If you are speaking on the "Neuro Religion" study headed by a professor from U of Pen., which is really the pioneering attempt at unerstanding religious experiment scientifically, I can tell you that they wouldn't share the kind of negativity you are expressing here. I attended a seminar presentation myself at Zygon Istitute in Hyde Park Chicago (University of Chicago campus) where they invite top notch scientists and religious leaders for debate and dialogues on religio-scientific issues. Once again, you haven't drawn conceptual/semantic boundary on what you consider "prayer" and its "effects." How reductionist, naturalistic science defines prayer, ofcourse, will be different from how theologians and parishioners would describe it.
Yes, religion is a powerful tool with immense potential for harm. However, don't all the good things in the world come with a mixed bag too? Think of all the useful tools we use in everyday life--take fire for instance. It heats up your home, cooks food, provide energy... but it can also kill and destroy when mishandled. I wonder why we need to look only at the negative examples of what Christians did in the name of God. If people choose to assert their right, power, and political influence with religious authority and conviction, is that religious concept to blame for what it did? Or should we put responsibility on the people and make us wonder about how our human nature should be understood and controlled?
Naive blaming of religion doesn't look at the very sous rce of human suffering and pain. It's only another attemp to assert that 'I'm better than others' and 'My belief isn't responsible for what is happening in the world.' In fact, the greatest source of human pain is not in religion at present. In my opinion, it's GLOBALIST economy that is hurting far more people than what you are hearing about Middle East or Darfur. The source of globalist economy?--No, it's from our unlimited desire for luxury and comfort at others' expenses and unwillingness compromise lifestyle in North America. There's something seriously wrong about the share of wealth where 10% of world population use more than 70% of the world's food and resources. What worldview do you think is capable of confronting the problem with our human nature? Will naturalistic science (that operates on the belief that material things are all there is and that there is an overarching pattern throughout its imagined universe) or atheistic worldview understand the depth of human capacity for evil and confront it?
In the faith community that I'm part of, I see people who are fighting for workers justice, protesting war in Iraq, patiently dialoguing with their church to bring the GLBT community into the church (I also have ***/lesbian colleagues who are persuing their call to full time ministry), or asking for forgiveness of Christian forefathers/mothers' sins in North America to Native Americans in Navajo nation as a lifetime missionary (he considers his task to be that of "asking for forgiveness"). And do you want to know about how my community is dealing with inter-religious intolerance? At the theological school I'm attending, we created a department for "Interfaith" justice which has invited Muslim scholars and students to come study along with Christian students for better mutual understanding and dialogues about the Middle East situation.
I myself grew up under missionary parents who offered shelther, food, and a place to belong for people who had nowhere else to go to. Yes, people can choose whatever God they want to construct using the Bible to assert their power hungry, selfish agenda. But it's equally true that faith has done whole lot of good for the humanity too.
