don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

In part one of this essay I expressed my unease at the extent to which the two major US political party candidates for president, particularly Mr. Bush, expressed devotion to prayer for the realization of hopes and aspirations. As head of our secular state, it seems preferable that the president focus on critical thinking, study and other rational means to safeguard our best interests. However, some believers insist that prayers are answered, so a reliance on prayer by public officials is a good thing. 

I promised another essay on the nature of research that believers claim supports the notion that praying can heal illness. This is it. While I addressed one aspect of this topic in an earlier essay (intercessory prayer), there is much more to cover on this controversial issue. 

First, let me justify the basis for a "wellness take" on religion. (I realize that many, if not most, Americans would rather not discuss religion, or politics or sex--the theme of the latest AWR, but I think it is vital to do so in an open society.) Religion affects quality of life in many different ways. In a positive way, it can provide a sense of meaning and purpose. It can motivate good works. There are many additional ways religion helps some people feel better and cope with life. However, on the downside, religion's affect on life quality can be horrific. It can adversely influence citizen rationality, the advance of science and the adoption of personal responsibility. It is also a menace when it leads some to adopt positions that, if carried into public policies and law, limit choices and inhibit freedoms. A few examples, in my view, include religious teachings that cause believers to be against all abortion procedures (including instances of rape, incest or saving the mother's life), opposition to gay marriage based on biblical revelations, enthusiasm for banning stem cell research, promotion of "abstinence-only" sex education and so on. The preceding apply largely to Christians--Muslims in some quarters are led to "kill the infidels" by jihad-inspired fanaticism. So it goes across the religious spectrum throughout history, around the world. For these reasons, a wellness take on religion in general and prayer in particular seems in order. 

As a secular person who believes in no gods, devils or supernatural phenomenon, but instead tries to embrace reason and science, I'm alarmed at the extent of bogus prayer research, particularly when financed by the Federal government. Such research, almost always conducted by those who believe in the so-called "power of prayer," has been well funded in the past by religious groups, who naturally would conclude that "Yep, it works" despite zero evidence to convince skeptics that it made any difference at all. One such researcher, Dr. William S. Harris of St. Luke's Hospital in Kansas City, MO, is well known for arguing that Darwin's theory of evolution is speculative. Despite devastating critiques by knowledgeable evaluators, such biased studies have led the public to assume there might be some merit to the idea that prayer, however murky, mystical and unfathomable, is efficacious, at least on occasions. 

Is there any evidence that prayer by anyone of any kind for any reason ever did any good, that is, ever "got through" to a Grand Poobaa of some kind in the sky-and was answered? I won't keep you in suspense. No! Not a chance. Does this discourage the believers? Not much--a recent New York Times piece entitled, "Can Prayers Heal? Critics Say Studies Go Past Science's Reach" (Benedict Carey, October 10, 2004), noted that the Bush Administration channeled $2.3 million for prayer research last year. Though independent researchers who assessed research protocols and claims (as noted in the Times article) reported that prayer "has nothing to do with science" and "constitutes a total waste of time and money," no fewer than ten major prayer investigations were carried out last year at Duke, the University of Washington and the holistic Mind-Body Institute near Boston. Evidence hardly matters when faith is involved. Maybe this should not be surprising, considering that the latest Harris poll reveals that 51percent of the U.S. public believes in ghosts, including 65 percent of those between the ages of 25-29! Trick or treat!

By the way, I'd be among the first to acknowledge the "power of prayer" to heal if just one impressive demonstration of healing prayer could be documented. How impressive would such a demonstration have to be? How about praying for a new limb to replace a prosthesis, or a real eye just like the original to replace a glass version? Just one such prayer demonstration or a similar unmistakable supernatural intervention that transcended the laws of nature would be impressive, don't you think? If a prayer, or tens of millions of prayers could produce this kind of unmistakable healing, we skeptics would bow our heads and try praying! Before long, prayer would be taught in medical schools. A new leg, a new eye or similar "miracle" prayer-cure would convert Paul Kurtz (Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, founder and chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), the Council for Secular Humanism, Prometheus Books,and editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry Magazine) into a believer in the efficacy of prayer. Needless to say (I hope), not even Oral Roberts, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or George W. Bush has made any such claims for the power of prayer. When people come up on stage to be healed by Oral Roberts and the rest of that crowd and fall down "healed" by the channeled power of God, they never stand up on a new leg or see Jesus with a new eye. Why?

Maybe prayer works best for mild headaches, along with an aspirin or two and a good night's sleep.

Instead of praying for something impressive (a new limb or replacement eye, for example), which prayer promoters know is not going to happen, prayer researchers stage elaborate parlor-trick studies that the easily fooled can imagine led to convincing results. For example, in a long-term NIH funded study at a San Francisco Hospital, the placebo effect was mixed with prayer interventions in a charade protocol that would make Harry Houdini proud. As described in the Times article, investigators (with permission from the patient subjects) inflicted a small wound on the abdomens of breast surgery patients to see if those prayed for (without their knowledge) healed faster than those who did not. According to independent assessments, "the authors of the study measured so many variables that some were likely to come up positive by chance. In effect, statisticians say, this method is like asking the same question over and over until you get the answer you want." Other studies noted in the Times piece involved prayer claims by researchers that entailed fraud and deception. Can you believe it--that taxpayer money is spent for inherently doomed prayer studies? 

Attempts to scientifically study prayer (or rain dances, voodoo and so on) are doomed for many reasons, among them the bias of devout researchers and the need to deal with impossible-to-assess issues, including:

• What constitutes a dose of prayer? What is the RDA of prayer for healing? How many per day per person is optimal? How about if an entire congregation offers prayers--how much more does that count? Can anyone know when enough is enough, or an overdose? Does THE deity or a deity ever feel put upon, wishing that believers would fend for themselves? How can anyone know? 
  
  
• Whose prayers work best? Evangelicals? Catholics? Muslims?
  
  
• How can variables be controlled? Prayers vary in purpose and content--what plays best to the Grand Listener? Flattery, begging, prostrating, negotiating, threatening (probably not but who can know?) or maybe just delegating ("You do what you think is best, Oh Great and Fearsome One Who Art All Wise!")?
  
  
• Can God be tested, studied and/or evaluated? Is doing so a sin? If God is All Wise, doesn't he know best, without having to hear from supplicants? Maybe prayers are arrogant and contemptuous, akin to trying to influence a judge during a trial.   

An amusing conclusion to the Times report on prayer research was the reference to one study that, while just as flawed as all the others, hinted at something for which the devout investigators had not expected--that prayers might do more harm than good (or just be irrelevant)! "In a 1997 experiment involving 40 alcoholics in rehab, psychologists at the University of New Mexico found that although intercessory prayers did not have any effect on drinking patterns, the men and women in the study who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse." One of the study authors concluded, "It's not clear what that means."

Just so. Don't ever expect clarity where prayers and other matters best left to faith (for believers) are concerned. The rest of us are better off, in my opinion, with reason, science and critical thinking--and presidents who rely on their heads, not their religious hopes. 

Be well. Look on the bright side of life. 

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MENTAL DOMAIN under the skill area of emotional intelligence. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell