, if the "power of prayer" is actually independent of the mind/placebo effect, i.e. there is divine intervention involved, then group #1 should show more improvement than group #2; and group #3 should show more improvement than group #4. Group #1 and #3 should show the same amount of improvement (both prayed for), as should group #2 and #4 (not prayed for).
Click to expand...
If God were a machine or a physical thing, then maybe this would apply? Either apply the prayer to people, or apply the benefit of prayer to the benefit of prayer.

Group #1: Told they were loved, and were loved accordingly.
Group #2: Told they were loved, and were not loved accordingly.
Group #3: Not told they were loved, but were allegedly loved.
Group #4: Not told they were loved, and were accordingly not loved.
Group #5: Asked (prayer) what would be loving. Love was given.
Group #6: Asked (prayer) what would be loving. Love was not given.
Group #7: Asked (prayer) whether they would give love. Love was given.
Group #8: Asked (prayer) whether they would give love. Love was not given.
 
luecy7 said:
Is that what you would call the placebo effect?
Click to expand...

No, because the storm troopers don't know they're being prayed for. Your example would be divine intervention, analogous to Group #3 in my proposed study.

The placebo effect I'm talking about is the same placebo effect observed in medical studies where people can be given a sugar pill, yet the sugar pill can cure their maladies in some instances; not because of the sugar, but because of the mind.

This is why, in medical studies, there are at least 3 groups: a group actually given the medicine being studied; another group given a placebo (sugar pill) but are told it's medicine, and a control group given nothing at all. In many cases the placebo group fares as well as the group given the actual medicine; and both those groups do better than the control group.

This is the placebo effect. The same can be true for prayer, but the person has to know they're being prayed for, just like the placebo group thinks they're taking medicine by swallowing the sugar pill.
 
It is interesting that you have incorporated deception without regard. The person praying is a liar, and that is the greater disease in my opinion. You have not even presented a double blind study. A double blind medical study does not necessarily require that deceit. If you wish a double blind study, then neither the patient nor the person in physical contact with the patient can know which was which. They can both honestly be told that some are real and others are placebo, but they must not know the difference. The doctor that goes back to review the results can not know the list until after the results have been measured. The prayer person or group has to be privy to part of the list, and can not know either the doctor, nor the patient. A randomized study does, however, still require a random fabrication, where the belief is that the die is not loaded.

It is interesting that to remove the deceit, as in a double blind study, now the person praying with the bias has to be distanced from the patient so that neither the patient nor the doctor can influence the test based on their contact. Since the person praying is privy, they also have to be distanced from the doctor. The test ultimately becomes prayer at a distance.

Why is it that you present a study involving deception, which is not even a double blind study, with such disregard? Do you ever intentionally employ dishonesty with people?
 
It's all in the name of science, Luecy ;)

I'm not saying this study will ever be carried out (not by me at least), but I present it as a hypothetical situation to stimulate discussion of what the "power" of prayer really is - a function of mind or a function of divine intervention.

Without a person told they are being prayed for but actually they aren't, the "power" of prayer cannot fully be tested. If they are just told "well, some of you are going to be prayed for, and some not", as in a typical medical study involving a placebo effect - this does not test the hypothesis that prayer is a function of mind as they would all be in the same mindframe.

Your distance criteria is an interesting twist. Do you think prayer is any less effective at a distance, if the person being prayed for still knows they are being prayed for? Why or why not?


luecy7 said:
Do you ever intentionally employ dishonesty with people?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, every time my mother-in-law cooks, I tell her the meal was delicious regardless of my opinion :)

Do you think dishonesty is ever justified? Or is truth an absolute for you; we should always tell the truth no matter the consequences?

If you were a Jew in Eastern Europe in the 40's and a Nazi came knocking on your door and asked what religion you were, what would you tell them?

Do you tell your kids stories that imply that the Easter Bunny/Santa/Tooth Fairy exist?
 
IowaGuy said:
It's all in the name of science, Luecy ;)

I'm not saying this study will ever be carried out (not by me at least), but I present it as a hypothetical situation to stimulate discussion of what the "power" of prayer really is - a function of mind or a function of divine intervention.

Without a person told they are being prayed for but actually they aren't, the "power" of prayer cannot fully be tested. If they are just told "well, some of you are going to be prayed for, and some not", as in a typical medical study involving a placebo effect - this does not test the hypothesis that prayer is a function of mind as they would all be in the same mindframe.
Click to expand...
Your words were:
IowaGuy said:
...all patients have same malady, double-blind study, enough people in each group for statistical significance...
Click to expand...
You did not present a double-blind study. A double-blind study is used to remove the placebo effect, so that you can measure the effectivity of the medical treatment. You prefer to accentuate and test the placebo effect at the same time that you claim to test prayer, and deceit, so that you can falsely claim that the placebo effect is the power of prayer. Similarly you are simultaneously testing dishonesty as a method for doing good. The contamination is across all 4 cases as a result, because it is not a double-blind study. Furthermore, prayer has no power except what someone like God gives it. By the golden rule, I don't think you would appreciate your wife and children similarly testing your will. What will be your response when they do?

IowaGuy said:
Your distance criteria is an interesting twist. Do you think prayer is any less effective at a distance, if the person being prayed for still knows they are being prayed for? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
What God does with a prayer is up to God.

IowaGuy said:
Absolutely, every time my mother-in-law cooks, I tell her the meal was delicious regardless of my opinion :)

Do you think dishonesty is ever justified? Or is truth an absolute for you; we should always tell the truth no matter the consequences?

If you were a Jew in Eastern Europe in the 40's and a Nazi came knocking on your door and asked what religion you were, what would you tell them?

Do you tell your kids stories that imply that the Easter Bunny/Santa/Tooth Fairy exist?
Click to expand...
When you cook, do you desire dishonest feedback? Fascists come knocking on my door all the time, and I either hold my tongue or tell them the truth, which they do not wish to hear. Even this forum has a number of fascists, the people who believe in fascism. In my view, that disease has become rampant in the USA.
 
Re: human nature - inherently good or evil?

IowaGuy said:
Here is the study I would propose:

hospital setting, double-blind study, enough people in each group for statistical significance, all people in study believe in the power of prayer

Group A: are told they are being prayed for and actually ARE prayed for

Group B: are told they are being prayed for but are NOT prayed for

Group C: are not told they are being prayed for but ARE prayed for

Group D: are not told and are not prayed for


Iowa Guy's hypothesis: Groups A and B will show the same results, and groups C & D will show the same results. Group A & B's results will be better than group C & D results.

i.e. someone that is NOT being prayed for but told they are will have better results (placebo effect/self-fulfilling prophecy) than someone who is actually being prayed for but doesn't know it. And if people are told they are being prayed for it doesn't matter whether they really are or not. Conversely if people are not told they are being prayed for it doesn't matter if someone is praying for them, since they don't know it it doesn't affect them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

You have accounted for the placebo effect (in terms of the patients) in Group B (the placebo is telling them you are prying for them and not). And a pretty good control in Group D. What is the point of Group C? Is it to test the difference between the patient being told they are being prayed for and not being told? Covers some interesting ground, though.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
luecy7 said:
Furthermore, prayer has no power except what someone like God gives it.
Click to expand...

I disagree 100%. Therefore the point of the proposed study.

In my opinion/experience, prayer has no power except what humans give it. Humans can give a sugar pill power to heal through the placebo effect. Similarly they can give prayer power to heal through the placebo effect. But it is dependent upon them believing as you do, that God is working on their behalf if someone is praying for them. (just like they think the sugar pill is medicine or could be medicine)

I'll think some more on your double-blind comments. True, it is not a double-blind study in the typical sense. You are correct, one point of the study is to actually test the placebo effect.

But you are incorrect that the study would attribute all power of prayer to the placebo effect. If God actually is at work, then Group A will show better results than Group B. If it's all placebo effect then Group A and B will show similar results.
 
Re: human nature - inherently good or evil?

radarmark said:
What is the point of Group C? Is it to test the difference between the patient being told they are being prayed for and not being told?
Click to expand...

If prayer is as Luecy claims, that is, only a function of the power God gives it, then Group C will show the same results as Group A (both prayed for).

If God is not at work, then Group C will show the same results as Group D (neither told they are being prayed for, therefore no placebo effect).

If prayer is all placebo and no God (IG's hypothesis), then Group B will show better results than Group C.
 
Re: human nature - inherently good or evil?

IowaGuy said:
If prayer is as Luecy claims, that is, only a function of the power God gives it, then Group C will show the same results as Group A (both prayed for).
Click to expand...
Fabricated assertion.

IowaGuy said:
If God is not at work, then Group C will show the same results as Group D (neither told they are being prayed for, therefore no placebo effect).
Click to expand...
Fabricated assertion.

IowaGuy said:
If prayer is all placebo and no God (IG's hypothesis), then Group B will show better results than Group C.
Click to expand...
Fabricated assertion.

If you wish to test prayer with God, then do it. I believe you will succeed. If you wish to test God with prayer and assertion, I think you will fail. In my view, it is no different than your child coming and praying to you. I submit that given that premise, your assertions with group A,B,C, and D, would be clearly false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top