Why Are the Majority of Those in Hell the Poor and Oppressed Masses?

[Pixel42]

Why are healings and supernatural events common elsewhere but rare here in the west?

Standards of evidence are lower.

My sister-in-law Yvonne was the only really religious member of my family, an active member of an active Christian church. When she got a brain tumour her church held special services to pray for her. She still died, after months of suffering.

We've all got anecdotes to tell. They prove nothing.

 

[Mojo]

I thought there was no effect when patients were not aware that they were being prayed for, a small but measurable nocebo (negative) effect when they were aware? Or am I misremembering?

This one?

Distant healing--an "update" of a systematic review - PubMed

Since the publication of our previous systematic review in 2000, several rigorous new studies have emerged. Collectively they shift the weight of the evidence against the notion that distant healing is more than a placebo.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The majority of the rigorous trials do not to support the hypothesis that distant healing has specific therapeutic effects. The results of two studies furthermore suggest that distant healing can be associated with adverse effects.

The study it updated stated that it included "prayer".

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Do you know what confirmation bias is? What anecdotal evidence is, and why it's unreliable? Why the scientific method needed to be invented? What survivorship bias is?

Science cannot confirm everything that is real.
It dismisses plenty saying "confirmation bias", and the like.
Doesn't science have its own confirmation bias?
A trust in science at the cost of all else.

Will a scientist resort to faith when the life of a loved one hangs in the balance?

If prayer worked insurance companies would be charging Christians lower premiums for life and health insurance than atheists. Any effect that was statistically significant would be noticed by them, if no-one else.

Everyone would claim to be Christian in order to get the reduced prices.
How would you verify such? And why would insurance companies shoot themselves in the foot?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

We've all got anecdotes to tell. They prove nothing.

Agree.
Did you discourage prayer for your sister-in-law?

Not every answer to prayer is "Yes."

 

[Mojo]

Agree.
Did you discourage prayer for your sister-in-law?

Not every answer to prayer is "Yes."

Indeed. Can you provide any evidence that the incidence of the answer being "yes" is any greater than would be expected without prayer?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

One of the big misunderstandings/lies about science is that scientists have a vested interest in "toeing the company line" when in reality disproving an accepted hypothesis or even theory is a career maker

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Agree.
Did you discourage prayer for your sister-in-law?

Not every answer to prayer is "Yes."

No more than probability would predict, at best, according to the evidence.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Indeed. Can you provide any evidence that the incidence of the answer being "yes" is any greater than would be expected without prayer?

Nope.
If a loved one was in mortal danger would you discourage prayer?

"Why bother? No proof that it will work."

 

[Pixel42]

Science cannot confirm everything that is real.
It dismisses plenty saying "confirmation bias", and the like.
Doesn't science have its own confirmation bias?

Scientists, being human, are subject to confirmation bias and all other cognitive biases. In recognition of that fact, the scientific method was specifically designed to eliminate the effect of such biases. If you choose not to use it, you risk reaching false conclusions.

A trust in science at the cost of all else.

What cost is that? Not being inadvertently fooled into believing things which are not true tends to be a significant benefit, in my experience.

Will a scientist resort to faith when the life of a loved one hangs in the balance?

I have no doubt some will try prayer on the grounds it costs nothing and can't do any harm. That also proves nothing.

Everyone would claim to be Christian in order to get the reduced prices.
How would you verify such?

Do they verify that people aren't smokers before charging non smokers lower premiums? That usually only happens when a claim is made, and the person who lied ends up not getting the payout they were expecting. Which is why lying to get cheaper insurance for anything is always a bad idea.

And why would insurance companies shoot themselves in the foot?

Do they shoot themselves in the foot by charging lower premiums for life insurance to people who don't smoke, or for car insurance to people who've never had an accident or only do 2000 miles a year, or any of the other circumstances which lower their chances of having to pay out?

Premiums are calculated according to the risk. If Christians were at lower risk of serious ill health or death that would show in the statistics and lead to lower premiums.

 

[Pixel42]

Agree.
Did you discourage prayer for your sister-in-law?

Of course not. People are free to waste their time in any way they wish. I'm sure it made them feel better, though my brother would probably have preferred more practical help.

Not every answer to prayer is "Yes."

The question is: is the answer "Yes" more often than would be expected by chance?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Scientists, being human, are subject to confirmation bias and all other cognitive biases.

Why did you single me out then?

Do you know what confirmation bias is?

A human malady for which prayer is useless?

 

[Pixel42]

Why did you single me out then?

You're the only one here who seems to be being inadvertently fooled by it.

A human malady for which prayer is useless?

A human source of error which the scientific method was designed to eliminate.

 

[Mojo]

A human source of error which the scientific method was designed to eliminate.

Or at least minimise.

 

[JayUtah]

Spiritual realities always leave room for doubt.
You either believe, or you don't.

You ignored my questions in order to preach at me. I don't want your faith-promoting stories either. We were discussing the difference between a physical reality and what someone might imagine, and which of those has evidentiary value.

Science cannot confirm everything that is real.
It dismisses plenty saying "confirmation bias", and the like.
Doesn't science have its own confirmation bias?
A trust in science at the cost of all else.

No, that's how how science works.

The scientific method is not just another belief system. It has evolved specifically to impose safeguards against confirmation bias. An no, science doesn't even trust itself. It monitors itself skeptically. It questions findings against which is discovered contrary evidence.

Will a scientist resort to faith when the life of a loved one hangs in the balance?

Toward what end? I employ dozens of professional scientists. Probably about half of them are practicing members of my state's dominant religion. Being religious doesn't stop them from seeking the fruits of science to address those problems appropriately. It certainly doesn't stop them from using the scientific method to expand our knowledge. And if religion provides an emotional cushion to help them deal with tragedy, I consider that a personal matter.

How people choose to deal with personal hardship has little to do with whether imagination constitutes proof of an external physical reality of the thing imagined.

Why did you single me out then?

You evince quite a lot of confirmation bias. You're not being singled out for it per se, but you seem unaware that your thinking is rife with it. Operating under confirmation bias simply makes one human. Understanding that it occurs and taking steps to avoid it (often with the help of others) is what makes one a skeptic.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

You're the only one here who seems to be being inadvertently fooled by it.

That saw cuts both ways.
Why is confirmation bias okay for scientists but not okay for me?

Inadvertently? - LOL

A human source of error which the scientific method was designed to eliminate.

That may be the current goal, but I don't think that's where it started.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

How people choose to deal with personal hardship has little to do with whether imagination constitutes proof of an external physical reality of the thing imagined.

It seems that you and your counterparts have constructed a wall around "physical reality" and will not allow for anything outside of that.

Are you sure that nothing can exist outside of physical reality?

 

[Mojo]

Spiritual realities always leave room for doubt.
You either believe, or you don't.

Where's the room for doubt in that?

 

[Mojo]

That saw cuts both ways.
Why is confirmation bias okay for scientists...

It isn't.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

You ignored my questions in order to preach at me.

I'm not obligated to answer your questions.
I'll respond as I like.

My stories are answer enough.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Where's the room for doubt in that?

Based on my experience.
Are you saying there is no room for doubt in spiritual realities?