Prayer and power

[Tricky]

Again, I didn't assume an omnipotent God. I only assumed that Christians believe in an omnipotent God (a premise which I hope you agree with).

I know. That is what I was just pointing out. Christianity is based on an irrational assumption, so you can show that their beliefs are logical given that assumption, but they will still be irrational because of that assumption.

 

[Bri]

I know. That is what I was just pointing out. Christianity is based on an irrational assumption, so you can show that their beliefs are logical given that assumption, but they will still be irrational because of that assumption.

My point -- the only point I was making with the argument in question -- is that a lack of evidence of prayer working isn't evidence that prayer doesn't work because there is no reason to assume that evidence would be available even if it does work. Just as a lack of evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy isn't evidence that there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy because there is no reason to assume that evidence would be available even if intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the galaxy.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

My point -- the only point I was making with the argument in question -- is that a lack of evidence of prayer working isn't evidence that prayer doesn't work because there is no reason to assume that evidence would be available even if it does work. Just as a lack of evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy isn't evidence that there is no intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy because there is no reason to assume that evidence would be available even if intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the galaxy.

-Bri

See that part I've bolded and made red? That is where you continue to make the irrational assumption. You are assuming that things can work and yet not leave evidence. This is not the same as leaving evidence that is inaccessible. People don't pray to a God that they believe to be inaccessible.

All you are saying is that you don't know what "it works" means. To say that "prayer might work but I don't know what 'work' means" is irrational. You cannot escape this by going to another galaxy.

 

[slingblade]

A lack of evidence of invisible pink unicorns isn't evidence that invisible pink unicorns don't exist, because there is no reason to assume that evidence would be available even if invisible pink unicorns do exist.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

The lack of evidence for throwing a coin into a fountain and getting your wish granted isn't evidence that making wishes doesn't work, because there is no reason to assume that evidence would be available even if wishful thinking does work.

I watched a movie last night in which a woman became deathly ill with pneumonia, and the only "doctor" around who could help her was an Appalachian folk-healer. The folk-healer used everything from accupuncture to maggots to herbal remedies. Now, I'll be the first to agree that nature has a great pharmacy. Many herbal remedies do work, and we do get lots of medicines from plants, such as foxglove = digitalis. Willow bark = aspirin. Slippery elm = antitussive. And we use maggots and leeches again, because we've figured out they can do things we still can't do as well with medicine or surgery. So much of what the folk healer did was based on scientific fact, whether she knew it or not.

However, the sick woman was also a doctor. She had sulfa drugs in her trunk, which had slid down a mountainside. Someone went to fetch the sulfa, and the folk healer "injected" it by cutting a vein, sucking up the sulfa into a reed, and blowing it into the vein. A day later, the doctor was well, though she had seemed on the verge of death. And to what did everyone attribute her miraculous recovery?

Prayer.

 

[Bri]

See that part I've bolded and made red? That is where you continue to make the irrational assumption. You are assuming that things can work and yet not leave evidence. This is not the same as leaving evidence that is inaccessible. People don't pray to a God that they believe to be inaccessible.

True, people don't pray to a God that they believe to be inaccessible. People pray to an omnipotent God that might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

Whether or not evidence should be available depends on the belief. For example, if I believed that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy because ET's visit me each and every night and allow me to photograph them, then one would assume that there would be evidence to support that belief (the photographs). I can say that a lack of evidence (the inability to produce photographs) in this case is evidence that the belief is irrational.

The same can be said for a belief that God grants all prayers. If God grants all prayers, then there would be evidence of it (for example, if I make a prayer for gold to fall from the sky, I should see gold fall from the sky). A lack of evidence (gold falling from the sky) in this case is evidence that the belief is irrational.

However, few people (if any) hold either of the above two beliefs. If they did, then a lack of evidence would be evidence of the opposite. Most people who believe in intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy do not tend to believe that they are visited by ET's nightly. Likewise, people who believe that prayer works do not tend to believe that all prayers are granted.

Assuming that prayer must leave evidence in order to work is the same fallacy as assuming that intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy must leave evidence in order to exist. An omnipotent God, if he exists, could ensure that a prayer isn't granted if we are observing it. An omnipotent God could change the results of our experiments so that it would seem like a prayer isn't granted even if it is. If an omnipotent God doesn't want us to have definitive evidence of prayer working, we wouldn't have evidence even if it does work.

Now, you can claim that the Christian belief in prayer is irrational, but I would hope that you can demonstrate why it is irrational other than because there is no evidence of it.

All you are saying is that you don't know what "it works" means. To say that "prayer might work but I don't know what 'work' means" is irrational. You cannot escape this by going to another galaxy.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. By "prayer works" I mean the Christian belief that prayers sometimes affect the world.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

A lack of evidence of invisible pink unicorns isn't evidence that invisible pink unicorns don't exist, because there is no reason to assume that evidence would be available even if invisible pink unicorns do exist.

Also, a lack of evidence that intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy exists isn't evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy doesn't exist. I'm not sure I understand your point. There are many beliefs for which we cannot provide solid evidence, but I don't think that necessarily makes them irrational.

The lack of evidence for throwing a coin into a fountain and getting your wish granted isn't evidence that making wishes doesn't work, because there is no reason to assume that evidence would be available even if wishful thinking does work.

That would depend on the belief. If the belief is that throwing a coin into a fountain will always result in the wish being granted, then it is a testable theory, and a lack of evidence would be evidence against the belief.

I watched a movie last night in which a woman became deathly ill with pneumonia, and the only "doctor" around who could help her was an Appalachian folk-healer. The folk-healer used everything from accupuncture to maggots to herbal remedies. Now, I'll be the first to agree that nature has a great pharmacy. Many herbal remedies do work, and we do get lots of medicines from plants, such as foxglove = digitalis. Willow bark = aspirin. Slippery elm = antitussive. And we use maggots and leeches again, because we've figured out they can do things we still can't do as well with medicine or surgery. So much of what the folk healer did was based on scientific fact, whether she knew it or not.

However, the sick woman was also a doctor. She had sulfa drugs in her trunk, which had slid down a mountainside. Someone went to fetch the sulfa, and the folk healer "injected" it by cutting a vein, sucking up the sulfa into a reed, and blowing it into the vein. A day later, the doctor was well, though she had seemed on the verge of death. And to what did everyone attribute her miraculous recovery?

Prayer.

And if, for example, she wouldn't have otherwise recovered despite the sulfa and other remedies, then in fact they would have been correct in attributing her recovery to prayer. Is it warranted to assume that her recovery was due to prayer? I don't know. Is it rational? I think so.

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

And if, for example, she wouldn't have otherwise recovered despite the sulfa and other remedies, then in fact they would have been correct in attributing her recovery to prayer. Is it warranted to assume that her recovery was due to prayer? I don't know. Is it rational? I think so.

-Bri

This was a movie, so the script was written in a particular way. But according to the way the plot was playing out, the woman was on the verge of death, and everyone accepted this. Even after her fever stopped, and she was resting comfortably, the people around her still believed she was about to die, because they didn't understand how the medicine could work. They thought she was so near death, they even called the Sin Eater to come attend her. Then she was "miraculously" cured by the injection of the sulfa. In the face of medical evidence, the people still chose to believe she was dying, but then chose to believe it was the prayer that saved her, even though the prayer wasn't saving her before.

Point being, they ignored the medical evidence in favor of the coincidental wooism. Irrational.

 

[Bri]

This was a movie, so the script was written in a particular way. But according to the way the plot was playing out, the woman was on the verge of death, and everyone accepted this. Even after her fever stopped, and she was resting comfortably, the people around her still believed she was about to die, because they didn't understand how the medicine could work. They thought she was so near death, they even called the Sin Eater to come attend her. Then she was "miraculously" cured by the injection of the sulfa. In the face of medical evidence, the people still chose to believe she was dying, but then chose to believe it was the prayer that saved her, even though the prayer wasn't saving her before.

Point being, they ignored the medical evidence in favor of the coincidental wooism. Irrational.

It's difficult to tell exactly what they believed based on your description. It might not have been irrational for them to assume it was the prayer that was taking affect after the injection or even that their prayer helped the injection to work. I'm not certain that their attributing her recovery to the prayer rather than to sulfa was unwarranted. Given the lack of evidence available to them that sulfa works, they may have had no reason to attribute her cure to the sulfa.

A related issue is whether you feel that a belief is necessarily rational if it later turns out to be true. Was the belief that the earth was flat rational or irrational before evidence was available that proved otherwise?

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

A related issue is whether you feel that a belief is necessarily rational if it later turns out to be true. Was the belief that the earth was flat rational or irrational before evidence was available that proved otherwise?

-Bri

I don't think it's quite the same thing, though. Maybe it is, and I'm looking at it improperly.

I could believe the world was flat, based on the evidence I did have, and the evidence I did not have. Later, if I were still around when someone circumnavigated the globe, I'd have to admit that in the face of that evidence, the world is round.

The difference I see in the two is that I don't think there were people going around for centuries trying to prove that the world was actually round, and coming away with no evidence at all, despite repeated attempts.

I do see people trying to prove for centuries that prayer is effective, (that a person receives what he prays for or that prayer is substantiated in some other way), and coming away with no evidence at all, despite repeated attempts.

 

[Bri]

I don't think it's quite the same thing, though. Maybe it is, and I'm looking at it improperly.

Not having seen the movie, it seems to me that the people had never seen sulfa, and therefore would have no evidence of sulfa (or anything similar) actually working. So, it seems rational that they might attribute her seemingly miraculous recovery to prayer. After all, even though prayer probably hadn't worked every time it had been tried, there was evidence that people had previously recovered after prayer.

I could believe the world was flat, based on the evidence I did have, and the evidence I did not have. Later, if I were still around when someone circumnavigated the globe, I'd have to admit that in the face of that evidence, the world is round.

The difference I see in the two is that I don't think there were people going around for centuries trying to prove that the world was actually round, and coming away with no evidence at all, despite repeated attempts.

It sounds as though you think that a belief in a flat earth was rational before there was evidence otherwise. Was it irrational to believe that the earth was round? I imagine that people had no reason to search for evidence of a round earth unless they already suspected that the earth was round (or at least that it wasn't flat). Someone who assumed that the earth was flat would have no reason to search for evidence that the world was round, or donut-shaped, or a cube. The question is whether it would have been irrational to suspect that the earth was round despite the lack of evidence.

I do see people trying to prove for centuries that prayer is effective, (that a person receives what he prays for or that prayer is substantiated in some other way), and coming away with no evidence at all, despite repeated attempts.

I suppose you could ask the same question about proving that prayer doesn't work. I suspect that people have spent more time and energy trying to prove that prayer doesn't work than they have spent trying to prove that it does (since most people who believe that it works take it on faith that it works). Despite repeated attempts, prayer has never been proven not to work. At best it has been shown that not all prayers are granted (which to my knowledge isn't in dispute for most Christians).

Also, keep in mind that a great deal of time, money, and effort have been spent on the SETI project to search for intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy. Again, no evidence has been found, despite repeated attempts. Are members of SETI irrational?

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

A related issue is whether you feel that a belief is necessarily rational if it later turns out to be true.

No, beliefs can be irrational even if they turn out to be true. I can believe your computer has a green led to indicate the power is on, based on the fact that Bri (if I’m pronouncing it correctly) rhymes with tree and trees have green leaves. That is a pretty irrational reason to believe such a thing, and even if it turns out to be true the belief is still irrational. (Mine is blue btw.)

Was the belief that the earth was flat rational or irrational before evidence was available that proved otherwise?

Rational, if the only evidence used was how it looks. You have to remember that at the time, most of their knowledge was still build on what we’d consider irrational foundations with the evidence we have now. They believed the world was the center of the universe, again based on the evidence of how it looks alone. A flat world with a sky that circles around it seems pretty irrational to us, but it was a rational conclusion to form from the poor evidence they had to draw it from. It looks pretty flat when you’re standing on it. It also looks like everything in the sky goes around us, but that is hardly useful evidence. Once people had means to collect the observations and the math to calculate them to produce useful evidence for the shape of the Earth, it all started pointing to a round world. The same goes for a heliocentric solar system.

 

[I less than three logic]

Also, keep in mind that a great deal of time, money, and effort have been spent on the SETI project to search for intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy. Again, no evidence has been found, despite repeated attempts. Are members of SETI irrational?

-Bri

Perhaps. Lets give them at least something resembling an equal time frame with prayer. Say, a nice round 500 years? If nothing is found after repeated attempts for 500 years, then I'm sure we'll all agree it is irrational to keep looking.

 

[Bri]

No, beliefs can be irrational even if they turn out to be true. I can believe your computer has a green led to indicate the power is on, based on the fact that Bri (if I’m pronouncing it correctly) rhymes with tree and trees have green leaves. That is a pretty irrational reason to believe such a thing, and even if it turns out to be true the belief is still irrational. (Mine is blue btw.)

I agree. Still, would it have been irrational to believe that the earth was round when all evidence seemed to point to it being flat? It seems that just such a belief likely lead people to begin to search for evidence that the earth was round.

Rational, if the only evidence used was how it looks.

At the time, nobody knew how the earth looks. So, are you saying that it was irrational to believe that the earth was round?

You have to remember that at the time, most of their knowledge was still build on what we’d consider irrational foundations with the evidence we have now. They believed the world was the center of the universe, again based on the evidence of how it looks alone. A flat world with a sky that circles around it seems pretty irrational to us, but it was a rational conclusion to form from the poor evidence they had to draw it from. It looks pretty flat when you’re standing on it. It also looks like everything in the sky goes around us, but that is hardly useful evidence.

I agree that it would have been rational to think that the earth was flat before there was evidence otherwise. The question is was it irrational to believe that it was round?

Once people had means to collect the observations and the math to calculate them to produce useful evidence for the shape of the Earth, it all started pointing to a round world. The same goes for a heliocentric solar system.

I suspect that before they had means to determine whether the earth was round, some people believed the earth was round and began to search for evidence of it despite the known evidence that the earth was flat. Would such belief have been irrational?

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

I suspect that before they had means to determine whether the earth was round, some people believed the earth was round and began to search for evidence of it despite the known evidence that the earth was flat. Would such belief have been irrational?

-Bri

Depending on the reason, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Pythagoras (b. 570 BC) found harmony in the universe and sought to explain it. He reasoned that Earth and the other planets must be spheres, since the most harmonious geometric form was a circle.

Pythagoras reason is irrational, even thought it turned out to be, for the most part, true. Plato’s appears irrational as well, since he seems to just accept Pythagoras reason. According to this article, Aristotle seems to be the first to believe for rational reasons, ones supported by observations and logic.

 

[Bri]

Perhaps. Lets give them at least something resembling an equal time frame with prayer. Say, a nice round 500 years? If nothing is found after repeated attempts for 500 years, then I'm sure we'll all agree it is irrational to keep looking.

Good point, but are you saying that people have been searching for evidence that prayer works for 500 years? People have believed that prayer works nearly exclusively based on faith rather than evidence. According to Wikipedia, people have believed that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy (also based on faith) since before 546 B.C.

SETI's first experiment to provide evidence for intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy was around 1960. Francis Galton conducted an experiment to disprove prayer in 1872. The earliest attempt I could find to provide evidence for prayer was in 1988. Even if we accept Galton's experiment (even though it set out to provide evidence against prayer rather than evidence for prayer), then the first experiment concerning prayer was only 88 years before SETI's first experiments. If we want to compare attempts to provide evidence for the two beliefs, SETI's may have come first.

That said, the fact that Galton's experiment against prayer may have been done before the first experiment for prayer suggests that believers in prayer should be given more time to prove their case (as should, perhaps, belief that prayer doesn't work).

On the other hand, the only beliefs for or against prayer that can be tested (and therefore the only beliefs for which there is any actual evidence) are those that assume that prayer must work under controlled conditions. Other (probably more common) beliefs in prayer are unfalsifiable and therefore performing tests to prove or disprove them would be pseudoscience at best. This is the same criticism used against SETI. According to Wikipedia:

SETI has occasionally been the target of criticism by those who suggest that it is a form of pseudoscience. In particular, critics allege that no observed phenomena suggest the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, and furthermore that the assertion of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence has no good Popperian criteria for falsifiability [16]. Science fiction writer Michael Crichton, in a 2003 lecture at Caltech, stated that "The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."

It seems far more rational to me to admit that an unfalsifiable belief is based on faith than to believe that it is based on science. You can make the case that there isn't enough evidence to warrant either belief, but I don't think that either belief is irrational.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Depending on the reason, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Pythagoras reason is irrational, even thought it turned out to be, for the most part, true. Plato’s appears irrational as well, since he seems to just accept Pythagoras reason. According to this article, Aristotle seems to be the first to believe for rational reasons, ones supported by observations and logic.

Pythagoras had no evidence to believe the earth was round or flat (or a donut, or a cube or a a seven-layered ziggurat or cosmic mountain). Any belief concerning the shape of the earth would have been unfalsifiable at the time. Are you saying that an opinion that the earth was some other shape would have been more rational? Or are you saying that the only rational opinion of the shape of the earth during Pythagoras' time was an agnostic one (i.e. having no opinion at all)?

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

Pythagoras had no evidence to believe the earth was round or flat (or a donut, or a cube or a a seven-layered ziggurat or cosmic mountain). Any belief concerning the shape of the earth would have been unfalsifiable at the time. Are you saying that an opinion that the earth was some other shape would have been more rational? Or are you saying that the only rational opinion of the shape of the earth during Pythagoras' time was an agnostic one (i.e. having no opinion at all)?

-Bri

Rational, if the only evidence used was how it looks… snip… It looks pretty flat when you’re standing on it.

I agree that it would have been rational to think that the earth was flat before there was evidence otherwise. The question is was it irrational to believe that it was round?

Stop arguing in circles.

I remember my Earth Science teacher, Mr. Temple, told me to kiss problems like the one you posed above. Keep it simple, stupid. It looks flat, that is, in a way, evidence that it is flat, so call it flat.

 

[I less than three logic]

Good point, but are you saying that people have been searching for evidence that prayer works for 500 years? People have believed that prayer works nearly exclusively based on faith rather than evidence. According to Wikipedia, people have believed that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy (also based on faith) since before 546 B.C.

SETI's first experiment to provide evidence for intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy was around 1960. Francis Galton conducted an experiment to disprove prayer in 1872. The earliest attempt I could find to provide evidence for prayer was in 1988. Even if we accept Galton's experiment (even though it set out to provide evidence against prayer rather than evidence for prayer), then the first experiment concerning prayer was only 88 years before SETI's first experiments. If we want to compare attempts to provide evidence for the two beliefs, SETI's may have come first.

That said, the fact that Galton's experiment against prayer may have been done before the first experiment for prayer suggests that believers in prayer should be given more time to prove their case (as should, perhaps, belief that prayer doesn't work).

On the other hand, the only beliefs for or against prayer that can be tested (and therefore the only beliefs for which there is any actual evidence) are those that assume that prayer must work under controlled conditions. Other (probably more common) beliefs in prayer are unfalsifiable and therefore performing tests to prove or disprove them would be pseudoscience at best. This is the same criticism used against SETI. According to Wikipedia:



It seems far more rational to me to admit that an unfalsifiable belief is based on faith than to believe that it is based on science. You can make the case that there isn't enough evidence to warrant either belief, but I don't think that either belief is irrational.

-Bri

SETI may be irrational, and I’ve never claimed otherwise. Thinking that you’ll find extraterrestrial intelligence is not the same as thinking it exists, and cannot be compared that way like you seem to want to. The argument for why I consider it is rational to believe the later is very simple.

The interactions of matter and energy constrained by the laws of physics can produce intelligent life.

Throughout the universe the same laws of physics exist and the same matter and energy are abundant.

A basic understanding of probability and statistics would suggest that the chance for the event to happen only once given the unimaginable size of the universe is so improbable it is akin to DrK winning that 50 billion.

 

[RandFan]

Also, a lack of evidence that intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy exists isn't evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy doesn't exist. I'm not sure I understand your point. There are many beliefs for which we cannot provide solid evidence, but I don't think that necessarily makes them irrational.

Bri,

Your comparison really isn't fair for many reasons.

Also, scientists believe that intelligent life is to some degree likely. Not true of many if not the vast majority of Christians who believe that God exists, hears their prayers and give credit to God for the good things that do happen when they pray and ask for that very same thing.

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about.

Scientists are busy trying to communicate with extra terrestrial intelligent life but they are waiting for proof before they accept that anyone is listening or before they state that there is extra terrestrial intelligent life.

Christians live their lives as if they know. They believe, not looking for or expecting proof. They pray expecting God to be listening and hoping for answers. Ask any Christian if God is likely listening or IS listening and they will say God IS listening. Ask a scientist if extra-solar intligent life forms are likely listening and they will say NO.

Now, Bri, when a Christian loses his or her glasses, prays for help to find the glasses, then finds them, do they not thank God? Do they not give God the credit? Do they really wonder if that was simply a coincidence?

 

[RandFan]

Bri,

I'll make you a deal. You find me a scientist who sends out messages to ET's with the belief that A.) ET's ARE listening. B.) ET's will grant the scientists requests and C.) Credit the ET's for the good things in the scientist's life and I will agree that such a belief is irrational, fair enough?

Wouldn't you agree that such a belief would be irrational?