Pup said:
Well, if prayer has an effect, then I think there are so many possibilities that are missed by this test, that the effort may be high for little potential of positive result. I'm really just consolidating ideas that others have already expressed, but some things not being tested are:
As I've said, I am willing to accept that my study does not - nor can any study do so at all - encompass every possible theological framework for how prayer (or prayer-like activity) might exist.
--The quality of the pray-er(s). Maybe a prayer by a priest trumps any prayers by laymen. Or prayers by strangers are almost useless compared to prayers by family members.
Possibly. The first part would screen for this - if it finds that there is any difference by skill level, then I would make that requirement for admission into the second part.
(And yes, I realize that any results generated in the first part would be not perfectly sound [by selection bias]; it's sufficient to make such a judgement, though.)
--The god being prayed to. Maybe Buddhism works but Christianity doesn't.
Ditto. I hope to have a number of different religions participating; if I find that some work better than others, then those are the ones I'd pick to continue.
--The method of prayer. Maybe only laying on of hands, or sacrificing a chicken, or burning incense works.
That is encompassed in the previous. Of course, I cannot claim to encompass every religion. After all, perhaps only Bob Edward McFizzle, age 4, in Siberia has the "true religion", and is capable of having effect. I have no way of telling this.
But I'm willing to settle for representation from the majors and any minors that strike my fancy.
Laying on of hands, however, is excluded; I hope you can see why it would be methodologically much more difficult to control as a double-blind.
--Prayer vs. no-prayer. Maybe all it takes is one prayer to work, and added ones don't help.
Then no prayer in the word for anyone's health should work at all, as of a couple days ago, forever. Viz. my previous post in which I claimed a prayer for the health and well-being for every human in existence from then onwards.
I think this is a somewhat amusing, but not terribly useful, objection.
I also think it is completely impossible to test for as a theological argument, and akin to other apologism that asserts untestability - ignorable as a matter of faith alone. You are welcome to believe whatever you like on it.
Do you have any suggestion to how this is untrue? E.g., do you have any way to test for it?
--The volume of prayers. Maybe critical mass is reached by the average number of prayers already received, and a few more beyond that have no effect.
Also possible. Not possible to detect without a very large study in which you can give a graded amount, if you want to be encompassing in your tested-for spectrum.
As I noted in the study spec, this would be an interesting thing to do as a followup, should there be proof of this part.
If critical mass is already achieved as a *baseline*, then this is equivalent to the previous point.
--The worthiness of the pray-ee. Randomization of the subjects would solve that, but if almost all of the pray-ees are sinners because they haven't sacrificed to Zeus lately, the "whisper in a stadium" problem might mask any positive effect.
Possible. This, however, *would* be encompassed - "worthiness" (assuming it occurs in sufficient quantity to generate a large enough sub-population of worthy candidates) would be merely another uncontrolled variable.
If there aren't enough, oh well.
--What exactly is being prayed for and what counts as a success? If there are some basic laws of nature that god won't repeal, like curing all illnesses to the point of making someone immortal, a prayer for a quick and painless death may be the only kind that god will answer in cases where healing would be unrealistic.
This is determined in part 1 - the measure. I am not making any upfront assumptions; I take a shotgun approach as much as possible practically. Within that, I'll choose what *does* appear to improve, and use that as the measure for part 2.
It is possible that I don't collect enough data - e.g. that something improves I'm not testing for. That's an acceptable risk.
If you're convinced that prayer will work in the way you're testing for it, then it's worth the time and effort for you. Others may think it's more likely that prayer works in some other way, if it works at all, so they'd be motivated to design a test that looks for other possibilities.
I am not "convinced". As I have said - I am agnostic on this issue, and doing this out of curiousity.
As I said - if you can suggest a way to design the study to encompass other views of prayer, please do so.
So far you have only mentioned things that are encompassed, or untestable - either in principle or because I cannot practically do a study of infinite scope.
), but it's a valid test for what it does.
