Author: Ophelia Benson

Skepticism is a funny thing, even among the Greeks – especially among the Greeks. The “original” skepticism would have been completely palatable to modern religionists, because it challenged pre-Socratic efforts to attain a true picture of the world and stoic claims to have the map to true knowledge. To the early practitioners of skepticism Thales’ notions just didn’t hold water, and if Heraclites was right today, he might well be wrong tomorrow. “‘What I may think after dinner is one thing,’ returns Mr. Jobling, ‘my dear Guppy, and what I think before dinner is quite another thing.’” A little healthy skepticism never hurt anyone, except those with fixed and final positions, those who claim to possess the whole and unvarnished truth, or the careless throng who pride themselves on leading an unexamined life.

The Greek word skepsis has about a dozen definitions in the big Oxford Greek Dictionary, the most common being “examination,” or “inquiry,” though it can also mean “doubt,” and “revision,” – as to revise an opinion – like Mr. Jobling at dinner time, but for cause, not whim or indecision. It always implies a certain restlessness or impatience with answers and “positions.” According to an unreliable tradition (and most ancient traditions are) it was Plato’s nephew and “successor” Arcesilaus who revised (Diogenes says “meddled with”) the teacher’s system by stressing the importance of arguing both sides of a case, giving weight to evidence and argument. How this was “new” is not clear from the reports; the sophists did it; Socrates did it. Even Arcesilausian “skepticism” seems to have come from Uncle, who had said that “nothing can be known with certainty, by the sense or by the mind,” a conclusion which taken to its limit means that the conclusion cannot be known with certainty. So there we are. Skepticism always lands you in the solipsistic mud and solipsistic mud exists only outside the mind, and hence cannot get you muddy. But in paving the way for what academics like to call Academic skepticism, Arcesilaus paved the way for an important development. Take those arrogant troglodytes, the stoics. The followers of Zeno were the reductivists of the ancient world. This means they only believed in mud puddles. Sensory impressions or rather katalêpsis – a mental grasping of a sense impression) – guarantees the truth of what is grasped, or in this case, fallen into. If one assents to the proposition associated with a kataleptic impression, i.e. if one experiences katalêpsis, then the associated proposition cannot fail to be true. To put it simply: for any sense-impression S, received by some observer A, of some existing object O, and which is a precise representation of O, we can imagine circumstances in which there is another sense-impression S’, which comes either (i) from something other than O, or (ii) from something non-existent, and which is such that S’ is indistinguishable from S to A. Questions? So the definition of truth, which Plato had made an Idea (call it I if you want), fell on the knife of the stoics’ claim that only kataleptic experiences are true and that the true stoic wise-man (who was seen to be a more perfectly developed type of humanity—a bit like Aristotle’s megalopsuchos except taller) is capable of infallibility. For Arcesilaus, this is folly: first because we can be mistaken about sense impressions (as the Arab philosopher Al-Ghazali noted centuries later), and second because the world and life-in-it that we experience is more complex than our senses can grasp, and also because our sense experience fails to de-code the world of value that is also an essential part of human perception – lived experience. It is all, as a teacher of mine used to say, about our epistemic limits – a nice way of saying that to some people a palm tree is a cycad within the genera palma and to others a meeting place for an evening rendezvous on a deserted beach. Not either – or, of course, but when – then.

Why all this about skepticism and a nephew of Plato, barely visible in the footnotes? There is a confused idea that modern science has vindicated the stoic view of the world by refining and redefining what constitutes a kataleptic experience. True, the skeptics were correct to suggest trickery, hallucination, error, and deceit weighed heavily against the infallibility of the senses. But hasn’t modern science improved the thoroughgoing empirical model espoused by the stoics, to the extent that the skeptical caveats now count for much less? Freud deciphered the dream state; Einstein the continuum of time and space. –Jews since Moses have been busy compensating for Grandpa’s imaginary friend. And even non-Jews have contributed to the scientification of understanding. Even if the media insist that there are two sides to every story, isn’t it really the case that there is only one – the kataleptic one? And didn’t we all learn to be self-effacing about this when we learned the scientific method? The motto of false self-effacing irony. Science deals with facts, not truth; probability—(heaven forbid) not certainty. After all, a thousand bits of experimental corroboration can be falsified by one patchwork-colored elephant. In the treasury of scientific knowledge, the holy grail is the principle that the limit of the epistemic quest is the possibility a fact can be un-facted. (“Not bloody likely,” is not to be said out loud, especially by Nobel laureates). In this way skepticism has been deflated and subsumed into scientific method. Research professors have given it its own room at the back of the house, like a troublesome grandparent, and invite it to dinner every time a new discovery is announced. C P Snow and Karl Popper may quibble with these metaphors. But a true reductivist will bristle. A true reductivist will say that an essential element of the modern outlook – a condition of being modern, indeed – is to enshrine the scientific as the only appropriate way of viewing the world we see. Snow touched on this in his 1959 Rede lecture recalling a group of Cambridge dons (“educated men”), who were speaking contemptuously of the illiteracy of scientists. He comments, “… if I had asked [them]…What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, ‘Can you read?’ — not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.” The Snows of the twentieth century insisted they had not forsaken the verities; goodness, truth and beauty were alive and well, and living in the apartment next to a reprogrammed skepticism. But now the good was grounded in the goodness of a particular “way” of knowing particular kinds of things; truth, the basic axioms we need to refine that knowledge, and beauty the beauty of the cosmos – in its deciphered and intelligible form.

But this is not a postmodernist screed against science. It is a question looking for an answer, and not just in the scientific arena. Has skepticism no separate voice in the understanding of the world? If it does, is it limited to stabs at religious dogma, debunking miracles and visions, looking for Chiye-Tanka’s poo in the Oregon woods or space debris in New Mexico? –The kind of skepticism that (it seems to me) gives back to credulity as much as it takes away. The humanist intellectual tradition, which is something I find vitally important, was shaped by a healthy respect for epistemic limits – not about a particular stance toward the infallibility of method and experience. The biblical God fell to skepticism (not science) only a few centuries after Anselm announced His discovery. Biblical infallibility did not fall to Darwin but to Erasmus – even Luther’s German successors; church authority began to tumble when Lorenzo Valla went to work on the claims of Pope Stephen II in 1440, not when Galileo was proved right. None of the perpetrators of these designs had any notion of the scientific method; what they did have was a healthy sense of the disconnect between what was claimed to be known (or true) and what a liberal application of skepticism discovered to be the case. Later on, biblical scholars would call this the hermeneutics of suspicion. It’s a phrase worth remembering.

And in the world of human values? Skepticism has done yeoman’s service in a non-scientific sort of way in freeing us from the taboos and stereotypes of tradition. If we point to the “achievements” everyone agrees are politically salutary—civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, you name it, we ordinarily hear in the background the voices of skeptics who doubted the prevailing orthodoxy and the way a social world was interpreted. Is this the same as demythologizing the cosmos? Yes and no, but mainly no. It’s not just that social worlds are made by fools like us, but only Process can make a tree. It is that social worlds are provisional in a way the physical world is not, and to the extent “laws” operate in both nature and society, they are different sorts of laws. Doubtless, ideas whose time has come, come—but not without nursemaids. Skeptics have undeniably been good nursemaids for every liberation movement of the last three centuries: only a Bible rendered politically ineffective by the growth of democratic secularism could be non-instrumental in maintaining the slave trade. Only a secular government could keep in check and (mainly) out of power those who want a Christian America, with all that might imply for social justice and the environment. If skepticism is defined as a kind of heresy, heresy applied to repressive, cruel or dogmatic social orthodoxies, then it has done a pretty good job in those areas where it has been able to do its work.

Skepticism has been less good, however, where it might do the most good. Arcesilaus taught that no intellectual position can be fixed and final. This was not a statement about truth, directly, but about the infallibility of knowing. The two-sides dialectic was not a doctrine about giving equal time to opposing viewpoints—that is an American media obsession not Greek philosophy. What skepticism entailed was the obligation to test good arguments against each other—“The fire of argument is the test of gold.” Now, as a skeptic and a humanist let me say something for which I ask, and have no right to expect, God’s forgiveness for, even if he existed to grant it. The real crisis of skepticism is reflected in a skeptical deference to those who feel that science can provide answers to all questions of value, serve as its own guide in questions of ethics, and is ultimately compatible with a species of Truth completely different from the lowercase truth one arrives at in other enterprises. Sometimes, as Snow recognized, humanists abjure the sciences out of ignorance—a real, persistent, and inexcusable ignorance. Sometimes they abjure the sciences because they see through the false modesty to the methodological conceit that locates both the nature of the universe and the meaning of life in the house that the stoics built. Whatever the anatomy of the problem the two cultures still exist, much the same as in 1959, complicated in America, at least, by the fact that outside the circle of educated men and women who cannot define acceleration and energy, there is a subculture of yahoos who defend such ignorance on religious grounds and reductivist humanists who define the epistemic limits as what science can teach us. The answer to the two-cultures problem, if there is one, is a reemphasis on the two-(good) sides polity of the skeptics.

Finally, at a social level, skepticism has been snoozing, along with modernism and historicism and other materialisms. Humanism is in disarray—not old and new versus tried and true, but a humanism that wants to liberate itself from the skeptical worldview that gave it birth. The social dogmas of the multicultural society are now being accepted as “reasonable” because they predominate, not because they have been thought through; or “right” because they happen to violate “religious” opinion which we think modernity has so thoroughly discredited that argumentation is superfluous. The enfolding of all rights–civil, gay, women’s, fat, challenged, seniors’, children’s–into “basic human rights” is the sort of category error that skeptical thinkers used to demolish like God did Sodom, and with the same apparent vengeful delight. Worse, those fondest of making it these days are globalists and humanists who have no particular use for the other manifestations of multiculturalism. But the iconoclastic kick is gone. To suggest that a self-respecting humanist must be, above all, skeptical in his approach to social catechisms, in the way his ancestors were toward other sacred books is—incorrect. And so, we embrace reason, but not the consequences of reason; and we pay tribute to skepticism until the sacred cow turns out to be another barnyard animal. If it were Oz, we would turn back just before Dorothy discovers the hoax. Inconsistency is consistency: Mr. Jobling begins to make sense.

To make matters worse for the skeptic, he is now told that the quest is for “social justice.” It sounds noble—not worth questioning, something everybody is “for.” And that the goals (all progressive and therefore right) of social justice cannot be achieved by discussion but only by law. The fate of the failed philosopher is to be a lawyer, and of a bad idea to become a law, an official “position.” Humanism especially suffers from a native desire to have the moral gravity of religion without its baggage, without the supernatural, without the obedience; but what it gets without skepticism and self-reflection are ideas reduced to legalities, pronouncements, and positions. A skeptical humanism would probably recognize no intellectual position as a “humanist position,” especially on the mere basis it differed from a religious one. It would be more in line with the skeptical tradition to differ from all positions, and to be especially suspicious of the ones that have been legalized, pronounced, globalized, trendified, or inserted into a socially correct catechism. I am, if I must be coffee-spooned into slogans, pro-choice, about 60% of the time. I cannot however imagine assuming this position with a fixed certainty, offering it as universal, considering it unassailable; and it is a skeptical humanism that makes me restless to know the other side and the exceptions to my view. As a matter of simple preference I support the cause (the right?) of gays who want to possess the same benefits as married heterosexual persons. But, as an historian, I find the contemporary debate fatuous. The history of the purpose of marriage influences my thinking, and a respect for language makes me want to know whether “marriage” is the best word for a same-sex union. (Appositely, I still want to know why ordained Anglican women refuse to be called priestesses but like the idea of women priests.)

As a skeptical humanist, I believe that such positions should never be framed dogmatically, and that humanism reduced to scientific simplicity at one level or legality at another will be humanism in a convoluted, reduced, and semantically weakened sense.

Extract from my book in progress, A Higher Atheism.

R. Joseph Hoffmann, PhD

Senior Vice President
Director of the CFI Institute
Center for Inquiry International

In 1748 the great Scottish philosopher, David Hume, first published his “lemon test” concerning miracles. It goes like this: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be even more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish…” Hume concludes his point by saying:

When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion. (1)

In the years since the 9-11 catastrophic religious zeal appears to have engulfed every area of human interaction. Even science, especially the field of medical research has jumped onto the bandwagon and now it is common to find “so-called” scientific studies about the effects of “intercessory prayer.“ By carrying out this kind of research medical investigators are, in effect, attempting to study the existence of miracles. defined as an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. (2)

Let me emphatically state at the outset, that I do not criticize anyone for praying for themselves or anyone else if they choose to. Nor do I deny that there may be benefits to some individuals that stem from prayer. These activities might stimulate subtle mechanisms of psychology and physiology which, when understood more fully, may add to the established benefits of medication and surgery, as they obviously do in psychiatric illnesses. Along with placebo effects, the alleged benefits of prayer may be the result of feelings of well-being, optimism and confidence, that result from praying and similar practices like meditation or relaxation. I agree, all of this may exist, and could, perhaps should, be a subject of legitimate scientific inquiry. (3, 4)

But the interaction of psychology and physiology is not the subject of this essay. My comments are addressed only to what most people mean when they say, “I’ll pray for you.” The meaning that implies a request for intercession from a “higher power.” What this reference to prayer means, is that the wishes of the supplicants will be heard by some agent and*if the agent is convinced to act*the course of events will be changed for the better, in accordance with the prayer. Thus, the meaning of “intercessory prayer” which this commentary attempts to address: the study of the existence of miracles, which implies the study of the existence of God.

There is incredible irony of all of the previous “experiments” involving intercessory prayer. Every one of them has been seeking evidence of a most trivial kind, that could even be mistaken for a placebo effect, or a statistical artifact, from an alleged Power of the most unimaginable magnitude. Power which presumably was the source of the astounding creation of hundreds of billions of galaxies, which are composed of hundreds of trillions of stars, dotted with singularities and “black holes” possessing immense gravity and crushing annihilatory densities; all of which are dancing with exquisite accuracy in spectacular elliptical orbits over a time- and distance-span of fourteen billion light years; Power that has designed astonishingly complex molecular systems, composed of amazingly intricate atomic foundations; all operating according to the mechanics of gravity and other little-understood forces which bind atomic nuclei together while swarms of electrons maintain their balance around their stupendously dense centers in microscopic imitation of the grander galaxies; Power which orchestrated the rules of light propagation and spectrums of colors all arranged in fantastically diverse, visible, as well as invisible, wavelengths and patterns.

Meanwhile, they seek evidence of this breathtaking immensity by searching for a measurable difference between the arterial blood flow of a few cardiovascular patients who were prayed for and a few other unfortunates who were not . . . a difference in blood pressure between one group of hypertensives who were prayed for and another who were not. It is as if one were asking a composer with a quadrillion times the musical capacity and comprehension of a Ludwig Von Beethoven to demonstrate his musicianship by writing out the notes to “Three Blind Mice.”

How petty and insulting to whatever deity these investigators claim to be investigating, when the most they can ask of that which has created biological systems from algae to sequoia giganticus and amoebas to human brains “Let me see if you can fertilize this ovum in a Petri dish with one of your hands tied behind your back.”

The issue is about prayer to a deity or his representative – beings that do not exist within the known physical universe, a qualification acknowledged even by educated religious believers, which should include medical researchers who engage in the scientific investigation of natural phenomena. What I am trying to make clear is that those who believe in God and the power of intercessory prayer, are speaking of concepts that are not material and therefore not part of the physical world. Yet they want to connect these phantasms with the scientifically demonstrated forces and structures of the physical world…and moreover, to have these influences measured in physical experiments.

Many of these studies claim to have demonstrated the effectiveness of intercessory prayer. (5) Of course, many do not, and one meta-analysis of fourteen such studies concluded, “There is no scientifically discernable effect for Intercessory Prayer (IP) as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.” (6) I hasten to point out, that some studies indicate that there may also be certain disadvantages that accrue from similar psychological and physiological mechanisms. In a most notable example, in the April issue of the American Heart Journal one of the study’s findings was that “a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for — 59 percent — suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain.” One of the investigators, Dr. W. Bethea, said it is possible, “that being aware of the strangers’ prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety. . . . It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?” (7)

So not only do some “scientists” seem to believe that intercessory prayer can be helpful, they are also concerned that it could be harmful. This is suspicious, to say the least, because it should be apparent that, most of these “results,” both positive and negative as well as neutral, are explainable either as psychosomatic effects, as above, or even more likely, as statistical artifacts. But more importantly, if the concept of intercessory prayer has any meaning whatsoever, in the metaphysical sense, would that mean that the deity was not only ignoring the request, but in some instances, punishing the supplicant as well?

Whatever the competing explanations may be, a major reason for the indeterminacy, is that the dependent variables which are chosen in all of these studies, by their very nature, were not unambiguous enough to produce an unequivocal outcome. There is and always has been in these studies, the likelihood that the null hypothesis, or alternative hypotheses, prevail.

Finding differences between groups, especially differences brought about by a “treatment,” is the sine qua non of experimentation. However, when two groups are compared on some criterion measure, there will always be some difference. The important task is to distinguish between a “measured difference,” a “statistically significant difference,” and an “actual or real difference.” The first two are separate and unequal approximations of the third, which is unattainable reality, although the first two are often mistaken for the third. Neither of the first two can ever hope to be estimates of that which is outside of reality. (8)

An Experiment

In order to carry out a confirmatory experiment – one that would leave no possibility of an alternative explanation – the investigator would have to produce evidence of an effect that could only be explainable by a force unknown to science – the intervention of a deity or its agent. There are outcomes that could eliminate doubt about experimental artifacts and they would have to involve dependent variables that could not occur except by divine intervention. Investigators would have to come up with a dependent variable that could withstand the lemon test, one that would yield clear-cut results. There are such variables.

For example, one very simple experiment, the results of which would leave little or no doubt about the effectiveness of intercessory prayer, could involve the regeneration of an amputated limb. (9) All that would be required is an adequate sample of amputees as subjects and a sizeable number of believers who will earnestly pray over them. These should not be hard to locate. The investigators could employ as many universities and people as possible – all the willing believers in the country if necessary – to pray every day for a year that at least one amputee would have a limb regrown, and then, at the end of that year, examine all the thousands of amputees for signs of regenerating limbs.

Any amputee who wants to be included in the experimental group would be examined beforehand by a panel of physicians to ascertain that he or she is indeed an amputee. DNA samples on the subjects would be taken before and after the study to ascertain that the amputee identified at the beginning would indeed be the person who was examined a year later. There would be no limit on the sample size. No need for randomization, t-tests, analyses of variance, factor analyses, significance levels or confidence intervals. The subjects would present themselves at the end of the year and be examined to see if a single missing limb had been restored. Any priest, minister, rabbi or lay person would be permitted to recommend subjects for the experiment, and any could observe the examination for the regenerated limbs. There should be no limitation on the number of amputees, people who pray for them, and observers to keep everything organized and uncontaminated.

When a single limb has thus been observed to have been regenerated, then we will have seen unequivocal evidence for the power of prayer. This would be a real test to put before the immovable object; the irresistible force; the ultimate omniscience, the omnipotent, omnipresent supremacy of all that the believers in a supernatural being endow that Master Architect with. The creator of the entire universe should have no problem recreating a limb.

Perhaps this study could be even carried out at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., under the aegis of the study going on there, known as the MANTRA II (Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic TRAinings) Project. “Noetic” interventions like prayer and music imagery and touch studies called (MIT) therapies are defined as “an intangible healing influence brought about without the use of a drug, device or surgical procedure,” according to the researchers. The word noetic generally has to do with intellectual matters, which under the circumstances seem to be the dubious use of a perfectly good English word. They have already published the results of the phase I feasibility-pilot, known as the MANTRA I. (10, 11)

Prominent in the field, Duke University has a long history of interest in arcane practices, going back to the work of J. B. Rhine as early as 1927. Rhine was interested in mediums, the afterlife, telepathy and clairvoyance and as the originator of the terms “extra sensory perception” (ESP) and “psychokinesis” (PK), he provided “legitimacy” and material for prestidigitators, psychics and entertainers like Uri Geller (of spoon-bending fame), while maintaining that he was advancing a new field of science he called “parapsychology.” Incidentally, he had been accused of fraudulently juggling his data by, among others (including his wife), Martin Gardner (12). His legacy has undoubtedly influenced the studies on intercessory payer now known as the MANTRA I and MANTRA II, which were carried out at Duke. (13)

Opinion

Intercessory prayer is a request to God to change his or her mind about the already established plan for the universe and make it go another way. Of course, this implies that a perfect deity’s plans, which would (by definition) have to be perfect, should now be altered at the urging of an imperfect being. This is logical reason enough to refute the possibility of intercessory prayer’s effect, since perfect beings cannot be outguessed by fallible mortals. Nevertheless, believers in the power of gods, saints and angels claim that these agents are able to alter or suspend the well-established laws of the universe at their whim…or at the request of the believer, through prayer.

If we were speaking of magic or sorcery, or any belief systems outside of Western Judeo-Christian tradition, most investigators would agree that these ideas (of intercessory prayer’s effectiveness) are ridiculous and consist of superstition at best. In only one area, the field of Judeo-Christian theology, are the very same phantasms accorded the status of legitimate entity, and amenable to scientific scrutiny. Why? Why are Judeo-Christian ideas – superstitions by any accepted taxonomy of logic – allowed to maintain a grip on, not only political, social and economic values in our society, but on scientific ones as well. How can we explain the avalanche of articles that are now apparently available about this current preoccupation of American medicine with the miraculous. (14, 15, 16, 17)

In March of 2005, my article “Searching in the Darkness: About Prayer and Medical Cures” was published as a commentary in Medscape General Medicine. (18) I was motivated to write it after seeing that there were fifteen articles listed in Medscape on the subject of “intercessory prayer,” and at that time, I found it hard to believe that so many researchers would spend their time on such an endeavor. Many of these studies were aimed at investigating the possibility that prayer could influence the outcome of a variety of medical conditions ranging from infertility to cardiac surgery. This occurred shortly after the exposure of “the Columbia University prayer fiasco” (19, 20) and I believed that, in its aftermath, we would begin to see a diminution of interest in this allegedly scientific area of research.

Last week, I put the word “prayer” into Medscape’s search engine, and to my astonishment, it provided me with a list of 136 articles. In disbelief, I went to Google, and entered the search words, “intercessory,” “prayer,” “cure,” and “medicine,” and it yielded 206,000 “hits.”

I believe that this focus on “intercessory prayer” is but one manifestation of a larger movement, begun when the National Institutes for Health (NIH) formed the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). The goal of this organization is ostensibly an attempt to bring more diverse tools into the healing professions’ armamentarium, and it provides the funding for many of the studies that deal with alternative medicine. (21)

The NCCAM at the National Institutes of Health released a survey in May of 2004 that showed that, “36 percent of U.S. adults use some form of alternative remedies.” They defined complementary and alternative medicine as “a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices and products that are not currently considered to be part of
conventional medicine. Those practices include acupuncture, meditation, the use of herbal supplements and prayer. When prayer used specifically for health reasons is included in the definition of complementary and alternative medicine, the number of U.S. adults using complementary and alternative medicine rises to 62 percent.” (22)

It is disheartening to see the number of supposedly educated and intelligent professionals who are involved in the futile process of attempting to investigate that which cannot be part of the physical universe, and hence, not open to scientific examination. As I quoted him in my earlier article on this same subject, Desiderius Erasmus described these people as “looking in utter darkness for that which has no existence whatsoever.”(23) Scientists have no business wasting their time and money (and certainly not the taxpayers’ money where it is NCCAM funded research) investigating “that which has no existence whatsoever.” In fact, in my opinion, those who do, should be labeled “pseudo scientists.” (24, 25, 26)

Let’s re-examine, once more, the notion of supplication to a deity, or one of his agents, in which a request is made for a suspension of the known laws of nature. We don’t know them all, but they do exist, and science is their investigating agent. For any scientist to engage in a study that attempts to understand how something that does not exist in the material world (God or his agents), employs a mechanism that does not exist in the material world (miraculous cure, or prayer-related amelioration of symptoms) is simply working in the wrong field. He or she does not belong in science – or one of its main applied areas – medicine; theology would be an acceptable alternative.

Have the tentacles of politico-religious, anti-scientific zealotry ensnared medical researchers? It seems to me, that political, financial and ideological forces are behind the rise in so-called alternative medicine, and intercessory prayer is riding the wave. For a description of this issue and articles that deal with the many complications surrounding an investment in alternative medicine and its implications for traditional western medicine and all of science see the website of Dr. Clark Bartram, a pediatrician with a sense of humor.(27)

Because of the situation I have described, in my opinion, it represents a serious degeneration of the meaning of the terms, “medical research,” and/or “scientific research.” As a result, accepted standards of scientific research are falling by the wayside.

The Tangled Web

For reasons that go way beyond the scope of this commentary, there is an interesting conglomeration of characters, locales, organizations, traditions, etc., which cluster around studies into the arcane. For example, is it an accident that Dr. Krucoff is the principal investigator of the Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) Study Project at Duke University Medical Center; and is also on the board of directors of The Rhine Research Center, which was established by J. B. Rhine the preeminent investigator into the paranormal?

In addition to the political complexity surrounding NCCAM, including why it has funded over a half-billion dollars worth of research into Reiki, herbal remedies, chiropractic and “distance healing,” it would take an inordinate amount of time to investigate the backgrounds of all the private funding organizations behind the prayer studies and behind “faith-based initiatives.” Some of the funds for studies mentioned in this commentary were provided by grants from the RAMA Foundation, Bakken Family Foundation, George Family Foundation, FACT Foundation, Duke University Heart Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, Geisinger Medical Center, Scripps Clinic, and the Institute of Noetic Sciences, and the Templeton Foundation. Perhaps someone would be willing to study the relationship and motivations of granting agencies that support these studies.

This would be a gigantic investigation in and of itself, and beyond the scope of this commentary, in which I intended to focus exclusively on intercessory prayer. However, it is important to note that some of the “Complementary and Alternative” procedures, e. g., acupuncture and herbal supplements are based upon something physical, a substance and/or a process, and as strange as many of these procedures may seem to be, they are still within the testable universe of physical science. Intercessory Prayer is another matter entirely.

References

1. Selby L. From David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Bigge, ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1902 pp. 114-16.

2. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary; Tenth Edition; 1997

3. Lundberg G.D. Evidence-based medicine or faith-based medicine? Medscape General Medicine. 2004;6(4).

4. Arias, Donya C. Alternative Medicines’ Popularity Prompts Concern: Use of Alternative and Complementary Remedies on the Rise. Medscape General Medicine. 2004; 8(2).

5. Krucoff, M.W. American Heart Journal. Volume 142, Issue 5, Pages 760-769 (November 2001).

6. Masters, K, Spielmans, G. and Goodson S. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2006, Vol. 32, No. 1, Pages 21-26

7. Benson, J. Dusek, J. Sherwood, P. Lam, C. Bethea, W. Carpenter, S. Levitsky, P. Hill, D. Clem, Jr., M. Jain. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. American Heart Journal, April 2006, Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 934-942.

8. Gaudia, Gil medscape.com Commentary: When Is a Difference Not a Difference: Medicine or Shooting Craps? Posted 07/28/2006

9. I got the idea for this from Why does God hate amputees?

10. Krucoff, M, Crater, S, Gallup, D Blankenship, J Cuffe, M Guarneri, M Krieger, R Kshettry, V, Morris, K Oz, M. Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation The Lancet, Volume 366, Issue 9481, Pages 211-217.

11. Krucoff, M.W. American Heart Journal. Volume 142, Issue 5, Pages 760-769 (November 2001).

12. Gardner, Martin. On the Wild Side. Prometheus Books. Amherst, New York, 1992.

13. a history of Rhine’s work

14. Arias, Donya C. Alternative Medicines’ Popularity Prompts Concern: Use of Alternative and Complementary Remedies on the Rise Medscape General Medicine. 2004; 8(2).

15. Glickman-Simon, Richard Introduction and Complementary and Alternative Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach
Medscape General Medicine. 2004;6(4).

16. Désirée Lie, – Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM): What Should Physicians Know? Medscape General Medicine. 2004;6(4).

17. Gaudia, Gil. Searching in the Darkness: About Prayer and Medical Cures. Medscape General Medicine. Commentaries. March 2, 2005

18. Cha KY, Wirth DP, Lobo RA. Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? J Reprod Med. 2001;46:781-787.

19. Flamm, BL. Inherent Dangers of Faith-Healing Studies Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine / Fall/Winter 2004-05 Volume 8 ~ Number 2

20. Department of Health and Human Services; National Institutes of Health;
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

21. Alternative Remedies

22. Stenger V.J. Has science found God? Free Inquiry Magazine. 2001;19.

23. Dennett, D.C. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Viking. 2006.

24. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion: New York. Houghton-Mifflin. 2006.

25. Harris, Sam. Letter to a Christian Nation. New York: Knopf 2006.

26. Unintelligent Design.