Prayer and power

[RandFan]

The fact that two of these (superstition and evil) are not entirely objective terms doesn't mean that the dictionary must list all mammals (an objective term) in order to show that something is a mammal by definition. It does, however, mean that you cannot show something to be superstition or evil by definition.

(emphasis mine) That's just silly. By this logic there are no superstitions since A.) the dictionary doesn't list superstitions and B.) there is nothing that can be shown to be superstition by definition. Have you contacted the various dictionaries?

 

[RandFan]

Bri,

So I guess you have chosen to be obtuse and obfuscate rather than deal with arguments you find uncomfortable. You have left many questions unanswered.

1. You refuse to name a superstition, why?
2. You refuse to answer whether or not it is irrational to believe that raping virgins can cure aids. Bear in mind that we are not addressing the morality of the act. We are simply looking to see if the belief is rational.
3. You didn't answer the questions, if one person kills another because they believe God wants them to kill people is that reasonable? Is that rational? There are many instances in the Bible where people kill other people in the name of God. Is that rational?
4. You refuse to acknowledge the wikipedia definition of superstition.
5. You refuse to acknowledge Robert Ingersoll's definition of superstition.
6. Will you at least affirm that Skeptics hold that a belief in prayer is superstitious and irrational?
7. Will you at least affirm that there are scholarly works that state categorically that prayer is a superstition? That prayer is irrational?

Still no answers.

 

[Bri]

4. You refuse to acknowledge the wikipedia definition of superstition.
5. You refuse to acknowledge Robert Ingersoll's definition of superstition.
6. Will you at least affirm that Skeptics hold that a belief in prayer is superstitious and irrational?
7. Will you at least affirm that there are scholarly works that state categorically that prayer is a superstition? That prayer is irrational?[/LIST]

6. Most skeptics (myself included) agree that there is no clear evidence of a connection between prayers and the events that they are believed to affect. However, I hope that a skeptic wouldn't hold it to be a fact that all belief in prayer is necessarily superstitious or irrational.

4, 5, and 7. I have seen no scholarly works that state categorically (being without exception or qualification; absolute) that prayer is a superstition. This would include the ones you've posted (if we can call them scholarly works) -- all of them were clearly opinion or listed qualifications.

Your other questions have already been addressed previously.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

(emphasis mine) That's just silly. By this logic there are no superstitions since A.) the dictionary doesn't list superstitions and B.) there is nothing that can be shown to be superstition by definition. Have you contacted the various dictionaries?

Already addressed in response to a previous (nearly identical) post.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

6. Most skeptics (myself included) agree that there is no clear evidence of a connection between prayers and the events that they are believed to affect...

Absent that then by your own concession the lack of a connection is irrational.

However, I hope that a skeptic wouldn't hold it to be a fact that all belief in prayer is necessarily superstitious or irrational.

We have agreed that we are only talking about prayer that influences events.

4, 5, and 7. I have seen no scholarly works that state categorically (being without exception or qualification; absolute) that prayer is a superstition. This would include the ones you've posted (if we can call them scholarly works) -- all of them were clearly opinion or listed qualifications.

I disagree. No exceptions or qualifications were given, can you show them to me?

Your other questions have already been addressed previously.

More evasion and obfuscation.

Fact: We don't know if you agree or not that a belief that raping virgins to cure aids is irrational.

Fact: We don't know if you agree or not that a belief that killing in the name of God is irrational.

Fact: You have never named what you believed would meet the definition of superstition.

These are significant questions. If they make you fell uncomfortable then don't answer them but stating that you have "addressed" them is disingenuous.

 

[I less than three logic]

We are in agreement here, although you seem to be conceding your previous point about the "default" position being the only rational position when there is little or no evidence either way.

No, my point before was when there was "no" evidence, not little evidence.

Irrefutable evidence means that the conclusion must necessarily follow from the evidence. In this case, the conclusion follows from other irrefutable evidence (namely that it is not impossible that intelligent life exists elsewhere). It can very easily be argued that the existence of intelligent life here doesn't provide evidence at all of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by not dismissing it entirely as evidence of possibility. However, the existence of intelligent life here is in no way irrefutable evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere.

If it is easy to argue, please present your argument. The conclusion that the possibility exists must necessarily follow from the evidence unless you do one of the two things I mentioned before.

This is exactly my point.

Glad you agree, because your previous paragraph didn't seem to.

It is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere because it isn't impossible.

Yes, but in this case we have more evidence to show it is possible than simple word games. Where in the case of God we only have definitions that make the claim impossible to falsify as the only "evidence" supporting the possibility. I don't consider that evidence at all.

The possibility is true because there is no irrefutable evidence that it is impossible. Whatever "supporting" evidence there might be of the possibility doesn't make the possibility any more true.

Who said anything about "true"? I'm talking about whether it is more or less rational to believe in the claim.

That is not even close to my claim. I agree that some things are less likely than others even when both are possible. My claim is (and always has been) that in cases where there is little evidence either for or against something, it is not necessarily irrational to hold an opinion either for or against it.

Agreed, when there is little evidence. Not so when there is no evidence. In the case of life existing elsewhere, we have little evidence to support the possibility. In the case of God, we have no evidence. Only word games.

You admitted that this is true of the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system. However, you claim that there are exceptions for other things for which there is little evidence for or against.

No, my exceptions are for cases where there is no evidence.

The quality of evidence supporting the possibility of anything for which there is no proof of impossibility is irrefutable. The evidence is simply that there is no proof of its impossibility. If there is proof of impossibility, it would not be possible. In other words, something is possible if it isn't impossible. That is simply a fact, and cannot be any more or less true than "true."

There's that true word again. We're talking about how rational the opinion is, not whether or not it turns out to be true. Empirical evidence is better quality than poor definitions. Making one opinion more rational to hold than the other.

Again, its possibility is entirely true without any additional evidence. That there is "empirical evidence supporting the possibility" doesn't make it any more true.


Therefore, it is true that it is possible. Period. Any additional evidence will not make it any truer.

Rational.

True.

R, A

T, R

...?

The possibility of each existing is true. The fact that there is little to no evidence of either actually existing precludes it from being necessarily irrational to have an opinion for or against the existence of either one.

-Bri

There is a world of difference between little evidence and no evidence. Now, I ask once again, please show me some evidence to support the possibility that God exists other then the inability to falsify the claim.

 

[RandFan]

Already addressed in response to a previous (nearly identical) post.

Have you? Have you made it clear whether you even believe the word superstition has any meaning? I guess that if you are trying to say that what is superstitious is a personal judgment that can't be objectively assessed then I would have to say that is complete and utter BS.

Belief doesn't make the irrational rational.
To demonstrate that a belief is not superstition the person who holds the belief would have to demonstrate causal link.
Absent a causal link the belief is, by definition, superstitious.
For many this is fine. The link is taken on faith. They don't need to prove a link they only need faith. Again, fine but reasonable people must agree that absent a causal link and with evidence to the contrary the belief is superstitious.

 

[Katana]

Let's see what the church has to say. Shall we?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The source of superstition is, in the first place, subjective. Ignorance of natural causes leads to the belief that certain striking phenomena express the will or the anger of some invisible overruling power, and the objects in which such phenomena appear are forthwith deified, as, e.g. in Nature-worship. Conversely, many superstitious practices are due to an exaggerated notion or a false interpretation of natural events, so that effects are sought which are beyond the efficiency of physical causes. Curiosity also with regard to things that are hidden or are still in the future plays a considerable part, e.g. in the various kinds of divination. But the chief source of superstition is pointed out in Scripture: "All men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world" (Wisdom 13:1-2). It is to this ignorance of the true God, coupled with an inordinate veneration for human excellence and the love of artistic representations appealing to the senses, that St. Thomas ascribes the origin of idolatry. While these are dispositive causes, the consummative cause, he adds, was the influence of demons who offered themselves as objects of worship to erring men, giving answers through idols and doing things which to men seemed marvellous (II-II:94:4).

These causes explain the origin and spread of superstition in the pagan world. They were to a large extent eliminated by the preaching of Christianity; but so deep-rooted was the tendency to which they gave rise that many of the ancient practices survived, especially among peoples just emerging from barbarism. It was only by degrees, through the legislation of the Church and the advance of scientific knowledge, that the earlier forms of superstition were eradicated. But the tendency itself has not wholly disappeared.

So Catholicism is the current form of superstition?

The human mind, by a natural impulse, tends to worship something, and if it is convinced that Agnosticism is true and that God is unknowable, it will, sooner or later, devise other objects of worship.

(my bold)

So superstition is belief in anything besides what the Catholic church calls the true God? But, if humans do not believe in that God, they will sooner or later believe in or worship something. What is there to suggest that the same impulse, the need to believe in something, didn't lead to the creation of Christianity's God and all of the attendant lore?

Given that possibility (since the inability to prove something to be impossible seems the basis of certain arguments) why is the belief in him any less superstitious than believing in the power of a pile of bones to predict the future or that a rabbit's foot will bring you luck?

 

[RandFan]

So superstition is belief in anything besides what the Catholic church calls the true God?

This is in agreement with the Wikipedia article.

Superstition and religion
In keeping with the Latin etymology of the word, religious believers have often seen other religions as superstition.

 

[Bri]

Given that possibility (since the inability to prove something to be impossible seems the basis of certain arguments) why is the belief in him any less superstitious than believing in the power of a pile of bones to predict the future or that a rabbit's foot will bring you luck?

I also happen to agree with what you're saying. However, I cannot say that the Catholic belief that they are right and that other beliefs are wrong is necessarily irrational. That I hold the opposite opinion (that they are wrong and that they probably don't have good reason to believe they are right) doesn't mean that their belief is necessarily irrational. Indeed, they may be right, and they may have good reason to believe so.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Given that possibility (since the inability to prove something to be impossible seems the basis of certain arguments) why is the belief in him any less superstitious than believing in the power of a pile of bones to predict the future or that a rabbit's foot will bring you luck?

I think that is Bri's point (I "think", I don't mean to speak for her). The point being that they are all equally not necessarily superstitious. In Bri's world, AIU, superstition and irrationality is simply in the eye of the beholder. If a person believes that frogs cause warts then the object (a frog) can be connected to an event (the growing of warts) by some amorphous thing like magic.

1.) No mechanism for how frogs causing warts need be demonstrated.
2.) No link whatsoever need be demonstrated.

Evidence to the contrary that frogs cause warts or prayer doesn't work is not sufficient to make a belief superstition. But this renders all irrational beliefs rational based simply on the beliefs of those who believe. You just need something that can be logically asserted.

God did it.
Magic did it.
Fairies did it.
Demons did it.
Leprechauns did it.

If you assume that things like magic and fairies exist and can somehow, without explanation, be linked to an event then every thing that is not logically impossible are possible and therefore rational.

 

[RandFan]

Indeed, they may be right, and they may have good reason to believe so.

Then they need but demonstrate that they are right or that they have good reason.

If we look at such a belief in a vacuum then I would agree with your argument. The problem is that we have such a large database of knowledge. This knowledge flies in the face of such beliefs. Someone might believe that they can turn straw into gold but at some point, without evidence, we must conclude that the belief is irrational.

The notion that, we'll, it's only an opinion that the belief is irrational is silly. As Randi is want to say, it's ok to have an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out.

 

[Bri]

Have you? Have you made it clear whether you even believe the word superstition has any meaning? I guess that if you are trying to say that what is superstitious is a personal judgment that can't be objectively assessed then I would have to say that is complete and utter BS.

Yes, I have made it abundantly clear in several posts that the word has meaning. That the word "superstition" (like the word "evil" but unlike the word "mammal") isn't objective doesn't mean that it has no meaning at all. Yes, the opinion that prayer is superstitious is a personal judgment unless you can show objectively that the prayer is not related to the event believed to be influenced by it.

Belief doesn't make the irrational rational.
To demonstrate that a belief is not superstition the person who holds the belief would have to demonstrate causal link.

If it was one's goal to prove that the belief is not superstition, yes one would have to prove a causal link. Likewise, if it was one's goal to prove that belief is superstition, one would have to prove that there is no causal link. In this case, it would be quite difficult to prove either one.

Absent a causal link the belief is, by definition, superstitious.

In your opinion, yes. By definition, no.

For many this is fine. The link is taken on faith. They don't need to prove a link they only need faith. Again, fine but reasonable people must agree that absent a causal link and with evidence to the contrary the belief is superstitious.

No, at most reasonable people must agree that absent strong evidence of a causal link and with weak evidence to the contrary, the belief cannot be shown to not be superstition. I would personally agree that there is no reason to believe it to not be superstition (nor is there reason to believe that it is necessarily superstition).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Then they need but demonstrate that they are right or that they have good reason.

I agree that if it is their goal to convince others that their opinion is correct, they need to demonstrate that they are right or that they have good reason to believe as they do. However, if it is your goal to convince others that their opinion is necessarily wrong, then you need to demonstrate that they are wrong or that you have good reason to believe as you do.

If we look at such a belief in a vacuum then I would agree with your argument. The problem is that we have such a large database of knowledge. This knowledge flies in the face of such beliefs. Someone might believe that they can turn straw into gold but at some point, without evidence, we must conclude that the belief is irrational.

I will admit that unless they could provide some strong evidence of it, it would be my opinion that they are nuts. However, their belief is not necessarily irrational because they may have good reason to hold the belief that they hold. No, I can't imagine what such a reason might be, which is why I would believe them to be nuts unless they presented their reason, but at the same time I cannot say that nobody could possibly have such a reason. Additionally, I'm really not sure that we have such a database of knowledge against beliefs in prayer, particularly those beliefs that don't require all prayers to be granted. Without a doubt, there is no database of knowledge in favor of such beliefs (there is very little evidence either way).

The notion that, we'll, it's only an opinion that the belief is irrational is silly. As Randi is want to say, it's ok to have an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out.

I have always held that I agree with your opinions for the most part. I simply believe that you've overstated the case by implying that your opinions are more than opinions.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I think that is Bri's point (I "think", I don't mean to speak for her). The point being that they are all equally not necessarily superstitious.

(emphasis mine) The key term here being "necessarily."

In Bri's world, AIU, superstition and irrationality is simply in the eye of the beholder.

No, I've already said that there are many beliefs that are clearly irrational. For example, when there is strong evidence pointing to one position or the other, it is clearly "more rational" to go with the evidence than against it. When one position is inconsistent, then that position is clearly irrational.

If a person believes that frogs cause warts then the object (a frog) can be connected to an event (the growing of warts) by some amorphous thing like magic.

(emphasis mine) The key term here being "can be" rather than "is."

1.) No mechanism for how frogs causing warts need be demonstrated.
2.) No link whatsoever need be demonstrated.

I am most definitely NOT in agreement here. In order for someone to convince me, they would certainly have to present evidence of a link. Absent such evidence, there is no reason for me to believe that there is such a link. However, I cannot state unconditionally that to hold the opinion that there is such a link is necessarily irrational.

If you assume that things like magic and fairies exist and can somehow, without explanation, be linked to an event then every thing that is not logically impossible are possible and therefore rational.

No, I never claimed that a belief is necessarily rational only because it is possible. I said that it is not necessarily irrational. There is a difference.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

That the word "superstition" (like the word "evil" but unlike the word "mammal") isn't objective doesn't mean that it has no meaning at all.

Evil is based on community standards. There is no reason to suppose that superstition is reasonably based on community standards.

The Mayans used to sacrifice humans to the gods and by those community standards that was not superstition. However this is the 20th century, it is hoped that sometime in the near future we abandon superstitions and embrace science and reason. This will be difficult if we hold that all opinions about what is and is not rational are equal.

If it was one's goal to prove that the belief is not superstition, yes one would have to prove a causal link. Likewise, if it was one's goal to prove that belief is superstition...

Fallacy. By this logic, if one's goal is to demonstrate that there is no Santa Claus then one would have to prove that there is no Santa Claus. Fortunately humans have the means to use both deduction and induction. Absent any evidence that there is no Santa Claus and in the face of evidence to the contrary we can, via induction, reasonably infer that there is no Santa Claus. Using your logic such a conclusion is mere opinion. If you choose to believe that one must prove a negative before one can reasonably conclude that a belief in Santa Claus is necessarily irrational then there is little I can do to change your mind. Such a notion, IMO, is very naive and ignorant of logic and reason.

Dear ED, I don't even know what Century this is. Now who is irrational? It's the 21st.

 

[RandFan]

No, I've already said that there are many beliefs that are clearly irrational. For example, when there is strong evidence pointing to one position or the other, it is clearly "more rational" to go with the evidence than against it. When one position is inconsistent, then that position is clearly irrational.

There IS strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events.

(emphasis mine) The key term here being "can be" rather than "is."

"Can be" won't change what is. See my position on Santa Claus. That there "can be" a Santa Claus doesn't mean that there is a Santa Claus and "can be" doesn't mean that it is rational to believe that some guy in a red suit will come down your chimney on Christmas eve.

That is the problem with your logic. Everythign is rational and irrational depending on point of view. Oh I know, NOT NECASSARILY IRRATIONAL. In the end what is the f***ing difference? If I can't say something is irrational then what is the point? If my opinion is as valid as those who believe that elephants can fly and frogs cause warts then what meaning does irrational have? You have rendered it purely subjective. Irrationality in your view is like art. If you think it is art then it is.

I am most definitely NOT in agreement here. In order for someone to convince me, they would certainly have to present evidence of a link. Absent such evidence, there is no reason for me to believe that there is such a link. However, I cannot state unconditionally that to hold the opinion that there is such a link is necessarily irrational.

My point is only that one need not demonstrate an absense of a link to conclude that something is necassarily irrational. In your opinion, AIU, one can still be rational and believe in something absent a link. Correct?

A person who believes that frogs causes warts is not necassarily irrational so long as that person believes that the warts are caused via magic because it can't be proven that there is no such thing as magic and you can't prove that such a link doesn't exist.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

No, I never claimed that a belief is necessarily rational only because it is possible. I said that it is not necessarily irrational. There is a difference.

Fair enough, I apologize.

If you assume that things like magic and fairies exist and can somehow, without explanation, be linked to an event then everything that is not logically impossible is possible and therefore not necessarily irrational.

It is STILL nonsensical. It is still unreasonable. It is still irrational to believe that frogs cause warts. It is still irrational to believe that reindeer fly and it is still irrational to believe that God asks people to kill for him. By your logic such a person is not necassarily irrational.

 

[Bri]

No, my point before was when there was "no" evidence, not little evidence.

Can you name a belief for which there is no evidence whatsoever? There is evidence of the existence of God (a lot of it actually). Whether you would find the evidence compelling is another matter, but there is plenty of it.

If it is easy to argue, please present your argument. The conclusion that the possibility exists must necessarily follow from the evidence unless you do one of the two things I mentioned before.

Accepting ONLY the proposition that intelligent life exists here does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of even the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere. The only argument that leads necessarily to the conclusion of the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere (despite the lack of any objective evidence of its existence) is the fact that it's not impossible.

Yes, but in this case we have more evidence to show it is possible than simple word games.

It is without a doubt true that both are possible. Neither can be "more possible" than the other.

Where in the case of God we only have definitions that make the claim impossible to falsify as the only "evidence" supporting the possibility. I don't consider that evidence at all.

The fact that the existence of God and the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system are both unfalsifiable does, in fact, make them both possible.

Who said anything about "true"? I'm talking about whether it is more or less rational to believe in the claim.

In order to determine that one belief is necessarily more or less rational than another, you would have to have some objective means of determining which is more probable. In this case, I don't think you can objectively determine the probability of either except to say that they are both greater than 0% and less than 100%.

No, my exceptions are for cases where there is no evidence.

Again, we have yet to discuss any case where there is no evidence at all.

There's that true word again. We're talking about how rational the opinion is, not whether or not it turns out to be true.

I think you may be misunderstanding my use of the word. I wasn't using it to indicate whether or not something might turn out to be true. It is a fact that it cannot be proven that either God or intelligent life elsewhere are impossible. Therefore, it is true that they are possible.

Empirical evidence is better quality than poor definitions. Making one opinion more rational to hold than the other.

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

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

Can you name a belief for which there is no evidence whatsoever?

Yes, my belief that there is an invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature that follows me around sometimes. You know once I figure out how to capture the darn thing I'll be famous. I'll just spray paint it and show it to everyone, they'll all be sorry they laughed at me then, won't they? Also, I think it'll make a good pet.

Now, prove this isn't true.

There is evidence of the existence of God (a lot of it actually). Whether you would find the evidence compelling is another matter, but there is plenty of it.

Great, present some of this fabled evidence already. Hopefully, it will as irrefutable as the fact that life existing on Earth shows that life is possible.

Accepting ONLY the proposition that intelligent life exists here does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of even the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere.

Yes it does. There is nothing that separates Earth and this solar system from the rest of the universe. The stuff that makes up this solar system is abundant throughout the universe. The physical laws that exist in this solar system appear to exist throughout the universe. If it is possible here, it is possible throughout the universe, because there is nothing fundamentally different between the two. We have irrefutable evidence that it is possible here, so it logically follows that it is possible throughout the universe. The only way around this is to claim that it is not possible here and life came about through some supernatural event or prove there is a fundamental difference between this solar system and the rest of the universe.

The only argument that leads necessarily to the conclusion of the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere (despite the lack of any objective evidence of its existence) is the fact that it's not impossible.

What does this mean? So by this argument, it is just as rational to believe my horseshoe-crab-like creature exists as it is to believe that God exists? Glad we agree, was starting to actually believe some of the people that said I was crazy.

It is without a doubt true that both are possible. Neither can be "more possible" than the other.

No, but one can be more rational than the other based on the available evidence.

The fact that the existence of God and the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system are both unfalsifiable does, in fact, make them both possible.

They are not both unfalsifiable in the same way. The existence of life elsewhere in the universe is unfalsifiable claim only by practical limitations. Theoretically, we could search every star and planet in the universe, and after finding nothing, know for a fact life elsewhere does not exit. Doing the same will not prove God does not exist. It seems by the very definition of God, there is no possible way of proving God does not exist.

In order to determine that one belief is necessarily more or less rational than another, you would have to have some objective means of determining which is more probable. In this case, I don't think you can objectively determine the probability of either except to say that they are both greater than 0% and less than 100%.

The probability is not the only way to determine which is a more rational option. You can also use the quality of evidence used to support that the possibility actually exists to determine which is more rational. In the case of life elsewhere, we have evidence that life is possible and logic to say that if it is possible here that it must be possible elsewhere (see above). In the case of God existing, we only have a definition that makes it impossible to falsify the claim, like that irritating horseshoe-crab-like creature. I think I should name him, his description is kind of long to write.

Again, we have yet to discuss any case where there is no evidence at all.

See above.

I think you may be misunderstanding my use of the word. I wasn't using it to indicate whether or not something might turn out to be true. It is a fact that it cannot be proven that either God or intelligent life elsewhere are impossible. Therefore, it is true that they are possible.

Both possible, yes. Equally rational, no.

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

-Bri

Who claimed that? I said we have empirical evidence to show life is possible, and logical reasons to believe that what is possible in this solar system is possible throughout the universe.

 

[Katana]

Can you name a belief for which there is no evidence whatsoever? There is evidence of the existence of God (a lot of it actually). Whether you would find the evidence compelling is another matter, but there is plenty of it.

Yes, I'm curious about this evidence, too. I'm going to assume that it's not based on Bible passages or tales of the miraculous passed from person to person. So what is your evidence of the existence of God?