rlw@wxlvax.UUCP (03/19/84)
In the late 1800s, a statistician published a paper (approximately) entitled 'A statistical enquiry into the efficacy of prayer' in which he posited that perhaps the most common prayer in the British Empire was for the long life of the monarch. Therefore, if prayer is measurably effective, he should be able to detect a lifespan for kings and queens of England greater than that of nobles and upper class citizens. In fact he discovered that their lifespan (including only those who died naturally and whose dates were reliably known) was below the norm. Therefore, either prayer is ineffective or those praying were in some sense insincere. (??Don't Buddhists accept rote prayer as worthwhile??) An alternative explanation is that the prayer is contraindicated and was effective but got a/the Deity pissed off. A quick review of the limited figures indicates not too much statistical significance. This was, so far as I know, the only sincere attempt at applying scientific method to religion. --Dick Wexelblat (...decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!rlw)
flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn) (03/19/84)
---- The statistician who looked at efficacy of prayer with respect to the British royal family was Francis Galton; his results (which were negative) were written up in "American Scientist" a few years ago.
amigo2@ihuxq.UUCP (John Hobson) (03/20/84)
About Francis Galton's study on the efficacy of prayer, when he felt that the majority of prayers were being offered for the safety and well-being of the monarch (see the opening lines of the British national anthem: "God save our gracious queen/Long live our noble queen/God save the queen"), did he consider just how many prayers were being offered that "the old bastard would die"? And just how fervent were these respective prayers anyway. I know that Buddhists hold that prayers offered by rote (e.g., prayer-wheels) are efficatious, but both Jews and Christians look at the intentions of the pray-er. John Hobson AT&T Bell Labs--Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxq!amigo2