The Faith Factor

[Gerr]

Greg, you seem to imply your opening statement that a study is more valid because it is more current?  If a study is done properly, the findings will be true  regardless of time.  And if not done properly, the findings will not be accurate regardless of how current it is. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gerry, certainly there is validity in what you say.  However, with some exceptions that you are aware of, science is not determined by one study.  Why?  Because no one study has a 100% Confidence value.  Basic statistics computes the potential error that may be present in any scientific study.  Yes, most accepted studies will have a Confidence value of either 90% or 95 %.   But, some studies are even lower in value. 

 

Anyone who discusses scientific studies needs to be aware of the current literature on the subject. That is just common sense.  Later studies can add something to the findings of the older study.  {Scientific studies are narrowly focused with some conclusions not as fully studied as was the major finding.]  Further, a study may be considered to have been done with scientific rigor and a later study will lead to a conclusion that the earlier study was actually lacking in scientific rigor. 

 

As I understand it, you are a physician.  As such you are well aware that in medicine current practice of medicine is often changed from previous practice even though that previous practice may have been based upon good science.

[Gerr]

The practice of medicine is constantly evolving; whether or not there is physical healing as a result of faith does not. Therefore, done properly, older studies should be just as valid as those of today.

[Gregory Matthews]

The practice of medicine is constantly evolving; whether or not there is physical healing as a result of faith does not.

 

There is much more involved in this issue than healing.  The "Religious & Spiritual Issus In Psychiatric Diagnosis" book that I referenced was charged with addressing the ". . . impact of religious/spiritual factors on phenomenology, differential diagnosis, course, outcome, and prognosis."  This is much more complex than mere healing.

 

Perhaps in the treatment of a fracture of the femur a concrete definition of "healing" can be made.  However, in psychiatric diagnosis and treatment relief is often sought, rather than healing.  Both relief and healing can be considered to be on a progressive line, rather than a specific attainment.

 

As definations change, which they do over time, older studies become less valuable. 

 

As no scientific study has a 100% Confidence value, no study, even when done with rigor, should ever be considered to forever be the norm.

 

The practice of medicine today is moving to a "best practices" approach.  That approach is defined by scientific studies.  Yet, the so-called "Best Practices' are expected to change with time.  Those changes with time do not reflect badly on the validity of the studies on which they were based. 

 

Sorry Gerry, while I have some agreement with you, it seems that I am not in total agreement.

[Lauralea]

I am thinking studies of prayer cannot be blinded and randomized to include both unbelievers and believers due to the deletorious effect one study showed it may have on some of those who know they are being prayed for. Moreover, prayer in the Bible is linked with the faith of the one being prayed for in most cases, or at least with that of a relative.

 

Perhaps the best way to do a study would be to have believers pray and be prayed for and unbelievers not pray or be prayed for but do some mental exercise. Of course this would not be considered the best of studies by science due to the lack of blinding but trying to measure Heavenly things within the confines of science is inherently limited.

 

On Mount Moriah, Elias did not pray secretly and as Christians, if we have seen the wonderful workings of God, we realize He works as He sees best. As Ellen White says, He does not always choose to heal even believers because it would not always be in the best interest of the one being prayed for. Earlier in her life, when they prayed insistently for healing, some who were healed did not go on to have a better more productive life than if they had been laid to rest, and she learned not to pray just for healing, but to ask that the Lord's will be done.

 

How would one correct for the fact the Lord does not always see it is best to heal in a study, and would Divine intercession in answer to prayer occur in sufficient quantities to meet the 95% probability it was not due to chance demands of science? The types of studies science considers more rigorous may be not possible to design to be appropriate in this case because we cannot put God in a box and demand He heal in all cases. We as Christians may have experienced Divine intercession, and as Rachel brought out, it does at times make doctors believe in the Almighty or at least ask questions. Observational studies and case histories on prayer may make suggestions to science and arouse inquiries in physicians and scientists, but answered prayer is not a physical treatment that works in measurable ways on specific conditions like penicillin, but communicating with the Creator of the Universe, who does as He sees best.

[Gregory Matthews]

Lauralea said:

 

 

 

I am thinking studies of prayer cannot be blinded and randomized to include both unbelievers and believers. . .

 

Sorry, but they not only can be blinded and randomized, but they have been.  How is it done?  Names of patients area assigned on a random manner to be prayed for by people who cannot identify the actual person for whom they are praying--the actual person may be a patient in a  hospital in another State.  The patients are selected at random with no actual knowledge of whether or not the patient is a "believer."  At the same time  part of the group, with similar diagnostic symptoms and clinical conditions  is tracked as to their healing process but is not prayed for.

 

So, you have a random group,  the prayers do not know the actual person that they are praying for. and you have a random group with matched clinical conditions that is not prayed for.

 

 

[Lauralea]

Sorry I misspoke. I meant I do not believe that they can be randomized and blinded and get an outcome that necessarily accurately reflects the results of prayer. One study indicated that a random sample who was prayed for had a worse outcome that was statistically significant, possibly due to anxiety.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

Unknown intercessory prayer made no difference

 

Also we know as Adventists God does not choose to heal everyone. So not sure the number of people He chooses to heal will reach statistical significance. This does not mean all prayer for healing is ineffective. I guess what I am saying is, I do not believe studies that do not find statistically significant effects to randomized prayer mean that prayer for healing according to the Biblical model does not work. 

[Lauralea]

14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

James 5:14-15

Following this method cannot be done in a blinded study because the person is to request prayer and call for the elders of their own church. They also are to be forgiven their sins, so their is a spiritual work for them to do themselves. This is different than having random strangers pray for random patients who may or may not believe.