Arm-Twisting with the Almighty

Modern prayer experiments bring to fruition the grandresults from this unprecedented mother of all prayer
experiment envisioned in 1872 by an anonymous Britonexperiments, other prayer experiments surfaced:
who threw down a prayer test challenge to believers.- A 1997 experiment on "Intercessory Prayer in the
The experiment was a simple one. Choose "one singleTreatment of Alcohol Abuse and Dependence" found
ward or hospital" for three to five years of sustainedno measurable effect of intercessory prayer.
prayer by "the whole body of the faithful." Will its- A 1998 experiment with arthritis patients reported
patients' healing and mortality rates surpass those inthat no significant effect from distant prayer was
comparable hospitals elsewhere? The proposalfound.
triggered a national "prayer-gauge controversy" that- A 1999 study of 990 coronary care patients -- who
raged for a year. For many people, the very idea ofwere unaware of the study --reported about 10
testing prayer -- and God -- was outrageous.percent fewer complications for the half who received
If experimenting with prayer offends, said Victorianprayers "for a speedy recovery with no complications."
polymath Francis Galton, then why not examine theBut there was no difference in specific major
efficacy of spontaneous prayers? Galton collectedcomplications such as cardiac arrest, hypertension and
mortality data on people who were the subjects ofpneumonia, with the median hospital stay the same 4.0
much prayer, such as kings, and reported that they diddays for both groups.
not outlive others. Moreover, the proportion of stillbirths- A 2001 Mayo Clinic study of 799 coronary care
suffered by praying and nonpraying expectant parentspatients offered a simple result: "As delivered in this
appeared similar.study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on
And there things stood quietly for a century, untilmedical outcomes," the study said.
American researchers decided they would experiment- A 2005 Duke University study of 848 coronary
with prayer. The study that did most to stimulate bothpatients found no significant difference in clinical
scientific and popular interest in prayer was Randolphoutcomes between those prayed for and those not.
Byrd's 1988 report of "Positive Therapeutic Effects ofAmid these negative results, one stunning result
Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unitchallenged my prediction. "Prayer works," said a
Population." Byrd randomly assigned 393 coronaryheadline in The New York Times magazine after a
patients either to a no-prayer group or to a group that2001 Journal of Reproductive Medicine article reported
would receive prayer from three to seven "born again"that prayed-for women undergoing in vitro fertilization
intercessors.experienced a 50 percent pregnancy rate -- double
For six of 26 outcomes, the prayed-for patients didthe 26 percent rate among those not receiving
better. Although there were questions about whetherexperimental intercessory prayers. When suspicions
the person recording the data was entirely ignorant ofabout the study emerged, one of the study's authors
the patient assignment, the widely publicized conclusionpleaded guilty to criminal business fraud and was
was that prayer worked.sentenced to prison. The article's Columbia University
For the other measures -- such as length of hospitalco-author removed his name from the "study," with
stay and even mortality -- there was, however, nowhich it turned out he had no direct involvement.
difference between the prayer and no-prayer groups.Climaxing this string of negative or discredited results
The ambiguous results helped inspire Dr. Herbertcomes what may be the coup de grace for
Benson, director of the Mind-Body Institute at Harvardintercessory prayer experiments: intercessory prayer
University, to propose in 1997 a substantial, wellin the STEP experiment had no effect on recovery
executed and elegantly simple experiment called thefrom bypass surgery. If these had been clinical tests of
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessorya new drug, the pharmaceutical industry would surely,
Prayer, also known as STEP.at this point, say "enough."
In STEP, which was funded by the John TempletonBut imagine that these experiments had confirmed the
Foundation, more than 1,800 consenting coronaryintercessory prayer's clinical efficacy. How big would
bypass patients were assigned to one of threethe "God effect" -- if that is how we would have
groups: one that knew that it was being prayed for byviewed it -- need to be to be added to the list of
volunteer intercessors, one that did not know forrecommended medical treatments? Might affluent but ill
certain whether it was being prayed for but was, andpeople effectively outsource prayers for their healing
another group that did not know for certain whether itby paying distant people to pray, in the confidence that
was being prayed for but wasn't.God will be counting votes? And if a now-proven God
After becoming aware of the STEP experiment fromwere to be arm-twisted into reliably responding, would
Templeton staff and Herbert Benson, the leadfaith be required any more?
investigator, I filed a statement "Why People of FaithOr do we err in viewing the "God effect" as a mere
Can Expect Null Effects in the Harvard Prayerslight subtraction to, for example, the number of
Experiment." I put this on record in 1997 so that suchstillbirths or coronary deaths? In the historic Christian
Christian thinking about prayer would not seem, ifunderstanding, God is not a distant genie whom we call
offered now, like after-the-fact backpedaling orforth with our prayers but rather the creator and
rationalization. I also wrote two more articles for thesustainer of all that is. Thus when the Pharisees
Reformed Review expressing my Christian andpressed Jesus for some criteria by which they could
scientific skepticism about the prayer experimentsvalidate the kingdom of God, Jesus answered, "The
while acknowledging the more intriguing and persuasivekingdom of God is not coming with things that can be
evidence of correlations between religiousness andobserved . . . . . For, in fact, the kingdom of God is
health.among you.
In the intervening nine years, while we awaited the