Prayers and Neurology

This article seems to me a bit silly. Key elements:

The brain, an electrochemical organ, consists of matter and energy, but the mental states that are the epiphenomena of its physiological processes are neither material substances nor forms of energy. Sherrington (1951) expressed this “scientific position” in saying, “Thoughts, feelings, and so on are not amenable to the energy (matter) concept. They lie outside it.” If thoughts—including silent prayers—are not a form of energy, then there is no known natural means by which they could be transmitted beyond ourselves or read within us.

Right there it seems to me the author(s) are drawing a constraining box. They seem to be implying that God is limited to "natural means." This, it seems, gets back to the fundamental question of "natural" versus "supernatural." If God is simply part of the natural, then perhaps this statement makes some sense. But if God is beyond natural -- that is, supernatural -- then it would seem within the realm of possible. I'm deliberately avoiding the issue of whether God exists or is supernatural or merely natural. I'm saying: "Suppose God exists and suppose further God is outside the natural. Therefore, mechanisms outside the natural are then possible."

Though thoughts and prayers are neither transmissible nor readable by any natural means, could they be known to a supernatural being? Evidence for or against this can be obtained by determining whether prayers are followed by what was solicited by them.

This is the "scientific" approach. "Let's test if prayers work. We'll study requests asked and see if they are granted. This measurement will tell if the prayers are transmissible outside the brain." But this notion is built on a misunderstanding, it seems to me: that a prayer request offered necessarily must be granted. Theologically there's much to support the refutation of that. But if we stay within the realm of what we know as humans we can draw a parallel: if you as a parent do not grant a request expressed by your child, does that mean the request was not heard or understood by you? Of course not. You as a parent have a better understanding of what is good for your child than do they. You may deny or ignore the request because you know it to be either foolish or harmful.

Even if this immeasurable activity could be captured, seemingly insurmountable difficulties would prevent its translation into thoughts. To begin with, the translation would need to be simultaneous with the flow of thoughts as well as in the language of the thinker, for a full thought is its verbal expression. In view of what is known of brain development and organization (Harth 1993), the neural patterns underlying any thought, even a formulary prayer, would be unique for every individual. Thus, generic translations from neural patterns to verbal thoughts in any language would be impossible. A supernatural being would need to instantly surmount these difficulties—for multitudes of concurrent supplicants—in order to grasp the informational content of a mental prayer. Moreover, such a being would, logically, need to be with each supplicant while he or she is rotating with Earth at 1,038 miles per hour (if at the equator), orbiting around the Sun at 18.5 miles per second, rotating around the center of the Milky Way at about 150 miles per second, and moving through space with our galaxy at some thousands of miles per second.

To my eye there's a degree of anthropomorphism taking place here. The author(s) are aware of their own limitations to perform the translation they seem to think is necessary, and then project that on God.

Whether they can be known to a supernatural being hinges on the effects of the prayers’ solicitations as judged by proper scientific studies. To date, such studies of intercessory prayer have not shown it to improve health-care outcomes. In contrast to thoughts themselves, the brain activity from which thoughts arise does consist of energy—electrochemical energy within neural circuitry. Reading this teeming energy in millions of circuit neurons and translating it into the thought or prayer arising from it seems theoretically impossible for even a supernatural being.

It strikes me two errors are being committed here:

1. The first highlighted section confuses the issue of God "knowing" (or hearing, or understanding) a prayer with God's granting said request. The underlying assumption is that if asked, therefore it must be granted. Further, that only a "scientific study" of this will validate it. I understand the urge to scientifically validate such things ... but I think this statement betrays a preexisting bias on the part of the author(s).
2. The second highlighted phrase is an opinion, not a scientifically derived conclusion. The phasing "it seems" softens it a bit. But still, this "conclusion" is drawn from a constrained view of what a "supernatural being" is capable of.
   

My guess is there's an unspoken assumption underlying all this: that if a "supernatural being" does exist, that supernatural being was not responsible for the creation of all that is. That all that is has always been, and that any supernatural being is merely something that existed along side the natural. The moment one grants the supernatural being the opportunity to exist before all else, and be the agent of creation for all that we deem natural, then it strikes me as inconsistent to then constrain that supernatural being by saying it can't read the thoughts of its created beings.

I'm really not trying to get into a theological debate about the existence or specific capabilities of God. I'm trying to apply some consistent thinking to this question. I'm not convinced the author(s) have. I believe they have fallen prey to a certain "scientific arrogance," if I may use that term.

* * *
Good observation regarding the selective removal of the "involve me" component of memory. I have no idea how that would be done. Or whether the reported findings are as precise as implied. It could be the initial findings are a bit more rough.

* * *
No, the puppy is not mine. That was on some other website. I just thought it cute. My lovely bride has softened somewhat on the cat. We are not getting rid of him. I have had to take on a more active role in the upkeep of the cat. To that end, I have created a spot in the corner of my home office where the cat can sit on the filing cabinet and look out the two corner windows and survey the world. We also bought a battery operated cat toy that he seems to enjoy batting at. This is all part of a theory that one problem the cat has is simple boredom.