ROBYN BLUMNER Rediscovers a Forgotten Fem inist

FREEINQUIRY
..... ■«'■<■«'»'■«■' ■ «i I» ■ ........................ . " '» 11, 111 1 "'■■■'

SCIENCE'S CAMPAIGN
TO PROVE PRAYER WORKS
( 1988 - 2006)

$5.95 CDN $5.95 US

01 Shadia B. Drury | Mark Cagnetta | OpheLia Benson

Russell Blackford | Tom Flynn | Virginia Woolf

0 7 4 4 7 0 74 8 Published by the Center for Inquiry in association

w illl Ihe ......... lol Seculal ...... ..
Have Christians Accepted the Scientific Conclusión
that God Does Not Answer Intercessory Prayer?
Brian Bolton
n 1982, a y o u n g c a rd io lo g is ta tth e San Francisco G e n era l
I M e d ica l C e n te r n am e d R andolph Byrd had a b rillia n t in-
s ig h tth a t w o u ld m o tiv a te several ¡m p o rta n t in ve stig a tio n s
o f p ra y e r d u rin g th e fo llo w in g tw o d e ca d es. H e realized
th a t th e sta n da rd research p a ra d ig m kn ow n as th e d o u -
b le -b lin d ra n d o m iz e d clin ¡cal tria l c o u ld be used to te s t th e
efficacy o f intercessory p ra y e r w ith m e d ica l p a tie n ts in th e
h o sp ita l s e ttin g .
Dr. Byrd, w h o id e n tifie d as a b o rn -a g a in C h ristian, b e -
lieved th a t he c o u ld p u t (h e re to fo re fa ith -b a se d ) p ra y e r
on a s o lid scie n tific fo u n d a tio n b y im p le m e n tin g rig o ro u s
s tu d y p ro ce d u re s w ith in an e x p e rim e n ta l fra m e w o rk. In
his g ro u n d -b re a k in g in v e s tig a tio n , fo u r h u n d re d card iac
p a tie n ts w ere ra n d o m ly a ssigned to p ra y e d -fo r and n o t-
p ra y e d -fo r c o n d itio n s . T h e prayers o ffe re d b y C h ristian
¡ntercessors re q u e s te d a q u ic k recovery w ith m in im a l c o m -
p licatio n s.
A v a rie ty o f in te rm e d ía te m easures o f m ed ical progress,
as w ell as th e u ltím a te in d ic a to r o f p a tie n t success— recov-
ery versus m o rta lity — w ere o b je c tiv e ly re co rd e d fo r all sub-
jects, p raye r re cip ie n ts a nd c o n tro l subjects alike. A fte r th e
data w e re analyzed, Byrd e rro n e o u sly c o n c lu d e d th a t th e
results s u p p o rte d th e h ypo th e sis th a t intercessory prayers
to th e J u d e o -C h ris tia n g o d have a b en e ficia l th e ra p e u tic
e ffe c t on cardiac p atie n ts. H e th a n k e d G o d fo r re sp o n d in g
to th e prayers fo r h ea lin g. Byrd's la n d m a rk s tu d y w as p u b -
lished in th e Southern Medical Journal in 1988.
W h ile th e initial results d id s u g g e s t th e possi b ility th a t
p ra y e r c o n fe rre d o n ly a sm all b e n e fit, th e s u b s e q u e n t rev-
e la tio n th a t a m a jo r v io la tio n o f e x p e rim e n ta l p ro to c o l had
o c c u rre d cast even th is m o d e s t ray o f h o p e in to d o u b t.
Later stu d ie s c o n firm e d th e c o rre c t infere nce , n a m e ly th a t
G o d d o e s not answ er intercessory prayer.
A fte r m ixe d reactions fro m research specialists, m e d -
ical p erso n n e l, and re lig io u s believe rs, fo u r n e w m a jo r
in v e s tig a tio n s in c o rp o ra tin g th e sam e p ro c e d u re s Byrd had
fo llo w e d w e re ca rrie d o u t a t o th e r m e d ica l centers. T h e
p rin c ip a l in v e stig a to rs o f th e fo u r re p lic a tio n stu d ie s, w ith
th e ir a ffilia tio n s a nd p u b lic a tio n d ates fo r th e ir arricies, are:
W illia m Harris, S aint Luke's H o sp ita l (1999); J e n n ife r A viles,
M a yo C lin ic (2001); M itc h e ll K rucoff, D uke U n iversity M e d i-
cal C e n te r (2005); and H e rb e rt B enson, B eth Israel D e a con -
ess M e d ica l C e n te r (2006). B rie f sum m aries o f th e stu d ie s
are p ro v id e d in th e A p p e n d ix (p a g e 25) o f th is arricie.
Why Investígate Intercessory Prayer?
If w e b e g in w ith a g en e ra l d e fin itio n o f p ra y e r as a p e titio n
o r re q u e s t fo r assistance d ire c te d to a h ig h e r p o w e r; th e n
w e can d is tin g u is h b e tw e e n th re e ty p e s o f prayer: p erso na l,
in te rp e rso n a l, and intercessory. W h y n o t inve stíg a te th e firs t
tw o ty p e s o f prayer?
T h e a lle g e d b e n e fits o f p erso na l p ra y e r (fo r oneseH) a n d
in te rp e rs o n a l p ra y e r (w ith o r fo r o th e rs w h o are p re s e n t o r
k n o w th e y are ta rge ts) are d iffic u lt to isolate because o f th e
c o n fo u n d in g e ffe cts o f b e lie f (o r p la c e b o e ffect) a nd Ínter-
p ersonal s u p p o rt, respectively.
In co n tra st, interce ssory p ra y e r (fo r o th e rs w h o are n o t
p re s e n t a n d d o n o t k n o w th e y are in te n d e d re cip -
ients) is a m e n a b le to s c ie n tific in v e s tig a tio n . It was
th is critical re c o g n itio n b y Byrd th a t intercessory
p ra y e r c o u ld b e s tu d ie d o b je c tiv e ly th a t e sta b-
lished the conceptual basis for his visionary proj
e ct. N o te th a t interce ssory p ra y e r is s o m e tim e s
re fe rre d to as d is ta n t h e a lin g " in th e litera tu re S t u d y C O O r d i n a t O r d i d k n O W W h lC h p a t i e n t S
„.. „c fu,
Critical Features of the Investígatíons
aiií r .1 i , she interacted with them.”
A ll fiv e o f th e larg e-sa m ple ra n d o m iz e d triáis o f
intercessory p ra y e r w ith h o sp ita lize d cardiac pa-
tie n ts shared a s e t o f a ttrib u te s th a t iu stify c o n fi-
d e n c e in th e fin d in g s o b ta in e d fro m th e studies.
1. C areful ra n d o m a s s ig n m e n to fs u b je c ts to th e p ra y e d -
fo r a nd n o t-p ra y e d -fo r c o n d itio n s e nsu red th a t g ro u p s w e re
e q u iv a le n t (w ithin th e lim its o f sta tistical s a m p lin g flu c tú a -
tio n ) on all re le va n t variables.
2. The d o u b le -b lin d re q u ire m e n t, in w h ich n e ith e r p a-
tie n ts ñ o r h osp ital p erso nn e l kn e w w h ich c o n d itio n (p ra ye r
o r non -pra ye r) to w h ich subjects had bee n a ssigned,
p re v e n te d c o n ta m in a tio n . This was th e fla w in Byrd's p ro j-
e c t— th e s tu d y c o o rd in a to r did know w h ich p a tie n ts w e re
rece ivin g prayers a t th e tim e she in te ra c te d w ith th e m .
3. T he p rin cip a l inve stig a to rs w ere all c o m m itte d C hris-
tia n a d vo cates o f th e h ealing p o w e r o f p raye r o r (in th e fifth
study) a physician s y m p a th e tic to th e valué o f p ra y e r and
s p irltu a l s u p p o rt in m e d ica l p ractlce . It s h o u ld b e e m p h a -
sized th a t n o n e was an u n b e lie v e r o r skeptic.
4. T h e o v e rw h e lm in g m a jo rlty o f th e m e m b e rs o f th e
te a m s o f intercessors carne fro m C hristian b ackg rou n ds,
in c lu d in g various P rotestan t d e n o m in a tio n s a n d C a th o lic
tra d itio n s , w ith a sm all n u m b e r o f Jew s, M uslim s, a nd B ud-
dhists p a rtic ip a tin g in so m e studies.
5. T h e critical o u tc o m e in d ic a to r c o m m o n to all in-
v e s tig a tio n s was p a tie n t m o rta lity, a d e fin itiv e c rite rio n o f
success o r fa ilu re th a t re fle cte d d ire c tly th e p rim a ry focus
o f th e interce ssory prayers fo r s p e e d y re co ve ry w ith fe w
c o m p lic a tio n s .
“ T h l S W 8 S t h e f l a W ¡ f l B v r d ’ S p r O Í e C t ------t h e
. . . . . .... . . .
were receiving
. . :
prayers
: .
at. . . the
..
time„
Unambiguous Experimental Results
R efuting th e sincere b eliefs a n d h o p e s o f th e d e d ic a te d
researchers a n d fu n d in g a gencies, th e results o f th e five
in v e s tig a tio n s o f intercessory p ra y e r w e re u n ifo rm ly neg a -
tiv e . This series o f carefully c o n d u c te d clinical triáis d id n o t
p ro d u c e any e v id e n c e in s u p p o rt o f th e p ro p o s itio n th a t
h o sp ita lize d cardiac p a tie n ts d e riv e b e n e fitfro m th e altruis-
tic prayers o f c o m m itte d intercessors.
Specifically, th e m o rta lity rates listed in th e s id e b a r b e lo w
w ere very sim ilar fo r th e p ra y e d -fo r a nd n o t-p ra y e d -fo r
patients. It can b e seen th a t th e o u tc o m e s o f th re e o f th e
ind ivid ua l studies s lig h tly fa v o re d th e n o t-p ra y e d -fo r pa-
tie nts, a lth o u g h n on e o f th e five diffe re n ces w e re sta tistically

Patient Mortality Rates for Prayer and Control Subjects

Prayed-For Patients Not-Prayed-For Patients
Study_______ Total Died_______ Percent_______________ Total Died Percent
Byrd 192 13_______ 6.77 201 17 8.46
Harris 466 42 9.01___________________ 524 46__________ 8.78
Aviles 383 31 8.09___________________379 34__________ 8,97_____________
Krucoff 371 14 3.77___________________377 13__________ 145_____________
Benson 604 16 2.65___________________597 14__________ 135_____________
~Tbtal 2016 116 5.75 2078 124 5.97
sign ifica n t. T he to ta l c o m p a riso n (a s im p le m eta-analysis) is
sta tistica lly s ig n ific a n t because o f th e h u g e a g g re g a te sam -
pies, b u t th e e ffe c t size is m iniscule— m o s tly d u e to Byrd's
study, w hich a c c o u n te d fo r 80 p e rc e n t o f th e d iffe re n c e —
a nd o b v io u s ly n o t th e a c h ie v e m e n t o f an o m n ip o te n t g o d .
It is a p p a re n t th a t th e J u d e o -C h ristia n g o d d isre ga rd s
fe rv e n t prayers fo r re co ve ry ju s t as o fte n as fa v o ra b le o u t-
com e s occur. In o th e r w o rd s, re sto ra tio n to g o o d health is
a m a tte r o f c o m p e te n t m ed ical care and g o o d luck. Inter-
cessory p raye r d o e s n o t im p ro ve th e p ro b a b ility o f survival.
W h y w o u ld G o d a llo w 116 p a tie n ts in th e fiv e s tu d y sam -
pies w h o w ere re cip ie n ts o f C hristian p ra y e r to d ie , w h e n
Jesús p ro m ise d , " I f you ask a n y th in g in m y ñam e, I w ill d o
it" (John 14:10 -14 )?
O n e a no m alo us fin d in g fro m th e Benson s tu d y th a t,
a fte r a dozen years, co n tin ú e s to b e c ite d b y p ra y e r articles
in p o p u la r m agazines ¡s th a t a th ird g ro u p o f p a rticip a n ts,
c o m p o s e d o f p a tie n ts w h o knew th a t th e y w e re rece ivin g
¡ntercessory prayer, e x h ib ite d s ig n ific a n tly m o re p o s t-o p e r-
a tive c o m p lic a tio n s d u rin g th e re co ve ry p e rio d . H ow ever,
th e ove rail m o rta lity rate fo r this g ro u p (2.16 p erce nt) was
v e ry sim ilar to th e o th e r tw o s tu d y g ro u p s , in d ic a tin g th a t
th e h ig h e r level o f c o m p lic a tio n s d id n o t m a n ife s t as an
¡ncreased p ro b a b ility o f d e a th .
“The Judeo-Christian god disregards
fervent prayers for recovery just as Often
as favorable outcomes occur.”
T h e tru ly re m a rkab le data p re s e n te d ¡n th e s id e b a r d e -
serve special c o m m e n t. These fig ure s su m m arize th e m or-
ta lity statistics fo r two thousand re cip ie n ts o f ¡ntercessory
p ra y e r a nd two thousand n o t-p ra y e d -fo r cardiac p a tie n ts in
five major investigations c o n d u c te d o v e r a span o f íw e n ty
years. This level o f d o c u m e n ta tio n is u n p a ra lle le d in th e
h isto ry o f p raye r research.
Excuses, Denial, Ignorance
H o w d id C hristian m ed ical p erso nn e l and o th e r believe rs
in th e hea lin g p o w e r o f p ra ye r react to th e d is a p p o in tin g
results o f th e five scie n tific p ra ye r studies? Six assertions
c a p tu re th e range o f excuses a nd den ials e xpressed b y
¡g n o ra n t critics o f th e inve stiga tio ns.
• The research is p re m ise d on a m is c o n ce p tio n o f h o w G o d
responds to prayer.
• G o d ¡s o u tsid e th e d o m a in o f Science and th e re fo re is n o t
a m e n ab le to e x p e rim e n ta l e valuation.
• It ¡s n o t p ossible to ra nd om ize G o d o r tru ly u nd e rstan d
his w ill.
• Research can n e lth e r p ro v e ñ o r d is p ro v e th e v a lid ity o f
d iv in e in te rv e n tio n .
• Because G o d a lready know s w h o n eeds h e a lin g , p raye r
is superfluous.
• It is a c o rru p tio n o f fa ith , if n o t w illfu l b la s p h e m y o r sacri-
lege, to te s t G o d .
A ll six o f th e se ra tio n alizatio ns e ntail th e in v o c a tio n o f
th e o lo g ic a l d o g m a in an a tte m p t to e xplain aw ay th e ¡r-
re fu ta b le e v id e n c e th a t th e J u d e o -C h ristia n g o d d o e s n o t
answ er prayer. It is im p o rta n t to n o te th a t th e se w o rth less
e x p la n a tio n s fro m th e d u m b fo u n d e d re lig io u s c o m m u n ity
o n ly e m e rg e d a fte r th e n e g a tive results o f th e clinical triáis
w ere th o ro u g h ly re p lic a te d . Tw o le g itím a te q u e stio n s th a t
p ra y e r a d vo ca te s s h o u ld ha ve a dd resse d are:
1. W h y w o u ld an o m n ip o te n t, o m n is c ie n t, o m n ib e n e v -
o le n t g o d refuse to re sp o n d to a ltru istic h ea lin g prayers fo r
cardiac p a tie n ts (or a n yo n e else)?
2. W h y d id n 't G o d insta n ta n e o u sly cure all p a tie n ts in
both th e p ra y e d -fo r a nd n o t-p ra y e d -fo r g ro u p s? This m i-
raculous m e d ia tio n w o u ld have d e m o n s tra te d co nclusive ly
th a t G o d rea Ily d oe s in te rve n e s u p e rn a tu ra lly to heal dis-
ease a nd illness.
lllu s tra tin g ju s t h o w fa r re m o v e d fro m re a lity p raye r
a d vo ca te s can b e, th e p rin c ip a l in v e s tig a to r o f o n e m a jo r
s tu d y asserted th a t p ra y e r c o u ld co nce iv-
a b ly o ve rd o se th e hum an b o d y w ith fatal
conse qu e nce s! He th e n d e cla re d th a t if
p ra y e r w e re as p o w e rfu l as he b e lie v e d it
t0 be Prayer ¡nterventions and therapies
(These e x tre m e iy o p tim is tic c o m m e n ts w ere
m a d e b e fo re th e n e g a tive results o f his
s tu d y w e re know n.)
T h e m o s t bizarre re actio n to th e results
0 f th e p ra y e r stu d ie s was p u b lis h e d in an e van g elica l Chris-
t ¡an m agazine. T he fo llo w in g q u o te s d e m ó n s tra te th e d e -
v o u t ^ h o i - s ' utte r confusión : "T h e real scandal is th a t th e
n o t-p ra y e d -fo r g ro u p re ce ived ju s t as m uch, if n o t m o re o f
Q ocj's blessings; True to his character, G o d a pp e a rs inclin e d
to (-,e a | anc¡ b |ess as m a ny as p ossible ; His answ ers o fte n
d o n 't g iv e us th e w h e re, w h e n, o r h o w th a t w e o rig in a lly
so u 9 ht; W e kn o w * * P ^ y e r w orks: T h e real q u e stio n
is, are w e p re p a re d fo r G o d s answer. T hese c o m m e n ts
ex e m p lify th e fu n d a m e n ta l^ re je c tio n o f Science, w h ich is
d¡SCUSSed b e lo w
A Common Criticism of the Studies
A n 0 ft_v 0 ¡cecj criticism o f th e in v e s tig a tio n s is th a t p a tie n ts
in th e n o t-p ra y e d -fo r c o n d itio n w ere re cip ie n ts o f prayers
fro m fam ily, frien d s, a nd churches. In o th e r w o rd s, all stu d y
p a rticip a n ts, in c lu d in g th o se in th e c o n tro l g ro u p s , received
hea lin g ¡ntercessory prayers fro m others.
C hristian d e fe n d e rs o f th e stu d ie s e x p la in e d th a t pa-
tie n ts in th e p ra y e d -fo r e x p e rim e n ta l g ro u p s a ctu a lly re-
c e ive d s u p p le m e n ta l o r ¡ncrem ental prayers o f a m o re
ca re fu lly fo cu se d nature, ¡n a d d itio n to prayers fro m fam ily,
frie n d s, a nd church. Based on th e a ssum p tion o f a p o s itiv e
d o se -resp on se re la tio n sh ip , s u p p o rte rs o f th e inve stiga -
tio n s e x p e c te d p a tie n ts in th e p ra y e d -fo r c o n d itio n to ex-
p e rie n ce g re a te r hea lin g b e n e fit.
O f course this criticism w o u ld b e m o o t if th e p re su m e d
o m n ip o te n t, o m n iscie n t, o m n ib e n e v o le n t J u d e o -C h ris tia n
g o d had s im p ly e lim in a te d all hum an illness in th e firs t
place. B ut re m e m b e r th a t G o d ro u tin e ly inflicts disease on
his ch ild re n and th e ir ene m ie s as p u n is h m e n t fo r d is o b e d i-
ence o r to te s t th e ir fa ith .
Small Sample Studies
A rtic le s in new s m agazines c o n tin u é to assert th a t th e re-
sults o f research on p ra y e r have b e e n m ix e d , w ith so m e
in v e stig a tio n s fin d in g th a t p ra y e r can im p ro v e disease
o u te o m e s a nd p ro lo n g survival. This m is le a d in g a nd unw ar­
ra n te d co nclusió n is ty p ic a lly based on th e
uncritical a ccep ta nce o f claim s fro m various
sm all sa m p le stu d ie s o f interce ssory prayer,
all sp a w n e d b y Byrd's ¡nnovative research
p ro je ct.
For exampie, a study of intercessory “More than a decade after results from
p ra y e r w ith a d va n ce d A ID S p a tie n B (W est- , h e | a s , o f , h e f j v e rep|¡Cated S t u d i e S W e r e
363) a p p e a re d to have g e n e a te d pos t ve reported in the medical literature, no additional
findings untn severai egregious method- efforts to document the benefits of healing
oiogicai vioiationswereexposed, rendering
th e results m eaningless.
A n o th e r in v e s tig a tio n th a t re c e iv e d
m uch a tte n tio n was s u b s e q u e n tly la b e le d
th e "C o lu m b ia M iracle Prayer S tu d y " (Journal o f Repro-
ductlve Medicine, 2001, 46, 7 8 1 -7 8 7 ). T h e researchers
p u rp o rte d ly used intercessory p raye r w ith in fe rtile w o m e n ,
p ro d u c in g such an am azing o u te o m e th a t ¡n d e p e n d e n t re-
view ers e v e n tu a lly c o n c lu d e d th a t th e data w e re c o n triv e d ,
because th e re w e re n o records in d ic a tin g th a t th e s tu d y
was e ve r ca rrie d o u t.
Y et a t th e tim e , p ro m in e n t p raye r a d vo cates and "d is -
ta n t h e a lin g " gurus to u te d th e se a nd o th e r in v e stig a tio n s
as e vid e n c e fo r a scie n tific re vo lu tio n in hea lin g m o d a li-
ties. In ve stig a tion s insp ire d b y "th e Byrd e ffe c t" ¡neluded
¡ntercessory-prayer in te rv e n tio n s w ith rh e u m a to id a rthritis
p a tie n ts, p a tie n ts w ith c o m m o n skin w arts, and a lc o h o lic
p atie n ts. A fte r these and o th e r sim ilar stu d ie s w e re ca re fu lly
e x a m in e d , it b eca m e a p p a re n t th a t th e h o p e d -fo r h ea lin g
b re a k th ro u g h s a ttrib u ta b le to p ra ye r s im p ly d id n o t occur.
Some Skeptics Were Confused
W h ile it is o b v io u s fro m th e ir c o m m e n ts th a t m an y d e v o u t
believe rs in th e p o w e r o f p raye r refused to a c c e p t th e un-
e q u ivo c a l results o f th e p ra ye r stu d ie s, it is also tru e th a t
even so m e ra tional observers had d iffic u lty a p p re c ia tin g
th e ve ry ¡m p o rta n t c o n trib u tio n th a t intercessory p raye r
research m a d e to th e scie n tific s tu d y o f su p e rn a tu ra l claim s.
For e xa m p le , o n e p ro m in e n t s k e p tic re ach ed tw o c o m -
p le te ly u n w a rra n te d co nclusions, d e c la rin g th a t scie n tific
p ra y e r research is "b a d Science a nd w o rse re lig ió n ." O f
course, it w as clea rly n o t b ad Science, because th e ran-
d o m iz e d d o u b le -b lin d clinical tria l has e sta b lish e d th e
re sp e cte d and h ig h ly useful b o d y o f k n o w le d g e kn ow n as
e vid e n c e -b a s e d m e d icin e . N o b o d y argües w ith th e scien-
tifie success o f th is endeavor.
E la b o ra tin g his a lle g a tio n o f d e fe c tiv e re lig ió n , th e
s k e p tic p ro p o u n d e d th e c o lo rfu l ch arg e th a t "s c ie n tific
p ra y e r m akes G o d a ce lestial lab ra t." It is a p p a re n t th a t
th e c o m m ¡tted C hristian inve stig a to rs w h o ca rrie d o u t th e
stu d ie s w e re c o n v in c e d th a t th e ir research p ro c e d u re s w ere
th e o lo g ic a lly so un d , o r th e y w o u ld n o t have u nd e rtake n
th e ir p rojee ts in th e firs t place,
prayer have been implemented.”
Distrust of Scientific Methodology
M o re th a n a d e c a d e a fte r results fro m th e last o f th e five
re p lic a te d s tu d ie s w e re re p o rte d in th e m ed ical literature,
no a d d itio n a l e ffo rts to d o c u m e n t th e b e n e fits o f hea lin g
p ra ye r have b e e n im p le m e n te d . This su g g e sts th a t b eliev-
ers m ay have seen th e "h a n d w ritin g on th e w a ll"— o r th a t
th e y fo llo w e d th e lo g ic o f m a th e m a tic a l in d u c tio n and gave
u p on th e ir g o a l o f p u ttin g p ra y e r on a sc ie n tific fo u n d a tio n .
Is th is because C hristians have a c c e p te d th e v e rd ic t o f
Science and dism issed th e valué o f intercessory prayer?
N o. W h e n Science fa ils to s u p p o rt fa ith , it is Science th a t
¡s re je c te d , n o t fa ith . (For d e ta ils , see C h ris M o o n e y , The
Republican War on Science, 2 00 5 ; Shaw n O tto , The War
on Science, 2 0 1 6 ; a n d A n to n y A lu m k a l, Paranold Science:
The Christian Right's War on Reality, 2017.) T h e n um e r-
ous excuses p ro ffe re d b y C h ristia n b e lie v e rs s u m m a riz e d
a b o v e a m p ly te s tify to th is p e rva sive d is tru s t o f Science.
W h a t sustains b e lie f in th e e ffic a c y o f in te rc e s s o ry
p ra y e r in th e fa ce o f o v e rw h e lm in g n e g a tiv e s c ie n tific
e v id e n c e ? T h e s im p le fa c t is th a t C h ristia n s are m uch
m o re lik e ly to a b s o rb u n c ritic a lly th e claim s o f a n e c d o ta l
a c c o u n ts ¡n n e w s p a p e rs , o n te le v is ió n , a n d in p e rs o n a l
te s tim o n iá is , ra th e r th a n to a c c e p t th e re p lic a te d results
o f ra n d o m iz e d clínicaI triáis.
For e x a m p le , a fte r a p ro m in e n t actor's tw e lv e -d a y -o ld
tw in s re co ve red fro m a m assive a ccid en ta l m e d ic a tio n
o v e rd o se , he a n n o u n c e d th a t "th e p o w e r o f p ra ye r fro m so
m an y ¡s w h a t saved th e m ." A t a b o u t th e sam e tim e , in an
u n re la te d tra g e d y, a y o u n g m an d ie d o f incu rab le cáncer.
S itua tio ns such as these, w h ich o ccu r d a ily across A m e r-
ica, raise a p e rp le x in g q u e s tio n : W h y w o u ld a b e n e v o le n t
d e ity save th e actor's in fa n t tw in s b u t a llo w a y o u n g m an
to d ie o f cáncer? In tryin g to rescue p ra y e r fro m fa ilure, th e
y o u n g m an's o b itu a ry asserted th a t "m a n y p ra ye r requests
b y C hristian ¡ntercessors w ere m ira culo usly answ ered a lo n g
th e w a y " (to death)!
Regardless o f th e nature o f th e tra g e d y — w h e th e r lo st
o r a b d u c te d ch ild re n , p a tie n ts w ith serious ¡llnesses, o r vic-
“When Science fails to support faith,
it is Science that is rejected, not faith.”
tim s o f natural disasters— th e re action is always th e sam e,
Family, frien d s, a nd strangers p ray fo r a h a p p y o u tc o m e .
W h e n th e p ra y e d -fo r in d ivid u a l survives, all c re d it is g ive n
to G o d , and th e p o w e r o f p raye r is a ccla im e d. B u t w h e n th e
p ra y e d -fo r person dies, G o d is n eve r b la m e d fo r th e n e g -
a tive o u tc o m e . Typical responses are "G o d has ca lled him
h o m e " and "S he has g o n e to be w ith Je sús." The in fa llib il-
ity o f p raye r is an a rticle o f fa ith th a t c a n n o t be q u e s tio n e d .
In plain lan g u a g e , th e tra d itio n a l C hristian fra m e w o rk
d o e s n o t p e rm it p raye r to fail.
B elievers are q u ic k to cite cases w h e re p raye r is associ-
a te d w ith p o sitive results, w h ile th e y ste a d fa stly d isre g a rd
th o se circum stances w h e re p raye r is fo llo w e d b y unfavor-
a b le o u tco m e s. It is this se le ctive a tte n tio n to e ve ryd a y
even ts th a t helps sustain fa ith in th e p o w e r o f prayer.
Is th e re any reason to th in k th a t th e u n e q u ivo ca l n e g -
a tive o u tc o m e o f th e p raye r stu d ie s has re su lte d in any
d im in is h m e n t o f p raye r a c tivity in th e U n ite d States? N o.
Surveys ind íca te th a t th e vast m a jo rity o f A m e rica n s still
b e lie v e in th e valué o f prayer, w h ich is v irtu a lly id e n tica l
to b e lie f in th e e xistence o f G o d , because p raye r ¡s s im p ly
c o m m u n ic a tio n w ith th e deity.
M oreover, intercessory prayers fo r hea lin g c o n tin u é to
be a critical fe a tu re o f m any C hristian a ctivities, in c lu d in g
re g u la r w o rs h ip Services, th e u b iq u ito u s p ra ye r circles, and
c o n tin u o u s ("2 4 /7 ") p raye r m inistries th a t address health
p ro b le m s o f parishioners, c o m m u n ity leaders, a nd n atio n al
figures. In o th e r w o rd s, d e s p ite th e d is c o n firm in g scie n tific
e vid e n ce , C hristians have n o t lost fa ith in th e p o w e r o f
p ra ye r fo r h ea lin g.
A n o th e r s tro n g ¡n d ica to r o f th e u n d im in is h e d C hristian
b e lie f in th e valué o f p ra ye r ¡s th e h u g e v o lu m e o f b o o ks
on th e s u b je c t p u b lis h e d o v e r th e p ast d e ca d e a t a rate
e x c e e d in g o n e th o u s a n d title s p e r year.
P o pu la r news m agazines ro u tin e ly p ub lish fe a tu re arti-
cíes to u tin g th e a lle g e d c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n re lig io s ity and
health. The to p ic o f p raye r ¡s in e v ita b ly a dd resse d u n d e r
h e a d in g s such as "N e w P roo f Prayer W o rk s " a nd "T h e
H ealing P ow er o f Prayer." W rite rs ty p ic a lly d e p e n d on b e-
lievers as th e ir solé source o f ¡n fo rm a tio n and n eve r d e v o te
e qu a l tim e to skeptics.
It is o b v io u s th a t C hristians have n o t a c c e p te d th e sci-
e n tific co nclusió n th a t G o d d oe s n o t answ er intercessory
prayer, d e m o n s tra tin g again th a t fa ith surpasses e vid en ce
in th e re lig io u s m in d , e spe cia lly w h e n rein-
fo rc e d b y irre sp on sib le p ro p a g a n d a g e n e ra te d
b y m a jo r new s o u tle ts fo r th e p u rp o s e o f per-
p e tu a tin g th e d o m in a n t re lig io u s m yth o lo g y.
Implicatlons for Larger Issues
DesPite the endless excuses generated by fun-
d a m e n ta lis t believe rs, th e o n ly ra tio n al c o n c lu ­
sión s u p p o rte d b y th e five re p lic a te d stu d ie s is
th a t G o d d o e s n o t re sp o n d to a ltru istic prayers
fo r h o s p ita liz e d card iac p a tie n ts. This co nclusió n can b e
re aso na b ly g e n e ra liz e d to n o n -h o s p ita liz e d p a tie n ts a nd
th o se w ith o th e r m e d ica l c o n d itio n s and to all fo rm s o f
p ra ye r to all g o d s u n d e r all circum stances. P ut sim ply, G o d
does not answer prayer. W h a t d o e s th is co nclusió n m ean
fo r tw o la rg e r issues o f C h ristian faith?
First, it th o ro u g h ly u n d e rm in e s th e in d isp e n s a b le axiom
o f so -ca lle d "th e is tic S cience," w h ich is th a t th e su p e rn a tu ra l
realm a ctu a lly exists a nd th e re fo re su p e rn a tu ra l causation is
a le g itím a te s c ie n tific e x p la n a tio n . T h e re p lic a te d fa ilu re o f
th e a tte m p te d interce ssory p ra y e r d e m o n s tra tio n s co nsti-
tu te s th e s tro n g e s t re bu ke y e t to th is d o c trin a l claim , w h ich
derives fro m a universal re lig io u s b elief.
S e cond, it casts su bsta n tial d o u b t on th e fo u n d a tio n a l
claim o f th e o lo g y , w h ich is th a t th e p o s tu la te d g o d has in-
d e p e n d e n t e xistence in o b je c tiv e reaIity. In o th e r w o rd s,
th e o lo g y asserts th a t G o d a ctu a lly exists o u ts id e o f th e
hum an m in d , ra the r th a n ju s t b e in g a fig m e n t o f th e im a g i-
n atio n . A reasonable inference fro m th e fa ile d p ra y e r inves-
tig a tio n s is th a t the allegedly omnipotent Judeo-Christian
god does not exist. W e are re m in d e d o f M ark Twain's a stute
a ph o rism , "F a ith ¡s b e lie v in g w h a t you k n o w a in 't s o ." H l
Brian Bolton ís a retirad research psychologist and uníversíty professor lívíng
¡n Georgetown, Texas, Hís academic contributions have been recognízed by
uníversítíes and psychological societies.
Appendix
Capsule Sum m aries o f Five Intercessory P rayer Studies
T h e first m a jo r e x p e rim e n ta l in v e s tig a ro n o f Ínter-
cessory p raye r was c o n d u c te d b y R andolph Byrd
and re p o rte d in th e Southern Medical Journal (1988,
81, 8 2 6 -8 2 9 ). A to ta l o f tw e n ty -n in e d ia g n o s tic
and o u tc o m e variables w ere re co rd e d fo r 3 93 cor-
o n a ry p a tie n ts w h o had bee n ra n d o m ly assigned
to p ra y e d -fo r and n o t-p ra y e d -fo r g ro u p s. C hristian
intercessors p ra ye d d a ily fo r th e p a tie n ts in th e ex­
p e rim e n ta l q ro u p . S ta tistically s iq n ific a n t d iffe re n ces
1 , ^ . | 1 . i i i i i i
w ere o b ta in e d on six variables a nd also on a q lo b a l
. , ^ ^ i ^ i , n i i i
ju d g m e n t o f im p ro v e m e n t c o m p le te d b y Byrd. H ow -
, , K j . .,y
ever, he s u b s e q u e n tly re vealed th a t th e s tu d y co n-
. . , . . , i . i .. - .- i i ,
ta in e d tw o serious p ro c e d u ra l violatio n s. T h e g lo b a l
. , . f . . , r.
ju d g m e n t o f im p ro v e m e n t was m a d e a tte r th e data
w ere unm asked, a nd th e s tu d y c o o rd in a to r kn ew
w h ich p a tie n ts w ere assigned to th e p ra ye r g ro u p a t
th e tim e she in te ra c te d w ith th e m . These c o m p ro -
m ises c o u ld have easily a c c o u n te d fo r th e s lig h tly
fa v o ra b le results
A d e c a d e a fte r th e Byrd s tu d y was p u b lis h e d , W illia m
Harris a nd nine co lle a g u e s a tte m p te d to replícate
Byrd's fin d in g s (Archives o f Infernal Medicine, 1999,
159, 2 2 7 3 -2 2 7 8 ). T h irty -fiv e variables, in c lu d in g all
o f Byrd's, w e re re co rd e d fo r 9 90 ca rd iac p a tie n ts
w h o h ad bee n ra n d o m ly assig ne d to p ra y e d -fo r and
c o n tro l g ro u p s . N o n e o f Byrd's tw e n ty -n in e variables
o r his g lo b a l ju d g m e n t o f prog ress w ere sta tistica lly
s ig n ifica n t. Clearly, th e a tte m p te d re p lica tio n c o m -
p le te ly fa ile d . H ow ever, a b are ly s ig n ific a n t re su lt
was o b ta in e d fo r a new c o m p o s ite re co ve ry score.
C o n tra ry to th e o rig in a l re p o rt, less than o n e p e rc e n t
o f th e variance in overall recovery was e x p la in e d b y
p raye r— h ard ly e v id e n c e fo r th e p o w e r o f an o m n ip -
o te n t g o d .
T h e th ird larg e-sa m ple in v e s tig a tio n o f interce ssory
p ra y e r was ca rrie d o u t b y J e n n ife r A viles and six
co lle a g u e s (Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2 00 1 , 7 6,
1 1 9 2 -1 1 9 8 ). Five p rim a ry o u tc o m e variables w e re
assessed a t a six-m o n th fo llo w -u p fo r 7 6 2 c o ro n a ry
p a tie n ts w h o had bee n a ssigned to p ra y e d -fo r and
n o t-p ra y e d -fo r g ro u p s. C hristian intercessors in iti-
a te d prayers fo r p a tie n ts ¡n th e e x p e rim e n ta l g ro u p
a t th e tim e o f h osp ital d ischarge. N o sta tistically
s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n ces w e re o b ta in e d fo r th e to ta l
g ro u p co m p a riso ns o r fo r s u b g ro u p s o f hig h -risk and
low -risk p atie n ts.
Tl r , , , .
i T h e fo u rth m a jo r s tu d y o f intercessory p raye r was
. r, , ;
c o n d u c te d b y M itc h e ll K ru co ff a nd fo u rte e n co l-
. 1 ...
leagues (Lancet, 2 0 0 5 ,3 6 6 ,2 1 1 -2 1 7 ). F o ur o u tc o m e
, . . . . , r „
i variables, in-hosp¡tal and six-m o n th fo llo w -u p , w ere
, ' , r ,
. re co rd e d fo r 748 co ro n a ry p a tie n ts w h o w e re tre a te d
3r
a t nine m ed ical ce n te rs - P a rticip atin g p ra y e r g ro u p s
e n co m p a sse d C hristian, M uslim , Jew ish, a nd B ud-
d h is t tra d itio n s ' T h ere w e re no s ta tistica lly s ig n ific a n t
t r e n c e s b e tw e e n th e ra n d o m iz e d p ra y e d -fo r and
c o n tro l p a tie n ts. It is n o te w o rth y th a t K ru c o ff is an
e nthusiastic a d v ó c a te o f th e use o f p ra y e r in co n ju n c-
tio n w ith s ta n d a rd m ed ical tre a tm e n t.
The a nd lar9 est ¡nve stig atio n o f th e a lle g e d
b e n e fits o f intercessory p ra ye r was re p o rte d by
H e rb e rt Benson a nd fifte e n c o lla b o ra to rs (American
Heart Journal, 2006, 151, 9 3 4 -9 4 2 ). Ten in d ica to rs
c o m p lic a tio n s w e re re co rd e d fo r 1,201 co ro n a ry
bypass p a tie n ts a t six hosp itals w h o w e re ra n d o m ly
a ssigned to p ra y e d -fo r a nd n o t-p ra y e d -fo r g ro u p s.
T h e p ra y e d -fo r p a rtic ip a n ts received fo u rte e n co n-
se cutive days o f p ra y e r fro m C a th o lic a nd P rotestan t
intercessors. S tatistical c o m p a riso n s b e tw e e n th e ex-
p e rim e n ta l a nd c o n tro l subjects on th e te n in d ica to rs
y ie ld e d no s ig n ific a n t fin d in g s .
It is iro n ic th a t Benson's study, w h ich w as th e final
nail in th e co ffin fo r th e interce ssory p ra y e r claim ,
was fu n d e d by th e Jo hn T e m p le to n F o u n d a tio n , a
C hristian g ra n t-a w a rd in g in s titu tio n th a t has th e m is-
sion o f d e m o n s tra tin g th a t Science a nd re lig ió n are
c o m p a tib le w o rldview s.