The Prayer-Gauge Debate
Gary Ferngren, Ph.D., Professor of History, Oregon State University
During the early 1870s a controversy arose in Britain over whether belief in miracles was credible. The protagonists were James B. Mozley, an Oxford theologian and later Regius Professor of Divinity, and John Tyndall, a distinguished physicist. The issue of whether miracles violated the principle of the uniformity of nature had been raised by Baden Powell in Essays and Reviews (1860), a volume that challenged traditional views of supernatural revelation. Powell argued that the inductive principle was the basis of science and that it demonstrated the uniformity of nature and left no gaps to be filled by miracles. In his Bampton lectures (1865) Mozley asserted, in response to Powell, that the principle of the uniformity of nature did not preclude belief in miracles because natural laws were descriptive, not prescriptive. John Tyndall argued in reply that induction was the basis of science, and cause and effect a universal principle that had never been broken. Tyndall went on to question “special providences” as well. Special providences were God’s activity in nature, such as answers to prayer, which were viewed as providential, though not miraculous, by the eye of faith. Such a view of divine activity Tyndall placed in the same category as miracles, magic, and witchcraft that were part of an anachronistic world view.
The controversy led to Tyndall’s questioning the efficacy of petitionary prayer. In 1872 he proposed a scientific experiment along the lines suggested by Sir Henry Thompson, a prominent surgeon. To discover whether prayers for the sick were efficacious, Sir Henry had recommended that one hospital ward be set aside for patients suffering from diseases whose mortality rates were known and that for a period of three to five years they be made the object of special prayers. They would be supervised by “first rate physicians and surgeons.” Their morality rates would then be compared with those who had not been prayed for but had been treated medically. Hence Sir Henry pitted medical science against religion in obtaining physical healing. The proposal became known as the “prayer-gauge.” Tyndall was confident that the trial would demonstrate the superiority of the “scientific” method over spiritual healing. The debate drew distinguished partisans from all sides. They included such distinguished personages as James McCosh, president of Princeton, a Scottish Presbyterian, and Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin and the founder of eugenics. While the trial was never undertaken, the proposal signaled the gulf that its proponents believed existed between scientific naturalism and the religious world, and it remains a gulf that has never been healed.
This paper explores the issues that the proposal raised and the manner in which it simplified the division between medical science and religion that were more complex than the partisans on either side of the debate recognized. And, finally it examines the continuing relevance of the debate today.
During the early 1870s a controversy arose in Britain over whether belief in miracles was credible. The protagonists were James B. Mozley, an Oxford theologian and later Regius Professor of Divinity, and John Tyndall, a distinguished physicist. The issue of whether miracles violated the principle of the uniformity of nature had been raised by Baden Powell in Essays and Reviews (1860), a volume that challenged traditional views of supernatural revelation. Powell argued that the inductive principle was the basis of science and that it demonstrated the uniformity of nature and left no gaps to be filled by miracles. In his Bampton lectures (1865) Mozley asserted, in response to Powell, that the principle of the uniformity of nature did not preclude belief in miracles because natural laws were descriptive, not prescriptive. John Tyndall argued in reply that induction was the basis of science, and cause and effect a universal principle that had never been broken. Tyndall went on to question “special providences” as well. Special providences were God’s activity in nature, such as answers to prayer, which were viewed as providential, though not miraculous, by the eye of faith. Such a view of divine activity Tyndall placed in the same category as miracles, magic, and witchcraft that were part of an anachronistic world view.
The controversy led to Tyndall’s questioning the efficacy of petitionary prayer. In 1872 he proposed a scientific experiment along the lines suggested by Sir Henry Thompson, a prominent surgeon. To discover whether prayers for the sick were efficacious, Sir Henry had recommended that one hospital ward be set aside for patients suffering from diseases whose mortality rates were known and that for a period of three to five years they be made the object of special prayers. They would be supervised by “first rate physicians and surgeons.” Their morality rates would then be compared with those who had not been prayed for but had been treated medically. Hence Sir Henry pitted medical science against religion in obtaining physical healing. The proposal became known as the “prayer-gauge.” Tyndall was confident that the trial would demonstrate the superiority of the “scientific” method over spiritual healing. The debate drew distinguished partisans from all sides. They included such distinguished personages as James McCosh, president of Princeton, a Scottish Presbyterian, and Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin and the founder of eugenics. While the trial was never undertaken, the proposal signaled the gulf that its proponents believed existed between scientific naturalism and the religious world, and it remains a gulf that has never been healed.
This paper explores the issues that the proposal raised and the manner in which it simplified the division between medical science and religion that were more complex than the partisans on either side of the debate recognized. And, finally it examines the continuing relevance of the debate today.