Talk:Prayer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Prayer in Japan

In response to the request for peer review, I'll suggest some topics that are relevant to Japan, a nation not well covered in the text of the article. These are some thoughts that are not in any particular order or organization. I made these suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, hoping members of the project would have contributions to make. Any of these topics would be interesting additions to the article.

It's weak in information on Japanese Buddhism, and the only mention of Shinto is in a photo. Possible topics include prayer by adherents of multiple religions or sects, prayer in sects as varied as Nichiren and Ōbaku and Shingon Mikkyō, prayer in present-day and in historic Shinto, the types of things people pray for at Shinto shrines (abundant harvest, good marriage, safe birth, success in studies...), ema, omikuji, hyakudo mairi, Jizō statues and offerings, State-sponsored religion (including Kokubun-ji and Gokoku-ji to pray for the nation, the Ise Shrine, State Shinto etc.), recitation and copying of sutras, yamabushi, the monastic tradition, new religions; the blessing of automobiles, the fishing fleet, the sumo ring. The Ainu bear worship. Osorezan. Okinawan religion.

Fg2 11:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have written a brief stub about those, based on existing Wikipedia articles, which unfortunately I found to be unsourced. If anyone in WikiProject Japan can expand what I wrote, I'd be grateful. Thank you. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to communicate?

That doesn't sound NPOV to me 65.102.202.63 17:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you point us to the exact passage in the article to which you object? Please mark it with {{POVassertion}}, and then we can discuss. Thank you. --Blanchardb 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought :-) --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DI effects on MRI scans?

I have a couple issues with the following line from the Efficacy of Prayer section:

A 2005 study found strong evidence that healers in a variety of modalities were able to remotely influence the MRI-measurable brain activity in partners who were physically and electrically isolated.

(Reference for it) Achterberg, Jeanne et al Evidence for Correlations Between Distant Intentionality and Brain Function in Recipients: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Analysis The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2005, 11(6): 965-971.

My first issue is that this isn't necessarily dealing with prayer here. The concept of "distant intentionality," as described in the abstract, seems to deal with a direct connection between minds, rather than appealing to a deity to intercede. It's a bit hard to say for sure, though, as the individual healers may invoke some spirits and/or deities in their methodology, though this wasn't a requirement for their inclusion.

My second issue with this has to do with the nature of the sourcing. If you scan through the references, you'll notice that pretty much every other study is in some reputable journal and available on PubMed. This one was published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, which is far from a reputable journal, and doesn't pass the threshold of being a reliable source. If nothing else, we should reword this so it doesn't state the results of the study quite so strongly, or if criticisms of it exist, add those in as well.

Yes, I'll admit I have a bit of a personal bias against "alternative medicine" and this particular journal. That's why I decided to bring this up here so others could weigh in, rather than just changing it myself and risking a revert war. Perhaps I'm being overcautious though, as in any case, I think the fact that this isn't really prayer should be enough to take this sentence out. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed that does not sound like it has anything to do with prayer, but I want to wait to see what others think before that sentence gets deleted. Thanks for the heads up. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 18:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been a week with no dissent, so I've gone ahead and removed the applicable sentences. If anyone contests this, we can discuss it here. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed WP:OR to talk page

Removed the following to talk page:

Efficacy of prayer is not proven. Although many things prayed for do happen, it is unknown whether they happen due to prayer or whether they would have happened regardless. If prayer is effective, it is not effective for all requests nor all types of requests. The mechanisms through which prayers are answered is not known and simple demonstrations of the direct effects prayer do not exist. If prayer does work, it only does so through "indirect" mechanisms. In the absence of simple demonstrations, experiments have been performed to determine whether there is a statistically detectable effect over many trials.

This is original research reflecting an editor's personal religious beliefs. Many people claim to know the meechanism by which prayer is answered etc. Wikipedia cannot assert matters of religious belief as fact. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

General

A "Criticism of Prayer" section is needed. 59.92.174.53 (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Chetan

There is one already, but it is not called that. See here. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the etymology of the word prayer? Wouldn't it give further insight to its origin or why it was developed?

Assistance required: need a better word. The word "discard" in the Buddhist section isn't quite right. It doesn't quite discard it. It just finds it *uncecessary* as a *primary* means of spiritual growth. You can't discard something you never had in the first place. Plus discard sounds oppositional, or like a strong rejection, which is inaccurate. Can someone think of a better word? ___________________________________________ What about what I might call the "contemplative approach"? Namely that the purpose of prayer is to enable the person praying to experience God... kind of like the "rational approach", but without presuming the contemplation to be so "intellectual". Or to make the person praying able to experience God (again, like the "educational", but less "intellectual" or "propositional")... Just trying to see where my own views fit in :)

Looks like I missed that totally. This is very significant in Christianity, fairly wide-spread in Judaism (but, it appears to me, viewed as less theologically imporant than the other views); this view must also be existent to some degree in Unitarian-Universalism. We should add this in! I would prefer a different title than "contemplative approach", because that name may give the impression of formal philosophical contemplation. What about a name like the "experiential approach", or something like that? RK

In Eastern Orthodoxy, this would be called hesychasm, I believe. It was defended theologically by Gregory Palamas at about three separate Hesychast Synods in Constantinople in the 1340's; it was attacked by Barlaam of Calabria, who advocated a more intellectual approach to prayer. This sort of prayer is described in great detail in the Philokalia, a compilation of what various Eastern Orthodox saints wrote about prayer. The Philokalia also talks a lot about the "prayer of the heart", or prayer without ceasing, which I think is related but slightly different. I suppose all of this might be called a subset of the "experiential approach". --Wesley

I unconsciously left this view out because, though this experience exists in Jewish prayer, it usually isn't considered a separate type of prayer (although, of course, it could be.) Rather, I have seen it presented as a consequence, or effect, of one of the other types of prayer. Of course, if such emotional communion is the goal, it becomes a separate category of prayer outright. To give an example, Hasidic Jews (and some non-Orthodox Jews as well) follow the Kabbalistic form of prayer; yet in doing so they also state that they strive to feel an emotional bond with God. To wit:

"In Hasidism, the kabbalistic type of kavvanot yields to a far more emotional involvement and attachment (devekut) to God. "The metamorphosis which took place in the meaning of kavvanot at the advent of Hasidism, and more explicitly after the Great Maggid [Dov Baer of Mezhirech], consists in this—that an originally intellectual effort of meditation and contemplation had become an intensely emotional and highly enthusiastic act". In Hasidism, prayer is a mystical encounter with the Divine, the heart leaping in ecstasy to its Source. Violent movements in prayer were not unusual; some of the hasidic groups even encouraged their followers to turn somersaults during their prayers." [Encyclopaedia Judaica, Prayer]

Also, we should add stuff on prayer in religions other than Western monotheism... -- SJK

Absolutely. RK

I removed a sentence saying that critics have complained about lack of control in the Mayo study. If those critics are different from the writer of that sentence, I would like to see a reference. [Whoever wrote this, please replace this bracketed comment with four consecutive ~. Thanks.]

Here is one rerference; there are more. Irwin Tessman and Jack Tessman in ""Efficacy of Prayer: A Critical Examination of Claims,"" Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 2000

This article appeared before the Mayo study so it is irrelevant to the question --AxelBoldt

The study had in fact a control group. Whether the people in the control group were in addition prayed for by family and friends is irrelevant, since the trial was randomized and you would expect to see the same amount of family-and-friend prayer in the control group as in the study group. The study showed only that the additional effect of the prayer group was nil. --AxelBoldt

You missed the point: how can one make any determination of the effect of prayer on a patient, if ALL the patients are being prayed for? (And in all likelihood, most of them are being prayer for by someone, even if this is not known.) In such a case, no control group is possible. Having additional people doing extra praying for some people only wouldn't make a difference - unless there was an additional and unreasonable hypothesis, such as that the prayers of friends and family outside the study don't count. In the study you describe, NO CONTROL existed. You had one group in which people were probably being prayed for a lot, plus five extra prayers, and a second group in which people were probably being prayer for a lot, without an extra five people. There is prayer in both groups! Hence, there was no control group to begin with; that is the essence of the criticism. (Unless the scientists running the study claimed that they somehow "knew" that no one was praying for these people. RK

Where did you read this criticism? The study claims to show that the additional five people praying didn't make a difference, and they didn't. If you don't think that "more prayer is better", than those five people should at least have made a difference for those patients that nobody else was praying for; and you would expect about the same number of these in the treatment group and in the control group. But even for those it didn't make a difference. --AxelBoldt

Thanks much for the needed addition on Bahai prayer! RK

I removed the link to 'dua', because the article dua gives a common Indian surname. In the edit history of dua, a redirect to Duamutef is given, which is an ancient Egyptian god. If someone can make a good article about the Islamic dua, feel free to make a disambiguation page. Coffeemonster 14:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first picture/link be Mary Magdalene rather than Maria Magdalene? 129.234.4.76 13:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Section on Efficacy of Prayer

The section on "efficacy of prayer" may well deserve a page of its own, with a brief review and a link from here. As is, the efficacy issues are somewhat burried here among so many other items. Once on a separate page, it will probably develop a life of its own and get more content. I wanted to add some new materal here, with links to the British Medical Journal, etc. but I think the efficacy issue really deserves a separate page with the same title "Efficacy of prayer". Please add your comments here, and if no one objects in a week or so, I will try to move most of that material to a new page and add some new material that I have seen in research as well. Thanks History2007 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You may try. However, what is already in this article should stay here and be accompanied by a {{main}} tag linking to your article. Be aware, however, that if your article becomes some kind of POV fork, the Wikipedia community may ask that your article be deleted and its content merged back into this article. Whatever you do, your article will be on my watchlist. --Blanchardb (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that the section stay here until it is large enough for there to be a legitimate argument for splitting on size grounds. Why not simply add the content you were planning to add now? We can see how large it makes the section and discuss the issue of splitting after you finish. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. There are articles twice as large as this one on which content forking on the grounds of article size has been rejected by consensus. --Blanchardb (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that within a few hours of my suggesting a new page there is enough resistance to it that the idea of a new page may already be DOA before it gets off the ground. As for your POV warning, no worries my friend, I am well versed in avoiding POV debates by presenting both sides of a story and remaining neutral. My main reason for suggesting a new page was that this page seems to be mixing scientific and religoious viewpoints, and that is often a recipe for unending debate that usually gets nowhere. My guess is that a scientifically oriented page on the effects of prayer will eventually be needed, as well as a page on the religious view points. And the best way may well be to have both pages coexist without spending time on debates that are unlikely to convince either side. In any case, I will wait a few days to see if there are other comments and then add a few things (ever so slowly) to this page to see how it affects the blood pressure of those who feel so strongly about this page. Yet, let me again restate my opinion that new pages often attract new content faster than items burried within large pages. Yet, let us leave things as they are and we will see how the future takes shape. No pun intended, but let us pray that the page will turn out for the best History2007 (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Please don't take offense. There are also practical considerations to look into. The article title should reflect what a normal person would type in Wikipedia's internal search engine to get to the information he wants. And I doubt that there are many people who would type "Efficacy of prayer" to get information on the efficacy of prayer. One would simply type "Prayer" and work from there. And since the section on efficacy is listed in the index, one can simply jump to it. You should also know that we recently had a heated debate about the very title of that section, which was formerly titled "Experimental evaluation of prayer" and may someday revert to that title. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 17:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken my friend. Now, you had a heated debate at the crossroads where science meets religion? But that was to be expected. That is why it is my feeling that the scientific and religious viewpoints here are best kept separate for the parties involved have already made their minds up before the debate begins. The debate will not convince either side, they will just stop debating only after one side runs out of energy to debate any more. And both sides usually go away with bitterness - an outcome that is best avoided. But at least one group can pray that they will be forgiven. History2007 (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I support having "Efficacy of prayer" in it's own article. I would expect such a topic to have plenty of material and agree it is constrained by being embedded in the Prayer page. I don't see any "POV fork" issues. -- Barrylb (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A Suggested Structure for the Section

Now that I see there is a lot of debate about the Efficacy of Prayer, let me make my suggestions here, on the talk page first. Please comment on them here and if there seems to be some form of agreement, then we can modify the page accordingly.

To begin with, this section seems to be silently praying for subsections, as we discuss its fate. In fact, my first observation (as someone who used to be a data analysis expert years ago) is that the text here just lumps together a number of studies with no distinction as to their structure or as to what they aimed to measure. As a beginning we may just gather those studies that have a similar structure together, to help with clarity. There will be no more or no less POV issues since the text will remain mostly the same, it will just be more structured and easy to follow. Here is a 1st cut suggestion:

A number of studies have been performed to scientifically measure the impact of prayer, often within a medical setting. The studies performed have used different structural methods and measured both hard data (such as blood pressure variations) and soft data such as anxiety levels and number of doctor visits. They have measured first person effects (where the beneficiary performs the prayer) second person effects (where someone with a personal connection to the beneficiary performs the prayer) and third party effects where a group of unknown people pray for the beneficiary.

First person studies

The Bernardi study in the British Medical Journal [1] reported in 2001 that by praying the rosary or reciting yoga mantras at specific rates, baroreflex sensitivity increased significantly in cardiovascular patients.

• • • Other first person items to be added here ***

Second person studies

One condition that may affect the efficacy of intercessory prayer is whether the person praying has a personal connection to the person prayed for. A 2005 study found strong evidence that healers in a variety of modalities were able to remotely influence the MRI-measurable brain activity in partners who were physically and electrically isolated.

• • • Other second person items to be added here ***

Third party studies

The oldest statistical analysis of the effects of third party prayer was performed In 1872 by Francis Galton, perhaps as a form of satire as well as an experiment. Galton hypothesized that if prayer was effective, members of the British Royal family would live longer, given that thousands prayed for their wellbeing every Sunday. He therefore compared longevity in the British Royal family with that of the general population, and found no difference. Galton’s experiment, suffered from a number of confounders.

• • • Rest of 3rd party studies to be categorized and discussed here ***

This restructuring will use the text that is already there, but will separate things out so they are more clear. And it will have no more and no less POV than the text that is there because the text will be mostly the same, but the structure will be more clear. Then other people can expand each section more easily. Usualy when a section is created, new material will be easier to add in a logical way.

The text on the religious objection to the measurement (as in Deuteronomy) and the objection to the use of a scripted prayer (which made things too mechanical in one experiment) should probably go into yet another section for which I can not think of a good title at the moment. But those two viewpoints are best gathered together in a section for they makes a point that is valid from a religious stance, and may have been a confounder in some experimenst as well from a scientific stance. The subsection should point to references that mechanical prayer is not viewed as real prayer by some people, etc. and it can be a variable in experiments.

Please add suggestions here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Generalizing statements

We need to be careful not to get to bogged down in the nitty gritty of the scientific studies and start with a broad approach to the topic. I would include an introduction the state of understanding of prayer, providing a bit of a background, without jumping straight into scientific studies. I would include: understanding of the mechanisms, some obvious examples of where prayer is not effective (so much so that they are not the subject of published scientific research and/or things that people don't bother praying for and why), the increase in published research in recent years. I think also it is correct and appropriate to say that "Efficacy of prayer is not proven". Barrylb (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Wikipedia can make any claim about "understanding of the mechanisms" or any general statements other than the existence of controversy. All we can do is identify the individal studies and what individual investigators have done and claimed. In particular, any claim that prayer is subject to scientific analysis requires making a great many assumptions that are disputed and although what specific scientists have said and done can be reported, generalizations from their actions and findings represent WP:OR. For example, claims such as that prayer is susceptible to experimental designs or statistical analysis require sourcing and cannot be asserted as fact -- they are people's opinions, nothing more. Such claims depend on assumptions that e.g. prayer must be answered after it occurs or that a thousand prayers are statistically different from one. Such assumptions about the nature of prayer are assertions of religious belief, not of fact. Religion generally deals with unique, uncontrollable events; statistics, and science generally, deal with recurring phenomena which are possible to sample or control and are susceptible to general laws. An assertion that prayer has not been shown to have a mechanism-based efficacy is not the thing as an assertion that it lacks efficacy. Great care is needed in reaching conclusions, and conclusions need to be carefully sourced. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I think be can go a bit further than stating the existence of controversy. We can say what is known and what is unknown and it will not be original research if we are quoting what other people have said on that topic. An article from the Medical Journal of Australia, for example, says "One common criticism of prayer research is that prayer has become a popular therapeutic method for which there is no known plausible mechanism." [2] And yes we definitely need to include points about whether prayer is even susceptible to testing experimentally. And in no way did I mean that just because we don't understand the mechanism then prayer is therefore ineffective -- clearly that would be an invalid conclusion. However, a lack of understanding of mechanism, in any field of science, is a strong indicator of the state of understanding in that field. Barrylb (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Describing scientific sources vs. philosophical/theological sources in religion articles

A general comment on describing of scientific sources in religion articles:

1. We are on the safest ground when we attribute ("according to..." type language) and directly quote or closely paraphrase. When we say "Scientist X said 'A', philosopher 'Y' said 'B', and Theologian Z said 'C'", we are maintaining neutrality among these different methods of making sense out of realty, yet every reader clearly understands what method and worldview was used to arrive at each statement.

2. When we use scientific material without attribution, we can describe what scientists did and what observed as fact. But difficulties arise in reporting conclusions drawn from those activities and observations as fact, because those conclusions depend on assumptions. The assumptions are often questionable/controversial even in mundane scientific tasks (the demographics of people who participate in clinical trials is often different from the general population; abrupt economic discontinuities often render regression models invalid, etc.), and particularly so when the subject is religion. Religious believers often claim the typical assumptions made about ordinary phenomena do not apply to religious phenomena.

3. While assumptions are often allowed to be unstated in general scientific work -- in many fields there's no controversy at all, in others the controversies are well-known and form a sort of background boilerplate (every clinician understands clinical trial volunteers are different from the general population, every economist knows abrupt changes can invalidate regression models) -- this is not the case when multiple worldviews make different assumptions about a subject which are all significant from the viewpoint of WP:NPOV, so that scientists' assumptions represent controversial assertions rather than simply background understandings.

4. For these reasons, while I believe that while there is no reason to use "according to scientist X" language when describing experimental designs and findings, I believe that "according to scientist X" or "scientist X said" language is needed when describing scientific conclusions about issues like religion, just as "according to Philosopher/Theologian Y/Z" is needed when describing philosophical or theological positions. Conclusions are not really facts. To the extent the assumptions involved are in the nature of opinion (and when they are assumptions about religious phenomena, religious opinon), conclusions are to that degree (religious) opinion as well.

Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! the solution here is simply attribution, sourcing conclusions and using "according to" or "X concluded that" language to describe them. This is hardly a tall barrier. The issue is common to many subjects. I believe WP:AGF addresses your other concerns regarding motivation etc. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for a New Page on Efficacy of Prayer

Well, you turned up a good link and a valid point in that reference Barrylb. I think the point that prayer is now viewed by some people as a form of remedy needs to be mentioned.

Comments on proposal

A strictly logistical comment: Given the size of the proposal, suggest creating a subpage on your user page and supplying a link. If there is substantial discussion, this will enable people to discuss different versions (a new subpage for each version if there are multiple) without new versions obscuring what previous comment was about. It also makes it easier to revert vandalism and other unwanted edits to the proposal without also reverting useful comments. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Structure vs Content

Well, it now seems that:

1. An introductory section is a good idea.

2. What goes into that section is subject to debate.

But perhaps we can agree on structure while the debate about content continues. One valid point made by someone above was that whatever goes into these pages must be understandable by the average Wikipedia user. Hence a really detailed discussion on the nature of "scientific proof" is probably not suitable here, but pointers must be provided as to what "X has been proven" means - be X the conjecture that "vitamin E has cardiovascular benefits" or that "prayer is effective". The natural pointer to that would have been a standard text such as Conjectures and Refutations but that has a short write up on Wikipedia, but the basic ideas are discussed here Falsifiability. By the way, the first statement "vitamin E has cardiovascular benefits" has been subject to as much heated debate in some circles as the second statement about prayer. There are always several studies on several sides in these cases, and different people with MD after their names reach different conclusions from these studies. Usually a "meta study" is performed to group the studies together, and often finds the studies to be inconsistent, e.g. the Harvard meta-study on the effects of carbohydrates on cholesterol was by and large inconclusive. I have seen no meta-study on the "studies on prayer". So there is disagreement on these studies, but we should expect debate and disagreement when science and religion come close to each other.

In any case, let us say that there will be some kind of an introductory section with a few simple links to the concepts of Statistical inference and Falsifiability to provide the general user with links to what it may mean to "prove" or "disprove" something then follow that with a few well structured sections on the types of studies performed to date, and their conclusions, without taking sides on any issues ourselves. Then to provide a balance, there is need for a section on the religious objections to measuring prayer in a "mechanical form" and their view that some studies were only measuring mechanical prayer.

Do you guys have suggestions for other subsections?

Thanks History2007 (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Although there is no significant dispute about the statistical falsifiability of the proposition that vitamin E has cardiovascular benefits, there is significant dispute about the falsifiability of the proposition that prayers are answered or that prayer has "efficacy." This makes all the difference. In the vitamin E case all agree the subject is part of the business of scientists because everyone agrees that vitamin E acts, if at all, in a mechanical fashion readily susceptible to scientific inquiry. In this case the dispute is at a much more basic level, starting with an explanation of why some scientists think the subject their business. If general statements are intended, I suggest we begin with the views of reliable sources on that question, including the question of whether or not the subject is falsifiable. The idea that the only issues here are "religious objections to measuring prayer in a 'mechanical form'" represents a gross distortion of the issue. Bertrand Russell for example, one of many modern philosophers who took the position that most religious questions cannot be scientifically determined, was an atheist. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not in a debating mode, so let me just note that the falsifiability issue is often called the Problem of demarcation and one can debate that for years to come in any philosophy department with no end in sight. But my intent is not to get involved in a debate at all. This topic will be debated for years to come and I see no reason for an encyclopedia to do the debating. In the end the "real" debate that influences this issue is between those who "believe" and those who do not. I am not interested in a debate. The main issue is "what is the best way to provide useful information to users". To that end, I just noticed that the links to Washington Post articles etc. are somewhat burried at the end of this article. It may just make sense to state the fact that "This topic has been discussed in the popular media" and add more clear links to those. So what may make sens is to say that:

1. This topic has been written about in the popular media as well as technical journals, as well as religious sources. Links should be provided so users can read up on the discussions all over the place.

2. Something to the effect that "All parties involved often experience elevated blood pressures when they discuss this issue". That seems to be the only science agreed upon here. But jokes aside, we can say that there seems to be "controversy" on this topic. That is clearly a fact, and is to be expected.

3. Debates and personal viewpoints should be avoided. Statements as to whether this topic is "the business of" scientists, the clergy or investment bankers already beg for some demarcation and should just be avoided.

The best way is to say things that point users to a variety of sources, but will not result in unednding debate (pronound re-edits) for 6 months. As is, this page has so much debate and is so short on links to various other sources.

Now, your point about B. Russell, etc. is a valuable angle that has not been presented in this article. As is, the article is short on content and long on debate. My suggestion to you Shirahadasha is to add that as a subsection because it is an interesting point that I had forgotten about - and it will make an interesting sub-section. I am sure you have a few more sub-topics like that in mind that will make interesting sub-sections. Why not just add those? That way, this may become a good article after all. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

I thought more about your point. I think what you are driving towards with your mention of B. Russell etc. is the existence of both religious and scientific objections to the "very measurement" of the efficacy of prayer, as in the Deuteronomy issue mentioned in the article. Those two issues may well be grouped together in a sub-section and do make sense in the article. I think it will make sense for you to write the religious objections sub-section to present that view, since obviously you have already thought about it. You could also write the sub-section on the scientific objections to it and that will begin to give life to a balanced artcile with both scientific study links and the statement of the objections thereto, with links. Thanks History2007 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

Hi: Suggest taking a look at my comment Talk:Prayer#Describing scientific sources vs. philosophical/theological sources in religion articles above. On reflection, I think that almost all the problems involved can be addressed simply by being careful with attribution -- being careful to say "Scientist X concluded A from experiment n <source>" or similar (so that the referenced facts are who said what and whether who is notable, not the underlying truth of what was said) rather than saying "Experiment n showed A" "science proves A", "A", or similar. This is what is generally done in religion and philosophy articles where there are highly divergent worldviews and basic assumptions are questioned. Although it might seem a little picky, being careful about attribution solves WP:NPOV problems and can be done without unduly disrupting article flow, preventing any relevant information from being presented, or getting bogged down in philosophical swamps. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy of the peer review

This is a copy of the peer review I requested for the article. Please strike-through the issues as they are dealt with. Thank you.

Prayer

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel the shortcomings that were pointed out during a "Good Article" nomination review last year have now been corrected.

Thanks,

Blanchardb 12:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:BirgitteSB

• Lead Way to short. See WP:LEAD. Orisons should be bold synom here.
• Forms of prayer Aviod phrases like "The great spiritual traditions", that is an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Bullet points need to be converted to prose. Also avoid weseal words like "Some anthropologists believe . . ."
• The act of prayer No references. Lots of weseal words.
• Prayer in Abrahamic religions The various subsections here should be summaries of the main article. For example look at Prayer in Christianity: main topics are The Early Church; Liturgical; Vocal; Meditative; Prayer of recollection; Contemplative prayer; Physical posture; Charismatic prayer: Speaking in tongues; A Christian philosophy of prayer; Christian Science Prayer; and Epistemological issues. Less than half of these topics are summarized. Your summary of Christian prayer in this article should only need small additions and tweaking to be the lead over at Prayer in Christianity. The same issue needs looking into throughout this section. No references for this section.
  • How is neopaganism an Abrahamic religion
• Prayer in Eastern religions Same issues as last section. Also I am noticing the lack of animist traditions. Having only an Eastern section and a Abrahmic section means other traditions are left out.
• Approaches to prayer Needs more references.
• Experimental evaluation of efficacy of prayer This is slighty out of context without an introduction to the whole idea of Prayer healing. BTW Prayer healing is a redirect to this article and probably should be addressed directly and bolded.
• Historical polytheistic prayer This is the first the first mention of scrafice related to prayer. Despite the earlier section of "Prayer in the Bible" The whole section seem out of place. Why leave out the Aztecs or the Vikings? And what about non-historical polytheistic prayer? No references
• Etymology I would think this section would be first rather than last. No references
• Misc For some reason Prayer Warrior and Prayer group redirect here they should probably go to Prayer in Christianity but they are not really dealt with there either.--BirgitteSB 15:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has little on Japan. I've listed some topics related to Japan on the article's talk page. Fg2 11:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

At least about etymology, you're probably right. There should be some etymological reference at the beginning but I don't think they should just move to the top all the detailed reference they give at the end because it would be a little digressive. A small note saying "(from M.E., from Anglo-French priere, from M. L. precaria; for further details see etymology section below)" ...or so should be enough.--Quinceps (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dummy entry to prevent archiving. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-theological meaning and use

Prayer in English has the general sense of petition with no theological context necessarily implied. This general, nontheological sense is still in use, particularly in the law, in phrases such as the "prayer for relief" that litigants provide to courts. From this point of view, theology is simply one application of the more general concept of "prayer", although the one that's in the most common use today. (The legal meaning, though still in wide legal use, would be considered somewhat archaic for general English). Should the article say anything about this non-theological meaning and its uses? Should it let the reader know that the word has a larger scope but the article will be focusing exclusively on theological applications? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. If no one has any objections, I'll put something in. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you have any references or useful information on this? Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C —Preceding comment was added at 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

God vs. god

I have noticed that this article sometimes capitalizes the word "God" and sometimes it doesn't. I think we should do one or the other, not be inconsistant through the article. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me which one we use, I have a slight preference toward the capitalized version, but what do you guys think? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you check throughout the article, the majority of the times the word "God" is used it is speaking of a deity specific to the religion being discussed. If the word is in small caps, it is usually preceded by an adjective article, e.g. "a god." This is the correct way to do it, at least by American English grammar rules (I have no idea which way is correct in England and other places). Therefore, I don't think we should change all instances of the word, but rather make sure that the way it is used is consistent. It is not correct to say "a God" or to refrain from capitalizing the title of a specific religion's deity. Let's just make sure it's consistent throughout. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 03:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Prayer Efficacy (reference from Deuteronomy?!)

Sorry but I really don't get why they wrote this at the end of the Prayer Efficacy section:

Deuteronomy 6:16 states, "You shall not test the Lord thy God"[18], reflecting the notion of some that prayer cannot, or should not, be tested.

Can someone explain, before I delete it?--Quinceps (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it means that prayer done for the sole purpose of experimental evaluation is not prayer at all, at least not by the definitions given to it in the Abrahamic religions. God would simply ignore such prayers. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you are interpreting the verse. It merely states "You shall not test the Lord thy God". You just made up the parts about "prayer done for the sole purpose of experimental evaluation is not prayer at all" and "God would simply ignore such prayers". The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An explanation of the verse in question was asked for, and Blanchardb was merely explaining the verse based on his/her understanding of it. Personal attacks are not appropriate simply because you disagree with an asked-for explanation. Simply put, The Biggest Lie Ever Told it is pointless to attack someone for their expressed point of view 3 months after it was expressed, and your time could be better spent instead trying to give YOUR answer to the question from Quinceps. If you don't, you have no business trying to bawl out someone else based on YOUR interpretation of THEIR words. Just think about that for a minute. As far as the issue in question, the word "test" in the scriptures often refers to "test, try, or prove." So, it would be well if this sentence was removed, if it hasn't been already, as the sentence above was worded based on an out-of-context definition. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jgstokes Are you serious? PrayExtraHard (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

In regards to what, PrayExtraHard? If you are referring to the comment I directed to The Biggest Lie Ever Told, I assure you, I was in earnest. Personal attacks are not objective or purposeful, and the user in question had no business bawling out the previous user for his/her response to the query beginning this discussion. If you are referring to my expressed opinion that the sentence in question is misleading based on an out-of-context definition, I was in earnest about that as well. Definitions taken out of context are always damaging to what is supposed to be an objective article. So, I assure you, I was quite serious about both matters. Does that answer your question? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no 3 month statute of limitation for commenting on someone else's incorrect POV. PrayExtraHard (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true. However, who are we to determine what is "incorrect POV"? The user beginning this topic of discussion asked for an explanation of the statement in question, and the first response was a reply complying with that request. Just because the second replier may not have necessarily agreed with the first replier doesn't make the first reply an incorrect POV. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, this sentence is somewhat out of context based on the definition of "tempt" as contained in the KJV of the verse in question. So I would be in favor of striking the sentence from the article if it's still there. I do happen to be serious on this issue as well. There seems to be no sure way to define a so-called "incorrect POV" as far as Wikipedia goes. Just because the first replier may hold a different perspective on things than I do doesn't make his/her response any less valid because WP is not governed by what one editor thinks, nor is it controlled by what one editor perceives as an "incorrect POV." At any rate, incorrect POV or not, the second replier had no business personally attacking the viewpoint of the first replier simply because he/she disagreed with the viewpoint of him/her. Think about that for a moment. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are other verses that could have been used to explain the fact that studies have not found a link between prayer and results, such as

Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

and/or

James 5:15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

which imply that if a prayer is not answered, it is the fault of the one doing the praying. But the quote that is in the article, "You shall not test the Lord thy God" is not a good one.

User:Blanchardb wrote, "Basically, it means that prayer done for the sole purpose of experimental evaluation is not prayer at all, at least not by the definitions given to it in the Abrahamic religions. God would simply ignore such prayers."

I wrote "...you are interpreting the verse..." and "You just made up the parts about "prayer done for the sole purpose of experimental evaluation is not prayer at all" and "God would simply ignore such prayers".".

User:Jgstokes then sidetracked the discussion with false accusations of "Personal attacks" and fabricated time limits for commenting on incorrect statements.

All this is distracting from the fact that no legitimate, recognized study has ever found a link between prayer and results. The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me address the issues one by one. First of all, when we refer to these scriptures, which version of the Bible are you using? The one that seems to be used most commonly for WP references seems to be the King James Version (KJV), and the wording therein is slightly different from what you said.

The KJV of Mark 11:24 is a slightly different rendering from the same verse listed here. It says: "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them."

So too is the KJV of James 5:15 slightly different. It reads: "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."

So there are two different versions of the same verse. Since the KJV seems to be the WP standard Bible used for quotations of this kind, I would suggest using the KJV version of these verses.

Now, to The Biggest Lie Ever Told: You categorically stated what the verses you quoted "imply." But it seems to me that by doing so, you are doing exactly the same thing as what you accused Blanchardb of: that is, interpreting the verse and "making up" what it means. Now, I am just as willing to justify you in your interpretation of things, which I believe to be mostly correct, as I was to justify Blanchardb in his/her interpretation, not that I believe either of you were entirely correct, but not that I believe either of you were entirely incorrect either. If it was wrong for Blanchardb to "make up" an "interpretation" of the verse in question, it must likewise be wrong for you to put your own slant on the verses you quoted, which therefore makes me wrong to stand by both or either of you in your definitions, which makes your statement about what I'm doing 100% the truth. However, if you feel justified in putting your own slant on the verses you quoted, then why do you deny others the right to do the same, and why do you call me into question for taking their part? Perhaps I misjudged your intentions. That happens often, and if that's the case, I apologize. But at the same time, if you assert your right to put a slant/interprepation/explanation on certain verses, then please allow other people the right to do the same, and please do not take out any anger you might have about people disagreeing with you on those bold enough to defend such people. I may indeed have "fabricated time limits" and I was not justified in doing so. But it is never a sidetrack for me to agree with an editor, even if my agreement may cause sidetracks because someone disagrees with me. We all have a right to our own opinions here. WP is not governed by the thoughts or ideas of one editor alone. Nor can or should any one editor be justified in asserting his or her opinion above all others without first gathering competent evidence to suport such a viewpoint and respectfully listening to arguments on both sides. That is what I was trying to do here, and if I came up on what is perceived to be the wrong side of the issue, then I'm sorry you don't agree with me. But just as I do not govern WP policy on the way in which discussions are conducted, neither do you, and neither does any one single person. It is only by working together toward a common goal that we can make these articles as accurate and as readable as possible. I realize there will be those who take exception to my commenting on these issues, those who criticize me for writing such a long reply, and those who disagree with me 100%. But that doesn't make my right to voice my opinion any less valid, nor does it mean that I'm right or wrong. I leave all this for you to reflect upon and consider. Keep up the good work. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was quoting from the NIV. There was a time when I preferred the KJV (I thought that God and Jesus talked like that!), but not now. I dispute your contention that the KJ "seems to be the WP standard Bible used for quotations of this kind", but of course anyone is free to do so if they prefer it. I no longer consider that English as written in 1611 has any special significance. Also, the KJV also contained (and many modern copies still contain) the fraudulent Comma Johanneum which was used to justify the Trinity.

I consider that the POV creation by User:Blanchardb above exceeded my deduction. If you think they are of the same magnitude, please read them again.

Once again, the main issue is that no legitimate, recognized study has ever found a link between prayer and results. Here is another of many examples of what this can lead to: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html "An 11-year-old girl died after her parents prayed for healing rather than seek medical help for a treatable form of diabetes, police said Tuesday." The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The citations in your earlier post make more sense now. The NIV also seems to be popular on WP. I still feel that the KJV is most common on WP for biblical citations, but I may be wrong. It just seems like most of those biblical references I've come upon have come from the KJV. The NIV works just as well, though. And my so-called "contention" happened to be more of an observation based upon what I've come upon in the past. You can dispute that all you want, but I think you'll agree that it's pointless to dispute an observation.

Just what is YOUR definition of the difference between interpretation (what you accused Blanchardb of) and deduction (the way you termed your own interpretation of the verses you cited)? The former has been defined by one dictionary as "1. the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication. 2. an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work; an elucidation. 3. a conception of another's behavior. 4. a way of interpreting. The latter has been defined by the same dictionary as "a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true; a conclusion reached by this process." The former deals with opinion, the latter with fact.

I will risk the chance of angering you by saying that it doesn't surprise me to hear you in the same breath call Blanchardb's viewpoint an opinion, and establishing yours as fact. I will state again as emphatically as I can by writing that I am neither in favor of or actively opposing either viewpoint. Another reading of both sides of the issues leads me to the deduction that you are both right. And I will continue to advance my own opinion that this is the case as much as it is necessary. I have apologized once for something I earlier wrote that I now regret, so my conscience is void of any ill feelings towards you, whether you accept that or not. I have the greatest personal respect for you as a fellow WP editor, but am tired of having my viewpoint twisted to suit your interpretation of what you think I'm trying to do by agreeing with both of you.

I agree that the main issue is that no legitimate, recognized source has ever found a link between prayer and results. However, if you continue to seek out and cite ONLY the sources which state that there appears to be no link between prayer and results, you never will find those that prove there IS a link. There are always "results" when prayers are given, expected or not, good or bad. And to blame prayer on something like what was recounted in your latest citation appears to be a close-minded approach to the whole issue. The examples proving that prayer works are scattered throughout the same bible you cited, and are also available, on rare occasions, on news websites. However, the media consistently seems to rejoice in accentuating the negative to the extent of overlooking the positive. And in the source you cited, it was stupid for the family to rely solely on prayer when it was obvious their daughter needed medical assistance. If you start saying you can't prove prayer is ineffective based on the example of someone who should have gotten medical help but didn't, you may be on dangerous ground. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a tedious comparison of what Blanchardb wrote in defense of the original quote, to what I quoted and wrote. Warning, there are quotes within quotes. In defense of the original quote Deuteronomy 6:16 states, "You shall not test the Lord thy God"[18], reflecting the notion of some that prayer cannot, or should not, be tested.,Blanchardb wrote "Basically, it means that prayer done for the sole purpose of experimental evaluation is not prayer at all, at least not by the definitions given to it in the Abrahamic religions. God would simply ignore such prayers." In attempting to explain the lack of proof between prayer and results, he created the excuse that if anyone was trying to evaluate the effectiveness of a prayer, at that time or any time in the future, it would not pass definition of prayer. Notice that Deuteronomy 6:16 does not mention prayer. Blanchardb then went on to declare categorically, without any basis whatsoever, that "God would simply ignore such prayers". Show us the link between "You shall not test the Lord thy God" and "God would simply ignore such prayers". There is no link. Is there a similar link between violating the other "You shall nots" in the Bible, and having your prayers ignored? I wrote

There are other verses that could have been used to explain the fact that studies have not found a link between prayer and results, such as

Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

and/or

James 5:15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

which imply that if a prayer is not answered, it is the fault of the one doing the praying.

Notice that in both verses, faith is required in order for the prayer to be answered. Therefore, if your prayer was not answered, your faith was insufficient. If A+B=C, and B is not equal to zero, then A does not equal C.

Of course, most people have learned the hard way that it doesn't matter how much faith they have, their prayers will not be answered. The millions of people starving in Ireland during the Famine prayed for food, but there were no loaves and fishes to feed the multitudes, nor was there manna from heaven. The church in Rome even organized prayer-a-thons for them, but the deaths continued. What do you conclude from that? That they had insufficient faith? That God ignored their prayers because he knew that 150 years later, we would be evaluating it to determine if he was ignoring the prayers? Or that "There are always "results" when prayers are given, expected or not, good or bad.". Or can we conclude that there is no link between prayer and results? After you read "Wisconsin Parents Didn't Expect Daughter to Die During Prayer" and you look at the girl's photo http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html do you conclude that her parent's prayers were answered? Is it OK, because she is now with her heavenly father? You wrote, "... it was stupid for the family to rely solely on prayer when it was obvious their daughter needed medical assistance". If prayer is effective, and if the verse, "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven." is true, why was it "stupid for the family to rely solely on prayer"? This is an encyclopedia. How much wishful thinking and folklore should it contain? Does it concern you that some people actually believe these myths? The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) It's clearly obvious to me that based on your first misrepresentation of what I said in defense of Blanchardb, you have convinced yourself that it is perfectly permissible to "find holes" in whatever I say, and that you are determined at any cost to discredit my viewpoint as a defender of the user in question on this matter. I guess I can live with that. I repeat, there are always results to every prayer, expected or not, good or bad. And I add to this that these results often come at a different time than expected. When we take it upon ourselves to second-guess God by assuming prayers are not answered simply because the answers may not have been what was expected, were not delivered when expected, and were different from the way in which we thought they would be given, then we are on very dangerous ground. So, let me deal with your renewed objections to my viewpoint one by one.

First, what is the basis for your statement that IF prayers are not answered, then your faith is not sufficient. I know of hundreds of examples where prayers have not been answered and yet a lot of faith has been exercised. As just one of them, I was one of many Church members who prayed that President Hinckley would be able to be at April Conference like he wanted to. I believe that the united faith of the other Church members who likewise prayed for this blessing was a sufficient demonstration of our faith. However, President Hinckley died anyways. So, what are we to conclude? Was President Hinckley merely speaking out of habit than real desire when he said what he said at the close of last Conference? Were some Church members being so unfaithful to their covenants that the Lord took him away to punish us all? Was it just all a big joke for a bunch of "Mormons" to think that their prayers could preserve their prophet? Or did the Lord have a higher purpose in mind? When answers don't come, it is not necessarily because sufficient faith hasn't been exercised, nor is it because the prayers aren't sincere or faith-filled enough to "make God change his mind". It's often simply because God has a higher purpose in mind. If you can accept that, that is a key to understanding how prayer works, and how even when results, timetables or other issues seem to go unresolved.

Now, on to the two examples you cited in your last response. As far as the Ireland hunger problem, I haven't read about it. Not knowing the facts, I would not care to judge the story based on nonexistent knowledge. But my answer based on what I DO know and WOULD care to comment about relates also to the second example about the family relying solely on prayer and having the daughter die because of it. I imagine in both cases that there had been warnings about both the approaching famine in Ireland and about this young lady's health situation. I'm not taking about prophetic warnings here. I'm taking about people who knew the people involved and the factors they were facing and had the expertise to comment on it. Someone who could tell that times of famine were coming in Ireland, and a medical professional who knew what had to be done for the girl. If the obvious things COULD have been done to prepare the people of Ireland for the famine, such as taking care of food storage, and they weren't done, then God would not save the people of Ireland from their own stupidity simply because millions were praying for their relief. Likewise, if the girl SHOULD have gotten medical attention and the advice to do so was ignored by the family in question, God would not save that little girl's life simply because her family was praying for her. It sounds a bit heartless, doesn't it? But again, if you understand one thing, you understand why things like this happen: God does not take away the people's power of choice. But with the freedom to act in place, if they choose the act, they choose the consequences, good or bad. Simply put, if the people of Ireland failed to lay up in store for the famine as they were likely advised to, the Lord would not prevent the famine from coming simply because they weren't prepared. Likewise, if the family failed to get the girl the proper medical attention that was needed, the Lord would not prevent the girl's death simply because the family failed to follow through on what should have been done. God is merciful and just. But more than that: he is perfectly merciful and perfectly just. He wouldn't take away the power to choose from the people of Ireland or the family in question simply to save the former from famine and the latter from losing a loved one. If He did, He would cease to be God. Force takes away morality. In other words, if God had forced the people of Ireland to lay up in store as instructed, it would be His choice, not theirs. Same with the family. If He spared the girl's life in spite of the fact that they did not get her the necessary treatment, it would be HIS actions, not theirs. I hope that all made sense.

Well, I think I've given you more than enough to chew on. From your comments, I can't tell whether you are a member of the Church like I am. But if you are, I'd be greatly surprised to hear that what I said was news to you. God will not go contrary to His nature. If He does, he ceases to be perfect, thus ceasing to be God. I leave this with you to reflect upon and consider. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) is right. I have just wasted 50 minutes of my life ... and I can never get it back. Good luck, sir. If I am ever in Salt Lake City, maybe I can buy you a beer (figuratively speaking, of course) The Biggest Lie Ever Told (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Jgstokes wrote "I know of hundreds of examples where prayers have not been answered and yet a lot of faith has been exercised." Bingo! There are millions of cases where prayers have not been answered and yet a lot of faith has been exercised. And there is a reason for that. It doesn't work. Ever. Not even a little bit. It would be nice if it were true, but it isn't. I understand that it is hard to accept, but there you have it. PrayExtraHard (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So because there are so many cases of prayer not being answered, you automatically assume and assert to me that prayer does not work? I could rattle off at least half a hundred examples proving that prayer does work. Of course, judging from your responses in the past, it's useless to try and convince you of something you don't believe. In other words, no matter what I say, you will always be of the opinion that prayer does not work because that's all you look for. And you will never convince me that prayer does not work because I have too many personal experiences to the contrary. The best we can do is agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I bear you no ill will for your expressed viewpoint on these issues and trust that you bear me no ill will for mine. However, the core of this issue is not personal belief but what should be in the article. And since there must be those like me out there who have seen prayer work and know that it does, something about that should perhaps be added to make this article truly objective. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Another dead child at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343148,00.html "The Worthingtons belong to Oregon City's Followers of Christ Church. According to church tradition, when members become ill, fellow worshippers pray and anoint them with oil." "Dozens of children have been buried in the parish cemetery over the past 50 years, and a 1998 analysis by The Oregonian newspaper found that many of the deaths could have prevented with medical care." PrayExtraHard (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion request

I came here in reaction to the Wikipedia third opinion request. Please note that this does not really seem to be appropriate for WP:3O, as more than two users are involved. Consider a WP:RfC in the future. Also, by now this seems to be more a discussion about the efficiency of prayer than a question about the article proper. Anyways, I assume that a third opinion is desired about the appropriateness of the sentence "Deuteronomy 6:16 states, "You shall not test the Lord thy God"[18], reflecting the notion of some that prayer cannot, or should not, be tested.", with the reference pointing to the appropriate Bible verse.

In my opinion, this is a violation of WP:NOR, the policy against original research. The Bible is a primary source, and its interpretation has been a major specialty of different classes of experts for many centuries. Applying parts of religious texts to modern situations is not trivial at all. If a reliable source can be found that uses this reasoning, then this sentence could be included with a clear attribution to the author(s). Essentially, this would require a concrete, notable and competent "some" in the current version, and a clear attribution to this particular source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the sentence from the article. Bebopadopoulos (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who originally inserted this sentence, and I followed this entire discussion without intervening. I will abide by the decision, and I will follow Stephan Schulz's advice before reinserting it. Additionally, I fully intend to enforce the application of this decision on anyone who might want to unilaterally revert it. In the mean time, my primary intention is to get this article to FA status, and there is a to-do list on top of this talk page should anyone not know what's next. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)