Citing a June article in Scientific American, Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams expresses his glee over findings that appear to prove that praying for sick people doesn't work:

I have to say that I wasn’t surprised to learn that praying for sick people didn’t help. If praying worked, convenience stores would have lines of monks down the block every time the lottery reached $100 million.

But I was delighted to learn that I can hurt people by praying for them. Now when I get mad at someone, I no longer need to say that I wish he was dead. I’ll just say, “I’ll pray for your health,” thus killing him.

First of all, Scott glossed over this part:

Dean Marek, chief chaplain at the Mayo Clinic, saw the problem as a possible flaw in the study design: "The sense of community was not there. You could call it impersonal prayer rather than intercessory prayer."

It appears that the experiment was conducted as if prayer was some sort of magical language.  One can only imagine that as God watched this happening, He had a difficult time striking the fake prayer teams dead with bolts of lightening.

Secondly, Adams predictably ignores any theological issues raised by such an experiment.  Why would a God who warns His followers not to put Him to the test for the mere purpose of lessening their spiritual burden scramble to satisfy the scientific curiosity of a bunch of non-believers?  Of course Adams and his scoffing ilk don't believe in the Bible, so there's no use in pointing out the theological issues.

Then why go ahead with the experiment?  That's the problem with strict empiricism.  There's more to life than what can be experienced with the senses. 

An experiment with prayer?  Why doesn't the Scientific American test God in the one way He did condone?  They should start giving their money to widows and orphans.  If God blesses them, then they'll know.  Anyone think they're willing to take that challenge?

My Mind is Clean