Prayer and power

[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.

We are in agreement then.

-Bri

 

[TobiasTheViking]

weeeee

/me feels all warm and fuzzy inside.


And sorry for misunderstanding you.

 

[Bri]

weeeee

* TobiasTheCommie;1855665 feels all warm and fuzzy inside.


And sorry for misunderstanding you.

Not at all a problem. It's a long thread, and I haven't always been as articulate as I'd have liked.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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?

As far as I know, most Christians don't claim anything similar to 1-4. They don't specify any testable instances where prayer must work. Again, if a Christian believed that prayer must work in a particular instance that could be tested, I would completely agree that his or her belief is irrational.

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

I disagree. It would only be evidence that certain beliefs in prayer never work. The problem is that I don't know of any Christians who actually hold those beliefs.

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.

I'm interested in hearing whether you think that belief in the existence of Bigfoot is rational.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

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.

No, there aren't.

Drake's equation is not an argument, but a formula -- and, as you point out, there is no basis either in theory or in practice for filling in any of the slots of the formula beyond pure guesswork.

So, no, Drake's equation is a non-starter.

So, is it rational to believe in Bigfoot then?

No. We have lots of evidence of the sort of animals that do inhabit the American Pacific Northwest forest; it's a well-travelled area, and the odds that any animal that size would escape concerted multi-decade search (or even casual observation) are fairly low.

But it's not as irrational to believe in Bigfoot as it is to believe in Galadriel. To believe in Bigfoot, you "merely" need to believe that every biologist north of San Francisco is incompetent. To believe in Galadriel, you need to believe that every biologist, chemist, and physicist worldwide is.

Is violation of current scientific theory enough to label an opinion irrational?

Well-founded scientific theory, yes. Obviously, there are scientific "theories" that are little more than hypotheses, without a firm evidentiary basis.

Was the belief that the earth was round irrational when it was believed that the earth was flat?

Irrelevant. "Knowledge" that the earth is round predates "scientific theory" by at least six hundred years.

 

[drkitten]

As far as I know, most Christians don't claim anything similar to 1-4.

Most modern Christians don't. Christian tradition -- including definitive statements of Christian doctrine, statements that are still current and still preached from the pulpit-- does.

Therefore, there's evidence that Christian tradition is wrong in ALL claims for the efficacy of prayer. And therefore, anyone who believes that prayer is efficacious in any instances agrees with current Christian doctrine, and is therefore wrong.

What you're saying, of course, is that Christians don't believe Christianity. Which I am prepared to accept, but that doesn't reflect well on either the efficacy of prayer, on Christians generally, or on you in particular.

 

[Bri]

No, there aren't.

Drake's equation is not an argument, but a formula -- and, as you point out, there is no basis either in theory or in practice for filling in any of the slots of the formula beyond pure guesswork.

So, no, Drake's equation is a non-starter.

OK, well then we are probably in agreement here. But you stated:

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.)

What well-established theoretical argument concludes that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy that isn't speculative like those based on Drake's equation?

No. We have lots of evidence of the sort of animals that do inhabit the American Pacific Northwest forest; it's a well-travelled area, and the odds that any animal that size would escape concerted multi-decade search (or even casual observation) are fairly low.

Perhaps, but then if both are irrational then the example doesn't support your argument that theoretical support is the "difference between the two" that would allow one to be labeled irrational while another is rational, as you implied here:

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.

But it's not as irrational to believe in Bigfoot as it is to believe in Galadriel. To believe in Bigfoot, you "merely" need to believe that every biologist north of San Francisco is incompetent. To believe in Galadriel, you need to believe that every biologist, chemist, and physicist worldwide is.

Yet both are irrational beliefs. Which means that even with "theoretical support" a belief can be irrational. That seems to rule out theoretical support or lack thereof as a criteria by which one can label one belief irrational and another belief rational since Bigfoot would be a counter-example rather than an example.

Well-founded scientific theory, yes. Obviously, there are scientific "theories" that are little more than hypotheses, without a firm evidentiary basis.

You'll have to define "well-founded" I think. Nearly all scientific theories are considered "well-founded" until they are proven wrong (in which case they are generally no longer considered well-founded, revised, and are then considered "well-founded" once again).

Irrelevant. "Knowledge" that the earth is round predates "scientific theory" by at least six hundred years.

Any scientific theory that has been refuted would be a valid example. How about causation? Wasn't that a "well-founded" scientific theory until quantum theory contradicted it? Don't some scientists still hold the opinion that causation is true and that the "well-founded" quantum theory is wrong? If so, are they irrational?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Most modern Christians don't. Christian tradition -- including definitive statements of Christian doctrine, statements that are still current and still preached from the pulpit-- does.

The fact that most modern Christians don't hold an irrational belief in prayer would seem to be evidence that Christian belief in prayer isn't necessarily irrational. Still, can you provide an example of a Christian who does hold this belief? Nobody has thus been able to produce one, so if you can I will wholeheartedly agree that the belief is irrational.

Therefore, there's evidence that Christian tradition is wrong in ALL claims for the efficacy of prayer. And therefore, anyone who believes that prayer is efficacious in any instances agrees with current Christian doctrine, and is therefore wrong.

What you're saying, of course, is that Christians don't believe Christianity.

Please provide evidence of official Christian doctrine that indicates the belief you suggest that Christianity holds.

Which I am prepared to accept, but that doesn't reflect well on either the efficacy of prayer, on Christians generally, or on you in particular.

I'm sorry, but you somehow got the incorrect impression that I'm Christian. I'm not.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

Can you provide an example please? Nobody has thus been able to produce one, so if you can I will wholeheartedly agree that the belief is irrational.

Installing lightning rods on churches is the classic example of science over religion.

 

[Bri]

Installing lightning rods on churches is the classic example of science over religion.

I may not have been clear, in which case I apologize. I meant can you provide an example of a Christian belief that specifies a testable instance where God must grant a prayer.

As far as lighting rods on churches -- belief that lightning rods work (or that lightning can strike a church) isn't contrary to any Christian doctrine or individual belief that I know of, but perhaps you can provide an example.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

What well-established theoretical argument concludes that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy that isn't speculative like those based on Drake's equation?

Uniformitarianism.

"If it happened this way once, it's likely to happen this way again."

Arguably the most fundamental and well-established scientific argument in existence.

Perhaps, but then if both are irrational then the example doesn't support your argument that theoretical support is the "difference between the two" that would allow one to be labeled irrational while another is rational, as you implied here:

I never claimed that belief in Bigfoot is rational. I claimed that belief in Galadriel is MORE irrational than belief in Bigfoot.

Yet both are irrational beliefs.

Yes. An argument can fail to be contradictory while nevertheless remaning implausible to the point that belief is irrational. Similarly, a theoretical argument may be sufficiently far-fetched that it demands little credence.

It's theoretically possible that I might have flown to Monte Carlo last weekend and won fifty billion Euros. It violates no law of physics. It is immensely implausible, to the point where any rational observer would dismiss it out of hand without further supporting evidence.

Which means that even with "theoretical support" a belief can be irrational.

Yes. So what?

That seems to rule out theoretical support or lack thereof as a criteria by which one can label one belief irrational and another belief rational since Bigfoot would be a counter-example rather than an example.

Yes, if you're looking for a single criterion by which to label all beliefs as rational or irrational, you will fail to find one. Similarly, if you are looking for a single criterion to distinguish a good job application from a poor one, you will fail to find one. That's because beliefs, like job applications, can fail in a number of different ways.

However, it's fairly safe to say that a belief for which no credible empirical evidence can be cited and for which no theoretical support can be given is irrational.

You'll have to define "well-founded" I think. Nearly all scientific theories are considered "well-founded" until they are proven wrong.

Er, no, although it wouldn't surprise me if all the theories which which you are familiar are the well-founded ones. Read some of the cutting-edge journals and see some of the wild speculations that scientists feel free to indulge in in exactly those cases where there is little experimental evidence. Physics is a good discipline for that.

An example of an ill-founded scientific theory -- as I said, it's really little more than a hypothesis -- is the idea (popularized by Arthur C. Clarke, among others) that there is life on Europa. There's no "firm evidentiary basis" for Dr. Greenberg's speculations, and he would no doubt be among the first to admit that. As a working theory, he's perfectly free to speculate about what kind of life it might be, and more importantly, about what traces it might leave so that we can find it. But I don't think I would characterize anyone as irrational who didn't believe in Europan life, despite Dr. Greenberg.

Any scientific theory that has been refuted would be a valid example.

No.

Scientific theories are only refuted when new evidence comes along. It is rational to reject an old belief in favor of new evidence, almost by definition. One of the major intellectual hurdles to the acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution was the lack of evidence for the process of heritance and genetic variability. The rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's experiments filled in that hole. It would have been rational for one of Darwin's contemporaries to reject Darwin's theories on the basis that the evidence just wasn't there.... not so today.

The "plum pudding model" of the atom was rejected when Rutherford ran his experiments. It was not irrational to believe in the plum pudding model beforehand, because we didn't know any better. Learning that the atomic nucleus exists makes belief in the plum pudding model irrational.

How about causation? Wasn't that a "well-founded" scientific theory until quantum theory contradicted it?

Er, no. Quantum theory has not contradicted causation.

Don't some scientists still hold the opinion that causation is true

Most of them, I should think. All the ones that don't wear underpants on their heads....

and that the "well-founded" quantum theory is wrong?

No. Because quantum theory doesn't contradict causation.

If so, are they irrational?

Any "scientist" who believes tha quantum theory contradicts causation is at best ill-informed.

 

[drkitten]

I may not have been clear, in which case I apologize. I meant can you provide an example of a Christian belief that specifies a testable instance where God must grant a prayer.

Matthew 7:7-8 : "7 Ask, and it will be given you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and it will be opened for you.

8 For everyone who asks receives. He who seeks finds. To him who knocks it will be opened."

(Revised Standard Version, I believe.)

ETA:

John 14:14 "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it."

Mark 11:24 "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

 

[ceo_esq]

A point I don't think Bri will ever grasp. She is likely to agree that she is possibly a mass murderer.

Bri is a woman? For some reason, in all this time this escaped my attention. I've probably addressed her incorrectly, too. Sorry, Bri.

 

[Bri]

Bri is a woman? For some reason, in all this time this escaped my attention. I've probably addressed her incorrectly, too. Sorry, Bri.

ceo_esq, I'm not sure that I've ever actually said one way or the other. I didn't think it relevant to the discussion to correct anyone, but I'm not a woman (nor am I a Christian). So although you were actually correct, no apology is needed from anyone other than perhaps myself for not choosing a less ambiguous nickname.

That said, perhaps you can shed some light on the Christian (or at least Catholic) interpretation and belief involving prayer since you seem to have some knowledge of the topic. Do you think Christian belief in prayer is irrational?

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

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.

This is ignorance. It's been explained to you time and again but it is clear that you don't care about the explanations. Greater than 0% and less than 100% for a single galaxy. Considering how many galaxies there are in the universe what ever that chance, however small is much greater. It isn't simply seculation. But you revel in your ignorance.

 

[RandFan]

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%.

To some degree probable. Given how many galaxies there are in the universe the degree of probability is a great deal higher. Prayer has NO degree of probabilty. We can only conclude that it is possible and very unlikely considering the evidence agaisnt it and the fact that pryer would go against the laws of physics. Inteligent life existing outside of our solar system wouldn't.

Skeptics Dictionary: Prayer

...if SBs could intervene in nature at will or if invisible energies could be directed by our intentions, then the order and lawfulness of the world of experience and of the world that science attempts to understand would be impossible. We are able to experience the world only because we perceive it to be an orderly and lawful world. If that order and lawfulness were impossible, then so would be the experience and understanding of it.

1.) Belief in Inteligent Life outside of our Univerese.

• We have a model for it.
• We understand the mechanisms for it (evolution, natural selection).
• We understand the elements necassary for life and inteligent life.
• We know that these elements exist everywhere we can look.
• We can reason and infer to determine the likelyhood of inteligent life outside of our universe.
• There is no evidence against it.
• It DOESN'T contradict "the order and lawfulness of the world of experience" (see quote above).

2.) Belief in prayer.

• No model
• No mechanism
• No reason to infer likelyhood
• Lot's of evidence against it.
• It DOES contradict "the order and lawfulness of the world of experience (see quote above)."

Bri: #1 = #2

 

[ceo_esq]

Let me try this.

You ask Pete if he wants a candy bar and he says that he doesn't care. He says you can leave it on the desk in which case he will eat it or you can take it with you in which case he won't.

Does Pete want or not want the candy bar? Remember, you can only choose one.

This example unnecessarily muddies the waters a bit, I think. We are led to speculate on how Pete's statements actually relate to or reveal his frame of mind; perhaps Pete wants the candy bar enough to eat it if you leave it for him but not enough to volunteer the suggestion that you do leave it for him. If Pete is being not only truthful but strictly accurate when he says he does not care one way or the other, then the answer to your question is that Pete does not want the candy bar (in a formal, logical sense, not in the colloquial "Pete wants not-X" sense).

I defer to drkitten's several well-written posts on this issue.

Bri, what makes you think that a lack of knowledge about driving large vehicles is evidence that you should refrain from driving a bus? Why draw that conclusion? I suspect this conclusion is based on more than just your lack of knowledge.

It occurs to me that one possible distinction between this scenario and any of the existence-of-God or efficacy-of-prayer scenarios is that my ability to drive a bus in a safe manner is related to my knowledge of how to drive one, whereas the truth of God's existence or the actual efficacy of prayer do not depend on my knowledge of either.

I'm curious though, why are scientists interested in the study of the possibility of life on other planets but not the possibility that prayer works?

I know of no reason to say that scientists are not interested in the study of possibility that prayer works - many of them have religious beliefs that involve prayer - but it's easy to think why scientists would not , specifically in their capacity as scientists, be interested in the workings of prayer. If prayer works, at least some of its mechanisms would presumably not be the physical mechanisms of the natural universe. Science has no opinion to offer on such things, so the attitude of science as a discipline to prayer is naturally one of indifference. That is a different case from the possibility of life on other planets.

[Prayer] 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.

I'm not certain this is a good analogy to prayer. A better one might be if your carpet behaved in one way some of the time, and in some different way the rest of the time, but that the difference could plausibly be explained by some other factor than your beliefs about the carpet, and it was not clear to what extent (if any) your beliefs were among the causal antecedents to the outcomes.

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 am not certain that prayer (depending on one's definition) can be disproved as an explanation of why something works, much less that it has been disproven in any case. It seems to me that even a well-tested and reliable scientific explanation never purports to rule out even unknown natural factors, to say nothing of something like prayer.

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 this necessarily true? (Perhaps a better question would be "What does it really mean to say that?") Though I know the phrase is overused, the laws of physics are descriptive rather than prescriptive - handy summaries of certain kinds of highly reproducible phenomena we've seen.

Installing lightning rods on churches is the classic example of science over religion.

[rimshot]

Do you think Christian belief in prayer is irrational?

Depends.

I assume we are talking essentially about petitionary prayer. I haven't followed the entire thread so I'm not sure of all the definitions of "rational/irrational" that have been offered. I think the concept, at its barest level, is not irrational in the sense of defying logic (though that assessment becomes more complex when you bring in specific beliefs of certain Christians about exactly what it is and how or why it works).

It seems that the last couple of pages are discussing not so much whether the Christian's belief in prayer is rational as whether it is warranted (whether in the way Al Plantinga means, or some other sense). I am not certain if Christian belief in prayer is warranted or not. However, I think that my disbelief in it is warranted.

 

[RandFan]

This example unnecessarily muddies the waters a bit, I think. We are led to speculate on how Pete's statements actually relate to or reveal his frame of mind; perhaps Pete wants the candy bar enough to eat it if you leave it for him but not enough to volunteer the suggestion that you do leave it for him. If Pete is being not only truthful but strictly accurate when he says he does not care one way or the other, then the answer to your question is that Pete does not want the candy bar (in a formal, logical sense, not in the colloquial "Pete wants not-X" sense).

I'm currently involved in a discussion through private messages on this subject with someone I believe is a bit more qualified than myself in this area. I will not debate with any conviction on this subject (and I shouldn't have in the first place) since I lack the education to speak with any such conviction. As to the debate though, I have a feeling some might have tired of the affair and perhaps not without reason.

In any event, I certainly did err in one aspect and you have touched on it. There is: "Want-X" and "want not-X". "Not wanting" is not the same as "wanting not".

I tried eating anchovies once. I vomited. I "want not" anchovies.
My favorite dessert is warm cherry cobbler with vanilla ice cream. I "want" cherry cobbler.

So, now that I know the difference between "want" and "want-not", where does Pete fit in?

Since he is willing to eat the candy bar he most certainly doesn't fit in the "want not" category. But this seems at odds with DrKitten's argument. If Pete were in Drkitten's example and we substituted candy bars for pizza then he would not go into the other room and would be in the "want not" category.

I defer to drkitten's several well-written posts on this issue.

Fine, and maybe the answer is there. DrKitten might be right and it might simply be lack of reading comprehension on my part or, in all candor, it might simply be my ego and incompetence. I'll tell you that I was unsatisfied with the discussion and sought someone out behind the scenes. I'm not simply interested in winning a debate. I want to know what is right and wrong. If I'm wrong I'll gladly announce it here.

I'm not sure that we have worked out the example above. Your contributions didn't advance anything IMO. You didn't really tell us anything other than Pete's "not wanting" isn't the same as "wanting not". And I would agree but DrKitten says it is in the same category as "wanting not".

I note that you didn't respond to my council meeting example.

There is a council meeting tonight. At the end of the meeting we will discuss whether or not we should build a new stadium.

Those who want us to build the new football stadium go to room A.
Those who don't want us to build the new football stadium go to room B.
Those who don't care can go to room A, room B or, if you want, just go home.

Where do you think the people who genuinely don't care about the football stadium will go?

I'm curious, ceo_esq, where do you think those that don't care will go?

I'm not certain this is a good analogy to prayer. A better one might be if your carpet behaved in one way some of the time, and in some different way the rest of the time, but that the difference could plausibly be explained by some other factor than your beliefs about the carpet, and it was not clear to what extent (if any) your beliefs were among the causal antecedents to the causal outcomes.

I'll concede your argument. How about comparing it to a horseshoe or a 4 leaf clover?

Thanks

 

[drkitten]

Is this necessarily true? (Perhaps a better question would be "What does it really mean to say that?") Though I know the phrase is overused, the laws of physics are descriptive rather than prescriptive - handy summaries of certain kinds of highly reproducible phenomena we've seen.

But equally, they're handy summaries of easily describable phenomena that we have not seen and that we predict never to see.

Simple example : conservation of energy. We do not predict to get any more energy or work out of a system of pulleys than we put into it. We have never seen such a system, and we have an explanatorily adequate reason of why we not only do not expect to see such a system, but we actively expect never to see such a system.

You're right in that the laws of physics are descriptive -- if we actually saw something that broke the laws of physics, the flaw is in our laws, not in the something itself. But by the same token, if we're discussing a hypothetical something whose hypothesized properties break these laws, that's strong reason for me to dismiss the hypothesis as untenable.

So an alien reactionless drive is a hypothetical I dismiss because only in a hypothetical -- never in reality -- have I seen anything ignore Newton's third law.

Now, of course, you're right that a hypothetical God could produce a pulley that produces more work than is put into it. Or a circular cube, or a rock so heavy He couldn't lift it. But I dismiss that hypothetical God for exactly the same reason I dismiss the alien reactionless drive or any other hypothetical that violates the laws of physics -- because there's no evidence for it and a huge volume against.

 

[drkitten]

You didn't really tell us anything other than Pete's not wanting isn't the same as wanting not. And I would agree but DrKitten says it is in the same category.

It's in the same category because "not wanting" is a supervening category that includes both neutrality and "wanting-not."

If I point to a stop-light and say "that light is not red," have I said it's green?

No, of course not. Both green and amber -- or yellow, depending upon where you're driving -- are included in the category of "not red." For that matter, "off" is also "not red," as are any of several different kinds of malfunction.