Power of Prayer or No Power at All

This particular piece was written during my 2nd semester of college on March 18th, 2013 as a freshman. I was deeply fascinated by prayer and chose it as the topic for majority of the works in which we were to complete during the semester. Here lies the rhetorical analysis for Mr. Bruce L. Flamm's article entitled “One Big STEP: Another Major Study Confirms that Distant Prayers Do Not Heal the Sick.” Enjoy! :) 

 Power of Prayer or No Power at All

            Bruce L. Flamm, senior investigator of Skeptical Inquirer and author of several medical books, wrote an article entitled “One Big STEP: Another Major Study Confirms that Distant Prayers Do Not Heal the Sick.” As an investigator, Flamm’s primary goal was to investigate what he considers a misconception and non-beneficial act regarding the power of intercessory prayer. Instilled within him is a “I have to see it to believe it,” mentality. He firmly supports science that includes evidence over superstition, and throughout his article he builds a foundation of scientific research that supports as well as influences his and other opinions. Flamm uses concrete evidence to prove his case yet only according to science, whereas there are no actual testimonies from those who may have experienced the supernatural.

            Being a senior investigator with more than a dozen medical research studies that have been proven according to science, Flamm has great creditability with much publicity and authority. Many of his articles have been featured in Time Magazine, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, as well as around the globe. Flamm’s idea of factual must have evidence to go along with it, which is why he included in this article a random double-blind controlled trial call STEP trial (Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer). It was set up in order to find out whether or not intercessory prayer had any effects on the individual that was being prayed for. 1,802 patients from six different hospitals were randomly assigned to three different groups. The first group consisted of the individuals who received prayer after being unsure whether they would or not. The second group did not receive prayer with the same surety as the first group. The third group; however, was well aware that they would be receiving prayer.

            To intercede for someone means to go between or intervene. An intercessor acts as an advocate or middleman, which means that person is the source of getting whatever needs to go through to its destination. As for Flamm’s article, it focuses on intercessory prayer which in biblical terms refers to a bold request made known to God on another person’s behalf usually due to sickness, inconvenience, or downfalls, out of love and consideration. For some people, intercessory prayer is a spiritual gift that opens their spiritual eyesight to see the needs of others. It links direct communication to God as it is a self-less act that focuses on other individual’s necessities. Flamm defines intercessory prayer as only “distant prayer” (Flamm 1) and does not really expand on it regarding the reasons, views, and importance behind it.

            Flamm’s objective is to appeal to every reader, yet those who truly have faith in God and know the power of intercessory prayer would not be influenced by his findings. The STEP trial consisted of three groups: those who knew they were to receive prayer, those who did not know, and those who may or may not be prayed for. The case study, funded by the John Templeton Foundation, cost roughly $2.5 million dollars, which could have been put to other use such as: feeding a starving child, helping the homeless, or finding a cure for a disease. The fact that it was done in order to influence belief systems, as to call it non-effective, was rather ignorant and biased in itself. Flamm claims to avoid bias, yet he had already had a perceived opinion towards prayer before any study was brought about. Despite his credibility, for him to argue and follow-up with a mockery of God as well as the power of prayer is unfair and cruel.

            Throughout his article, Bruce Flamm presented an incompetent tone regarding prayer, yet tried to conceal it so that it would not be considered biased. He seemed rather pleased with the concluded evidence through the descriptive words he used such, “fatal blow, ineffective, and paranormal mechanisms” (Flamm 1-2). Throughout his research for his article, he never actually talked with any individuals that had been cured nor anyone of that matter that had any support for intercessory prayer. He did; however, use the comments provided by Father Dean Marek, a Catholic priest and co-principal investigator of STEP, that had no real effect and stood on the borderline concerning prayer. Marek stated, “I’m sure God will be very pleased with the results of this and getting people talking about the results of prayer in their lives” (Flamm 2). Since the results were negative, what sense does his comment make? His statement goes against all Christian principles and basically says in his own way that prayer is an ineffective waste of time. Marek would most likely be considered a traitor, since prayer is considered a central component in Christian faith.

            Regarding opposition, Flamm was not at all too hasty in including much thought towards opposing viewpoints. He uses very little regards towards opposition. In one sentence he sums up, Bob Barth’s comment, of Silent Unity, “People of faith don’t need a prayer study to know that prayer works” (Flamm 1). Throughout the entire article, this single comment is the only one that focuses on opposition. For someone who is heavily involved in prayer and knows the benefits and effectiveness of it would consider Flamm’s article as biased. If an author is to write about anything, especially a controversial topic with a motive of persuasion, the topic should focus on the argument or situation as well as the opposition. Not everyone’s viewpoint is the same and some people will take high offense to certain accusations and/or conclusions based solely on very little evidence and opinions.

            Flamm concludes his article with mockery of what Marek could have meant by his comment concerning prayer. Flamm feels that he is making excuses on God’s part and that prayer is failure. He believes in the scientific studies yet takes in consideration that some people will remain faithful to their beliefs and will always believe that prayer has much healing power. Throughout his entire article, Flamm proves to be an efficient and persuasive writer with a variety of uses that appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos as described above; however, the effectiveness of his writing depends solely upon the reader’s point of view.

Overall, the argument that Flamm makes may be effective towards those who oppose prayer in the first place as well as those who doubt the supernatural. As for those individuals that remain faithful, have actually experienced the effects, and know the benefits of it; the results are ineffective. The way that the article was written; the diction, tone, and nods to the opposition will allow many to make an assumption that Flamm is a total ass. Instead of solely focusing on the negative, “nothing, no effects,” he could have done more with his research. There are many individuals who have had a supernatural experience pertaining to intercessory prayer with great effects and results, yet he failed to get their side of the story. Flamm argues that distant prayer has absolutely no healing effect whatsoever; but his research did not go far enough. His biased opinion caused his argument to be ineffective, and he failed to convince this audience member.