This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1405-1408.

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

INTRODUCTION

SINCE BYRD'S study¹ of cardiac care unit patients and the efficacy of prayer, there has been a steady flow of studies asking the question of whether prayer works. In this short essay, I will look at scientific and religious ways of knowing. I will contend that prayer by virtue of its function in religious practice cannot be studied using the methods of science. While the efforts to study the efficacy of prayer are a sign that medical science is becoming more sensitive to spiritual beliefs, I will show that not only can prayer not be studied, the scientific study of prayer will only lead to further alienation between medical science and those who participate in religious practice.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC AND RELIGIOUS KNOWING

Science is a unique tension between reason and empiricism. Reason tells us we should doubt our senses and that we should seek rational or mathematic explanations.² Sensory experience would have the moon appear . . . [Full Text of this Article]

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC AND RELIGIOUS KNOWING

CONCLUSIONS



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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Retroactive prayer: lots of history, not much mystery, and no science
Bishop and Stenger
BMJ 2004;329:1444-1446.
FULL TEXT