Prayer and power

[Cuddles]

Because it totally misses the point of the argument. Of course we understand today the physical mechanisms at work in producing the emergent phenomenon called "temperature," and the reasons for there being a lower limit to it; moreover, such understanding (and the definitions it produced) has not been with us forever. And, additionally, none of this precludes the possibility of, say, a strange and unknown state of matter which would allow energy to be "borrowed" from the sample in such a way that it would manifest a sub-zero K temperature - a sort of "evaporative cooling" of matter, if you will, and ignoring the physical difficulties of measurement.

These things together were the point.

Now, please try to follow the argument instead of harping on about the palatability or otherwise of tangential details.

'Luthon64

The point I was arguing was this one :

In any case, believing prayer in and of itself to be capable of affecting the course of objective events is irrational for the same reason that believing that the sun will rise in the West tomorrow is irrational: each belief has an inordinately tiny probability of being true; in each case an extraordinarily problematical mechanism is required to bring about the reality of the belief, and in each case a violation of well-established understanding would occur.

Negative temperature does not just require a "problematic mechanism", it simply doesn't exist by definition. This is not simply a case of arguing that god can only do things that are logically possible, it goes deeper than this. If 1+1 is defined to be 2, then god cannot make 1+1=3, no matter how omnipotent he is.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Negative temperature does not just require a "problematic mechanism", it simply doesn't exist by definition. This is not simply a case of arguing that god can only do things that are logically possible, it goes deeper than this. If 1+1 is defined to be 2, then god cannot make 1+1=3, no matter how omnipotent he is.

You are hereby defined out of existence.

'Luthon64

 

[Bri]

Choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does contradict many Christian beliefs that I know of. Are your anecdotes somehow better than mine? I keep telling you that Christian belief isn't monolithic. There is a great diversity of belief.

I don't have any anecdotes. I said that I have not heard of nor seen any examples of what you're referring to. Please post some references to Christians who believe that God must grant all categories of prayer and I will thoroughly agree that the belief is irrational.

This is irrational thinking. That all things are possible is not a basis for believing in anything other than all things are possible.

I never said it was. You asked why God might choose to never answer a category of prayer despite his ability to do so if he chose. I simply answered your question.

No more than day = night. You are trying to create a false dichotomy.

You said yourself that "irrational" means that there is a degree of irrationality. You also admitted that there is a degree of irrationality in all beliefs. Therefore, the statement that all beliefs are irrational must be true by that definition.

If the above statement contains a false dichotomy, then you are the one creating it (I don't see the false dichotomy in that statement).

The point I was trying to make is that the statement "belief in prayer is irrational" (which you continued to make after posing the above definition) is fairly benign in light of the fact that all belief is irrational by that definition. The statement "belief in gravity is irrational" is also true by that definition.

The problem is that with your definition, the term "irrational" doesn't mean much by itself, without the qualifiers "more" or "less" and a comparison to another belief. For example, using your definition, the statement "belief A is more rational than belief B" makes sense, but the statement "belief A is irrational" although true is silly because all beliefs are irrational.

I would have suggested a different definition for the word "irrational" when used by itself to mean something like: at the extreme end of Tricky's Scale O' Rationality.

No, I can demonstrate that it is, to a degree, probable. That's the difference. The moon being made of green cheese is possible. It is not probable.

We can use induction to calculate the degree of probability. We can't for prayer.

I don't know what you mean by "degree of probability" as opposed to just "probability" but I admit that I'm weak in the area of statistics. Regardless, please calculate the [degree of] probability of intelligent life outside of our solar system (or cite such a calculation), including the degree of uncertainty. I think you'll find, in this case, the probability to be very similar to that of prayer (greater than 0% but less than 100%).

No, it is (#1).

If this were correct then the dictionary would, by your logic, be tautological. To you #1 = #3.

No, not "logical" sense. If the moon were made of cheese it would be edible is logically valid. It is not REASON to think we could eat the moon.

Correction: it is not a GOOD reason. Consider the sentence:

I have reason to believe that I can eat the moon because of the following reason: it is made of green cheese​

The first occurrence of "reason" is definition #3 and the second is definition #1 even if you don't agree with the quality of the reason. In fact, you can use definition #3 without specifying a reason (#1) at all (i.e. "I have reason to believe that I can eat the moon.") Reason #3 makes no judgment of the validity of any evidence to support the premise.

What you fail to understand is that the dictionary isn't simply listing what superstition is.

Really? I believe that's exactly what a dictionary does.

By your logic the superstition is A.) An irrational belief AND an action not logically related to a course of events.

Close. By the definition you posted, a superstition is (A) irrational AND (B) a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. Just as a "crow" defined as "any of several large glossy black birds of the genus Corvus" means that a crow is (A) large AND (B) glossy AND (C) black AND (D) a bird AND (E) of the genus Corvus.

Although the dictionary definition doesn't require it, I've already accepted your premise that a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is irrational. Now show that prayer is not logically related to the course of events that it is believed to influence. If you can't, then it doesn't follow from the premise that belief in prayer is irrational.

That doesn't mean that belief in prayer isn't irrational, only that it cannot be proven to be irrational from the premise you suggested. Your claim that prayer is "by definition" irrational based on the definition of "superstition" you posted is unfounded.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Between 0 and 100 isn't 0.

We have already discussed this, and I was mistaken when I suggested that 0% or 100% would be a reasonable probability. 0% would mean that it's impossible, and it's clearly not impossible; 100% would make it a fact, and it's clearly not a fact. Likewise, the probability of prayer working is between 0% and 100% (it's not impossible and it's not fact).

There's lot's of evidence to reason the probability of intelligent life outside of our solar system. There is no evidence to reason the probability of prayer.

There's as much reason to place the probability of intelligent life outside of the solar system at a very low number than to place it at a very high number.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

Or, if it's they're simply wrong, I agree they can be wrong as far as you say..."a specific, objective outcome"...but I think that's something added to confirm what you want, prayer being wrong. Forget about a specific objective outcome (I'm not sure if you can). Prayer has been said, for thousands of years, to result in unexpected outcomes. So basically, you're ditching the Christian understanding of prayer by inserting "specific, objective outcome". Fine. I agree that without the Christian understanding of prayer you're making a useful point. But I do have that understanding, so I don't have as much use for your point as you do.

Randomness has unexpected outcomes too. How can you know if the outcome was as a result of prayer, or just chance? It seems that you are saying that the Christian understanding of prayer is, “whatever the outcome, God did it.”

Sure you could say that. People say lots of things. Just saying something doesn't make it objectively true.

Just saying “I have faith” doesn’t make something true either, yet Christians will argue that faith is enough to justify calling something “truth”.

Here's a scenario. Let's say you're a minister, and you're in church with your family setting up for a prayer service. All of a sudden the Jesus on the crucifix turns into flesh and blood and...let's say rapes the minister's whole family and then flays them and then dismembers them. Then the Jesus says that he is an evil spirit, there is no God, Jesus was all a hoax, then he grabs the Bible and he eats it, and then he says after we all die it's only oblivion, then he snaps his fingers and the church bursts into flames. And as the minister burns to death, I think it's quite likely that he could be thinking that God has just been exposed as a fake.

Yes, that would be one example of being wrong about Jesus and God. However in that scenario, they are still supernatural beings, but with different supernatural characteristics than what you had previously thought. So how could one convince you that Jesus and God don’t exist at all? Would their continued absence of activity do the trick? I’m guessing not.

But they're not called irrational societies, are they?

No, asylums are not called that, but that’s one of the things that will get you a membership.

An imaginary being exists only in the imagination.

I don't believe that God fits that definition. If he does, you are right, he would be imaginary.

I think flying spaghetti monsters are imaginary. I think that some people have claimed to see unicorns, and maybe there have been horseys with a skull protuberance of some sort. As for fairies, I have mixed feelings.

So if a being exists in a place other than the imagination, how do you show that? Don’t say faith, because one could have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think that Christians reject imaginary beings all of the time by the way. For example, I'm continually rejecting imaginary conceptions of God.

Apparently not all of them.
I don’t know who said it first. “We are both atheists. I am just atheist about one more god than you.”

I agree that you need to think that God is as imaginary as Santa and unicorns. You can probably realize by now that the comparison does little to impress those who believe in God, and explain that one however you want.

I know it doesn’t impress you, but I like to keep you in practice thinking about it. Maybe some day it will “click”.

I think there is objective truth, and I also think that there is subjective truth. Of course I think objective truth is greater, but that doesn't mean subjective truth doesn't exist.

I believe truth should be true. Subjective truth is more properly called “opinion” because there can be mutually conflicting subjective truths.

No, the truth doesn't *have* to be the same for everyone. Why? What's this *have to* about? People disagree about the truth all the time. They live lives, they die. How does *have to* come into play?

Yes, people do disagree. I never claimed that we know all of the truth, but I do believe that when two people disagree about the truth, one or both of them are wrong. Perhaps we won’t know which, but we should try to find out as best we can by using means that will satisfy both sides of the discussion. I find evidence to be the best tool for that.

You need to have faith in skepticism to be a skeptic.

No, you need evidence. And I have it. Lots of it.

I'd say it doesn't need overwhelming, rigorous evidence. I've said this before, the Bible *is* evidence. If there was no Bible, so much for the Christian faith. Of course I understand that you think it's either really bad evidence, or not evidence as far as scientific inquiry goes. But the believer can *always* point to something to back up their view, even if it's just words in a book, or anecdotal.

I agree the Bible is evidence. But a whole lot of the bible is contradicted by more recent evidence. Naturally when two pieces of evidence contradict each other, that contradiction needs to be resolved. In this case, the resolution that is obvious to me is that the recent evidence has more to back it up than the evidence of the Bible.

Well it makes sense to me! I agree that there really is no god of atheism, but it has been and can be argued that atheism merely replaces worshipping of god. It fills that void. Thus the atheist is as dogmatic as the theist. Hell, the atheist would probably die for the atheistic belief just as a theist would. Or maybe not.

There is no dogma of atheism. And while I would not die for atheism itself, I’m pretty committed to freedom, including the freedom from religion.

I see. At least in my case, I don't think of myself as trying to go to heaven. Of course millions and millions do. I'm not saying I'm better or worse than them for this difference. Let's say I'm worse. I just don't think about going to heaven. Mainly because I'm not sure what heaven is, and I have unconventional views of what comes next I think.

I would agree that your views of Christianity are unconventional (and less dogmatic) than those of most Christians I have talked to.

I think that all efforts bear fruit. Even if it isn't the *main* fruit, that doesn't mean you've wasted your time. Like lets say a scientist spends his life trying to discover a cure for cancer. He never does, but his research leads to other things. His life wasn't a waste just because he never achieved his main goal.

I don’t think that’s a good comparison. Only very (here’s that word again) irrational scientists would have a goal of “curing cancer”. They would be more like “work towards a cure of cancer”. Thus, any achievement helping humanity through their work could be counted as partial achievement of their goal. The same is not true of heaven (as it has been described to me). You either go there or you don’t. Perhaps your concept of heaven may include various levels, but still you can’t partially achieve your goal of going to heaven.

OK, I think I see what you're saying now. Like, if someone is sitting in church kind of daydreaming on what heaven would be like. I guess that could/would be wasted time...but ya know...I think that even if there *is* a heaven, that activity would still be a waste of time. We have faith that God has made a special place for each of us. Leave that alone, and stop wasting your time dreaming about it.

That’s sort of what I mean. I mean the things that you do because you want to get to heaven. Sorry to use the man in red again, but I would more compare it to working towards your dream of one day meeting Santa Claus (the one at the North Pole). You might spend your whole life learning how to make toys (and even have your ears surgically altered to look like an elf), but no matter how good a toymaker you became, you would still fail in your goal, though you would not have wasted your life because you still made great toys. However, any time you spent wondering about what Santa wanted would be wasted.

All the people I know who've died can't afford the postage.

If you have to rely on the post office even there, then how can you call it Heaven?

He gets better as the book progresses, which I think is the point.

He started out perfect and got better?

I'd be skeptical of those who did *force* themselves into a belief, or lack thereof. That doesn't mean you can't push youself in a certain direction, or consider many different things that you may be uncomfortable with, but that actual *click* just has to happen.

All right podnuh. Take ten paces and turn around. We’ll see who clicks first.

 

[RandFan]

I don't have any anecdotes. I said that I have not heard of nor seen any examples of what you're referring to.

AKA Anecdotal

You said yourself that "irrational" means that there is a degree of irrationality. You also admitted that there is a degree of irrationality in all beliefs.

No, not quite. Only that I don't view the world with absolutes. There are two extremes. On one side is irrational and the other rational. I usually see that something is more rational or more irrational. Just as I see that there are two extremes of darkness and light and a gradient in between. I don't need to believe that all things are both rational and irrational and more than I see things as both dark and light.

Consider this, the sun rising tomorrow has a degree of probability. I don't view the sun rising as both likely and unlikely. Do you view the sun rising as both likely and unlikely? It is more likely than unlikely that the sun will rise therefore I see it as simply likely that the sun will rise.

Therefore, the statement that all beliefs are irrational must be true by that definition.

No.

The point I was trying to make is that the statement "belief in prayer is irrational" (which you continued to make after posing the above definition) is fairly benign in light of the fact that all belief is irrational by that definition. The statement "belief in gravity is irrational" is also true by that definition.

Only if you accept the statement that the sun will rise is unlikely. Because there is a degree of likely and unlikely.

Correction: it is not a GOOD reason. Consider the sentence:

I have reason to believe that I can eat the moon because of the following reason: it is made of green cheese​

The first occurrence of "reason" is definition #3 and the second is definition #1 even if you don't agree with the quality of the reason. In fact, you can use definition #3 without specifying a reason (#1) at all (i.e. "I have reason to believe that I can eat the moon.") Reason #3 makes no judgment of the validity of any evidence to support the premise.

I think you have your # back wards. #1 is simply a motivation. #3 is logical reason. "Not a GOOD reason" would not fit with #3.

Really? I believe that's exactly what a dictionary does.

That is exactly what it doesn't do in THIS case.

Close. By the definition you posted, a superstition is (A) irrational AND (B) a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. Just as a "crow" defined as "any of several large glossy black birds of the genus Corvus" means that a crow is (A) large AND (B) glossy AND (C) black AND (D) a bird AND (E) of the genus Corvus.

Then the dictionary is guilty of the error you accused me of.

This raises the question, What is irrational and why is superstition irrational?

I've already accepted your premise that a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is irrational.

Thank you.

Now show that prayer is not logically related to the course of events that it is believed to influence. If you can't, then it doesn't follow from the premise that belief in prayer is irrational.

This is not how it works. This is fallacy. This assumes that if I can't prove a negative then the negative is wrong. Wrong, it is incumbent on the person who believes that there is a connection to demonstrate the connection.

What is the logical connection between prayer and an outcome?

That doesn't mean that belief in prayer isn't irrational, only that it cannot be proven to be irrational from the premise you suggested. Your claim that prayer is "by definition" irrational based on the definition of "superstition" you posted is unfounded.

Since it can't be shown that there is a logical connection then it is irrational.

 

[Bri]

All things are possible, right?
This could be true, right?
Now, is it rational?

Straw man. We've been talking about unfalsifiable beliefs on this thread. The belief you stated is not only falsifiable, but there is far more evidence against it than for it.

ETA: Sorry, one more question. Bri, if you would, define for me reasonable doubt?

It's usually used as a legal term, and I couldn't find a simple definition for it.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Straw man. We've been talking about unfalsifiable beliefs on this thread. The belief you stated is not only falsifiable, but there is far more evidence against it than for it.

Please to tell me how such a belief is falsifiable and prayer isn't?

Would such a belief that raping virgins be rational if it was simply believed that it doesn't always work?

It's usually used as a legal term, and I couldn't find a simple definition for it.

Please tell me what YOU think it means. It is very important.

ETA: What is the evidence for prayer? I have been saying all along that there is far more evidence agaisnt prayer than there is for it.

 

[RandFan]

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

Defendant is on trial for murder. There is a video tape of the defendant committing the crime. His fingerprints are found at the crime scene. Blood and semen matching the defendant were found at the crime scene. Eyewitnesses saw the defendant at the crime scene. The defendant does not present a defense.

One of the jurors prays at the end of trial and believes that god tells her that the man is not guilty. Is her belief rational? Is her doubt, "reasonable"? Why or why not?

If one person kills another because they believe God wants them to kill people is that reasonable? Is that rational?

 

[RandFan]

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

What does "based upon reason" mean?

 

[Bri]

Please to tell me how such a belief is falsifiable and prayer isn't?

You said that it is believed that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. If the belief is that it sometimes cures AIDS, then unfortunately it is unfalsifiable. However, it is still a straw man since, as I said, there is far more evidence against such a belief than for it, and we were talking about beliefs for which there is little evidence either way.

Please tell me what YOU think it means. It is very important.

If someone is accused of a crime, a reasonable doubt would mean that there is doubt that the accused committed the crime. If a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it means that the evidence of guilt clearly outweighs the evidence of innocence.

ETA: What is the evidence for prayer? I have been saying all along that there is far more evidence agaisnt prayer than there is for it.

There is very little evidence for or against prayer, particularly in conjunction with belief in a God who might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

AKA Anecdotal

Saying that I've not seen any evidence of something (anecdotal or otherwise) is anecdotal? I'm asking you to produce the anecdotal evidence that you claim to have. Let's see it.

You said yourself that "irrational" means that there is a degree of irrationality. You also admitted that there is a degree of irrationality in all beliefs.

No, not quite. Only that I don't view the world with absolutes.

Then perhaps I misunderstood when you said:

Irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality.

and

I was using your definition: irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Can you name a belief that doesn't have a degree of irrationality?

I don't hold absolute positions. I can't name one for you. Gravity has worked since recorded history. No theory has been proposed to demonstrate that it doesn't.

I don't hold that a belief in gravity is absolutely rational. I hold that it is one of the most rational beliefs. I can postulate some theories where it could be viewed as irrational.

Moving on...

There are two extremes. On one side is irrational and the other rational. I usually see that something is more rational or more irrational.

Exactly my point. If you see something as more rational or less rational (more irrational), then why continue to make statements like "belief in prayer is irrational" which is meaningless without comparison to something else. You continue to make such statements even after offering the above definition.

I think you have your # back wards. #1 is simply a motivation. #3 is logical reason. "Not a GOOD reason" would not fit with #3.

No idea what you're talking about. They are fairly clearly recognizable because #1 can be written as "a reason" while #3 is usually written just "reason" in the form "reason to believe X" where X is the proposition.

That is exactly what it doesn't do in THIS case.

Oh, in the case of THIS word, the dictionary doesn't simply provide its definition. OK.

Then the dictionary is guilty of the error you accused me of.

I accused you of using a dictionary definition of a category of belief to try to prove that a particular belief must fit into that category. No, I've looked through all my dictionaries and don't see any list of what fits into the category "superstition" and what doesn't.

This raises the question, What is irrational and why is superstition irrational?

Superstition is irrational by definition. Prayer is not superstition by definition (at least by no definition that I've seen).

Thank you.

You're welcome. I accepted it long ago. Unfortunately, it doesn't advance your argument any.

This is not how it works. This is fallacy. This assumes that if I can't prove a negative then the negative is wrong. Wrong, it is incumbent on the person who believes that there is a connection to demonstrate the connection.

No, RandFan, I never said that because you can't prove a negative that your assumption (that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational) is wrong. I said that you cannot prove it to be right. BIG difference. I'm not making a claim that belief in prayer is rational, only that it's not necessarily irrational.

What is the logical connection between prayer and an outcome?

God is generally believed to be the logical connection between prayer and an outcome. IF (huge "IF") you can prove that there is no logical connection between the prayer and the outcome (i.e. that God doesn't exist, that God doesn't grant any prayers, etc.), THEN you can prove that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational according to your premise.

Since it can't be shown that there is a logical connection then it is irrational.

This (faulty) conclusion is based on a different premise.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

What does "based upon reason" mean?

Reason is a synonym for logic. So, "based upon reason and common sense" means "based upon logic and common sense."

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I'm asking you to produce the anecdotal evidence that you claim to have. Let's see it.

I'm sorry, how do I demonstrate to you my life's experiences? They are anecdotal. And why should your observations mean anything? My experiences are different than yours that's all. It is demonstrable that there are diverse beliefs. There are some very bizzare beliefs. I know people that believe that God can grant any prayer he chooses. He doesn't grant every prayer but he is not limited by anything or anybody.

Exactly my point. If you see something as more rational or less rational (more irrational), then why continue to make statements like "belief in prayer is irrational" which is meaningless without comparison to something else.

The sun will rise tomorrow. Belief in prayer is irrational. It's that simple. Those two things are not absolute. That they are not absolute does not mean that prayer is rational.

No idea what you're talking about. They are fairly clearly recognizable because #1 can be written as "a reason" while #3 is usually written just "reason" in the form "reason to believe X" where X is the proposition.

No.

#1 The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because.

This fits ANY thing that causes something else. Belief that god will answer prayers as a motivation to pray fits this defintion.

#3 An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.

This definition requires that the underlying fact or cause provide "logical sense". Prayer doesn't provide "logical sense".

Oh, in the case of THIS word, the dictionary doesn't simply provide its definition. OK.

? Not a clue what you are on about.

1. The dictionary is providing a definition of the word.
2. When it lists things it usually puts them in numerical format, like this.
3. In this instance the dictionary is telling us that A.) The belief is irrational B.) Because it is a belief that an unrelated act an influence events.

Notice that the definition doesn't use the word "and" to conjoin "irrationa belief" and "action". And if you take out "irrational belief" would the definition make sense?

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

Question: What is the irrational belief?
Answer: That an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

QED

I'm not making a claim that belief in prayer is rational, only that it's not necessarily irrational.

Bri's Logic: A belief that prayer can influence the outcome of events is not necasarily irrational.

This raises a question, is a beleif that raping a virgin can influence the outcomeof events necassarily irrational?

God is generally believed to be the logical connection between prayer and an outcome.

"God"? Can we replace "God" with magic? To be reasonable, to make logical sense it must be based on something that we can use as a standard. Do you have anything or any reason to suppose that God exists or grants prayers?

No? Well, that answers that. It is just superstition because there is NO logical conclusion. Saying "God did" it is meaningless without faith.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. --Hebrews 11:1

 

[RandFan]

Reason is a synonym for logic. So, "based upon reason and common sense" means "based upon logic and common sense."

Ok, then work with me here,

1.) Defendant is on trial for murder. There is a video tape of the defendant committing the crime. His fingerprints are found at the crime scene. Blood and semen matching the defendant were found at the crime scene. Eyewitnesses saw the defendant at the crime scene. The defendant does not present a defense.

One of the jurors prays at the end of trial and believes that god tells her that the man is not guilty. Is her belief rational? Is her doubt, "reasonable"? Why or why not?

This one isn't going a way Bri. It is very important to my argument. So you might as well address it.

2.) Oh, and you forgot about the very real belief that raping virgins can cure aids.

It might have actually worked a few times.
There are people who testify that it works.
Can you prove that it has never worked?
All things are possible.
It could be true.
Is this belief "not necessarily irrational"?

3.) The Bible tells us that God sometimes wants people to kill for him. If one person kills another person because they believe God wants them to kill people is that belief "not necessarily irrational"?

1., 2., 3...

 

[RandFan]

From Randi's comentary:

Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, in spite of not being based upon evidence. Indeed, they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief


No, she admitted, her expected and promised recovery had not taken place. Also, she told us, Popoff had gotten some important details wrong when “divining” facts about her. When, accompanied by enthusiastic “hallelujahs,” she’d been commanded to walk across the stage without her supporting walker, she’d already known she could do that, but it had been looked upon as a miracle by the audience. In short, nothing at all had happened to her other than the use of her presence on stage in a farce that she fully recognized as such. When the interviewer asked her if this had diminished her faith at all, she smiled, looked down, and shook her head. “No, no,” she said softly, “Reverend Popoff is a man of God. I still believe.” She paused, then as she turned and walked away hunched over her walker, she repeated, “I still believe” – a confirmed “faith-sufferer.”

(emphasis mine)

In the face of evidence to the contrary we are supposed to believe that this is rational? Peter Popov having been exposed as a fraud on national TV is still plying his trade BTW, raitionality? Really?

 

[Bri]

I'm sorry, how do I demonstrate to you my life's experiences? They are anecdotal. And why should your observations mean anything? My experiences are different than yours that's all. It is demonstrable that there are diverse beliefs. There are some very bizzare beliefs.

My observations don't mean any more than yours. I simply said that I haven't had any observations at all of people who believe that God must grant all categories of prayers. You claimed that you knew people who believed this, and I asked you to post a link to a website or any evidence of someone who believes this and I'll admit that their belief is irrational.

I know people that believe that God can grant any prayer he chooses. He doesn't grant every prayer but he is not limited by anything or anybody.

Now, this belief I have heard of (and is not contradicted by the scripture you've cited), although it is quite different from the belief you claimed to know of a few posts back:

Choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does contradict many Christian beliefs that I know of.

I was simply asking for evidence since you claimed to know of some.

That they are not absolute does not mean that prayer is rational.

I never said that belief in prayer was necessarily rational, only that it's not necessarily irrational.

Notice that the definition doesn't use the word "and" to conjoin "irrationa belief" and "action". And if you take out "irrational belief" would the definition make sense?

Question: What is the irrational belief?
Answer: That an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

The definition makes grammatical sense (but would be incomplete) without the word "irrational." So, "that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome" is the belief being referred to. In order to be considered superstition by this definition, the belief would also have to be irrational.

This discussion about dictionary definitions is getting quite silly, especially since I've already conceded your premise that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is irrational (whether or not the dictionary definition requires it). Unfortunately, you still cannot prove that prayer fits the premise since Christians believe there to be a relation between the action and the course of events influenced by the action.

If you'd like to continue to believe that the dictionary proves that prayer is irrational, there's probably nothing further I can do to convince you otherwise. In my opinion that is an irrational belief, but perhaps you have a better reason for believing it than you've posted here.

Bri's Logic: A belief that prayer can influence the outcome of events is not necasarily irrational.

This raises a question, is a beleif that raping a virgin can influence the outcomeof events necassarily irrational?

This will continue to be a straw man regardless of how often you write it.

"God"? Can we replace "God" with magic? To be reasonable, to make logical sense it must be based on something that we can use as a standard. Do you have anything or any reason to suppose that God exists or grants prayers?

Any reasons I might have to suppose that God exists or grants prayers is irrelevant. The question is whether Christians have reason to believe that God exists or grants prayers, and I'm fairly certain that they do.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

In the face of evidence to the contrary we are supposed to believe that this is rational? Peter Popov having been exposed as a fraud on national TV is still plying his trade BTW, raitionality? Really?

No, the evidence to the contrary is evidence to the contrary, which is why this is a straw man. We were discussing beliefs for which there is little evidence either way.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

The question is whether Christians have reason to believe that God exists or grants prayers, and I'm fairly certain that they do.

That is one of the questions. But one must also ask the question, "What kind of reason do they have to believe that God exists or grants prayers?" Can it be any reason whatsoever? If so, then nothing in the world is irrational (including the raping of virgins to cure AIDS.) If not, what separates the "good" reasons from the "bad" reasons?

Do you believe there can be invalid reasons to believe a thing?

 

[Bri]

Ok, then work with me here,

I'm trying. I really am.

1.) Defendant is on trial for murder. There is a video tape of the defendant committing the crime. His fingerprints are found at the crime scene. Blood and semen matching the defendant were found at the crime scene. Eyewitnesses saw the defendant at the crime scene. The defendant does not present a defense.

One of the jurors prays at the end of trial and believes that god tells her that the man is not guilty. Is her belief rational? Is her doubt, "reasonable"? Why or why not?

This one isn't going a way Bri. It is very important to my argument. So you might as well address it.

Given only the evidence you presented (including the very weak evidence by the juror claiming that God told her the man is innocent) I would have to say that the man is guilty were I a juror. From my perspective, the evidence against the accused is much greater than the evidence of his his innocence. Does that mean that the juror who claims to have spoken with God is necessarily irrational? No. She could be irrational based on the skimpy information you've provided. Specifically, we have no way of knowing why she believes as she does and doesn't question her own sanity. Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine how she could possibly believe as she does without coming to the conclusion that she's insane. Perhaps she IS insane (in which case her belief is probably irrational). It may even be impossible for her to convince me that she's not insane. But is she necessarily insane? Is her belief necessarily irrational? No, she may in fact have a good reason for believing as she does.

2.) Oh, and you forgot about the very real belief that raping virgins can cure aids.

Again, this is a straw man. Even if the belief was true (that rape sometimes results in a cure) it wouldn't justify rape. Even if the cure was guaranteed it wouldn't justify rape.

3.) The Bible tells us that God sometimes wants people to kill for him. If one person kills another person because they believe God wants them to kill people is that belief "not necessarily irrational"?

See above.

-Bri