Prayer and power

[TobiasTheViking]

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

-Bri

And that is exactly why the burden of proof is on you to show it works.

And why should we do it untill there is evidence that it work?

Actually, Bri. Next time you have a headacher, spin around yourself 10 times and say "tobias is a nice fella", that will cure it.

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

Then why not do it?

 

[RandFan]

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.

A point I don't think Bri will ever grasp. She is likely to agree that she is possibly a mass murderer. To Bri, the notion that all things are possible caries some significance that it doesn't to those who think critically.

 

[Bri]

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.

I guess I meant evidence that wouldn't also apply to other beliefs for which there is little direct evidence that are often considered rational, such as the belief in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy.

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.

What you are describing here is absence of evidence. In order for absence of evidence to constitute evidence of the opposite, there must be reason to believe that such evidence would be expected. In other words, if Christians believed that they could pray for such-and-such effect and believed that the result would necessarily occur, I certainly would admit that the belief can be shown to be false. I question how many Christians actually believe that though.

-Bri

 

[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 completely agree.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I completely agree.

? Yet you go on and on stating that all things are possible. Such a position is meaningless. It tells us nothing. It doesn't advance our understanding of the world.

 

[Bri]

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?

Again, you seem to have missed my point. All of my assumptions (that God exists, that God is omnipotent, that God may not want us to know for certain of his existence) are based on possible (if not probable) Christian belief. I was simply saying that based on this belief, evidence that prayer works wouldn't necessarily be expected. Therefore, absence of evidence that prayer works isn't evidence that prayer doesn't work.

-Bri

 

[Kopji]

What if evidence showed a negative impact for people who were prayed for? How would you go about resolving that?

 

[RandFan]

I guess I meant evidence that wouldn't also apply to other beliefs for which there is little direct evidence that are often considered rational, such as the belief in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy.

"Little direct evidence"? You are confusing induction with faith. They are not the same thing. Scientists can and do use induction to arrive at truth. In fact many scientific principles have "little direct evidence". You are simply displaying your ignorance of science.

 

[Bri]

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

In this case, what you're calling "observation and reason" concludes that the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the galaxy is greater than 0% but less than 100%. That's the exact same conclusion if the probability were based completely on guesswork. In fact, to assign ANY probability on the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy would be based on faith. Therefore, the suggestion that one is "more rational" because its probability is greater doesn't appear to hold water. Likewise, the suggestion that one is "more rational" because its probability is based on observation and reason also doesn't appear to hold water (logic and reason are entirely inconclusive in this case).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

And that is exactly why the burden of proof is on you to show it works.

Well, not on me (I don't believe that it works) but on anyone who wants to convince others that it works. However, that is off-topic since the question was whether one can call such a belief irrational.

And why should we do it untill there is evidence that it work?

I didn't imply that we should. I only indicated that such a belief isn't necessarily irrational, just as the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy isn't irrational despite the fact that the burden of proof would be on the believer.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

What you are describing here is absence of evidence.

No. I'm describing evidence.

If you claim that X, and I claim (and provide evidence) that Y,and Y is incompatible with X, then the evidence for Y is evidence against X.

 

[I less than three logic]

Again, you seem to have missed my point.

No, I haven't missed your point at all.

All of my assumptions (that God exists, that God is omnipotent, that God may not want us to know for certain of his existence) are based on possible (if not probable) Christian belief.

Yes, based on belief and nothing more. Your other examples were based on additional evidence, logical reasons for the assumptions. Not quite the same in my book.

I was simply saying that based on this belief,

Which, of course, there is no logical reason for doing so.

evidence that prayer works wouldn't necessarily be expected. Therefore, absence of evidence that prayer works isn't evidence that prayer doesn't work.

-Bri

Without those assumptions based on belief, what does the absence of evidence that prayer works suggest? What would be the simplest explanation for the lack of evidence?

 

[drkitten]

I guess I meant evidence that wouldn't also apply to other beliefs for which there is little direct evidence that are often considered rational, such as the belief in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy.

I have no well-established scientific principles that predict the absence of intelligence life elsewhere in the galaxy. In fact, quite the opposite -- any scientific principle that predicted the absence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy would probably predict the absence of intelligent life here on Earth, since scientific principles tend to be universal. I similarly have no theoretical argument whose conclusion is that intelligent life does not exist elsewhere -- in fact, I have quite the opposite; I have a well-established theoretical argument concluding that it does. (Similar conditions would hold in similar circumstances, producing similar results.)

The difference is one of theoretical support. I have no direct evidence either for Bigfoot or for Galadriel. But I have strong theoretical reason to believe that Galadriel does not exist (she violates several well-established principles of physics and biology -- for example, by being immortal and being able to work magic), whereas Bigfoot is "just" another unknown primate species, and we know that primates do exist.

Similarly, I have evidence that prayer does not work; it would violate the laws of physics. I have no evidence regarding life elsewhere in the galaxy, but it wouldn't break any laws of which I'm aware.

 

[Bri]

What if evidence showed a negative impact for people who were prayed for? How would you go about resolving that?

You mean how would Christians resolve that? You'd have to ask a Christian. I imagine that Christians wouldn't find such evidence to be contradictory for their beliefs since they don't believe that all prayers are granted. I also imagine that their opinion about what constitutes a "negative impact" might be different from yours or mine, since they believe that God would do whatever is in the best interest of the person being prayed for, and the negative result might be for a greater good that we don't know about.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

"Little direct evidence"? You are confusing induction with faith. They are not the same thing. Scientists can and do use induction to arrive at truth. In fact many scientific principles have "little direct evidence". You are simply displaying your ignorance of science.

And yet, in the case of intelligent life existing in the galaxy, induction arrives at the same truth as guesswork or faith: that the probability is somewhere between 0% and 100%.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No. I'm describing evidence.

If you claim that X, and I claim (and provide evidence) that Y,and Y is incompatible with X, then the evidence for Y is evidence against X.

Except that in this case Y (that prayer doesn't work in certain instances) isn't necessarily incompatible with X (the belief that prayer works in some instances). Therefore, you have provided no evidence against X.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No, I haven't missed your point at all.

Yes, based on belief and nothing more. Your other examples were based on additional evidence, logical reasons for the assumptions. Not quite the same in my book.

Had I ever claimed that absence of evidence against the existence of God is evidence for the existence of God, you'd be correct.

Which, of course, there is no logical reason for doing so.

Without those assumptions based on belief, what does the absence of evidence that prayer works suggest? What would be the simplest explanation for the lack of evidence?

The absence of evidence that prayer works doesn't suggest anything unless such evidence would be expected. Similarly, the absence of evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy isn't evidence of anything unless such evidence would be expected.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

Except that in this case Y (that prayer doesn't work in certain instances) isn't necessarily incompatible with X (the belief that prayer works in some instances).

Yes, it is.

That's where the track record comes in.

Claim 1 -- prayer works in instances A, B, C. The experimental evidence shows that it doesn't.

Claim 2 -- all right, prayer doesn't work in instances A-C, but it does work in instances D and E. The experimental evidence shows that it doesnt'.

Claim 3 -- all right, A-E are out, but prayer works in F-H. The experimental evidence shos that it doesn't.

Claim 4 -- Okay, A-H are out, but how about I and J?

At this point, the history of failed claims is evidence that prayer never works -- that is it ineffective in all instances.

it's not proof, of course. But it's evidence. Just as a history of accurate predictions is evidence for the accuracy of future predictions, so is a history of inaccurate predictions evidence against.

 

[Bri]

I have no well-established scientific principles that predict the absence of intelligence life elsewhere in the galaxy.

Agreed -- there is only Drake's equation and the like which predict the absence of intelligence life elsewhere in the galaxy, but are not well-established scientific principles since they are based entirely on speculation.

I similarly have no theoretical argument whose conclusion is that intelligent life does not exist elsewhere -- in fact, I have quite the opposite; I have a well-established theoretical argument concluding that it does. (Similar conditions would hold in similar circumstances, producing similar results.)

That is actually not quite true. There are theoretical arguments using Drake's equation both for and against the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy.

The difference is one of theoretical support. I have no direct evidence either for Bigfoot or for Galadriel. But I have strong theoretical reason to believe that Galadriel does not exist (she violates several well-established principles of physics and biology -- for example, by being immortal and being able to work magic), whereas Bigfoot is "just" another unknown primate species, and we know that primates do exist.

So, is it rational to believe in Bigfoot then?

Similarly, I have evidence that prayer does not work; it would violate the laws of physics. I have no evidence regarding life elsewhere in the galaxy, but it wouldn't break any laws of which I'm aware.

Is violation of current scientific theory enough to label an opinion irrational? Was the belief that the earth was round irrational when it was believed that the earth was flat?

-Bri

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Well, not on me (I don't believe that it works) but on anyone who wants to convince others that it works. However, that is off-topic since the question was whether one can call such a belief irrational.

ah, sorry about that then.

I didn't imply that we should. I only indicated that such a belief isn't necessarily irrational, just as the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy isn't irrational despite the fact that the burden of proof would be on the believer.

-Bri

I would claim that it might not be more irrational to believe that prayer works than that life exists somewhere else in the universe..

But, in both cases, it is very irrational to base ones life on it untill the evidence is in.