Prayer and power

[Bri]

I can't prove anything absolutely. To go around in this life qualifying everything is silly and a big waste of time.

You keep walking both sides of the fence when pressed to explain what I felt was a vague statement. At one point you claimed that your statement "belief in prayer is irrational" was absolute fact, as in "belief in prayer is necessarily irrational." At another point you claimed that your statement "belief in prayer is irrational" was not absolute fact, as in "belief in prayer is provisionally irrational." What I don't understand is how it can be both. It's either necessarily irrational (which means that it cannot possibly be rational) or it's provisionally irrational (which means that it can possibly be rational).

So if I state that the sun will rise tomorrow will you argue with me because I did not state that it is simply my opinion? That's just silly.

However, the sun rising tomorrow is notably a straw man since there is strong evidence that it will. Still, if you say that the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow, then you're simply wrong. If you say that there is strong evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, then you're correct.

NOTHING IS NECESSARILY TRUE!!!!!

Exactly, so how can you claim that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational?

So what? We have to qualify every statement with the modifier that this is just opinion? Are you suggesting that school textbooks be re-written to declare all propositions counter to the propositions we hold as true are not necessarily false? Come on, you can't really believe this?

I don't believe that most textbooks should be rewritten, nor did I imply it, nor is it a necessary consequence of what I actually did say. What I said is that in the case of something for which there is no strong evidence either way, if you use the word "necessarily" in order state an opinion about it as an absolute fact, then you are simply overstating your case. That's why textbooks don't generally use the word "necessarily" in that context.

Therefore every claim counter to our understanding of the laws of physics is not necessarily true and scientists, educators, etc., can't make statements as to the validity of arguments or the truthfulness of a proposition without a qualifier that these are all just opinions?

That the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow is an opinion.
That I necessarily had a grandfather is just an opinion.
That the real world necessarily exists is just an opinion.

There are no absolute facts. There are only probabilities and certainties. Science holds no absolutes.

2+2=4 is not necessarily true. E=MC2 is not necessarily true. Gravity is not necessarily true.

Wow, so, facts are out. We can only express opinions.

None of this has a thing to do with what I actually said.

Does this mean that you believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in public school science classes? Do you think educators should always inform their students that since all propositions are considered true and are held provisional then it is all just opinion?

Again, nothing to do with what I actually said.

Oops... sorry Bri, remember, there is no such thing as facts. You will need to find a different word. However, in the other hand, you could continue to use the word if you would embrace the scientific use of the word.

Scientists rarely use the word "necessarily" unless they mean to imply absolute fact. Therefore, the term is usually only used in logic in this context.

Got that? That's it Bri, all in a nutshell. That we only hold truths as provisional doesn't mean that all truths are mere opinion. You are fighting the same fight the ID proponents are fighting. I'm curious, are you an ID proponent? This isn't meant as an ad hominem but it would go along way to understanding your misconceptions of science and truth.

No, I'm not an ID proponent, and it's clear that you did mean it as an ad hom since it would be impossible to come to that conclusion based on what I actually said rather than what you wish I had said.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I agree and will modify my use of the word "possible". Possible is that which is logically possible.

That said, there is a huge difference between the probability of the existence of inteligent life outside of our solar system given the sheer number of galxies and stars. We know what is required for life. We have a pretty good understanding of the distribution of elements in the universe. We have good reason and can use induction to infer the likelyhood of inteligent life on other planets.

We know that there is one planet that has inteligent life and we know the conditions necassary for that life. For science it isn't a matter of faith that leads them to conclude that inteliegent life exists beyond our solar system, it is our understanding of statistics and the known natural world.

Actually, we have no idea what conditions give rise to intelligent life, nor how specific those conditions are to the exact conditions on earth. We have no good reason to infer any particular probability of intelligent life elsewhere, and any probability that you assign would be non-objective. There is simply no objective evidence that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system.

Nonetheless, you may have reason to state that "it is more likely that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system than it is that prayer works." But as soon as you insert the word "necessarily" into that sentence, it becomes false. That's all I'm saying.

For God we got zip, nothing, nada. At best theologists have faith and a possibility.

That's true. There is little evidence that God exists or that prayer works. There is also little evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere.

I get that you can't see the difference but I assure you that scientists and others trained to think critically and who understand logic and reason see a huge difference.

Many of us have tried to demonstrate the difference to you but we can't make you understand what you won't consider.

I believe I do understand the difference, but it's not an objective difference for which you can say that one belief is necessarily more rational than the other.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

You keep walking both sides of the fence when pressed to explain what I felt was a vague statement. At one point you claimed that your statement "belief in prayer is irrational" was absolute fact...

? Cite please. I have been quite consistent in my statements.

However, the sun rising tomorrow is notably a straw man since there is strong evidence that it will. Still, if you say that the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow, then you're simply wrong. If you say that there is strong evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, then you're correct.

I don't think I ever used the term "necessarily" but I have no problem using it. Your argument is silly.

Exactly, so how can you claim that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational?

I don't think that was my statement but I don't really care. I only claim that it IS irrational. As I claim the sun will rise tomorrow. As I claim that I have a grandfather. I have no direct evidence that I have a grandfather but I am quite confident that I do as I am confident that prayer is irrational and the sun will rise tomorrow.

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

It would be perverse for me to withhold provisional consent. I have always said that I hold provisional consent.

I don't believe that most textbooks should be rewritten, nor did I imply it, nor is it a necessary consequence of what I actually did say.

It is the only consequence.

What I said is that in the case of something for which there is no strong evidence either way...

That's the problem, there is lots and lots of evidence.

...if you use the word "necessarily"...

Not my word but I don't object.

None of this has a thing to do with what I actually said.

Yes it does.

RandFan
All propositions that are considered true are held provisionally. We don't hold propositions as correct as also not necessarily correct because they could be false.

Bri
I'm sorry, but that's just another way of saying that it's your opinion rather than fact.

It has exactly to do with what you said.

Again, nothing to do with what I actually said.

Again, yes, see above.

Scientists rarely use the word "necessarily" unless they mean to imply absolute fact. Therefore, the term is usually only used in logic in this context.

{sigh} How many times must I tell you that science does not view the world that way?

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world.

It would sure be nice if you could figure this out.

 

[RandFan]

Nonetheless, you may have reason to state that "it is more likely that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system than it is that prayer works." But as soon as you insert the word "necessarily" into that sentence, it becomes false. That's all I'm saying.

All I'm saying, all I have ever said is that prayer is irrational. I stand by that statement.

That's true. There is little evidence that God exists or that prayer works. There is also little evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere.

Then you are simply not paying attention. Scientists have reason to believe that that intelligent life exists elsewhere. Science has no reason to believe that god exists. If you can sit there and deny all of the evidence and reason provided then there is little we can do.

I believe I do understand the difference, but it's not an objective difference for which you can say that one belief is necessarily more rational than the other.

Yes, there are objective criteria. You just refuse to acknowledger what those criteria are. You have reduced everything between deductive and non-deductive. There is not always direct evidence I keep telling you. You forget the inductive.

 

[RandFan]

Bri, please look up the definition of strawman.

 

[KelvinG]

I think your assumption of what I believe is probably mistaken in this case.

-Bri

Alright, then help me out then.

Do you think that someone who believes in the existence of a "invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature" is in need of professional help while someone who believes in God is not?

It would seem to me that the existence of the invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature is no less provable than the existence of God.

 

[SirPhilip]

Alright, then help me out then. Do you think that someone who believes in the existence of a "invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature" is in need of professional help while someone who believes in God is not?

I can't speak for him, but someone who thinks whoever believes in God must be talking about the same kind "people" like Jan Crouch and Pat Robertson are is deliberately trying to be offensive or seriously needs to take a philosophy class.

 

[Bri]

I don't think I ever used the term "necessarily" but I have no problem using it. Your argument is silly.

When I have more time, I'll go back through the thread. You've indicated that your statement was not opinion, and you've also confirmed it when I've asked if you really meant that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. If you don't believe that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational and you don't believe that your statement "belief in prayer is irrational" is more than opinion (i.e. absolute fact) then we are in complete agreement and don't need to continue the discussion.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Alright, then help me out then.

If you read through the thread, you'll see that I'm not necessarily in disagreement with the opinions of others on the thread who find belief in prayer to be irrational, except that I don't think that it is necessarily irrational to believe in prayer, God, or the invisible flying horseshoe-crab-like creature.

Depending on the belief itself and the person's reasons for holding the belief, I might well find someone who believes in any of them in need of professional help.

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

When I have more time, I'll go back through the thread. You've indicated that your statement was not opinion, and you've also confirmed it when I've asked if you really meant that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. If you don't believe that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational and you don't believe that your statement "belief in prayer is irrational" is more than opinion (i.e. absolute fact) then we are in complete agreement and don't need to continue the discussion.

-Bri

I know I said my previous post was the last, but exactly is an absolute fact? Are you able to name one? I believe RandFan has addressed this several times for you.

[Edit] It appears I completely misread you post, and I apologize. You may disregard this post.

 

[Bri]

I know I said my previous post was the last, but exactly is an absolute fact? Are you able to name one?

Yes, it is an absolute fact that it is possible that prayer influences some events.

I believe RandFan has addressed this several times for you.

I thought so too, but then RandFan backpedals about whether belief in prayer is necessarily irrational or provisionally irrational (the former indicating absolute fact, the latter indicating opinion).

Assuming it is provisionally and not necessarily irrational (i.e. assuming that he is stating his opinion rather than absolute fact) then he and I are in agreement.

[Edit] I responded before I read your edit, so you may also disregard this post.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I thought so too, but then RandFan backpedals about whether belief in prayer is necessarily irrational or provisionally irrational (the former indicating absolute fact, the latter indicating opinion).

I would just like to make clear, I have not backpedaled in this thread and I resent the suggestion. My position has been clear from my first post. Prayer is irrational. While I believe that is true I hold all truths provisionally. I have stated that fact time and time again. And Bri you know this is true.

My "opinion" is that the sun will rise tomorrow and that prayer is irrational, I share the sentiment of Todd Carroll that the belief in a super natural being who answers prayer is absurd. If some people find that offensive then that is too bad. It is.

If you want to add the addendum that prayer is necessarily irrational or not necessarily irrational I really don't care.

If you want to say that it is just my opinion, I don't care. Just understand that I hold the opinion that prayer is irrational and absurd as much as I hold that the sun will rise tomorrow.

All of this hand wringing about necessarily and not necessarily is truly beside the point. If I look at a naked man and remark that he is naked it my very well only be my opinion that he is naked and perhaps he is not necessarily naked. Perhaps I am simply unable to view his finely crafted garments.

In the end I find the distinction of necessarily or not necessarily silly at best.

...whatever gets you through the night.

 

[Bri]

I would just like to make clear, I have not backpedaled in this thread and I resent the suggestion. My position has been clear from my first post. Prayer is irrational. While I believe that is true I hold all truths provisionally. I have stated that fact time and time again. And Bri you know this is true.

You continue to backpedal after claiming that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational by immediately claiming that it is provisionally irrational. Sure, you have claimed "provisionally" in many posts, but then you have also claimed that you have no problem using the term "necessarily" (most recently a few posts back). I'm sorry, but provisionally and necessarily conflict with one another, which is why I've been attempting to nail you down on exactly which one you actually mean since early in the thread. If you agree that belief in prayer is not necessarily irrational, then you and I have no argument.

-Bri

 

[Anacoluthon64]

All of this hand wringing about necessarily and not necessarily is truly beside the point. If I look at a naked man and remark that he is naked it my very well only be my opinion that he is naked and perhaps he is not necessarily naked. Perhaps I am simply unable to view his finely crafted garments.

In the end I find the distinction of necessarily or not necessarily silly at best.

Amen. But did you notice his silly hat?

Well said, my friend. Well said.

'Luthon64

 

[RandFan]

I'm sorry, but provisionally and necessarily conflict with one another, which is why I've been attempting to nail you down on exactly which one you actually mean since early in the thread.

It is simply your opinion that "provisionally" and "necessarily" conflict. I see no conflict. I did not use the term "necessarily". That is your term. I just didn't object to it. I still don't. At the risk of "necessarily" arguing ad nauseam I'll repeat myself.

All of this hand wringing about necessarily and not necessarily is truly beside the point. If I look at a naked man and remark that he is naked it my very well only be my opinion that he is naked and perhaps he is not necessarily naked. Perhaps I am simply unable to view his finely crafted garments.

That is my position, be free to make of it what you will.

 

[I less than three logic]

Yes, it is an absolute fact that it is possible that prayer influences some events.

I disagree. The only fact that exists here is our inability to prove that it is impossible at this time, so even that fact is provisional. It may be absolutely impossible for prayer to influence events, we simply lack any means to prove so, and must therefore conceded that it may be possible until such means are available. However, given the nature of the claim I doubt we will ever have such means, but I can’t prove that this is impossible either.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, it is an absolute fact that it is possible that prayer influences some events.

It is also an absolute fact that everything apart from logical contradictions is possible, even if incredibly unlikely, so the above statement really has no significance. It is still irrational to believe in something that can be shown to be extremely unlikely.

 

[Bri]

It is also an absolute fact that everything apart from logical contradictions is possible, even if incredibly unlikely, so the above statement really has no significance. It is still irrational to believe in something that can be shown to be extremely unlikely.

I didn't imply that it had any significance, other than as a statement of something that is an absolute fact. We have no way to judge how likely it is that prayer works, other than by speculation. Likewise, we can only speculate how likely it is that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system.

Do you think that prayer can be "shown to be extremely unlikely?" If so, please do so.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

It is simply your opinion that "provisionally" and "necessarily" conflict. I see no conflict. I did not use the term "necessarily". That is your term. I just didn't object to it. I still don't. At the risk of "necessarily" arguing ad nauseam I'll repeat myself.

This entire discussion has been about whether belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. Not only do you "not object" to the term, but you've agreed that you think that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. I've pointed out that the phrase "belief in prayer is necessarily irrational" implies an absolute fact, but you seem to believe that it means the same thing as "belief in prayer is provisionally irrational."

All of this hand wringing about necessarily and not necessarily is truly beside the point. If I look at a naked man and remark that he is naked it my very well only be my opinion that he is naked and perhaps he is not necessarily naked. Perhaps I am simply unable to view his finely crafted garments.

That is my position, be free to make of it what you will.

Your position concerns naked men? The thread certainly has taken an odd turn.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

I didn't imply that it had any significance, other than as a statement of something that is an absolute fact. We have no way to judge how likely it is that prayer works, other than by speculation. Likewise, we can only speculate how likely it is that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system.

Do you think that prayer can be "shown to be extremely unlikely?" If so, please do so.

-Bri

Tests can be run on numerous kinds of prayer. In fact, they have been run on the efficacy of praying on illness. But here's a simple one.

• Designate a specific desired outcome, such as the result of a coin flip.
• Pray for that outcome. Flip the coin and record the result.
• Repeat until a statistically significant sample is obtained
• Compare the prayed-for result to the results that would have occured by chance.
• If the desired outcome is significantly higher than that which would have occurred by chance, then praying works.

In my experience, praying has no significant influence on the outcome of events. I know of no non-religious studies that show that praying has a significant influence on the outcome of events, but if there are, you can show them to me and I'll retract the statement. There are some academic studies that show that prayer has minimal to insignificant influence on healing. Most researchers consider it to be so unlikely as to not be worth study.

Now of course, this is only testable for intercessory prayers. For prayers where you are simply talking to God, the protocol would require that you have a way of determining whether or not God heard you. That's a bit of a sticky point, considering that it would first require a comprehensive definition of "God" and some evidence that He exists. In short, you cannot show communication with an entity that you cannot show exists.

Now let us test the liklihood of intelligent life on planets.

• Examine a planet.
• determine if it has intelligent life

By this procedure, you can show that the liklihood of intelligent life on planets is one in nine.