This
Commentary originally appeared in Archives
of Internal Medicine
by
Larry Dossey, MD
"It is fatal to dismiss antagonistic doctrines, supported
by any body of evidence, as simply wrong." Alfred North Whitehead,
1948 1
THE RANDOMIZED, controlled trial by Harris et al2 on the effects
of remote intercessory prayer on outcomes of patients admitted to
a coronary care unit evoked several comments from physicians.
Several respondents implied that the attempt to study the remote
effects of prayer is wrong in principle. This is because, according
to Dr Sandweiss,3 science deals with facts, not "miracles."
Yet, if events occur in controlled laboratory studies, as suggested
by evidence cited below, these happenings presumably follow natural
law and are not considered miraculous.
We should be cautious in calling events miraculous or mystical,
because the subsequent course of history may reveal that these terms
reflect little more than our own ignorance. For example, when Newton
invoked the notion of universal gravity in the 17th century to explain
his observations, he was charged by his contemporaries with surrendering
to mysticism, as prayer researchers are often accused today.
As philosopher Eugene Mills4 describes, "[Newton's critics]
disapproved of his failure to explain why bodies behaved in accordance
with his laws, or how distant bodies could act on one another .
. . This sort of worry no longer bothers us, but not because we
have answered it."
Today we are as baffled by the remote effects of prayer as Newton's
critics were by the distant effects of gravity. But, just as the
dispute over gravity gradually abated, the debate surrounding intercessory
prayer may also diminish with time, even though our ignorance about
the mechanism involved may remain.
Dr Van der Does5 dismisses the effects of intercessory prayer
because they would be indistinguishable empirically from the effects
of clairvoyance and telepathy, which he implies are nonsense. (He
presumably means not clairvoyance or telepathy, which are forms
of anomalous cognition, but psychokinesis, the anomalous perturbation
of distant events.) However, there is considerable evidence that
neither telepathy nor psychokinesis is nonsense,6 in which case
the indistinguishability between prayer and psychokinesis would
not invalidate prayer.
Dr Sandweiss3 also refers dismissively to psychokinesis, apparently
unaware of the evidence favoring this phenomenon. For example, in
Foundations of Physics, one of physics' most prestigious journals,
Radin and Nelson7 reported a meta-analysis of 832 studies from 68
investigators that involved the distant influence of human consciousness
on microelectronic systems.
They found the results to be "robust and repeatable."
In their opinion, "Unless critics want to allege wholesale
collusion among more than sixty experimenters or suggest a methodological
artifact common to . . . hundred[s of] experiments conducted over
nearly three decades, there is no escaping the conclusion that [these]
effects are indeed possible."
While these hundreds of studies do not involve actual prayer,
they nonetheless deal with whether human intention can, in principle,
affect the physical world at a distance.
In recent years, researchers have also studied the effects of mental
efforts to change biological systems.8 Scores of controlled studies
have examined the effects of intentions, often expressed through
prayer, on biochemical reactions in vitro, on the recovery rate
of animals from anesthesia, on the growth rates of tumors and the
rate of wound healing in animals, on the rate of hemolysis of red
blood cells in vitro, and on the replication rates of microorganisms
in test tubes.
Testing prayer in lower organisms makes sense for the same reason
we test drugs in nonhumans. We share physiological similarities
with animals and bacteria; if prayer affects them, it may affect
us as well.
These studies are too often ignored, even by researchers interested
in the effects of intercessory prayer in humans. This is unfortunate
because many of these studies9 have been done with great precision
and have been replicated by different investigators in different
laboratories. They make up the basic or bench science underlying
the objective study of prayer.
Dr Sandweiss3 says that since we know that prayer cannot operate
remotely, taking this possibility seriously requires us to "suspend
natural law," which results in "pseudoscientific mischief."
But, as there is no agreement among scientists about which natural
laws govern consciousness, it is imprudent to declare which laws
might be violated and what mischief might result.
Several outstanding scholars have emphasized our appalling ignorance
about the basic nature of consciousness. John Searle,10 one of the
most distinguished philosophers in the field of consciousness, has
said, "At our present state of the investigation of consciousness,
we don't know how it works and we need to try all kinds of different
ideas."
Philosopher Jerry A. Fodor11 has observed, "Nobody has the
slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody
even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about
how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy
of consciousness."
Recently Sir John Maddox,12 the former editor of Nature, soberly
stated, "The catalogue of our ignorance must . . . include
the understanding of the human brain . . . What consciousness consists
of . . . is . . . a puzzle.
Despite the marvelous success of neuroscience in the past century
. . ., we seem as far away from understanding . . . as we were a
century ago . . . The most important discoveries of the next 50
years are likely to be ones of which we cannot now even conceive."
If these observers are anywhere near the truth, we should be hesitant
to declare emphatically what the mind can and cannot do.
Dr Sandweiss3 states that Harris et al have taken "a P value
out of context" and that their P value is "out of control."
He implies that the beliefs and practices of physicians depend strongly
on statistically valid studies and that P3D.04 is too weak to justify
a change in "current theories." Do P values determine
what we physicians believe and how we practice medicine?
This is a noble sentiment, but evidence suggests we are not as
objective as Dr Sandweiss implies. Yale surgeon and author Sherwin
B. Nuland13 states, "Unlike other areas in which fads come
and go, medical styles [of practice] are meant to be supported by
irrefutable evidence. That assumption is so far off the mark that
the term 'medical science' is practically an oxymoron."
Referring to a 1978 report by the Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment,14 Nuland states, "no more than 15 percent of medical
interventions are supported by reliable scientific evidence."
Richard Smith,15 editor of the British Medical Journal, agrees,
stating, "only about 15% of medical interventions are supported
by solid scientific evidence. . . . This is partly because only
1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound
and partly because many treatments have not been assessed at all."
And David A. Grimes16 of the University of California-San Francisco
School of Medicine states, "much, if not most, of contemporary
medical practice still lacks a scientific foundation."
These observations suggest that a double standard is perhaps being
applied to prayer research, according to which levels of proof are
demanded that may not be required of conventional therapies-the
"rubber ruler," the raising of the bar, the ever-lengthening
playing field.17
Do serious scientists really believe that the effects of intercessory
prayer are fantasy, as several letter writers imply? No doubt some
do.
But in a recent survey18 of the spiritual beliefs of American scientists,
39% of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians said they not
only believed in God, but in a god who answers prayers.
The highest rate of belief was found in the field of mathematics,
which is generally considered the most precise of all the sciences.
Many distinguished scientists favor prayer. A long list of individuals,
including Nobelists, who have been cordial to consciousness-related
events, such as distant, intercessory prayer, has been assembled
by philosopher David
Griffin.19
Should the empirical study of intercessory prayer be abandoned,
as several letter writers imply? More than a century ago, a similar
debate took place among British scientists about telepathy, clairvoyance,
and psychokinesis, which, like prayer, presume that consciousness
can operate remotely.
Nobelist Sir William Crookes (1832-1919), the discoverer of thallium,
contrasted his own approach with that of his fellow physicist Michael
Faraday (1791-1867), famous for his work in electricity and magnetism.
Crookes20 stated:
Faraday says, 'Before we proceed to consider any question involving
physical principles, we should set out with clear ideas of the naturally
possible and impossible.'
But this appears like reasoning in a circle: we are to investigate
nothing till we know it to be possible, whilst we cannot say what
is impossible, outside pure mathematics, till we know everything.
In the present case I prefer to enter upon the enquiry with no preconceived
notions whatever as to what can or cannot be.
The spirit of open inquiry would seem to validate Crookes' stance.
Scientific puzzles do not solve themselves unaided. How are the
mysteries of consciousness and prayer to be resolved unless researchers
take a stab at them?
Dr Sandweiss3 suggests that the lack of an accepted theory underlying
intercessory prayer diminishes the respectability of this area of
investigation. In the history of medicine, however, we have often
tolerated ignorance of mechanism and absence of theory. Examples
include the use of aspirin, colchicine, and quinine, as well as
the use of citrus fruits in scurvy, as Harris et al point out. The
mechanisms of action of most general anesthetics are still a mystery,
yet that does not preclude their use.
While it is true that there is no generally accepted theory for
the remote actions of consciousness, many mathematicians, physicists,
and biological and cognitive scientists are currently offering hypotheses
about how these events may happen.
Hypotheses that are compatible with the distant effects of intercessory
prayer have been advanced by Nobel physicist Brian Josephson,21
physicist Amit Goswami22 of the University of Oregon's Institute
of Theoretical Science, mathematician and cognitive scientist David
J. Chalmers,23, 24 systems theorist Ervin Laszlo,25 mathematician
C. J. S. Clarke,26 and many other respected scholars.27
These models of consciousness generally advocate a nonlocal view
of the mind-a view in which consciousness is not localized or confined
to specific points in space (such as the brain) or time.
Levin28 has developed a theoretical model of how prayer may heal
that takes several of these hypotheses into account. I have described
the implications of a nonlocal model of consciousness for medicine.29
Dr Hammerschmidt30 suggests that Harris et al are "putting
God to the test" in their study. Are tests of prayer blasphemous,
and are prayer researchers heretics?
I have found that investigators in this area approach their subject
with reverence and respect; indeed, I have not found a single exception.
They seem to epitomize the view of chemist Robert Boyle,31 the 17th-century
author of Boyle's Law, who suggested that experimental scientists
are "priests of nature" and that science is so sacred
that scientists should carry out their experiments on Sundays as
part of their Sabbath worship.
Dr Goldstein32 is "concerned with the potential effect of
[the Harris et al] study and its publication on the reputation of
hospitals involved and on the integrity of health care organizations
in general." The reputation of any healing institution is precious
and should be protected, but the suggestion that a hospital's reputation
will be endangered by the indiscriminate use of prayer is exceedingly
hypothetical.
It is more likely that the widespread application of prayer will
enhance the reputation of healing institutions, in view of the facts
that nearly 80% of Americans believe in the power of prayer to improve
the course of illness,33 and nearly 70% of physicians report religious
inquiries for counseling on terminal illness34 yet only 10% of physicians
ever inquire about patients' spiritual practices or beliefs.35
In a survey36 of hospitalized patients, three fourths said they
believed their physician should be concerned about their spiritual
welfare, and one half said they believed their physician should
not only pray for them but with them. It is unlikely that prayer
could threaten the reputation of hospitals to the extent of many
conventional therapies.
A recent meta-analysis of prospective studies by Lazarou et al37
found that more than 100,000 persons die in US hospitals each year
from adverse drug reactions, "making these reactions between
the fourth and sixth leading cause of death." A recent survey38
of American adults asked about their concerns before checking into
a hospital or other health care facility.
Sixty-one percent were "very concerned" about being
given the wrong medicine, 58% about the cost of treatment, 58% about
the negative interaction of multiple drugs, 56% about medical procedure
complications, 53% about receiving correct information about medications,
and 50% about contracting an infection during their stay. Concerns
about being indiscriminately prayed for did not make the list.
Dr Pande39 suggests that the analogy by Harris et al with James
Lind's discovery of the healing potential of citrus fruits in scurvy
is inappropriate. A person deprived of vitamin C will develop scurvy,
whereas a person deprived of prayer or believing in God's existence,
he states, will not become unhealthy.
There is evidence to the contrary. Scores of studies40, 41 suggest
that, on average, individuals deprived of religious meaning live
shorter, less healthy lives than people who follow some sort of
religious path, which almost always includes prayer.
Drs Sloan and Bagiella42 question whether Harris et al are justified
in suggesting that intercessory prayer be considered an adjunct
to conventional medical practice, since there is no consensus in
medicine about this controversial intervention.
There is indeed no consensus, but whether this is because of a
lack of data or ignorance of current evidence is a valid question.43
Certainly further investigation of intercessory prayer is warranted,
but we need not wait until all the answers are in before employing
prayer adjunctively. This view is represented by Lancet editor Richard
Horton44 in his "precautionary principle."
Horton states, "We must act on facts and on the most accurate
interpretation of them, using the best information. That does not
mean that we must sit back until we have 100 percent evidence about
everything. When the . . . health of the individual is at stake
. . . we should be prepared to take action to diminish those risks
even when the scientific knowledge is not conclusive."
Although skepticism is an invaluable component of scientific progress,
it can shade into a type of dogmatic materialism that excludes intercessory
prayer in principle,45 as when Newton's critics condemned universal
gravity as occult nonsense without weighing the evidence.
Both true believers and committed disbelievers in intercessory
prayer might heed the view of mathematical physicist and philosopher
Alfred North Whitehead,46 who coauthored Principia Mathematica with
Bertrand Russell:
" The Universe is vast. Nothing is more curious than the self-satisfied
dogmatism with which mankind at each period of its history cherishes
the delusion of the finality of its existing modes of knowledge.
Sceptics and believers are all alike. At this moment scientists
and sceptics are the leading dogmatists. Advance in detail is admitted:
fundamental novelty is barred. This dogmatic common sense is the
death of philosophical adventure. The Universe is vast."
Larry Dossey, MD
Santa Fe, NM
Archives
of Internal Medicine 2000
Jun 26;160:1735-1738.
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
There appears to be no question that prayer works. We have many
studies now that document that. The science is very solid in excellent
peer-reviewed publications. The science is so solid, that it is
criminally negligent for physicians not to recommend it.
And talk about cost-effective; there is no cost to prayer except
for time. It makes no logical sense to me why someone would not
utilize this resource. A simple powerful application of prayer is
journaling
which articles have showed to be useful in treating chronic illness.
For those who are interested in further reading on this subject,
I have read and can recommend Dr. Larry Dossey's excellent reviews
of the subject of prayer and distant healing. A must for those interested
in this area.
References
1. Whitehead AN. Essays in Science and Philosophy.
New York, NY: Philosophical Library; 1948:227.
2. Harris WS, Gowda M, Kolb JW, et al. A randomized,
controlled trial of the effects of remote intercessory prayer
on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Arch
Intern Med 1999;159:2273-2278.
3. Sandweiss DA. P value out of control. Arch
Intern Med 2000;160:1872.
4. Mills E. Giving up on the hard problem of consciousness.
J Consciousness Stud. 1996;3(1):26-32.
5. Van der Does W. A randomized, controlled trial
of prayer? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1871-1872.
6. Bem DJ, Honorton C. Does psi exist? replicable
evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychol
Bull. 1994;115:4-18.
7. Radin DL, Nelson RD. Consciousness-related
effects in random physical systems. Found Phys. 1989;19:1499-1034.
8.Dossey L. Distant intentionality: an idea whose
time has come. Adv J Mind-Body Health. Summer 1996;12:9-13.
9.Dosssey L. Controlled experimental trials of
healing. In: Healing Words: The Power of Prayer and the Practice
of Medicine. San Francisco, Calif: Harper San Francisco; 1999:211-235.
10. Searle J. Quoted on front cover. J Consciousness
Stud. 1995;2(1).
11. Fodor JA. The big idea. Times Literary Supplement.
July 3, 1992:20.
12. Maddox J. The unexpected science to come.
Sci Am. December 1999;281:62-67.
13. Nuland SB. Medical fads: bran, midwives and
leeches. New York Times. June 25, 1995:A15.
14. Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical
Technologies. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment,
Congress of the United States; 1978:7. Publication NTIS/PB-286929.
15.Smith R. Where is the wisdom? BMJ.1991;303:798-799.
16.Grimes DA. Technology follies: the uncritical
acceptance of medical innovations. JAMA. 1993;269:3030-3033.
17. Radin D. A field guide to skepticism. In:
The Conscious Universe. San Francisco, Calif: Harper San Francisco;
1997:205-228.
18. Larson EJ, Witham L. Scientists are still
keeping the faith. Nature. 1997;386:435-436.
19. Griffin DR. Parapsychology, Philosophy, and
Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration. Albany: State University
of New York Press; 1997:12-13.
20. Crookes W. Quoted by Braude SE: The Limits
of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy of Science. New
York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1986:86.
21.Josephson BD, Pallikara-Viras F. Biological
utilization of quantum nonlocality. Found Phys 1991;21:197-207.
22.Goswami A, Reed RE, Goswami A. The Self-Aware
Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. New York,
NY: Jeremy P Tarcher/Putnam; 1993.
23. Chalmers DJ. The puzzle of conscious experience.
Sci Am 1995;273(6):80-86.
24. Chalmers DJ. The Conscious Mind: In Search
of a Fundamental Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;
1996.
25. Laszlo E. The Interconnected Universe: Conceptual
Foundations of Transdisciplinary Unified Theory. River Edge, NJ:
World Scientific Publishing Co; 1995.
26. Clarke CJS. The nonlocality of mind. J Consciousness
Stud. 1995;2(3):231-240.
27. Dossey L. The return of prayer. Altern Ther
Health Med. November 1997;3:10-17, 113-120.
28. Levin JS. How prayer heals: a theoretical
model. Altern Ther Health Med. January 1996;2:66-73.
29. Dossey L. Reinventing Medicine. San Francisco,
Calif: Harper San Francisco; 1999.
30. Hammerschmidt DE. Ethical and practical problems
in studying prayer. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1874.
31. Boyle R. Quoted by: Hellman H. Great Feuds
in Science: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1998:26.
32. Goldstein J. Waiving informed consent for
research on spiritual matters? Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1870-1871.
33. Wallis C. Faith and healing. Time June 24,
1996: 58-63.
34.Cassell EJ.The Nature of Suffering and the
Goals of Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1991.
35.Maugans TA, Wadland WC.Religion and family
medicine: a survey of physicians and patients.J Fam Pract.1991;32:210-213.
36.King DE, Bushwick B.Beliefs and attitudes of
hospital patients about faith healing and prayer.J Fam Pract.1994;39:349-352.
37.Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence
of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis
of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200-1205.
38. Patient concerns: ICR for American Society
of Health-System Pharmacists. USA Today December 7, 1999:7D.
39. Pande PN. Does prayer need testing? Arch Intern
Med 2000;160:1873-1874.
40. Levin JS, Larson DB, Puchalski CM. Religion and spirituality:
research and education. JAMA 1997;278:792-793.
41. Koenig H. Exploring links between religion/spirituality
and health. Sci Rev Altern Med. Spring-Summer 1999;3:52-55.
42. Sloan RP, Bagiella E. Data without a prayer.
Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1870.
43. Larson DB, Milano MAG. Are religion and spirituality
clinically relevant in health care? Mind/Body Med 1995;1:147-157.
44.Horton R. The new public health of risk and
radical engagement. Lancet 1998;352:251-252.
45. Dossey L. The right man syndrome: skepticism
and alternative medicine. Altern Ther Health Med May 1998;4:12-19,
108-114.
46. Whitehead AN. Essays in Science and Philosophy.
New York, NY: Philosophical Library; 1948:129.
Return to Prayer Index Page
