Intercessory Prayer - Does it influence the Divine Opinion?

Throughout my life, I've often wondered about the power of prayer. If God is all-powerful, and He wishes the best for all of us, then why do prayers matter? If I pray that my friend's medical school applications will go well, for instance, what difference do I make? Certainly God already has a Divine Opinion on whether my friend should get into medical school or not. Certainly God has the power to help my friend get into the right medical school without my prayers. So why pray? Of course, there is the chance that by praying I'm releasing endorphins or reducing levels of stress hormones in my body. So maybe prayer is more for my own physical well-being than to nudge God into seeing things my way? 

There have been several scientific studies which explored the power of prayer. I think the most frequently cited is the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in Cardiac Bypass Patients. But, as I pointed out in a previous post about whether God belongs in science, these studies tend to be inconclusive and easily misinterpreted. Clearly, I will not find a scientific answer to my question. 

Prayer seems to be a very natural human urge. It's not just people from the mainstream religions that pray. For instance, some people "pray" to the universe, as in Rhonda Byrne's The Secret. Byrne's philosophy uses positive thinking to direct the power of the universe, with life-changing results. Similarly, my Wiccan friend once likened spell-casting to a form of prayer. He said that if you focus your mind on a certain goal, you are more likely to achieve that goal - regardless of whether you consider this spell-casting or prayer. The universal belief among these religions and philosophies is that there is some sort of greater power out there (whether it be a self-aware God or simply the universe) that is ready to be harnessed for the good of humanity. 

Personally, I have a Christian perspective on prayer. The idea is: pray to Jesus / God for what you want and then finish up with a nice "Thy will be done." This phrase always gets to me though. Of course God's will is going to be done. I realize that this phrase is supposed to help me accept the fact that sometimes God's answer will be "no." But the phrase still bothers me - and maybe that's because I still haven't decided whether prayer really influences God's Divine Opinion or not. 

I have two basic types of intercessory prayer that I commonly use. The first is the general "please God, let such and such happen. Please, please, please. Thanks! Oh...yeah. Thy will be done and all that jazz!" I pray like this because a part of me doesn't really believe that I'm influencing the Divine Opinion. But I go ahead and pray, because part of me really does believe. *sigh* Wavering doubt has always been my biggest weakness, as you can read in my recent post about doubt.  

Surprisingly, I am much more confident about my second type of intercessory prayer. I meditate upon God's love...I visualize it streaming out of the sky and filling me till I'm overflowing. Then I concentrate on whoever I happen to be praying for. I visualize a string of love pumping out of me and into the other person. This isn't difficult, since I have an inexhaustible source of love coming from God. I hold this connection with the other person as long as I am able. 

In my heart, I know that this form of prayer works. I really AM channeling God's love when I pray that way. So this is the way I prefer to pray. (Although it tends to be more about love and less about getting my dream job, so I have to pray the other way too!) But why am I so confident about this type of prayer and so doubtful of the other? I mean, shouldn't the same questions be raised? If God is all-powerful, why would He need me to channel His love for Him? But I thought - maybe that's what He put us here on Earth for. To amplify and channel his love. Maybe we're part of His power. Maybe we're meant to provide this love to our neighbors. This interpretation seems to fit with Christian philosophy. So I'm running with it. :)

On the other hand, I still need to reconcile myself to my other type of intercessory prayer. Perhaps my readers would like to share their thoughts on the subject?

Creationism: A Worldwide Phenomenon?

I was rather shocked today to see this in my Scientific American newsfeed: Science and Archaeopteryx Overcome Creationism in South Korea, by Soo Bin Park (reprinted from a Nature publication). I had no clue classroom rejection of evolution in favor of creationism is a world-wide phenomenon! I figured it was something that stubborn ultra-Christians clung to only in the US. I suppose that's just my Americentric mind at work again. I wonder how wide-spread this problem is?

This issue reminds me of a forum conversation that's been going on at my favorite book-social-network LibraryThing. We've been discussing the movement of some parents to decline immunization for their children--for fear of unproven (and unlikely) threats like the autism-due-to-vaccination scare. These parents fail to appreciate the pain and suffering and endless fear of their parents' parents during epidemics such as for polio in the early 20th century. Out of sight, out of mind, as it were! By not vaccinating their children, these people are not only risking the health of their own children, they're risking the health of others' children AND the health of our already-fragile medical system here in the US. 

Furthermore, there is a discouraging trend in the US for ultra-conservatives to take an anti-science stance. They want our kids to be world leaders in the classroom, but they also want them to be taught that evolution and global warming are "just theories" for which there is scanty evidence. Furthermore, they often approve of huge funding cuts for scientific research. Although I've posted a couple of times about studies where I asked "really? my tax dollars paid for that?!" I think funding for scientific research is an investment that the US needs to make if we want to continue as a world power. If we don't stoke the fire, it's going to die. I have personally witnessed the changes that have occurred in academia due to the funding lapses during the Bush administration, and the temporary relief that the Obama administration provided. Unfortunately, this relief came too late and academic (rather than for-profit) scientific research is on the decline. It's harder and harder for professors to get tenure, so more and more of them enter "industry," where the "evil" drug companies take over their souls. ;) 

I don't know what the right solution is, but we mustn't let academic science research go on a decline. We must nip the anti-science movement in the bud before it impacts our global position (and the quality of our health system) irrevocably. 

I am also reminded of this article in the Scientific American newsfeed: Obama and Romney Tackle 14 Top Science Questions. Romney isn't as supportive of science as I'd wish, but at least he's not leaning too far in the anti-science direction. There's a (very small) blessing. I DID get a chuckle about how Romney made almost all of his answers about how Obama is a failure, whereas Obama actually focused on the questions at hand. 

Culture of blame: how we perceive certain diseases

In her article "Scandal of Underfunded and Undertreated Cancer" [1], Linda Geddes describes the heart-breaking struggle of a non-smoking mother-of-two against the ravages of lung cancer. The purpose of the article was to point out the disparity between research funding and number of deaths for the various cancer types. Leukemia and breast cancer draw from huge sources of public and private funds, receiving much more than their deaths : research-dollars share. There are more deaths from lung cancer than from breast cancer or leukemia, but the funding for lung cancer research is pathetically small. Part of the reason for this is that many family physicians view lung cancer as untreatable--a diagnosis of death--so why fund research into an untreatable disease? But, after all, how are we to learn how to treat the disease without research? And how shall we perform research without funding? 

The article suggests another alarming reason for this funding disparity as well: many people, consciously or unconsciously, believe that lung cancer is the fault of the victim. If they hadn't smoked, after all, would they be in this situation? Shame on them! And they're endangering us with their second-hand smoke as well! But what about non-smokers who get lung cancer? (After all, that second-hand smoke is going somewhere, isn't it?) And what right do we have to blame the victim of a disease, anyway? Is a person's death less tragic because he was a smoker? Trust me, I fall prey to those adverts of children with leukemia...I want to send them money, too. But does our culture of blame induce us to spend money on those we consider "deserving" but not on the "undeserving?" Are we ok with that? 

I think a good example of our society (and the world) overcoming a prejudice against a culture-of-blame disease is our relative success with suppressing the dreaded AIDS epidemic. Many a politically-incorrect statement about AIDS victims was bandied about when I was younger...but now, I think, those negative connotations are mostly remembered only by older members of society. And although we haven't successfully "cured" or fully protected against AIDS, we can now suppress it with anti-viral drugs--the result of well-spent research funding. Perhaps we can take a good lesson from our success with AIDS. Perhaps we can see lung cancer for what it is--a tragic disease that steals the lives of tens of thousands of people in the US every year*. Perhaps we can bring a halt to our culture of blame.

Geddes, Linda: Scandal of Underfunded and Undertreated Cancer. New Scientist issue 2871. 28Jun, 2012.

*This number was 35,000 deaths in the UK in 2010 according to Geddes' article.

Creativity: Maybe we should all just relax a little

While trying to catch up on my magazine reading, I came across Daydream your way to creativity..., by Richard Fisher (New Scientist 16Jun 2012, issue 2869)...another article pacing the well-trodden trail of creativity, which is a hot topic in neuroscience and psychology these days, and the subject of Jonah Lehrer's new bestseller Imagine. Scientists are currently trying to delve into the question: what makes some people more creative than others? The answer that most of them are settling upon: creative people are able to get insight by NOT concentrating...the more a person concentrates, the less capable that person is of making creative leaps. In fact, people with ADHD perform better at the "unusual uses task," in which people spend a given amount of time listing creative uses for a common object. Drunk people, who have poor concentration, are better able to solve puzzles that require creativity than sober people. People who are in a relaxed brain wave state are also more likely to solve creative problems. 

Maybe as that important deadline looms, it's better (for OH so many reasons) to relax a little instead of focusing continuously on our projects. Intuitively, I've always known this. When I want to write, or postulate scientific theories, I almost always lie down or have a nice warm soak in the tub if I'm at home. If I'm at work, I either pace while mumbling to myself or I lean back and stare blankly at a wall until inspiration hits. This works wonders for me (even if people at work often give me sideways glances, so I feel the need to hide). I do my most creative thinking when I'm letting my mind explore ideas on an unfocused road. I know many people who drink a beer or two whenever they're writing. Perhaps there's some merit in that. :) This article cements my mantra "rest and sleep is what I need." I think the world would be happier, more creative, and more productive place if people balanced work life with relaxation. Creativity is important for most careers that I can think of. So why does everyone work work work non-stop? Does it really get them where they want to go? One of my biggest pet peeves is overworking physicians (especially residents). If residents were able to come in to work well rested, perhaps that out-of-the-box diagnosis that had been eluding them will suddenly pop into place. People's lives are at stake! Why do we overwork our doctors to the point of losing productivity???

Ok, that was an aside--it's not at all where I planned on going with this blog, but I'll let my creative mind take me where it wants instead of following a formal outline today. :) I am VERY much looking forward to reading Imagine and to seeing many more studies on creativity in the months to come. 

Newsweeklies: Which is best?

So it turns out that I have been specially chosen by The Week to be on their "free list." That's right, I'm specially entitled to 7 free issues of The Week. Yippee! I'm so special! I have to admit though, I was impressed with this week's issue. The Week is a unique type of newsweekly because it doesn't seem to perform its OWN journalism. It sifts through thousands of OTHER news sites/magazines and then provides the week's news by summarizing snippets of what other news sources have said. Upon first blush, I scorned this lack of "true" journalism. But after reading through the magazine, I realized that it was actually a very useful source of information. I, certainly, don't have time to sift through all these news sources myself. By doing that work for me, The Week provides news commentaries of different opinions on each topic. How interesting to know how news source B disagrees with news source A. This is something I wouldn't know if left to my own devices. So I'm going to keep my free issues coming for now, so I can make an informed decision about this magazine in a few weeks. :) 


The Week also reviews books, movies, TV shows, art shows, theater, and albums. It has some basic gossip. (I didn't know we still cared about Mary Kate Olsen??? I had forgotten she even existed!)  

I contrast The Week to another weekly magazine I've been receiving: Time. I got a year's subscription to Time for free, so with much grumblings I accepted its arrival in my mailbox and even tried reading it for a few months. Why grumble, you ask? Because back when Yasser Arafat died I had a PAID subscription to Time, which I had been faithfully reading. I was excited when I saw the issue, because I knew very little about Arafat as a man. I figured: here is a good chance to find out more about him. After all, he may not have been perfect, but at the very least the Nobel committee thought he had an impact on the world. Much to my dismay, none of the articles taught me anything interesting about Arafat. They were all wailings about how pathetic Arafat was, how not even the Palestinians mourned his death. (FALSE--I happened to know some Palestinians at the time). This quote bothered me particularly: 


One of the last images he left to the world--the brief video clip showing the Palestinian leader, shriveled and frail, wearing blue pajamas and a knit cap before he left the West Bank for medical treatment in France--did not reflect the stylings of Yasser Arafat the revolutionary. (Source: The Eternal Agitator, by Lisa Beyer. Time 22Nov 2004).

I'm sure Ronald Reagan spent a lot of time lounging around in his pajamas when he was DYING too!


I felt cheated by Time's coverage of Yasser Arafat. I wanted to learn something about him, but what I learned, instead, was that Time doesn't like Arafat. I have since then come to the conclusion that they're not fond of Arabs in general. In summary,Time has one, maybe two, articles that I find interesting each week--but those generally aren't the "weekly news" articles. The rest I am either not interested in, or feel annoyed at their angle. I have decided to cancel my free subscription to Time. If they won't cancel it, the magazine will descend immediately into my recycling bin henceforth.

The Economist is a newsweekly that I am very happy with. It has fantastic coverage of world news. However, I want another newsweekly to supplement The Economist because it covers US news from an angle that would be most interesting to the world...I need to have some USentric news, as well, so I feel informed about things most Americans care about (and let's face it, most Americans don't care about the world). Then again, I suppose if I wanted to read what MOST Americans cared about, I'd be stuck reading celebrity gossip. Yick! /shock But I think you get my intended meaning, anyway. :) I don't like JUST reading the daily news, because the report-as-it-comes news takes some sewing together to see the whole picture. Newsweeklies are nice in that they do that work for me.  

If anyone has suggestions about other magazines I might enjoy, please do tell. /please

Thoughts on God in scientific research

In The God Issue of New Scientist, there was an article by Stenger which claimed that because science has not proven that God exists, God must not exist. After reading this, I pouted. I felt that it's not very good science to claim that because experiments designed to prove the existence of God yield non-significant results, these non-significant results prove God doesn't exist. I've had plenty of experiments with non-significant results. If that proves that the opposite is true, then I've made some pretty awesome negative discoveries! I'd better get those published!

The next few weeks have had many letters-to-the-editor about The God Issue. Mainly, they seemed offended by the articles which did not firmly proclaim God's non-existence--few of them had any problems with the article by Stenger. So I laughed when I saw this letter about the article that annoyed me:

Stenger confidently states that prayers have not been shown to have been answered. For some time now, I have been praying for other people’s prayers not to be answered. Could this explain these findings?

                -From Les Hearn; London, UK

I am so thrilled that I’m not the only one who found this article ridiculous!

In his article, Stenger’s main “proof” that God does not exist is that a study to determine whether intercessory prayers help recovery of surgery patients had non-significant data. Like the writer of the letter, I was amused that Stenger came to such strong conclusions based on non-significant data from one study. This is not good science. I was even more amused because the first time I heard about this study was in a book called The Spiritual Brain, by Mario Beauregard (reviewed here). Beauregard claimed the same exact studies were indicative that God DID exist. He pointed out that there was a (albeit non-significant) data trend, and talked around experimental design and data analysis jargon to make himself sound more convincing. Isn’t it amusing that two scientists find their own personal beliefs so important to them that they take exactly the same study and (unconsciously) twist it to help them prove contradictory points?

Because of human errors exactly like these, I have long felt that science was rather like a religion—perhaps it is impossible for emotional humans to stick rigorously to the scientific method? Here are elements that science has in common with some of the oft-criticised aspects of organized religion:

Indoctrination/faith: scientists start out learning and accepting a set of “facts” laid out by those older and wiser than us (teachers/professors). Sometimes these “facts” are rather difficult to stomach—like an object that can move from point A to point B without moving anywhere in between??? (electron tunneling)

Ideology: Scientists (hopefully unconsciously) twist the experimental design or data analysis in order to fit our personal hypotheses. We ignore or discard data which is contradictory to our hypotheses (usually with a rationalized reason). We see what we want to see. This type of interpretation is unfortunately natural to humans and generally not a purposeful act, but it happens more often than we'd like to admit.

Heretics: Scientists ostracize other people from the scientific community if they suggest a hypothesis or provide data which is contrary to widely accepted (dogmatic) beliefs. These people sometimes turn out to be right, but generally after it’s too late for their ruined careers.

I like to be aware of these issues so that I can avoid falling into traps in my own work. I also think it's a good idea to be cautiously skeptical of dogmatic beliefs, and to accept that perhaps they could be wrong--entirely, or partially. I am also skeptical of models, whether they be quantum physics models or cell signaling models. Although I appreciate the amount of work scientists go through to develop these models, and I also appreciate the fact that these models can accurately predict the physical world most of the time, I think it's good to recognize that these really are just MODELS for the real world. The real world is almost always more complex than we could ever fully predict.

The picture above is taken from: http://failuretointegrate.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/science-vs-religion-why-cant-we-all-just-get-along/