Huff Post
I am pleased to see the lively exchange of comments generated by my recent post: “Testing Prayer: Can Science Prove the Healing Power of Prayer?” Many people have raised difficult and important questions that I have been thinking about for years. These questions can roughly be grouped into six categories: scientific methods, evidence, alternative explanations, other studies showing null results, theology and presuppositions.
My book, Testing Prayer: Science and Healing, is the outcome of my efforts — in collaboration with a team of biomedical and clinical researchers — to work through these questions over the past eight years. The book traces a history of why empirical research on prayer tends to be controversial (as responses to my blog post illustrate), as well as arguing that — despite inherent difficulties — there is reason to pursue such research, and suggesting how researchers might go about it. I would invite those who raised objections to my previous post to read the book as a basis for more in-depth discussion of the issues, since the book directly responds to many of the comments. In this post, I want to give some very brief responses based on a fuller treatment in the book.
My basic response is this: Prayer effects should be subject to the same standards as other research. This means that standards should not be lower, nor should they be higher.
Categories: Faith, Prayers, Religion and Science, Research, Science
We should also consider that humans cannot entangle All-Knowing and All-Powerful God in their study designs and force His hand in any way.
Only if Allah tells a Prophet or a Khalifa to run such a study would mankind have God’s blessing to try Him out, otherwise it may be impertinence to imagine that somehow we can force Him to show up in our study, however, well constructed statistically. The Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community during his life time did issue prayer duels challenges to the non-believers.
“Eyes cannot reach Him (Allah) but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.” (Al Quran 6:104)
I don’t understand your objection. Why is prayer not an acceptable subject for scientific inquiry? If it does indeed work, this should be apparent in a well-designed research study. That is, people who pray should have measurably better results than those who don’t. There are limits to such studies, of course. They can only deal with things which can be measured, such as the course of a disease, and there are many other effects of prayer which can’t be measured, as we well know. However, for those who see science as the be all and end all of knowledge, perhaps finding out that the efficacy of prayer can actually be measured and shown will cause them to ponder on this. Perhaps some of them will come to understand that there are other ways of knowing besides science. Perhaps they will one day come to understand that connection with the Divine can lead to types of knowledge which are just as sure, and in fact, speak to a higher reality than knowledge arrived at through scientific investigations.
To suggest that such studies should have the blessing of a religious authority before they can be carried out is dangerous. For one thing, it would require scientists of different backgrounds and beliefs to be subservient to an authority which we accept and they don’t. This can hardly be considered just. As there is nothing inherently unethical in these types of studies, since they are measuring the efficacy of something that we think people should be doing anyway – that is, prayer – I don’t see how you can suggest that they should not be conducted. This idea that our faith should be bound up with what we do not know is quite dangerous. To suggest that our knowledge of God can only involve things that we cannot explain serves to relegate God to an increasingly shrinking realm as we learn more and more about our world and how it works. As believers we should be able to simultaneously understand the scientific explanation for something, such as a sunrise, and still be able to marvel in awe at its beauty. Why can’t both the learned and the ignorant utter “Subhanallah!” at such a moment?
In order for any research to be deemed as scientific it has to submit itself to scientic inquiry in a way that it has to be testable under the current norms and conditions of scientific research, otherwise it would simply not be acceptable to the world of science. There are a lot of books written on the what constitutes as scientific hypothesis and what is not. Moreover there is a very pertinent and poignant study, titled, Muslims and Science, by Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy of Pakistan, about what goes on in the name of research in certain muslim countries where several efforts have been make to test the presence of angels, measure the “Sawab” of prayers, use of the meteorites as weapons, and apply laws of relativity to measure the specifics of travel of Holy Porphet (peace be upon him) known as “Maeraaj”. Please read this book and a lot of other relevant books before trying to make any research projects on these topics.
All the researches and all the worldly means fail in front of prayers power. In fact the status of prayers is far above then anything. It has no comparison. But in most cases prayer is conditioned with human efforts. Otherwise no human will do anything but merely sit down and not but rely only on prayers.
God does not want that. He wants to give us credit of our efforts too. At the same time in the areas where our efforts cannot bring change only prayer can make a huge difference if approved by our Creator. Inshallah
Science is a study of nature or time, space and matter, so trying to study influence of a Transcendent God, who is beyond time, space and matter will not fall within the conventional domain of science. In other words studing effect of prayers is trying to study supernatural rather than natural!
I am not for or against such a study but just want to state that it is not conventional science. Additionally, scientific studies should be reproducible. How can we make God’s response to our prayers reproducible escapes me! There are just too many variables and some may be unknowable.
After evaluating a potential study from scientific perspective, as above, one should examine it from the perspective of theology of different religions also. In Islam even a prophet cannot show a miracle unless he has had a prior approval by the All-Knowing and All-Powerful God. This was the reason why in my earlier comment I stressed that a study is possible from our Ahmadiyya perspective only if approved by a religious leader who has God’s blessings for such a study! Let me quote a few verses to support my premise:
In other words, the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace be on him, is saying that I cannot show you a miracle, until Allah commissions one!
I agree with Shah Sahib. Miracles come to those whom Allah deems worthy of giving a miracle. Only Allah knows that, not us. We cannot force one to happen. In addition, such a miracle only comes to those who are closes to Allah like a Prophet or a Khalifa. In addition, salaat is an engagement that must be done with full concentration. It can’t be done upon the basis of showing an experiment. It must be done in complete concentration and without distraction. In addition, to see what happens to those who pray once wudu is broken, or one faints or cannot pray and have them try to pray is illegal. I understand they want to observe a person who prays and I would like people to know the benefits of prayer. But Allah may not make it happen if it’s done in a lab. The distractions might not make salaat accepted. Without accepted salaat, a connection with God and a change in a person from salaat may not happen. That is something to consider also. In addition, who from the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Community would be such a guinnea pig for this task?
just a side remark: could we find another word for ‘guinnea …’?