Thank you for the opportunity to respond to comments about our article. Dr Bolton insinuates that it was a veiled attempt to promote a theological agenda. This is curious, as our sole motivation was to show—philosophically, scientifically, conceptually, theologically—that intercessory prayer studies as currently constituted do not make sense. Moreover, Dr Bolton got this impression when the majority of our article was a decidedly untheological critique of the literature, a literature that Dr Bolton himself has critiqued.1 We used specific details from the studies to support our arguments, and our "theological presuppositions" were borrowed from various traditions. Our primary religious allusion (Massah) was metaphorical. How this constitutes a theological agenda is unclear.
Chibnall JT, Cerullo MA, Jeral JM. God, Science, and Intercessory Prayer—Reply. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(12):1422. doi: