Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial
BMJ 2001; 323 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7327.1450 (Published 22 December 2001) Cite this as: BMJ 2001;323:1450
All rapid responses
Hello Dr Lewis, thanks for your further reply.
As you say, this discussion is now more concerned with the Freewill v.
Determinism debate which has raged for centuries. I think therefore the
answer lies in the middle, or else both are correct. I adopt an
Evolutionary perspective, and think that we humans have reached a critical
evolutionary point, where, unlike other animals, we have acquired enough
grey matter to be able to produce abstract thought and make decisions. If
we can make decisions we therefore have Freewill of a sort, which we can
use to break free of our genetically determined animalistic
behaviour.So,to try and answer your question; yes I have freewill, but of
course other aspects of my being are biologically and genetically
determined. My freewill is a kind of epiphenomenon loosely attached to the
rest of me. There is plenty of room for chance in the Universe. Even if
the Universe evolves under strict causal paths, there are random events
which may produce a switch from one causal chain to another, rather like a
missile locking on target, but being able to change its pre-programing,
and lock onto a different one.
So yes, to your other question, we can now be as arbitrary as the Jud.-
Chr. God, within the constraints of our genetics. In fact, we have become
minor gods ourselves. Certainly this was the impression given to
"primitive" people who encountered Europeans, and their "magic" for the
first time.
I think we have somewhat diverged from the topic of Prof Leibovici's
study, and it might be more appropriate to continue by e-mail if you wish.
Regards, Reg.
Competing interests:
Atheist medical Doctor
Competing interests: No competing interests
I am not very hopeful that I can change your mind, which defines God
as an arbitrary and irrational force, and thus loading the dice, you win
!!
But perhaps we are mistaken in your assumptions. Is there any play
of chance in this Universe ??
Can I give you something to think on .. Do YOU have 'Free Will' ?
If 'yes' .. then how can this be compatible with a rational
determined Universe ? Surely you can be as arbitrary as your 'Judaeo-
Christian God' ?
If the answer is 'no ' .. then your thoughts and actions are
immutable and pre-determined.. and I have no chance of changing them -
unless, of course, I pray very hard to my pal the omnipotent ??
Competing interests:
Free Will vs. Cause and effect
Competing interests: No competing interests
Forgive my woolly thinking, but I understood the author of the
original article to have offered a clarification of his aims (1)and it
seemed to be more concerned in examining our current or future ontology
and epistomology when considering the validity of any research undertaken
under empirical methodology.
Regards
MCF
(1) Professor Leonard Leibovici 12.03.02 BMJ Rapid Responses
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Dr. Lewis, if I might try and clarify the points you raise; I
believe that "Divine=Arbitrary": because if we are considering the Judeo-
Christian God, then, if I am not mistaken, this God has Freewill,(and has
given it to us as we are made allegedly, in his image). Surely a being
with freewill is liable to take arbitrary decisions, and intervene
randomly,to reverse known laws of Physics as he thinks fit?-this has
always been God's historical role.
And yet we do not see this happen. Physical laws do not change
randomly from day to day, as far as we can observe. This is why I maintain
that we live in a rational Universe.
Of couse a rational causal Universe requires explanation, I have not
denied this; but the explanation is to be sought through rational ,causal
processes; whereas the whole essence of God is,although believers might
deny it,that he can over-rule causal processes, reverse or abolish natural
law, and indeed answer prayer.
We have no knowledge of a "prescient cause" of the Universe , and cannot
therefore assert that it continues immanent in the unfolding of anything.
The Universe may well be beyond our comprehension, but we still have to
try and comprehend it, and I suggest that ad hominem assertions as to my
supposed arrogance and prejudice are unfounded.
The Leibovici article may well have proved something for all I know,and if
this is the case we might as well abandon science and just ask Jesus to
fix everything.
Competing interests:
Atheist medical Doctor
Competing interests: No competing interests
"So let me get this right ... you want to allocate £10K in the budget
for an end-of year prayer session for all the patients who have been
through ITU?"
"Yep."
"And this will reduce our ITU stay by 1 day per patient prayed for?"
"Yep."
"And if we're over budget by the end of the year, and can't afford
the prayer session, it doesn't matter as we'll still get the therapeutic
effect - just so long as we make a solemn promise to pray for everyone the
year after that instead?"
"Yep"
"But we could put it back another year or two if we're still short of
cash ..."
"Yes - just so long as we squeeze in a prayer session sometime before
2013 we should get the benefits ..."
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Reginald..
I quote you :-
' The evolution of the Universe is rational and causal, and does not
require divine, or any other arbitrary interference. '
So why do you assume that 'Divine = arbitrary' ?
Why do you think a rational and causal universe needs no explanation ?
Whatever it is that causes the Laws of Physics, may I not call it
God.. ?
On what basis can you be sure that the 'prescient cause' of the
Universe (pre-BigBang) may or may not continue 'immanent' in the unfolding
progress of that specified time-space ?
I am irreligious. I have no personal experience of 'God'.. But I'm
damn sure that the Universe of Cause and Reason is way beyond your
comprehension and mine. Stephen Hawking believes we may never know the
mind of God... But he has, without your arrogance, glimpsed at some of
those thoughts !
The whole point of the original Leibovici article was to challenge
our cherished assumptions ( such as our habitual assumption that cause
must precede effect in time - unless you are 'outside time' ie: God). He
forces us, in a very original manner, to think more clearly about 'cause
and effect', and our underlying 'fixed ideas'. I recommend you drop your
prejudices , and read the ensuing correspondence from beginning to end..
You might learn something about yourself, God willing.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dr Le Sueur makes an unarguable assertion but misuses it as a reason
why 93% of scientists do not believe in God.
As Dr Le Sueur points out, and as demonstrated by Immanuel Kant, the
existence or non-existence of God is [scientifically] unknowable. It
cannot be known in the same way that we can know 93% of scientists do not
believe in God. Therefore, necessarily, it is possible to explain every
observation without requiring the existence of God. But as any scientist
will tell you, this is not proof that God does not exist. Every scientific
observation is consistent both with the existence and non-existence of God
(I would be interested to learn how to determine probabilities given this
fact). So where does that leave us? As with most philosophy it leaves us
where we thought we were anyway. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not
logic.
As for Leibovici’s paper, long may the BMJ continue to publish such
well-powered, CONSORT-compatible reports, even when they contradict
entrenched philosophies -- mine included!
Competing interests:
Clearly in a small minority of scientists
Competing interests: No competing interests
The reason 93% of scientists do not believe in God is:
1. They recognise that discussion of Divine intervention is
itself a logical fallacy unless you can demonstrate the existence of "the
Divine", in other words God. God's existence is unproven and unprovable,
therefore any talk of his alleged activities, eg intervention of any
kind,is meaningless. The particular fallacy is that of the Double question
or statement; of assuming one thing in order to prove another, eg: "When
did you stop beating your wife?"
2. Scientists do not hold to the Post-Modernist fallacy of claiming
that any opinion is as good as any other. The evolution of the Universe is
rational and causal, and does not require divine, or any other arbitrary
interference. This makes activities by such an interfering and improbable
Agent highly unlikely.
Competing interests:
Atheist medical Doctor
Competing interests: No competing interests
Your contributor appears to be following a practice I have often
noticed among Christian believers, of wanting their cake as well as eating
it. Alina Finn appears to assign to God a completely deterministically
foreordained knowledge of how things will turn out, specifically on this
occasion, concerning the outcome of prayer, and yet, paradoxically in the
same breath says we still have freewill, in order not to be mindless
robots carrying out orders unblinkingly.
Suely you cannot have it both ways?
As far as the behaviour of non-spiritual,ie atheist physicians is
concerned, in our attitude to the sick and the dying, simple good manners
ensures that we would never try to de-convert, ridicule or criticise such
patients in their final hours of most need, but would go along with what
ever belief systems they hold, while suppressing our own,or lack of them.
Nor would we make judgements concerning their intelligence or lack of it.
That is not our job. in keeping with M/s Finns evident belief in
determinism, we would hold that such patients beliefs have been pre-
ordained by their cultural conditioning, and cannot easily be undermined
by appeals to rationalism, which would in any case be inappropriate to the
occasion.
Competing interests:
Atheist mecical Doctor
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Re: more propaganda, not science
Dr Le Sueur writes that ‘the whole essence of God is, although
believers might deny it, that he can overrule causal processes, reverse or
abolish natural law, and indeed answer prayer.’
Not this believer. Because causal processes and natural law are not
the rock-solid foundations Dr Le Sueur thinks they are.
Firstly, causal processes and natural ‘law’ are concepts imposed by
us on the mishmash of raw experience in order to assimilate experience
into understanding. By analogy, my ability to use English has just imposed
certain rules on the concept I was trying to communicate in the previous
sentence. That concept can never be known by anyone else (perhaps even by
myself) without first being formatted by language. Along with cause and
effect, we can add space and time, substance, and possibility (as opposed
to reality) to the list of ‘formatting’ concepts. Subsequently, Lo and
Behold! we discover science and then build up a picture of natural ‘law’
and guess what? It is ruled by cause and effect, linearity of time,
continuity of space, matter and energy and so on and so forth. Natural law
fits pre-existing rules defined by us. At the fringes of physics we see
the authority of these ‘laws’ begin to unravel.
Secondly, in the Venn diagram of life, science is a small domain and,
sorry to say, is not as important as contemporary society thinks. Above
all, science has no overlap with the domain of ethics. Science can tell us
nothing about the really important questions to do with right and wrong.
‘Should I invade Iraq, should I give £1 to this beggar, etc.’ These days,
science is a still a little useful, but mainly at the fringes of things.
Just look at all that bleating about what a revolution the complete
sequencing of the human genome would bring. These days, science is all
mouth and no trousers.
Competing interests:
Clearly in a small minority of scientists
Competing interests: No competing interests