The Magical Foundation of Empirical Studies of the Efficacy of Intercessory Paper
Benjamin Parks, PhD Student, Graduate Assistant, Saint Louis University
The formal statistically driven empirical study of prayer has an almost 150-year-old history. The first person to conduct such a study was Francis Galton’s whose retrospective statistical analysis comparing life expectancy to the amount someone prayed and was prayed for concluded that intercessory prayer for longevity is ineffective. Since Galton there have been a host of studies conducted to test the efficacy of intercessory prayer (IP), most notably the separate experiments conducted by Robert C. Byrd; William S. Harris, et al; and Herbert Benson, et al; to test the efficacy of IP in cardiac care units.
All of these studies starting with Galton share the common problems of defining prayer and controlling for bias. In order to better control for bias, subsequent research teams have had to continually refine their methodology, which means placing more and more restrictions on prayer. Most notably, Byrd, Harris, and Benson, prescribe the exact phrasing of the prayer to be said for the cardiac patients. The controls placed on prayer will only increase with future studies, if researchers are serious about removing potential sources of bias.
Thus there is a deep irony at the foundation of such studies, the more “scientific” they become the deeper they go into the realm of magic. Although magic today is more commonly understood in terms of fantasy fiction, witchcraft, or synonym for amazing, the concept and practice of magic has a more essential meaning. Magic is the attempt to subject supernatural forces to a person will via a specific ritual. By testing if particular sets words and styles of prayer will bring about a desired result, researchers are trying to find the proper incantation and actions for manipulating God into healing a patient. This hold whether or not researchers realize that they are doing so.
This paper will proceed as follows. First, I will set forth the definition of magic as an attempt to bring the supernatural, specifically the Christian God, under human control. Second, I will give an overview of the progression of empirical studies of the efficacy of IP and how they have become increasingly magical in their assumptions. Finally, I will argue that because Christianity condemns the use of magic no Christian should be involved in such research and Christian institutions should refuse to support such studies in any way.
The formal statistically driven empirical study of prayer has an almost 150-year-old history. The first person to conduct such a study was Francis Galton’s whose retrospective statistical analysis comparing life expectancy to the amount someone prayed and was prayed for concluded that intercessory prayer for longevity is ineffective. Since Galton there have been a host of studies conducted to test the efficacy of intercessory prayer (IP), most notably the separate experiments conducted by Robert C. Byrd; William S. Harris, et al; and Herbert Benson, et al; to test the efficacy of IP in cardiac care units.
All of these studies starting with Galton share the common problems of defining prayer and controlling for bias. In order to better control for bias, subsequent research teams have had to continually refine their methodology, which means placing more and more restrictions on prayer. Most notably, Byrd, Harris, and Benson, prescribe the exact phrasing of the prayer to be said for the cardiac patients. The controls placed on prayer will only increase with future studies, if researchers are serious about removing potential sources of bias.
Thus there is a deep irony at the foundation of such studies, the more “scientific” they become the deeper they go into the realm of magic. Although magic today is more commonly understood in terms of fantasy fiction, witchcraft, or synonym for amazing, the concept and practice of magic has a more essential meaning. Magic is the attempt to subject supernatural forces to a person will via a specific ritual. By testing if particular sets words and styles of prayer will bring about a desired result, researchers are trying to find the proper incantation and actions for manipulating God into healing a patient. This hold whether or not researchers realize that they are doing so.
This paper will proceed as follows. First, I will set forth the definition of magic as an attempt to bring the supernatural, specifically the Christian God, under human control. Second, I will give an overview of the progression of empirical studies of the efficacy of IP and how they have become increasingly magical in their assumptions. Finally, I will argue that because Christianity condemns the use of magic no Christian should be involved in such research and Christian institutions should refuse to support such studies in any way.