Prayer and power

[empeake]

Define 'prove' or what rises to the level of 'proof' as you see it?

Since you're the one quoting references to alleged miracles, start by defining "miracle", present an example of one of these miracles and explain why you consider it a miracle.

 

[AgingYoung]

Since you're the one quoting references to alleged miracles, start by defining "miracle", present an example of one of these miracles and explain why you consider it a miracle.

Could you help me out? If I did quote a reference to an alleged miracle what was that alleged miracle I quoted a reference to?

You can make one up but I'd still have to know what you'd consider proof.

Gene

 

[thaiboxerken]

Just ignore AgingYoung, he's a disciple of the house of "making claims without making claims." He's a troll.

 

[empeake]

Just ignore AgingYoung, he's a disciple of the house of "making claims without making claims." He's a troll.

He's also an advocate of "I don't care what you asked, I'll just answer whatever I want to say" school of argumentation. Trying to have a logical discussion with him is a lost cause. I've learned my lesson.

 

[AgingYoung]

You don't know how to ask. If you did you'd understand that you could get a no. You ask like a wife or a momma or probably more accurately like your inner child.

Gene

I did want to say that although I didn't take you seriously I thought I'd give it a shot. You didn't disappoint me.

thaiboxerken,

That's a brilliant campaign button you have. Did you buy it from Senator Kennedy? Here's a miracle if you'd like an example of one. Someone that is as bright as you would actually buy that tripe. Have a good life.

 

[Ossai]

AgingYoung
Are you ever going to get to the point I made, or are you going to continue to ineptly battle straw men?

 

[Bri]

Of course not, but lacking any mechanism and lacking any empiricism to the contrary then it would be irrational to believe that I can.

I see. So, lacking any mechanism by which consciousness might exist outside of our solar system (or within our solar system for that matter) and lacking any empiricism that it actually does exist outside our solar system, it would be irrational to believe that it does.

That's the point. No one has done it. So believing that it is possible is irrational.

Didn't you say in another post that believing that it is possible is not irrational. In fact it is possible that someone has flown before but we don't know about it, so why is it irrational to believe that it is possible?

As our understanding grows, and as the evidence mounts, (out of billions of people no one comes forward who can fly) the belief that one can fly by flapping ones hands becomes more and more irrational.

Unless one has evidence, and then it becomes less and less irrational. And you don't know whether anyone has evidence.

Again, there is no absolute knowledge of anything. Such knowledge just is not possible. I can't know for absolute certainty that every time a ball was dropped it fell to the ground. I can't know for absolute certainty that every time I drop a ball it will hit the ground. That I lack that absolute knowledge does not make it rational to believe that I can levitate.

Unless you have some reason to believe that you can levitate. Then that belief isn't necessarily irrational at all.

You are free to think that. However it is the consequence of logic.

So you say. Except that logic doesn't dictate that things that have never been proven to happen in the past have never happen, nor does it dictate that things that have never happened in the past will never happen.

Yes, it does.

No, logic only dictates that it not violate the laws of logic. The laws of physics (ore, more precisely, our understanding of the laws of physics) model reality, not the other way around. The laws of logic don't prevent reality from being reality, and if reality happens to violate (our understanding of) the laws of physics (as it has in the past) it is (our understanding of) the laws of physics--not reality--that must change.

Lacking a mechanism for how this would work and lacking any empirical evidence that it works there is only one conclusion, it is irrational.

I see, then so is the belief that intelligent life exists outside the solar system irrational.

This is typical of the attempt to rationalize what would otherwise be irrational. See confirmation bias. The problem Bri, is that every time we examine these beliefs in a scientific way they don't work. In the end it comes down to chance. So parsimony compels us to accept the fact that such a belief is irrational.

So, let's suppose for a moment that there is a rabbit's foot that actually does work, and that someone has evidence that the rabbit's foot works. You claim that their belief is necessarily irrational.

Parsimony compels some of us to believe that the above case is probably untrue but to admit that it could be true. If true, then the belief in the rabbit's foot isn't irrational, and your inisitance that all belief in rabbit's feet must be irrational is false. Therefore, your statement "parsimony compels us to accept the fact that such a belief is irrational" is false despite your claim that it is a fact. Wouldn't that make your statement irrational?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Sure, depending on the attributes of God, yes.

I believe we're talking about the Christian God. Let's assume omnipotent and omniscient. Is it rational to believe that this God is possible, but also be of the opinion that this God exists?

It compels those who are reasonable.

There are many reasonable people who disagree with you, and by your definition we are all unreasonable since we all hold opinions about things for which there is no empirical evidence and no known mechanism. For example, I believe that black licorice is better than red. I don't have any empirical evidence that it is actually better (it is only my personal opinion) and I'm not really sure exactly how taste leads me to believe that black is best (especially since the opposite is true for many people). Is my opinion irrational?

Could you give me an example?

No, I'm saying that lacking any known mechanism for the belief and lacking empirical evidence for the belief then the belief is irrational.

That there exists the possibility of intelligent life in our universe is empirical.

(emphasis mine) Oh, here we go! You have already admitted the possibility that prayer works. Are you now counting mere possibility as empirical evidence? No, I would say that there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system.

The odds of intelligent life in our universe is 1 (see humans). Given the sheer number of stars and the likelihood of planets around those stars, the mathematical probability of intelligent life besides that which resides on earth can actually be calculated to some degree of precision.

This is evidence of the possibility that life exists outside of our solar system (which was never in question). The question is whether it is rational to believe that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system.

There is no such logical assumptions for the belief in god. You simply cannot equate belief in ET's with God.

You said above that it was rational to believe that God exists. Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Which is it?

-Bri

 

[AgingYoung]

It's clearly a mistake to import uniformitarian methods from scientific experimentation into historical research. Repeatability and generality are needed to establish a scientific law or general patterns.

...But this method does not work at all in history. What is needed to establish historical events is credible testimony that these particular events did indeed occur. ......Geisler

Gene

 

[RandFan]

I see. So, lacking any mechanism by which consciousness might exist outside of our solar system...

But there is a logical mechanism (see earth).

Didn't you say in another post that believing that it is possible is not irrational. In fact it is possible that someone has flown before but we don't know about it, so why is it irrational to believe that it is possible?

I didn't say that believing anything is rational.

Unless one has evidence, and then it becomes less and less irrational. And you don't know whether anyone has evidence.

And I don't know if gravity doesn't work in some places.

Unless you have some reason to believe that you can levitate. Then that belief isn't necessarily irrational at all.

It is because it is counter to all evidence.

So you say. Except that logic doesn't dictate that things that have never been proven to happen in the past have never happen, nor does it dictate that things that have never happened in the past will never happen.

No, but logic and reason compel reasonable people to reject irrational thinking. Logic and reason compel reasonable people to not doubt gravity. If you or anyone else choose to doubt gravity that is fine but it is not reasonable. I can't absolutely prove the law of gravity.

No, logic only dictates that it not violate the laws of logic. The laws of physics (ore, more precisely, our understanding of the laws of physics) model reality, not the other way around. The laws of logic don't prevent reality from being reality, and if reality happens to violate (our understanding of) the laws of physics (as it has in the past) it is (our understanding of) the laws of physics--not reality--that must change.

Reason and logic dictates that reasonable people accept reality. You can reject gravity simply because I lack absolute proof of gravity but your belief is irrational.

I see, then so is the belief that intelligent life exists outside the solar system irrational.

Not at all, there is a likely and understood mechanism and evidence that intelligent life away from earth is possible. There is no mechanism and no evidence that would point to the likelihood that prayer works. Zero. Zip. Nada.

So, let's suppose for a moment that there is a rabbit's foot that actually does work, and that someone has evidence that the rabbit's foot works. You claim that their belief is necessarily irrational.

So let's suppose for a moment that gravity stopped working. That would be evidence that gravity is not constant. By your logic a belief that gravity is not constant is rational. By your logic, a person who is worried that gravity will fail at any moment is rational.

Parsimony compels some of us to believe that the above case is probably untrue but to admit that it could be true.

By this logic we have to admit that gravity might not be true. A belief that gravity is not constant is rational.

If true, then the belief in the rabbit's foot isn't irrational, and your instance that all belief in rabbit's feet must be irrational is false.

And by your logic, should gravity suddenly fail it would verify any fear that gravity is not constant thus rendering any such fear rational.

Therefore, your statement "parsimony compels us to accept the fact that such a belief is irrational" is false despite your claim that it is a fact. Wouldn't that make your statement irrational?

If we could also believe that any belief in any possibility is rational.

Bri, by your logic there is no such thing as an irrational fear. Phobias don't exist.

Let's use your statement to prove that fear of anything is rational.

Parsimony compels some of us to believe that the above case is probably untrue but to admit that it could be true. If true, then the belief in the rabbit's foot isn't irrational...

P1: If it is possible then it could be true.
P2: If it were true then it would be rational
Conclusion: A belief in anything that could be true is rational.
Corollary:A fear of anything that could happen is rational.

Demonophobia: Demons might be under your bed, Could be true.
Paranoia: The government might be out to get you Could be true.
Cancerophobia: You might have cancer Could be true.
Aviophobia: The plane might crash Could be true.

Damn Bri, how about that!?! You've eliminated many, many irrational fears. You should contact the American Psychiatric Association and let them know. Hell, all this time and the answer was right under our nose.

 

[RandFan]

I believe we're talking about the Christian God. Let's assume omnipotent and omniscient. Is it rational to believe that this God is possible, but also be of the opinion that this God exists?

Hmmmm.... No, I don't think so.

There are many reasonable people who disagree with you, and by your definition we are all unreasonable since we all hold opinions about things for which there is no empirical evidence and no known mechanism. For example, I believe that black licorice is better than red. I don't have any empirical evidence that it is actually better (it is only my personal opinion) and I'm not really sure exactly how taste leads me to believe that black is best (especially since the opposite is true for many people). Is my opinion irrational?

There is a huge difference between a subjective experience and the existence of dragons, fairies, demons, leprechauns and Santa Claus.

Oh, here we go! You have already admitted the possibility that prayer works. Are you now counting mere possibility as empirical evidence?

No. I'm saying that we have reason based on objective evidence to believe that it is possible. We have no reason based on objective evidence to believe that prayer is possible.

No, I would say that there is absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system.

1.) We can objectively prove that intelligent life exists in the universe (see humans).
2.) We can objectively prove that there are other solar systems.
3.) We can objectively prove that there are other planets.
4.) We can objectively prove the minimal requirements of life.

Using logic and reason we can surmise the likelihood of intelligent life on other planets in other solar systems.

Please, oh please give me an argument for prayer like the one above? Please?

This is evidence of the possibility that life exists outside of our solar system (which was never in question). The question is whether it is rational to believe that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system.

The degree of possibility that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system is of many magnitudes greater that prayer.

You said above that it was rational to believe that God exists. Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Which is it?

I apologize if I'm not clear. If you had the opinion that God exists but didn't actively act on that opinion or hold any firm attributes of God. Which is why I attempted to qualify my answer based on the attributes of God. I don't think a Deist is irrational JMO.

 

[Tricky]

I see. So, lacking any mechanism by which consciousness might exist outside of our solar system (or within our solar system for that matter) and lacking any empiricism that it actually does exist outside our solar system, it would be irrational to believe that it does.

You continue to make this comparison and it continues to be inappropriate. We have little information on what mechanisms exist outside our solar system. However we do know that using the basic materials of the universe, consciousness can exist. It would not be irrational to suspect that given enough chances (read: enough solar systems) it could happen again. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with theology.

Theists believe God exists in this solar system, in fact, everwhere. So one cannot claim that we have had no opportunity to collect evidence for the existence of God. That no reliable evidence for His existence has yet been collected would make it less rational to believe in something which supposedly is in close proximity and yet leaves no evidence, than it would to believe in something for which evidence is very very far away.

Unless one has evidence, and then it becomes less and less irrational. And you don't know whether anyone has evidence.

And again, lack of evidence is a reason for withholding disbelief if there is a good reason why evidence is unavailable. I can see no good reason why evidence of God should be unavailable if He is as Christianity claims.

Unless you have some reason to believe that you can levitate. Then that belief isn't necessarily irrational at all.

We have the opportunity to collect evidence on levitating people, yet no such (reliable) evidence exists. That makes such a belief less rational.

No, logic only dictates that it not violate the laws of logic. The laws of physics (or, more precisely, our understanding of the laws of physics) model reality, not the other way around. The laws of logic don't prevent reality from being reality, and if reality happens to violate (our understanding of) the laws of physics (as it has in the past) it is (our understanding of) the laws of physics--not reality--that must change.

True, but we should only change our understanding of the laws of physics if there is a good reason to do so, not because someone has made some unprovable hypothesis.

So you say. Except that logic doesn't dictate that things that have never been proven to happen in the past have never happened, nor does it dictate that things that have never happened in the past will never happen.

As you say, logic doesn't dictate anything. It is solely dependant upon your assumptions. Here's one of mine. Real things leave real evidence. How do you feel about that assumption?

So, let's suppose for a moment that there is a rabbit's foot that actually does work, and that someone has evidence that the rabbit's foot works. You claim that their belief is necessarily irrational.

I can't speak for RandFan, but to me, that belief would be completely rational, but they'd have to provide the evidence. As I understand RandFan, he has never said that belief in a thing for which there is good evidence is irrational. I'm not sure how you arrived at this mischaracterization of his position.

Parsimony compels some of us to believe that the above case is probably untrue but to admit that it could be true.

It is true that parsimony does not require that the simplest explanation is correct, but it suggests it is the best liklihood. I think it was Damon Runyon who said, "The race does not always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way you bet."

If true, then the belief in the rabbit's foot isn't irrational, and your inisitance that all belief in rabbit's feet must be irrational is false.

That conclusion does not follow unless you can provide evidence that rabbits' feet are lucky. In the absence of such evidence (which should be easily available, given the plenitude of rabbits), such a belief is less rational.

Therefore, your statement "parsimony compels us to accept the fact that such a belief is irrational" is false despite your claim that it is a fact.

RandFan, in my opinion, misspoke when he said this. He should have said "parsimony suggests...". Nothing compels us to accept anything. Not rationality, not evidence, not logic. Nothing. And as evidence for this statement, I can show that there are people on these very boards who accept things without rationality, evidence or logic.

Wouldn't that make your statement irrational?

No. It was a less than ideal choice of words, but I think you understood his gist. I would say that your suggestion of RF's illogic is simply being pedantic.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, in my opinion, misspoke when he said this.

Moi?


To quote Forrest Gump, "it happens"... or was that "stupid is as stupid does"? I get them mixed up.

 

[Bri]

And the voices in the schizophrenics head could be real and all schizophrenics are rational.

So, if the vioces in the schizophrenics head are real, then the schizophrenic is rational? That pretty much agrees with what I'm saying. If you call all people who hear voices necessarily irrational, then that is clearly just your opinion rather than fact unless you can provide evidence that none are real.

And I could be able to fly when you are not looking. Your argument is assuming that because anything is possible every belief is rational. No, Bri, that is wrong. Your thinking is wrong. Your logic is wrong. We must judge the world by our observations of the world. We must rely on empiricism to judge that which is rational.

What empirical evidence do you have of intelligent life outside of our solar system?

Then your statement is a non-sequitur.

Superstition is simply a category that one places various beliefs (generally ones one doesn't agree with). But there are no cut-and-dry rules for placing a belief into that category, at least none that I've heard.

I'm trying Bri, I really am.

If God influences an outcome that is by definition a circumstance. And it is NOT logically related to a course of events.

I've got to go but I'll get to the previous post when I get back.

Oh, I agree that prayer (and God's influence) qualify as objects, actions, or circumstances. What I don't agree with is your insistance that God's influence isn't logically related to the results of that influence.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I'm having a difficult time following your logic. I think there is an error there. Your example doesn't clarify anything particularly since it doesn't represent anything that I have said and does not directly relate to the definition if irrational.

No, it relates to the definition of superstition. Follow closely:

superstition: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

W = superstition
I = irrational
B = belief
X = an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome​

You claim that belief in prayer (a member of B) is a superstition (W) because X is true about belief in prayer. Furthermore, you then say that because belief in prayer is a superstition, belief in prayer must be irrational (I).

Now, substitute as follows:

frog: a green animal that hops.

W = frog
I = green
B = animal
X = hops​

By your logic, a kangaroo (a member of B) is a frog (W) because X is true about kangaroos. Furthermore, one may use your logic to say that because a kangaroo is a frog, kangaroos must be green (I).

And it would seem to a person who had a rabbits foot that the rabbits foot is logically related to the course of events.

That's right. And that person wouldn't label their belief a superstition. In fact, if you saw it work, you might not either. But someone who didn't see it work might. My point is that whether or not you label something a superstition would be a matter of opinion, not fact.

Prayer is superstitious by definition.

Again, not by the definition you posted. Perhaps you have a different one.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

We are quickly approaching that time of a discussion when it is best to simply agree to disagree. Due to other commitments I simply can't spend much more of my time here.

I can certainly agree to disagree.

So let's come to an understanding of our positions. If I understand you correctly you take a neutral view. To you, a belief in the occult, supernatural or paranormal is not necassarily any more rational or irrational than any scientific view of the world. Correct?

Not exactly. I believe that whether or not they are necessarily rational or irrational is a matter of opinion rather than fact. I think that I do understand your reasons for wanting to call all of them necessarily irrational, but I disagree that they can all be characterized in that way.

Furthermore, we all have opinions about all sorts of things that we cannot prove and that we don't fully understand (otherwise they wouldn't be opinions). I believe that opinions are just that -- opinions -- and are not subject to the same scrutiny that would allow them to be called irrational if they were stated as fact. Note that I did not to say that all opinions are necessarily rational.

If you're claiming it to be a fact that in belief prayer is necessarily irrational, then I believe that you are overstating your case since it would depend on exactly what the belief is. Specifically, Christian belief in prayer is not necessarily irrational unless a Christian believes that any and all prayer is granted by God or something similar.

Why are supernatural causes irrational? Simple, because there is no rational explanation for supernatural causes. It really is that simple.

You must admit that you have not provided a single objective explanation for how the supernatural can influence events. You simply insert God as a cause. No explanation how God does it. Just that God does it.

There is no rational explanation for anything for which we have no explanation, including gravity, uncaused events suggested by quantum theory, etc. I don't think it necessary to know how something works (or even that it necessarily does work) to have a rational opinion about it. I may not really understand quantum theory, nor do I even know that it is true, yet I may very well have a rational opinion that it is true. I might even have a rational opinion that determinism is true, even though there is evidence that quantum theory is true (and determinism is false).

Your argument, as I understand it, if God did exist and he did influence events then it would be rational and since it is possible (all things are possible) then a belief in God is rational.

By this logic there is no such thing as superstition because I could use your logic to justify any belief or mental state so long as the belief was not held as fact and was consistent.

There is no objective means by which to label something as superstition.

Cool, you've reasoned away superstition.

No, just pointed out that what you or I might call "superstition" is opinion, not fact. To say otherwise is to misuse the term.

I see no reason to suppose that there are no superstitions or that all beliefs are rational so long as they are self consistent and are not held as fact.

It is my opinion that belief in prayer is a superstition. However, my opinion doesn't make it a fact, and if I were to state it as a blanket fact "belief in prayer is irrational" then my statement would be irrational.

I choose to agree with Todd Caroll that believing that the occult, supernatual or paranormal can influence events are defacto irrational.

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion. As I've held throughout the discussion, I tend to agree with most of your opinions, but believe that you have overstated your case.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

So, if the voices in the schizophrenics head are real, then the schizophrenic is rational? That pretty much agrees with what I'm saying.

I'm parroting your logic with an obvious extreme of irrationality in an attempt to demonstrate to you how illogical it is.

If you call all people who hear voices necessarily irrational, then that is clearly just your opinion rather than fact unless you can provide evidence that none are real.

Now you are just being silly.

What empirical evidence do you have of intelligent life outside of our solar system?

We have empirical evidence that there is intelligent life inside our solar system.
We have empirical evidence that there are other solar systems.
We have empirical evidence that there are other planets in those solar systems.
We can deduce the likelihood of intelligent life outside of our solar system.

There is no such evidence for prayer.

Superstition is simply a category that one places various beliefs (generally ones one doesn't agree with).

Says who? Citation please?

But there are no cut-and-dry rules for placing a belief into that category, at least none that I've heard.

Straw man. If a behavior fits the definition of a superstition then it is, by definition, a superstition. I haven't a clue where you are getting your ideas. Certainly no from the dictionary.

Oh, I agree that prayer (and God's influence) qualify as objects, actions, or circumstances. What I don't agree with is your insistence that God's influence isn't logically related to the results of that influence.

We'll then, please to demonstrate that it is. Simply saying the rabbits foot was the reason San Diego won the baseball game doesn't demonstrate that the rabbit's foot is logical related.

How is God logically related? And I don't mean some mumbo jumbo metaphysics which could apply to rabbits feet or voodoo.

 

[RandFan]

No, it relates to the definition of superstition. Follow closely:

superstition: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

W = superstition
I = irrational
B = belief
X = an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome

​

You claim that belief in prayer (a member of B) is a superstition (W) because X is true about belief in prayer. Furthermore, you then say that because belief in prayer is a superstition, belief in prayer must be irrational (I).

Thank you. You identified the error. Way too many variables.

I = irrational belief
B = belief in an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome
P = Prayer

All Beliefs in an action that is not logicaly related to a course of actions are irrational.
Any prayer that is a belief in an action (God's influence) that is not logically related to a course of actions is irrational.


I = B
B = P
I = P

Valid

That's right. And that person wouldn't label their belief a superstition. In fact, if you saw it work, you might not either. But someone who didn't see it work might. My point is that whether or not you label something a superstition would be a matter of opinion, not fact.

Only those who are ignorant of facts would think it rational. We have far too much evidende that these things don't work. That something is possible doesn't mean that it is true. That your plane could crash doesn't make your fear of planes rational.

That gravity could fail doesn't make a fear of gravity failing rational.

Again, not by the definition you posted. Perhaps you have a different one.

(see above)

 

[Tricky]

I can certainly agree to disagree.

Me too. And since RandFan has indicated that he is too busy to respond, I'll do it for him. Of course, there will be some differences because RF is a member of the Radical Right and I am a Knee-Jerk Liberal. But we agree to disagree on politics.

Not exactly. I believe that whether or not they are necessarily rational or irrational is a matter of opinion rather than fact. I think that I do understand your reasons for wanting to call all of them necessarily irrational, but I disagree that they can all be characterized in that way.

I disagree here, although I prefer to use the terms "less rational" and "more rational" because it avoids using absolutes.
I think things are more rational if they are supported by evidence and less rational if they are not, but have the opportunity to be.

For an example, let's look at the WTC attacks. There are people who believe that the attacks were faked and carried out by some clandestine cabal tied to the CIA or other western powers in order to give themselves more power. Now these beliefs are far from supernatural but they share some things in common. They are not supported by good evidence, even though evidence for such a thing should be available. They also use the "you can't prove it wrong" defense of their rationality. But are these conspiracy theorists just as rational as those who believe the attacks were carried out by terrorists? I say they are not, because the evidence supports the latter.

Similarly, are those who support supernatural ideas for how the world works just as rational as those who use good, objective evidence for their ideas about the subject? Again, I say they are not. They are less rational, though perhaps not totally irrational.

Furthermore, we all have opinions about all sorts of things that we cannot prove and that we don't fully understand (otherwise they wouldn't be opinions). I believe that opinions are just that -- opinions -- and are not subject to the same scrutiny that would allow them to be called irrational if they were stated as fact. Note that I did not to say that all opinions are necessarily rational.

Opinions should also be subject to scrutiny if one is judging between the legitimacy of various opinions. True, we have incomplete evidence for many, really, all things, but that does not mean that some should and do have more going for them than others. Some things are easy to judge, but others are clearly in the "I don't know" category, such as intelligent life in other solar systems.

If you're claiming it to be a fact that in belief prayer is necessarily irrational, then I believe that you are overstating your case since it would depend on exactly what the belief is. Specifically, Christian belief in prayer is not necessarily irrational unless a Christian believes that any and all prayer is granted by God or something similar.

Would you say that prayer has any observable (by us) effect whatsoever? By this, I mean any effect that could not be achieved by non-prayer means, such as personal happiness.

What is it that you think prayer does? How can you provide objective evidence that it does what you think? If you don't think it requires objective evidence, then why is belief in prayer any more rational than belief that your fairy godmother listens to you?

There is no rational explanation for anything for which we have no explanation, including gravity, uncaused events suggested by quantum theory, etc. I don't think it necessary to know how something works (or even that it necessarily does work) to have a rational opinion about it. I may not really understand quantum theory, nor do I even know that it is true, yet I may very well have a rational opinion that it is true. I might even have a rational opinion that determinism is true, even though there is evidence that quantum theory is true (and determinism is false).

I agree that there are many things which clearly exist yet which don't have any good explanation, like gravity. But the fact remains that those thing are objectively observable, and in many cases, quantifiable and reliable (gravity being a good example of this). No similar thing can be said about any of the many beliefs in gods.

We don't understand anything perfectly, but we have learned to empirically show that some things exist. God is not one of them.

There is no objective means by which to label something as superstition.

Yes there is. Evidence. See my comments on rabbits' feet earlier. If there is no evidence for a thing where evidence should be easily obtainable, then belief in that thing is more superstitous than one for which there is evidence.

No, just pointed out that what you or I might call "superstition" is opinion, not fact. To say otherwise is to misuse the term.

As I say, everything is on a scale. I try not to say "fact" but rather "supported by evidence" or "unsupported by evidence. What we call superstitions are generally things which are unsupported by evidence. (Are you sick of hearing that word yet? )

It is my opinion that belief in prayer is a superstition. However, my opinion doesn't make it a fact, and if I were to state it as a blanket fact "belief in prayer is irrational" then my statement would be irrational.

I don't think, and I don't think many skeptics here claim that the ineffectiveness of prayer is an undeniable fact. However, in order to keep from having to go through all the linguistic gymnastics that you see me doing here, they may something like "irrational" or "superstitious" to avoid saying "very poorly supported by evidence". Language uses lots of shortcuts. It's easier to learn the shortcuts than to argue semantics every time a word that implies absolute factuality is used.

would be irrational.
And you are certainly entitled to that opinion. As I've held throughout the discussion, I tend to agree with most of your opinions, but believe that you have overstated your case.

Well, poor RF is handicapped by his adherance to an ideology that supports politicians who can barely rub two metaphors together. It isn't his fault that he is obliged to communicate using simple terms, sometimes grunts and hand signals. Yet it should be clear what he was saying, and it wasn't that there are absolute definitions of rational vs. irrational, fact vs. superstition or truth vs. lies. It seems that you've spent a lot of time trying to nail him on this. Maybe that's good for him and it will help him overcome his limitations. I'll wait for the evidence.

***
Edited to add:
Apparently RandFan is not as busy as we were led to believe. He's answered some of your posts, and with only minimal grunting.

 

[RandFan]

Not exactly. I believe that whether or not they are necessarily rational or irrational is a matter of opinion...

Reasonable opinion?

Furthermore, we all have opinions about all sorts of things that we cannot prove and that we don't fully understand (otherwise they wouldn't be opinions). I believe that opinions are just that -- opinions -- and are not subject to the same scrutiny that would allow them to be called irrational if they were stated as fact. Note that I did not to say that all opinions are necessarily rational.

If you are of the opinion that keeping a rabbits foot can alter the outcome of an event then the opinion is, by definition, irrational.

If you are of the opinion that gravity is going to stop working as it has for thousands of observed years then the opinion is, by definition, irrational.

If you are of the opinion that you are about to die of some unknown disease then the opinion is, by definition, irrational.

If you're claiming it to be a fact that in belief prayer is necessarily irrational, then I believe that you are overstating your case since it would depend on exactly what the belief is. Specifically, Christian belief in prayer is not necessarily irrational unless a Christian believes that any and all prayer is granted by God or something similar.

Believing that prayers can alter the course of events is by definition irrational.

There is no rational explanation for anything for which we have no explanation, including gravity, uncaused events suggested by quantum theory, etc. I don't think it necessary to know how something works (or even that it necessarily does work) to have a rational opinion about it. I may not really understand quantum theory, nor do I even know that it is true, yet I may very well have a rational opinion that it is true. I might even have a rational opinion that determinism is true, even though there is evidence that quantum theory is true (and determinism is false).

Gravity is empirical. Prayer is not. Observations and mathematic models for quantum theory are rational whether you understand them or not.

There is no objective means by which to label something as superstition.

There absolutely is a means. Observe the behavior. A person who purchases a good luck charm in the hopes of winning the lottery is superstitious. That is objective.

No, just pointed out that what you or I might call "superstition" is opinion, not fact. To say otherwise is to misuse the term.

I have little time for such equivocation. Do you accept the definition or not?

It is my opinion that belief in prayer is a superstition. However, my opinion doesn't make it a fact, and if I were to state it as a blanket fact "belief in prayer is irrational" then my statement would be irrational.

I don't hold any absolute truths. I only hold truths provisionally and to a degree of certainty. It is reasonable to state that prayer with the hope of altering a course of events, is by definition, irrational. I stand by that statement. If you feel better to characterize my statement as an opinion I can live with that.

ETA: I can live with qualifying the degree of irrationality.