Not to sound too bizarre but there is one way to get around the problem associated with (1) below and it is to use animals. If one truly believes that prayer of whatever form can have a beneficial effect, then we should expect to see such an effect with animals -- as fans of the racehorse Barbaro can probably attest.
There may be an issue regarding whether prayer would work for "soulless" creatures like animals but we can probably direct the people who make such objections to Peta who are probably quite likely to argue the counterpoint vigorously. The two groups probably deserve each other. As for (2), doesn't using a double-blind (or whatever they are calling it these days) procedure take care of this objection? I guess it depends upon how one conceptualizes the effect of prayer, that is, whether it makes a difference if a prayer is targeted towards a specific individual or difusely to a group of unknown people. But one wonders how and why intercessors would know about a control group? I'm not sure I understand the point of (3). For treatments that work (e.g., antibiotics), it doesn't matter what one believes about how it works (i.e., there's a causal relationship, a correlational relationship, or no relationship) -- the treatment will usually work independently of one's beliefs about how/why it works. Would it make any difference if physicians believed that antibiotics were involved in a causal fashion in treating conditions while the patients believed that the relationship was only correlational? Would the "philosophical tension" interfere with the effectiveness of the antibiotic? -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:34:46 -0700, Miguel Roig wrote: >The abstract below is from a paper that has just appeared >in the Journal of Medical Ethics and that may be of interest >to some TIPSsters. > >The empirical results from recent randomised controlled >studies on remote, intercessory prayer remain mixed. Several >studies have, however, appeared in prestigious medical journals, >and it is believed by many researchers, including apparent >sceptics, that it makes sense to study intercessory prayer >as if it were just another experimental drug treatment. This >assumption is challenged by (1) discussing problems posed >by the need to obtain the informed consent of patients >participating in the studies; (2) pointing out that if the intercessors >are indeed conscientious religious believers, they should >subvert the studies by praying for patients randomised to >the control groups; and (3) showing that the studies in >question are characterised by an internal philosophical tension >because the intercessors and the scientists must take >incompatible views of what is going on: the intercessors must >take a causation-first view, whereas the scientists must take >a correlation-first view. It therefore makes no ethical or >methodological sense to study remote, intercessory prayer >as if it were just another drug. > >Here is the citation: Turner, D. D. (2006). Just another drug? >A philosophical assessment of randomised controlled studies >on intercessory prayer. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 487-490. > >http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/8/487?etoc >Miguel Roig, Ph.D. >Associate Professor of Psychology >Notre Dame Division of St. John's College >St. John's University >300 Howard Avenue >Staten Island, New York 10301 --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
