In 1982, Randolph Byrd, a cardiologist at the San Francisco General Medical Center and born-again Christian believed that he could put faith-based prayer on a solid scientific foundation by implementing rigorous study using a double-blind randomized clinical trial. He randomly engaged four-hundred cardiac patients to prayed-for and not-prayed-for by Christian intercessors. He found highly questionable and virtually little benefit to prayer.
Subsequently, four new major investigations incorporating the same procedures Byrd had followed were carried out at other medical centers: William Harris, Saint Luke’s Hospital (1999); Jennifer Aviles, Mayo Clinic (2001); Mitchell Krucoff, Duke University Medical Center (2005); and Herbert Benson, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (2006). Their results were as follows:
Various broader meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect (maybe depending on one's bias). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer
So what explanation do those who uphold the value of prayer offer?
- The research is premised on a misconception of how God responds to prayer.
- God is outside the domain of science and therefore is not amenable to experimental evaluation.
- It is not possible to randomize God or truly understand his will.
- Research can neither prove nor disprove the validity of divine intervention.
- Because God already knows who needs healing, prayer is superfluous.
- It is a corruption of faith, if not willful blasphemy or sacrilege, to test God.
https://secularhumanism.org/2018/12/have-christians-accepted-the-scientific-conclusion-that-god-does-not-answer-intercessory-prayer/
