What about medically and/or scientifically documented cases of faith healing?

[vl24]

Some researchers apparently have investigated these sorts of things, got positive results, and published peer reviewed papers about it:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45505841_Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Proximal_Intercessory_Prayer_STEPP_on_Auditory_and_Visual_Impairments_in_Rural_Mozambique

 

The above paper reports positive results when measuring before and after prayer of some Pentecostal ministry. Another example is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229918313116?via%3Dihub

 

 

Wouldn't this constitute significant proof for Christianity or am I overlooking something?

 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, vl24 said:

Some researchers apparently have investigated these sorts of things, got positive results, and published peer reviewed papers about it:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45505841_Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Proximal_Intercessory_Prayer_STEPP_on_Auditory_and_Visual_Impairments_in_Rural_Mozambique

 

The above paper reports positive results when measuring before and after prayer of some Pentecostal ministry. Another example is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229918313116?via%3Dihub

 

 

Wouldn't this constitute significant proof for Christianity or am I overlooking something?

 

 

 

I'm sure you have heard of the Placebo effect. If people believe they are going to get better or cured, some will feel better, or even self-heal to some extent based upon their positive attitude and will to get better. This is what I believe is the basis for most so-called "religious" healing. 

 

Apparently this is your first, or one of your first postings here. Welcome to X-Christ forum. Hope you like it here, and I'll be looking forward to seeing more of your postings. I'm the passive, give-up-your-soul-for-a-beer atheist.

 

regards,  Forrest

[vl24]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

I'm sure you have heard of the Placebo effect. If people believe they are going to get better or cured, some will feel better, or even self-heal to some extent based upon their positive attitude and will to get better. This is what I believe is the basis for most so-called "religious" healing. 

 

Apparently this is your first, or one of your first postings here. Welcome to X-Christ forum. Hope you like it here, and I'll be looking forward to seeing more of your postings. I'm the passive, give-up-your-soul-for-a-beer atheist.

 

regards,  Forrest

The study mentions comparing the results with the results you get from hypnosis and still getting a significant effect when accounting for that. 

[florduh]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-prayer-prescription/

 

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, vl24 said:

Wouldn't this constitute significant proof for Christianity or am I overlooking something?

 

You're overlooking a great many things. First of all, that if true it's only evidence of mind oriented influence on reality. People will something out of their own minds. We're far, far, far away from this somehow crediting back to one particular religion in the world. Do you see what you're missing? 

 

Also, if any of this is true, does that mean the world existed before the sun, moon, and stars as the bible suggests? Or that grass was growing in advance of sunlight as stated in Genesis? The bible starts out wrong and continues on incorrect about all variety of things along the way. 

 

So we'd be looking at a situation where people have an effect to some degree on reality through their minds AND the bible is still just as wrong as it's ever been. Regardless of people thinking that what they'd be doing through the mind automatically ties in to the bible as true. The bible is demonstrably false regardless of what ever can be tied to the human mind having an effect on reality. That's a completely separate issue that in no proves the bible true, or any other religions for that matter. 

 

You have to try understand how to put all of the pieces together and look at a coherent puzzle without getting distracted with one little piece, basically. And experience with these issues is what can give you the ability to visualize the entire puzzle board. And put new information into perspective against things that are already well established, like the errancy of scripture. Nothing reverses that. It's conclusive. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Seems like I remember all those studies being debunked under legitimate peer review.  See florduh's link above.

[vl24]

8 hours ago, florduh said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-prayer-prescription/

 

I believe the main author of the first study I linked has criticized STEP for not using real christians but some fringe group who wouldn't considered to be christians by most and didn't believe in intercessory prayer. Lee Strobel interviewed her for his the case for miracles book, and I believe she has also written about this in some of her publications. Now I also read the case against miracles but I didn't see this point addressed by the authors. The second paper I linked also talks about this in the discussion.

7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Seems like I remember all those studies being debunked under legitimate peer review.  See florduh's link above.

The studies I posted were published in legitimate peer review journals as far as I can tell, they're also more recent than the link you posted.

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

You're overlooking a great many things. First of all, that if true it's only evidence of mind oriented influence on reality. People will something out of their own minds. We're far, far, far away from this somehow crediting back to one particular religion in the world. Do you see what you're missing? 

The problem is that according to this author hearing and vision aren't very susceptible to placebo effects. And if this only happens in a christian setting, what does that then mean? (does it? does anyone have somewhat credible reports of things like this from non-christian sources?)

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Also, if any of this is true, does that mean the world existed before the sun, moon, and stars as the bible suggests? Or that grass was growing in advance of sunlight as stated in Genesis? The bible starts out wrong and continues on incorrect about all variety of things along the way. 

A large amount of christians don't believe in a literal reading of these parts of Genesis anyways. The whole evolution thing certainly doesn't help the credibility of the bible but it doesn't really discredit it either.

 

8 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

So we'd be looking at a situation where people have an effect to some degree on reality through their minds AND the bible is still just as wrong as it's ever been. Regardless of people thinking that what they'd be doing through the mind automatically ties in to the bible as true. The bible is demonstrably false regardless of what ever can be tied to the human mind having an effect on reality. That's a completely separate issue that in no proves the bible true, or any other religions for that matter. 

 

You have to try understand how to put all of the pieces together and look at a coherent puzzle without getting distracted with one little piece, basically. And experience with these issues is what can give you the ability to visualize the entire puzzle board. And put new information into perspective against things that are already well established, like the errancy of scripture. Nothing reverses that. It's conclusive. 

I am aware of many of the problems with the bible, but stuff like makes me stop and think that we might be wrong about those problems somehow.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 minutes ago, vl24 said:

they're also more recent than the link you posted.

Maybe God finally decided to get off his lazy ass, then. 

[florduh]

 

[WalterP]

16 hours ago, vl24 said:

Some researchers apparently have investigated these sorts of things, got positive results, and published peer reviewed papers about it:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45505841_Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Proximal_Intercessory_Prayer_STEPP_on_Auditory_and_Visual_Impairments_in_Rural_Mozambique

 

The above paper reports positive results when measuring before and after prayer of some Pentecostal ministry. Another example is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229918313116?via%3Dihub

 

 

Wouldn't this constitute significant proof for Christianity or am I overlooking something?

 

 

 

Yes, you are overlooking something, vl24.

 

Because you are citing examples from medical science you are therefore constrained to follow the rules that apply to all science.  It's a common misunderstanding that science proves things.  This is not so.  Proofs in science are only employed in mathematics.  Every other branch of the sciences, including the medical sciences, employs evidence.   Not proof.

 

In math something can be absolutely and finally proven.  Once that is done, NOTHING can ever overturn or refute that proof.  Whereas, in biology or geology or physics, or any of the empirical sciences theories and hypotheses are only ever supported by a body of evidence.  New evidence can overturn or refute a theory.  That's why scientific theories like phlogiston or cold fusion have been discarded.  They have been refuted by new research and new evidence.

 

Please read these find out more.

 

https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570

https://www.livescience.com/46254-proof-theorem-axiom.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=5e6856b42fb1

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/04/19/science-doesnt-prove-anything-and-thats-a-good-thing/

 

So, medical science is capable of providing evidence to support the benefits of prayer.  But medicine can never prove this.  Therefore, if medical science did provide evidence to support the benefits of prayer this would not be any kind of proof for Christianity.  If it's not a proof in medicine, then it can't be a proof anywhere else.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Myrkhoos]

Cases like these are numerous in all religions. I have read "Masters of the living energy " about qero shamans in Peru, "Tales from the edge" on siberian shamanism, another about north american Lakota shaman Archie Fire Lame deer, another about south african shamans. Talked to buddhist and taoist masters ( with long authentic traditional lineages) They ALL have stories of spirits healing. In Hindu traditions these are numerous as well. 

    By the way what "type" of Christianity? I mean the Orthodox think protestants are deluded, at least in some fashion and have strayed from the Holy Spirit. 

      AND is there any example in there of an amputee growing a limb back while praying? If not, I 'm not interested. Or a ressurection. Or something that, for now, is Impossible for medical science. That WOULD REALLY get my attention.

[Myrkhoos]

Not to mention, peer review is not that great and many scientists deplore it as a racket. Would not really consider it so evidently worth taking on face value on anything. I do not think the Bible is the literal word of God. Much less so scientific journals.

[Astreja]

17 hours ago, vl24 said:

Some researchers apparently have investigated these sorts of things, got positive results, and published peer reviewed papers about it...

 

Easily explained by the placebo effect.

 

Quote

Wouldn't this constitute significant proof for Christianity or am I overlooking something?

 

Not even evidence for Christianity.  First you have to prove empirically that gods exist.  Then you have to link one of those gods to a "miraculous" event, and demonstrate that the god is also linked to Christianity.  Good luck - you'll need it.

[midniterider]

22 hours ago, vl24 said:

Some researchers apparently have investigated these sorts of things, got positive results, and published peer reviewed papers about it:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45505841_Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Proximal_Intercessory_Prayer_STEPP_on_Auditory_and_Visual_Impairments_in_Rural_Mozambique

 

The above paper reports positive results when measuring before and after prayer of some Pentecostal ministry. Another example is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965229918313116?via%3Dihub

 

 

Wouldn't this constitute significant proof for Christianity or am I overlooking something?

 

 

 

The Mozambique study didnt include blind or double blind protocol that I could tell. These people knew they were being prayed for and participated as well. Patients got better. Was it Jesus or was it something else? It looks like the study included 24 people. Is that enough to reach a conclusion that Jesus did it? Couldnt Jesus just answer these questions?

 

But something good happened and I'm glad. Though, I am willing to bet that if you replaced a Pentecostal prayer person with someone else who had a 'special title' and no medical education at all, but pretended to be some authority on energy healing or new age healing and performed some similar ritual with patients that you would probably get similar results. 

[Joshpantera]

13 hours ago, vl24 said:

The problem is that according to this author hearing and vision aren't very susceptible to placebo effects. And if this only happens in a christian setting, what does that then mean? (does it? does anyone have somewhat credible reports of things like this from non-christian sources?)

 

Man, there's all sorts of stuff like this coming eastern religions too. But over there they understand it as "mind" and "consciousness" oriented. Greg Braden has some eastern mystical healing stuff out of youtube that's like faith healing, but more tuned into the mind willing the healing into fruition. 

 

13 hours ago, vl24 said:

A large amount of christians don't believe in a literal reading of these parts of Genesis anyways. The whole evolution thing certainly doesn't help the credibility of the bible but it doesn't really discredit it either.

 

It discredits the bible as true if the world wasn't created as suggested. If it's symbolic, great! But it can't be symbolic of the real, objective world that we live in. So the bible IS discredited as objectively true. Evolution contributes to discrediting the bible because the bible describes special creation and it's debunked by evolution. The people who claim that it doesn't debunk the bible don't understand what they're talking about. The bible is demonstrably false in these specific ways. 

 

13 hours ago, vl24 said:

I am aware of many of the problems with the bible, but stuff like makes me stop and think that we might be wrong about those problems somehow.

 

Like what, give me an example. 

[midniterider]

Why is there metaphorical stuff in the bible?

How do we know what stuff in the bible is metaphorical?

 

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

On 6/16/2021 at 5:47 PM, vl24 said:

Some researchers apparently have investigated these sorts of things, got positive results, and published peer reviewed papers about it:

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45505841_Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Proximal_Intercessory_Prayer_STEPP_on_Auditory_and_Visual_Impairments_in_Rural_Mozambique

 

Did you read the article?

 

Quote

It would be desirable to follow-up with subjects several days or weeks after PIP, although systematic follow up would be extremely difficult under similar field conditions (we tried but could only locate one subject for retesting the following day—see Subject B in Supplementary Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/SMJ/A1).  Conducting similar studies under controlled clinical conditions in North America would be desirable, yet neither Iris nor Global Awakening claims comparable results in industrialized countries (arguing that “anointing” and “faith” are lower where medical therapies are available)—see Supplemental Digital Content (http://links.lww.com/SMJ/A1

  (emphasis mine)

 

Of course it got published, it's interesting, but the environment was lacking.  The authors themselves admit as much and request following up with more robust PIP under controlled conditions.

 

The article stands for what it is, and given the circumstances it presented an interesting preliminary outcome.  It should be weighted accordingly.