This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In their article "Experiments on Distant Intercessory Prayer: God, Science, and the Lesson of Massah," Chibnall et al¹ conclude that studies of distant, intercessory prayer are unscientific, in part because no known mechanism can be invoked to explain the results. To suggest that the lack of a known mechanism of action should disqualify a topic from scientific investigation is shortsighted and would clearly have inhibited the discovery and use of several highly effective pharmacological or nutritional agents (eg, aspirin, diethylcarbamazine, chloroquine, and even citrus fruits!). One must first establish (using the scientific method) that an intervention produces effects. Once the phenomenon is determined to be real, then the search for mechanisms should begin.

The authors conclude their article by appealing to the biblical injunction against "testing God" and imply that trials examining the effects of remote intercessory prayer are in fundamental violation of this admonition. Have the authors considered I . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Experiments on Distant Intercessory Prayer: God, Science, and the Lesson of Massah
John T. Chibnall, Joseph M. Jeral, and Michael A. Cerullo
Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(21):2529-2536.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT