Over the years, a number of studies have been conducted on prayer and whether it can be proven to improve physical health. The results have been mixed and often contradictory.
Now two Australian researchers have come to the conclusion that, when talking about prayer’s effectiveness, a supernatural element should not be dismissed.
A paper published in the Medical Journal of Australia by Marek Jantos, Director of the Behavioural Medicine Institute in Adelaide, and Professor Hosen Kiat, from the University of NSW, reviews the common scientific explanations of prayer.
For example, some say any health benefit from prayer is due to the relaxing, meditative effect it can have. Prayer can slow down breathing and brain-wave activity, lower the heart rate and blood pressure, and so enhance physiological wellbeing.
But Jantos and Kiat note that prayer, at least in the Christian form, is not always the same as meditation—brain activity during prayer doesn’t always decrease. So its effectiveness may not simply be due to some relaxation effect.
Similarly, it’s been found that prayer can improve the mood of the pray-er; the benefit of prayer here is understood as more emotional. Jantos and Kiat agree, but add that current research is unclear on whether the immediate beneficiaries of prayer are those who do the praying, those for whom prayers are offered, or both.
Some critics have suggested that any therapeutic affect of prayer can be attributed to the ‘placebo’ effect—if patients know they’re being prayed for they might recover quicker, just like patients whose doctor prescribes a sugar pill for their problem.
Some research backs this position, but Jantos and Kiat point out studies which don’t. One study investigated the impact of intercessory prayer offered by Christian prayer groups in the US, Canada and Australia for in-vitro fertilisation patients in Seoul, Korea. The pregnancy rate in the prayed-for group was significantly higher than that in the control group (50% verses 26% success rate), even though neither group knew they were being prayed for.
"Irrespective of whether scientists seek to attribute the benefits of prayer to the relaxation response, placebo or positive emotions,” Jantos and Kiat write, “the most common reason people turn to prayer is their belief in a divine being that transcends the natural universe and hears and responds to prayer.” They go on to say that more study is needed, but add that researchers must accept “that some aspects of prayer may not be transparent to scientific investigation and may go beyond the reach of science.”
Personally, I’m still doubtful as to how much God takes part in clinical tests. One study I heard about required pray-ers to pray the exact same prayer sentence for a list of unknown people (it was for a ‘complete and speedy recovery with little pain’ or something like that). Anyone acquainted with Christian prayer knows how alien a concept this is. God can’t be manipulated by saying the same thing over and over, like pressing the right button on a machine. And while He might do a miracle for one person, through prayer He might bring something beautiful out of the pain of another. (Remember, John Donne, the 17th century poet wrote his greatest work while he suffered Typhus.)
But it’s encouraging to see at least two members of the scientific community admit that prayer may still be effective—even if it’s beyond the grasp of science.
Further: www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_10_210507/jan11101_fm.html#0_i1091962
Comments (2)
Wow I'm just amazed how Dr Marek Jantos has completely missed the point of prayer.
As a Christian I know that Prayer is not just speaking to any "Supernatural higher being" I'm speaking to the one true God, who is personal and loving, not some distant being that I just blurt out my problems to. And to suggest that by simply getting off my chest my issues to a "Supernatural being" plays down the role of God my Heavenly Father.
He is God not just some counsellor who I pay $80 dollars an hour to talk about my life to. God answers prayer according to his will and purpose for my life. He is real, active and has the power to change my life. Prayer without a relationship with God and an understanding that it's Jesus who is interceder is not real prayer. It's pointless.
You may call is Prayer, but it ain't prayer unless you're in a relationship with God.
Posted by Jamie | June 4, 2007 1:31 PM
Posted on June 4, 2007 13:31
According to the Bible knowledge precedes faith. For example the Bible says sow a thought reap an act. In fact this is how people function, beginning in the thought world and then expressing into the physical world. As Christian's we understand that all values and meaning for the things we know and do are derived from the nature of the always-ness relationship between the memebrs of the Trinity. Love and communication have always occurred here so love has meaning and our human aspirations have validity. T
his gives all Christian's intellectual integrity that no other system can give which means Christian's have certainty of knowledge concerning all things. As finite beings we cannot know all things exhaustively but we can know all things truthfully.
This is the reason the first verse in our Bible begins by saying, "In the beginning God (Elohim/plural) created." Not in the beginning Jesus or anything else but in the beginning God.
The Bible says, if anyone is to approach God, they must approach God as if He is. Understanding what this means therefore is important. Unless there is an object to our faith that we understand with intellectual integrity then our faith is faith in faith and not in an object. So I think it is important to begin with the fact that God is and that we have a real object to our faith we can discuss. As I said, love has meaning and value because the Trinity have never ceased to be in loving communicating relationship. There is no other explanation for the existence of love or its value other than the Christian world view. This should give Christian's unprecedented encouragement.
Prayer for the Christian is not some existential plea to something we cannot know but we have a real tangible reason and we have an epistemology that can withstand any criticism. Only Christianity can answer the questions of metaphysics and of morals and this answer is in the nature of the relationship between the memebers of the Trinity.
Joshua and Caleb had a positive report about the promised Land because they were bouncing off a 600 year old promise to Abraham. Joseph told his people to take his bones when they left Egypt. He didn't say if you leave but when you leave. This was because Joseph was bouncing off a promise made to Abraham by God. Joshua built an altar at the same place Abraham built an altar to God at Shechem between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizem. Jacob dug a well there later on and Jesus spoke to the woman from Samaria there. To these people history was not random but it followed a flow they were familiar with; a biblical flow. Any departure from this idea would place people firmly in the chance arena of empiricism or pantheism. So there is a flow to hidtory and this flow is the result of the God who is there in the nature of the Trinity.
What strikes me about this article is that it begins with science and not faith. Prayer provides Christian's with certainty of knowledge about two things immediately. First, God is there and God hears us. Second God is holy and we have fallen short of His glory and therefore we have a real moral dilemma and not something merely psychotic or induced. Humanity has a real moral dilemma and it seems to be getting confused with mans' pyscological condition. Once upon a time science only dealt with the machine parts of our universe and the machine parts of man, but the new sciences of psycology anthropology and sociology have dragged the mind of man into the machine. It seems to me that these men are talking from this perspective which has little to do with actual Christianity. Blaise Pascal said this about man, "Man observes the stars but the stars observe nothing." These scientist merely see men and women as part of the onserved rather than the observer.
I would like to see the scientist or the pantheists' try to explain the manishness of man beginning with their 'imoersonal' plus 'time' plus 'chance' systems. An existential epistemology simply will not do. Even Kant's 'A Priori and phenomenological issues cannot resolve the scientist's position.
Posted by Hona Wikeepa | May 29, 2007 11:31 PM
Posted on May 29, 2007 23:31