Prayer and power

[RandFan]

No, I don't have evidence that prayer ever works. Nor is there evidence that prayer never works. As I've stated many times, there is little evidence ... against prayer working.

There's lots of it. You just refuse to acknowledge it. It always fails. If I believe that my magic carpet can float in the air but it fails every time I try and use it at some point I have to accept the failure as evidence. You dismiss such failure as evidence.

 

[Tricky]

No, I don't have evidence that prayer ever works. Nor is there evidence that prayer never works. As I've stated many times, there is little evidence for or against prayer working. Likewise, there is little evidence for or against the existence of [communicating] intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy.

This has been explained to you before, but I will try again.

What would it take to give evidence that prayer ever works? Just one single example.

What would it take to give evidence that prayer never works? Analyzing every single prayer ever made and ever to be made.

Finding a single example be should be easily accomplished (if such example exist). Proving there are no examples is numerically impossible. So if you think that by juxtaposing them in a sentence you are somehow making a logical point, you are badly mistaken.

 

[Bri]

Please feel free to use Drake's equation, but understand that we started with the Universe and there is nothing to keep us from using Drake's equation for the universe.

Asked and answered Bri, if you are going to ignore my question then please stop asking.

It's your argument. Do you reject your earlier argument?

If you feel that neither the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy or communicating intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy are irrational, then they both present valid counter-arguments to the notion that any belief for which there is little evidence is irrational. Because they are more "narrow" than the previously-discussed belief concerning intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, they are (at least according to the logic that has been used on this thread) "less rational" than belief that intelligent life exists in the universe and therefore "closer" in rationality to belief in prayer.

Yet the assumption is still that only belief in prayer is irrational while the others are rational. For the beliefs concerning intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy, we have evidence (estimates of the values of Drake's equation) of the opposite conclusion (that intelligent life does not exist elsewhere in our galaxy). Wouldn't that make such beliefs irrational, or are these estimates only speculation?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

False. We know very much.

We have some knowledge of the conditions necessary for life. We have less knowledge of the conditions necessary for intelligent life.

Only the values are questioned and not the variables.

No because Wikipedia doesn't claim that the evidence is speculative only the likely probability of those values. Huge difference.

I apologize if I wasn't clear. The evidence I was referring to is the values estimated for Drake's equation, which are in fact speculative. Some of the evidence upon which the values are placed isn't speculative, but the conclusions made from the (often conflicting) evidence are.

Similarly, at least some Christian evidence such as the existence of the Bible is also not speculative, but the conclusions that can be made from it are.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No, I don't have evidence that prayer ever works. Nor is there evidence that prayer never works. As I've stated many times, there is little evidence ... against prayer working.

There's lots of it. You just refuse to acknowledge it. It always fails. If I believe that my magic carpet can float in the air but it fails every time I try and use it at some point I have to accept the failure as evidence. You dismiss such failure as evidence.

For which of the following do you have "lots" of evidence?

• that prayer ever works
• that prayer never works

I'm going to assume you mean the latter, but you seem to be falling into the same trap that you've (incorrectly) accused me of falling into.

Unfortunately, the lack of evidence of the former does not constitute evidence of the latter.

Again, a lack of evidence that prayer works is not evidence that it doesn't work.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

This has been explained to you before, but I will try again.

What would it take to give evidence that prayer ever works? Just one single example.

What would it take to give evidence that prayer never works? Analyzing every single prayer ever made and ever to be made.

Finding a single example be should be easily accomplished (if such example exist). Proving there are no examples is numerically impossible. So if you think that by juxtaposing them in a sentence you are somehow making a logical point, you are badly mistaken.

What logical point do you think I was making? My point was simply that there is little evidence of either (other than speculation). To claim otherwise is incorrect.

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

Such as?

My lack of knowledge of how to drive a bus is certainly evidence that I shouldn't drive a bus. My lack of knowledge of neurology is evidence that I can't perform a successful brain operation. My lack of knowledge of jet propulsion is evidence that I can't build a rocket ship that can fly to Venus.

-Bri

No, Bri. In every one of those examples you are basing your conclusion on more than just the lack of knowledge. There are other reasons you're using to interpret that lack of knowledge. I know you're attempting to salvage your example, but you're just not thinking hard enough. Why is lack of knowledge of neurology evidence that you can't perform a brain operation? What did you base that conclusion on?

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Somewhat to the point in respect of the Drake equation, it's purpose is much less to provide accurate estimates of the expected frequency of ETs than to provide order-of-magnitude estimates of same. This is actually an important distinction to bear in mind.

'Luthon64

 

[Bri]

No, Bri. In every one of those examples you are basing your conclusion on more than just the lack of knowledge.

That may very well, but the lack of knowledge is still evidence of the conclusion.

There are other reasons you're using to interpret that lack of knowledge. I know you're attempting to salvage your example, but you're just not thinking hard enough. Why is lack of knowledge of neurology evidence that you can't perform a brain operation? What did you base that conclusion on?

I based the conclusion on the lack of knowledge and on some assumed premises, such as the fact that performing brain surgery without the necessary knowledge would likely harm the patient and wouldn't help the patient, and such as the fact that a successful brain surgery would imply that the patient is not harmed and is helped.

The fact that there are premises that must be assumed (as there are for any conclusion to be made based on any evidence) does not prevent the lack of knowledge from being evidence.

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

I based the conclusion on the lack of knowledge and on some assumed premises, such as the fact that performing brain surgery without the necessary knowledge would likely harm the patient and wouldn't help the patient, and such as the fact that a successful brain surgery would imply that the patient is not harmed and is helped.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Now, why did you assume that performing brain surgery without the necessary knowledge would likely harm the patient instead of help? What justified that assumption?

 

[Bri]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Now, why did you assume that performing brain surgery without the necessary knowledge would likely harm the patient instead of help? What justified that assumption?

My interpretation of additional evidence that performing brain surgery without the necessary knowledge would likely harm the patient instead of help lead me to accept it (if that's what you're asking).

Again, that in no way negates the fact that the lack of knowledge is evidence of the conclusion (and in this case, the conclusion likely cannot be made without it).

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

My interpretation of additional evidence that performing brain surgery without the necessary knowledge would likely harm the patient instead of help lead me to accept it (if that's what you're asking).

What additional evidence would you use to justify the assumption that God exists and this lack of knowledge of his existence is evidence that he doesn't want us to know he exists, as opposed to the much simpler (which Occam suggests we use) interpretation that the lack of knowledge is evidence God just doesn't exist?

Again, that in no way negates the fact that the lack of knowledge is evidence of the conclusion (and in this case, the conclusion likely cannot be made without it).

-Bri

It is evidence of that conclusion solely because of the assumptions you made before. Assumptions based on additional evidence. Without those premises the lack of knowledge means absolutely nothing at all.

 

[Bri]

What additional evidence would you use to justify the assumption that God exists and this lack of knowledge of his existence is evidence that he doesn't want us to know he exists, as opposed to the much simpler (which Occam suggests we use) interpretation that the lack of knowledge is evidence God just doesn't exist?

You seem to have missed the point of the discussion. I never claimed that the lack of knowledge of God's existence is evidence that God exists.

It is evidence of that conclusion solely because of the assumptions you made before. Assumptions based on additional evidence. Without those premises the lack of knowledge means absolutely nothing at all.

Specifically, we were talking about the brain surgery example and whether the lack of knowledge in that case is evidence of something else. It is. More generally, we were talking about whether lack of knowledge can be evidence of something. It can.

I've already said that a more accurate generality would be that a lack of evidence of something isn't necessarily evidence against it. For example, the lack of evidence that prayer works isn't necessarily evidence that prayer doesn't work. Particularly, there is no reason to assume that there would necessarily be evidence of prayer working even if it does work.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

What would it take to give evidence that prayer ever works? Just one single example.

What would it take to give evidence that prayer never works? Analyzing every single prayer ever made and ever to be made.

Er,.... no.

You're confusing "evidence" and "proof." To prove that prayer never works would indeed require analyizing every prayer ever made. Just to provide evidence that it never works is much easier.

Think of it in a legal context:

"My lord, the Crown will clearly show evidence that the Defendant sold a patently ineffective substance with the intent to defraud..."

"Objection, my lord. To show evidence that coloured water is indeed patently ineffective as a cure for smallpox, the Crown would have to analyze every single case of smallpox ever treated with coloured water, including all future cases yet to be diagnosed!"

"Hmm. Upon careful consideration of the philosophical considerations raised by the Defendant's barrister, I hereby sentence said barrister to be beaten to death with rifle butts by a platoon of the Royal Marines, and may God have mercy upon his client's soul."

Having said this, there's lots of evidence, dating back at least to Galton, that prayer does in fact, not work.

 

[Bri]

You're confusing "evidence" and "proof." To prove that prayer never works would indeed require analyizing every prayer ever made. Just to provide evidence that it never works is much easier.

I think Tricky had a valid point concerning prayer, since I was suggesting that Christian belief in prayer might be coupled with the belief that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence. Absence of evidence (other than speculative evidence if you want to count that) might be evidence if evidence would be expected, but in this case there is no reason to assume that evidence would be expected.

Unfortunately, the same also applies to belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. There is no evidence that intelligent life actually exists elsewhere in the galaxy (other than speculative evidence). That fact wouldn't constitute evidence against the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy because no evidence would be expected.

Having said this, there's lots of evidence, dating back at least to Galton, that prayer does in fact, not work.

Do you have other evidence that prayer doesn't work other than lack of evidence that it does work?

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

Do you have other evidence that prayer doesn't work other than lack of evidence that it does work?

Certainly. A theoretical argument that it can't, based on violation of other well-established scientific principles, coupled with the centuries-long history of "prayer" being offered as an explanation of why something works, only to be disproven.

Basically, the statement that "prayer has such-and-such effect" has a track record. It's never been demonstrably right once, for any named effect whatsoever. This, in turn, strongly suggests that it's wrong for the next named effect, too.

 

[Freethinker]

Do you have other evidence that prayer doesn't work other than lack of evidence that it does work?

-Bri

That's like asking if you have evidence that you aren't a mass murderer other than the lack of evidence that you are. Proving a general negative is an exercise in futility. You can't prove something doesn't work, doesn't exist or doesn't happen. You can have indications that something is likely or unlikely, but not much more.

 

[I less than three logic]

You seem to have missed the point of the discussion. I never claimed that the lack of knowledge of God's existence is evidence that God exists.

Right, and I never said you did. You claimed:

What I DID say was that if an omnipotent God exists, the fact that we don't know for certain of his existence would indicate that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence.

What evidence or logic would you base your first assumption (if an omnipotent God exists) on in order to interpret the lack of knowledge as evidence that God doesn't want us to know he exists?

 

[RandFan]

Yet the assumption is still that only belief in prayer is irrational while the others are rational.

Because one is based on observation and reason and the other is simply based on faith.

 

[RandFan]

Again, a lack of evidence that prayer works is not evidence that it doesn't work.

Silly. Irrational.