Con Prayer

Doctors were stunned in 2001 when the prestigious Journal of Reproductive Medicine published a study by Columbia University researchers purporting to prove the efficacy of prayer at dramatically increasing conception rates for infertile couples attempting in vitro fertilization. Now it turns out that one of the authors is a serial con man with no medical credentials. The Chronicle of Higher Education has more.

Comments

[Eric]

I often hear that Christians and other believers should stay out of scientific affairs (evolution, origins, and so on) and in effect leave science to the scientists.

I wonder if the opposite also applies, that science should stay out of religious affairs?

Just asking the question.

[dhex]

yeah, i'll agree with that.

i mean, it's interesting to know about what parts of the brain are activated when religious participants enter trance states via their chosen method and i'm sure it ends up being useful...but for the most part it's a wrong address problem.

[Franklin Harris]

I prayed that the truth would one day come out.

[Mark S.]

"Now it turns out that one of the authors is a serial con man with no medical credentials."

Noooooo... really? I'm not a medical professional and I could have told you that all this "faith-based-conception" was bullshit!

Next thing you know they'll start claiming that prayer can cure cancer, AIDS, and other deadly diseases... oh yeah, too late.

[J]

Eric said: "I wonder if the opposite also applies, that science should stay out of religious affairs?"

Doesn't science already for the most part stay out of religious affairs (with rare and stupid exceptions like this charming little case of scientific fraud)? Religious folks have been a hell of a lot more guilty of crossing that line that scientific folks over the years.

[Swamp Justice]

I have no problem with science and religion mixing (and vice versa). Valid peer review and the scientific method should show that faith-based conception (and other "cons") is a crock of shit.

[s.a.m.]

I wonder if the opposite also applies, that science should stay out of religious affairs?

Not possible. Science has been utilized to seek out truth in the bible. Sorry to all the theoistic science haters out there, but archeology has shown that Jesus was darked skin and no where in the bible does it state he was a white, red blooded American.

[JJB]

Mark S. sums up my response perfectly.

Religion, faith, and prayer have zero scientific, rational evidence to support them. Those who make extraordinary claims (such as this con-man asshole) better have some rock-solid evidence to support those claims. The burden of proof is on those making the claim.

[Dan]

I wonder if the opposite also applies, that science should stay out of religious affairs?

Science is simply the study of reality. This occasionally brings science into conflict with religions, since religions often make claims that are at odds with reality. But it's hard to see how this constitutes "interfering with religion". If you believed that Santa Claus lived at the North Pole, and I demonstrated that the North Pole was devoid of Claus-like life, would I be "interfering with your beliefs"?

Is religion, in your view, nothing more than the right to not know you're wrong?

[dhex]

as i said before, it's a wrong-address problem.

it's that whole rational/pre-rational thing going on. both being valid modes of existence, for the most part, assuming they don't interfere in the lives of others.

[Gary Gunnels]

Dan,

Nice post.

[Lisa Simpson]

dhex, so we rationals (ahem) shouldn't try to understand the pre- / irrational? Personally, the only way I can tolerate the religious is to speculate that their amygdalas are lighting up in some evolutionarily hard-wired, mystical and rewarding way. Or that happy-clappy evangelism, as well as self-righteous, judgmental fundamentalism, are (let's say) dopaminergically rewarding, sometimes even addictive.

[James Joyner]

Well, this was a poor test case, since we all know how much God hates in vitro fertilization.

[J]

I wonder if Eric's still around checking out this thread. I'd be curious what he means by science interfering with religious affairs. It's easy to come up with examples of religiously motivated people meddling in science when they don't like the conclusions (Galileo, evolution, etc.). But I'm not sure what the converse would look like, unless by it Eric means what Dan said - scientifically examining claims about the natural world made by a religion.

[dhex]

the point is this - as much as you'd like to label yourself a "rational" your hatred, for example, of the religious in general is irrational. on a larger point, most of what people value in their lives has fuckall to do with rationality.

and i don't think that matters one bit.

i do think there's a place for the religious in the life of otherwise "rational" people, just as there's a place for love, a place for art, for fashion, for hobbies...all the shit we decorate our lives with.

and while scientific evidence which confirms or denies the stories of various faiths may be both useful and enjoyable to use against those frothing with faith-based fascism, it also generally misses the point. while people are busy slapping each other on the back about how rational they are (and taking bows in the us versus them comic book war raging inside their noggins) they miss that being faithful is much like being in love, which despite all of the neurochemical evidence in the world CANNOT be wholly qualified that way.

it's a wrong address issue. i think eric was on point for that very reason.

for some weird reason i feel very strongly about this lately, even though 10 years ago i would have prayed (har har) for such a decisive public opinion to be solidly anti-religious.

[Gadfly]

It just struck me the other day when Bush was visiting the Pope what a jokester god is. He told Bush to invade Iraq and then told the Pope that invading would be a bad thing. He truly enjoys fucking with his subjects.

[Vynnie]

Let's ignore the wackos and deliberate con artists of both religious and non-religious bent. There is no reason a person with religious beliefs cannot use the system of science, and use it effectively. Or that someone who uses the system of science cannot hold religious beliefs. They are two different things.

A perfect example is Einstein, who described himself as a religious person. He refused to participate in the research of quantum physics, saying "God does not play dice with the Universe." But his research on relativity was excellent scientific work.

They say (I haven't confirmed this) that Einstein disliked the Big Bang theory and tried to disprove it, because it implies that the Universe began spontaneously rather than as an act of God. (He didn't publish any fraudulent papers on it though.) An Atheist friend of mine once told me that he refuses to believe in the Big Bang because it implies a beginning of the Universe, which implies a God to start things rolling.

Both Einstein and my friend, though, would admit that the evidence strongly suggests a Big Bang. That's what science is - a system of evaluating the evidence, regardless of what you believe. For you anti-theist types who want to say religion is a system of believing something regardless of the evidence, go ahead - there's still no conflict between being religious and a scientist.

And for those who say any reasonable person should _know for a fact_ that the Universe started with a Big Bang - well, go read Stephen Hawking. But that's a whole other story.

[SM]

Vynnie wrote -
A perfect example is Einstein, who described himself as a religious person. He refused to participate in the research of quantum physics, saying "God does not play dice with the Universe."

This is an urban myth that surely deserves a snopes.com entry. He most certainly did not refuse to paticipate in quantum physics research.
See here for more on the "bohr-einstein" debates, where einstien set up numerous thought experiments that Neils Bohr shot down -
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/quantum1.htm

As to what Einstein really meant by his dice remark -

"A better quotation showing what Einstein thought is the following: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Einstein was unable to accept Quantum Theory because of his belief in an objective, orderly reality: a reality which would not be subject to random events and which would not be dependent upon the observer. He believed that Quantum Mechanics was incomplete, and that a better theory would have no need for statistical interpretations."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ebtomcat.htm

[Vynnie]

Heh, serves me right for shooting off the cuff. But does this raise any question of Einstein's beliefs disqualifying him to be a scientist?

[J]

I don't think there's anything preventing a scientist from being religious and vice versa, and I didn't think that was the original question (although I'm not completely sure, and I was hoping Eric would come back and clarify). The problem is when religion starts to think it's science and vice versa - when someone tries to use scientific methods to "prove" some religious tenet, or when they discount scientific evidence because it's not consistent with a religious tenet.

Science and religion have completely different criteria for truth and evidence, if someone wants to use the religious criteria (or some combination of religious and scientific criteria), acknowledging that those criteria aren't applicable to scientific questions, I have no problem with that. The problem I have is with cases like Galileo's run-in with the Catholic Church, "scientific" creationism, no evolution in school, etc. This was how I interpreted Eric's question about religion keeping out of science and science keeping out of religion. And it was why I answered that religious folks cross that line a lot more than scientific folks.

[Dan]

An Atheist friend of mine once told me that he refuses to believe in the Big Bang because it implies a beginning of the Universe, which implies a God to start things rolling.

I think your atheist friend needs to read up on his science and philosophy. The notion that a beginning implies a God begs the question of where the God came from -- as you keep backtracking, you inevitably come to the conclusion that a universe with a "beginning" cannot, ultimately, have been caused or created by anything that is either within the universe or capable or interacting with it.

This is in keeping with modern physics, actually. It appears that time is just one aspect of the universe -- there was, in other words, no such thing as "before the Big Bang", and therefore no point from which a creator could have created the universe. The Big Bang isn't the "beginning" of the universe, really -- it's just one "edge" of it.

But does this raise any question of Einstein's beliefs disqualifying him to be a scientist?

It is generally considered that Einstein's rejection of QM was irrational and unproductive. It's as if he'd invented the internal combustion engine and the assembly line and then later refused to ever accept that cars were a useful means of transportation.

On the other hand, Einstein *did* serve an important function during that time, in that his vocal and high-profile opposition to QM theory encouraged more people to try to find fault with it, and thus indirectly helped to make it more robust.

[Gary Gunnels]

*chuckle*

[dhex]

what a weird frickin' thing to publish.

sort of the medical version of those CIA remote viewer programs, eh? 🙂

[tzs]

For those who want a very interesting look at the whole God/religion/consciousness debate, go read "Consciousness as the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." (Julian Jaynes.)

Makes the most sense of anything I've run across so far, even though I think his timing is off.

[Ken Shultz]

In "The Brothers Karamazov" there's a chapter called "The Grand Inquisitor" in which Christ returns to earth at the time of The Inquisition. The story contains an interpretation of Christ's temptation that's very different from the one I was taught as a child. It suggests that Satan's first temptation of Christ was an attempt to entice God to give us what we want, and the second temptation was an attempt to entice God to protect us from harm. The Grand Inquisitor finds Christ guilty for resisting these temptations, but, to Christians eveywhere, Christ's resistance of these temptations affirmed our salvation.

Even if they know nothing else about Christianity, most people know that in spite of having lived a perfect life, Christ was tortured and sacrificed in our place. Can a Christian expect to be treated better than Christ? His sacrifice affirmed our value to God as individuals, but I don?t interpret this sacrifice to mean that I won't be allowed to suffer as Jesus did. Ever notice that much of the bible is written in the blood of its supposed authors? Paul was boiled in oil; Isaiah was stuffed in a hollow log and sawed in half... Are we so much better than they were that we can count on preferential treatment?

This observation, when pointed out to Christians has, by far, led to some of the most heated discussions of my life, much more heated than the topics of Evolution or Abortion. Those of you nonbelievers out there, please take note, the belief in the power of prayer to heal is not universally regarded in the same way by every Christian everywhere. "So what do you pray for?", I'm typically asked. I pray for faith and forgiveness and understanding and patience and peace, and I can personally attest to those prayers always having been answered. Who else can objectively quantify and question the veracity of that claim?

[joe]

Damn blog ate my comment!

"I wonder if the opposite also applies, that science should stay out of religious affairs?"

Both my religious and rational sides say no, it's a one way street. Religion has benefitted considerably from science. For example, the teachings in the Bible were written by, and for, people who lived in a culture that was vastly different from ours. Much of its wisdom is culturally specific, and you need to understand where the authors are coming from to really grasp what they're getting at. Arachaeology and sociology have vastly improved our understanding of those ancient cultures, and thus, improved our ability to access that wisdom. Also, science has removed from the sphere of religion many fields, such as the causes of weather and the organization of the universe, that aren't properly religious matters, thus freeing religion to concentrate on its core mission. So to speak.

[Rick Barton]

Yes! Sometimes you read about some things that if they are true, then a major paradigm shift is in order. They don't make sense but there they are, so you file them away. They are disturbing.

This; "prayer dramatically increasing conception rates" item, was one of those things for me. So this is wonderful news.

SM,

A really interesting volume on QM that devotes a chapter to the Bohr vs. Einstein debates is:

Einstein's Moon: Bell's Theorem and the Curious Quest for Quantum Reality
by F. David Peat

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/books/moon.htm

[Dan]

I pray for faith and forgiveness and understanding and patience and peace, and I can personally attest to those prayers always having been answered. Who else can objectively quantify and question the veracity of that claim?

I think you mean "who", not "who else", since you haven't objectively quantified the veracity of the claim. Your own quantification of your own thoughts and feelings is, by definition, not objective.

As for who can objectively question it -- well, for one thing, people could measure your patience before and after prayer. If it hadn't changed, they could then determine the prayer hadn't worked. However, it's difficult to see under what circumstances you could prove the prayer *had* worked, since people can become more patient by choice.

[joe]

The last really fervent prayer I offered was, "Thy will be done."

Can't go wrong with that one.