Some people are convinced that the phrase "prayer works" is wrong, i.e. they are convinced that prayer does not have significant effect on anything.
In order to support this fact, they provide different scientific studies (e.g. (Krucoff M.W. et al., 2005), (Aviles, J.M. et al., 2001), (Glicken, M.D., 2009), etc.).
Refuting these peer-reviewed and strictly controlled experiments is extremely difficult, thus it seems that the 'prayer-does-not-work' party wins the discussion.
Yet, Hector Avales published his doubts in an article on the Council for Secular Humanism about the design of these experiments:
"The problem with this and any so-called controlled experiment regarding prayer is that there can be no such thing as a controlled experiment concerning prayer. You can never divide people into groups that received prayer and those that did not. The main reason is that there is no way to know that someone did not receive prayer. How would anyone know that some distant relative was not praying for a member of the group that [Randoplh C.] Byrd had identified as having received no prayer? How does one control for prayers said on behalf of all the sick people in the world? How does one assess the degree of faith in patients that are too sick to be interviewed or in the persons performing the prayers? Even Byrd acknowledges these problems and admits that "'pure' groups were not attained in this study." [Byrd, R.C. (1998)] (...) Since control groups are not possible, such purported scientific experiments are not possible."
(Avalos, H., "Can Science Prove that Prayer Works?", http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...valos_17_3)
Does this mean that the discussions about the effects of prayer are now null and void? Or are there, in your opinion, other arguments that can confirm or refute the claim that "prayer works"?
PS: The text between square brackets is added by me.
In order to support this fact, they provide different scientific studies (e.g. (Krucoff M.W. et al., 2005), (Aviles, J.M. et al., 2001), (Glicken, M.D., 2009), etc.).
Refuting these peer-reviewed and strictly controlled experiments is extremely difficult, thus it seems that the 'prayer-does-not-work' party wins the discussion.
Yet, Hector Avales published his doubts in an article on the Council for Secular Humanism about the design of these experiments:
"The problem with this and any so-called controlled experiment regarding prayer is that there can be no such thing as a controlled experiment concerning prayer. You can never divide people into groups that received prayer and those that did not. The main reason is that there is no way to know that someone did not receive prayer. How would anyone know that some distant relative was not praying for a member of the group that [Randoplh C.] Byrd had identified as having received no prayer? How does one control for prayers said on behalf of all the sick people in the world? How does one assess the degree of faith in patients that are too sick to be interviewed or in the persons performing the prayers? Even Byrd acknowledges these problems and admits that "'pure' groups were not attained in this study." [Byrd, R.C. (1998)] (...) Since control groups are not possible, such purported scientific experiments are not possible."
(Avalos, H., "Can Science Prove that Prayer Works?", http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php...valos_17_3)
Does this mean that the discussions about the effects of prayer are now null and void? Or are there, in your opinion, other arguments that can confirm or refute the claim that "prayer works"?
PS: The text between square brackets is added by me.
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
