Prayer and power

[I less than three logic]

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?

No, no, no. Your B is all wrong. Bri's argument of the Christian position that justifies the lack of evidence is: ET's will sometimes grant the scientists requests. The rest seems good though.

 

[RandFan]

No, no, no. Your B is all wrong. Bri's argument of the Christian position that justifies the lack of evidence is: ET's will sometimes grant the scientists requests. The rest seems good though.

You got me.

Demonstrate a scientist who:
A.) Believes that ET's ARE listening.
B.) Believes that ET's will sometimes grant the scientists requests.
C.) Credit ET's for the good things in the scientist's life

That IS irrational

Thanks Less than

 

[RandFan]

No, no, no. Your B is all wrong.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

You got me.

Demonstrate a scientist who:
A.) Believes that ET's ARE listening.
B.) Believes that ET's will sometimes grant the scientists requests.
C.) Credit ET's for the good things in the scientist's life

Apologies RF, I hate to rain on your parade and all that, but there is still a slight deficiency in your amended point B.) It should, I think, read thus:

"B.) Believes that ETs will sometimes grant the scientist's requests, and in such a manner that-

B.1) the scientist shall have no evidence that it has been granted;
B.2) it may or may not accord with the scientist's wishes, and
B.3) it does not conflict with the ETs aim of remaining undiscovered."
​

It seems as though the rules governing prayer-answering are to be established by a committee, much like an elephant is a mouse designed by a committee.

'Luthon64

 

[Bri]

You got me.

Demonstrate a scientist who:
A.) Believes that ET's ARE listening.
B.) Believes that ET's will sometimes grant the scientists requests.
C.) Credit ET's for the good things in the scientist's life

That IS irrational

Thanks Less than

Oddly, there are MANY scientists who believe this about God.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No, no, no. Your B is all wrong. Bri's argument of the Christian position that justifies the lack of evidence is: ET's will sometimes grant the scientists requests. The rest seems good though.

We were talking about prayer, so C is really a straw man as far as prayer is concerned. Nonetheless, C probably doesn't apply to all Christians anyway, many of who credit God with both the good and bad things that happen to them. Of course, they probably also believe that the bad things that happen to them are for the greater good.

I personally find it more irrational to search for ET's who you don't believe are listening than to pray to a God who you believe is.

-Bri

 

[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.

You seem to believe that the laws of physics are prescriptive rather than descriptive. You also seem to believe that the laws of physics must apply to the supernatural as well as the natural. The laws of physics don't provide evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. At best, they prove that it's possible. It's also possible that prayer works even if the laws of physics are correct since the laws of physics presumably only apply to the natural and not to the supernatural.

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.

The laws of probability and statistics would suggest only that the chance of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the galaxy is greater than 0%. Unfortunately, we have no idea how specific conditions must be to those on earth to give rise to intelligent life, so any probability beyond that would be speculation.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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.

I hope you're not implying that because scientists believe something the belief must have a scientific basis. Some scientists believe that intelligent life is to some degree likely, but without any evidence whatsoever. Some scientists also believe that prayer works and that God exists.

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.

We were talking about people who believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, not people who have no opinion about it at all until proof is found. Yes, most people who believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy state their belief as opinion rather than fact. Likewise, most Christians admit that their belief in prayer is based on faith rather than fact. But you've stated that just because a belief is stated as an opinion rather than a fact doesn't make it rational, so it would seem that neither belief is necessarily rational by that criteria.

Christians live their lives as if they know. They believe, not looking for or expecting proof.

Prayer and the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy are both unfalsifiable. It seems that to look for or expect proof of the unfalsifiable is irrational. Some Christians live their lives believing that prayer works without looking for or expecting proof, whereas some scientists spend a great deal of time and money searching for proof of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. It would seem more rational for Christians to admit that their belief is based on faith rather than fact than for those scientists to think that their belief is based on science.

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.

Emphasis mine. The key word here being "likely." It's an opinion, rather than fact. Still, it seems more rational to pray to a God who you believe is likely listening than to search for intelligent life that you believe isn't likely listening.

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?

I imagine that some thank God and give God credit. I also imagine that most of them admit that their belief that God granted their prayer is based on faith rather than fact, and do consider the possibility that it was a coincidence. If they consider the possibility that it was a coincidence (i.e. admit that their belief in prayer is an opinion rather than fact), is their belief rational?

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Oddly, there are MANY scientists who believe this about God.

-Bri

I'm not quite sure what your point is but I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't respond in a meaningful way.

You are comparing Christian belief in prayer and belief in ET's. I don't think comparison is at all fair. The beliefs of Christians are far more affirmative and their actions demonstrate this. In other words there is little question to them that God is there, the he hears their prayers and that he answers them. No, they don't believe that he answers all of their prayers, at least not in a way that they want them to be answered.

This behavior simply can't be equated to scientists believing that ET's are likely and trying to establish proof of their existence. If a Christian told me that he believed in God and prayed to God but that he or she had no idea whether God heard those prayers or whether or not God could or would answer them then I would say that person's belief was as rational as the scientists.

 

[I less than three logic]

You seem to believe that the laws of physics are prescriptive rather than descriptive. You also seem to believe that the laws of physics must apply to the supernatural as well as the natural. The laws of physics don't provide evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. At best, they prove that it's possible. It's also possible that prayer works even if the laws of physics are correct since the laws of physics presumably only apply to the natural and not to the supernatural.

First, the supernatural doesn’t exist until there is adequate evidence to prove otherwise, so that line of argument is irrelevant.

Second, the laws of physics are prescriptive. Only our understanding and definitions of those laws are descriptive. Remember, we don’t make up the laws of physics; we only discover and learn to understand them. The way matter and energy act is entirely constrained by the laws of physics, regardless of whether we know those laws or not.

The laws of probability and statistics would suggest only that the chance of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the galaxy is greater than 0%. Unfortunately, we have no idea how specific conditions must be to those on earth to give rise to intelligent life, so any probability beyond that would be speculation.

-Bri

I am talking about the universe, not this galaxy. I never agreed to the shift in goal posts. The average galaxy contains 10⁷ to 10¹² stars. There are about 10¹¹ galaxies just within the visible universe. That means within the visible universe alone there are about 10¹⁸ to 10²³ stars. For this star to be the only one with intelligent life that would be 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. I’ll place my bet on DrK winning that 50 billion.

 

[RandFan]

I hope you're not implying that because scientists believe something the belief must have a scientific basis. Some scientists believe that intelligent life is to some degree likely, but without any evidence whatsoever.

I'm not sure how genuinge you are with this line. It has been explained to you countless times why this is not simply the case. There is no direct evidence. We have our understanding of Earth, Humans, the Universe, etc. We have nothing of God.

Some scientists also believe that prayer works and that God exists.

This tells us nothing. I don't know what your purpose was but it is likely a fallacy.

We were talking about people who believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, not people who have no opinion about it at all until proof is found.

You have completely missed the point. Forming an opinion as to the likelihood of something is not rational so far as the belief does not exceed the evidence.

Christians don't simply hold an opinion, they act on faith. They don't simply hope that God hears them they believe that he does. Scientists don't believe that the aliens here them they hope that they do. Big difference. If scientists gave specific attributes to the aliens without evidence then I would agree that they were irrational.

Prayer and the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy are both unfalsifiable. It seems that to look for or expect proof of the unfalsifiable is irrational. Some Christians live their lives believing that prayer works without looking for or expecting proof, whereas some scientists spend a great deal of time and money searching for proof of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. It would seem more rational for Christians to admit that their belief is based on faith rather than fact than for those scientists to think that their belief is based on science.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If the scientists behaved in such a way as to demonstrate that they believed that there aliens to the degree that they started telling us the attributes of the aliens and that they believed the aliens were listening then I would believe them irrational.

You want to distill everything down to an opinion and then equate opinions. This is wrong. The actions of the individuals demonstrates just how wrong it is.

If I am of the opinion that a leprechaun lives under my bed and I take care to leave fresh water for it every morning to ensure that it has something to drink then that IS irrational.

Scientists don't behave that way.
Christians do.

Emphasis mine. The key word here being "likely." It's an opinion, rather than fact. Still, it seems more rational to pray to a God who you believe is likely listening than to search for intelligent life that you believe isn't likely listening.

This is nonsense. You are saying that it is more rational to give my leprechaun water every morning because I believe it is likely living under my bed than for a scientist to hold an opinion that there is a degree of likelihood that ET's exist.

I imagine that some thank God and give God credit. I also imagine that most of them admit that their belief that God granted their prayer is based on faith rather than fact, and do consider the possibility that it was a coincidence. If they consider the possibility that it was a coincidence (i.e. admit that their belief in prayer is an opinion rather than fact), is their belief rational?

Many Christians simply say "praise Jesus" when the find their lost car keys after having prayed for them, not "wow, I wonder if that was just a coincidence". I was a Christan and I have known many Christians throughout my life. I don't know of any that live and act as if it all might just as well be a coincidence. My experiences are anecdotal. Do you have evidence that Christan's don't believe that God answers their prayers?

 

[I less than three logic]

I personally find it more irrational to search for ET's who you don't believe are listening than to pray to a God who you believe is.

-Bri

This is only because you seem to have a poor understanding of words. Praying and searching are in no way equivalent. Praying is speaking to God, searching has nothing to do with communication and it is therefore irrelevant if anyone is listening. If they were speaking, not just searching, then I would agree it is more irrational to speak to something you don’t believe is listening than to speak to another thing you believe is. However, I keep speaking to you…

 

[Bri]

I'm not quite sure what your point is but I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't respond in a meaningful way.

You are comparing Christian belief in prayer and belief in ET's.

Only in the sense that both beliefs are unfalsifiable and there is little evidence of either. Otherwise, your comparison was between ET's granting prayers and God granting prayers, which is perhaps a subject for another thread.

I don't think comparison is at all fair.

I agree.

The beliefs of Christians are far more affirmative and their actions demonstrate this. In other words there is little question to them that God is there, the he hears their prayers and that he answers them.

I disagree. I would say that a vast majority of Christians admit that their belief is based on faith rather than fact. Many Christians do indeed question whether God in fact exists and whether God in fact grants their prayers.

This behavior simply can't be equated to scientists believing that ET's are likely and trying to establish proof of their existence. If a Christian told me that he believed in God and prayed to God but that he or she had no idea whether God heard those prayers or whether or not God could or would answer them then I would say that person's belief was as rational as the scientists.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "no idea." Yes, most Christians are of the opinion that God exists and responds to their prayers. I think this is very similar to those people who are of the opinion that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy.

So, if a Christian told you that she or he believes that God likely exists and that God likely grants some prayers, but that she or he doesn't know for a fact whether God exists or whether God grants prayers, would that belief be rational? If not, how is it different from a scientist who believes that intelligent life likely exists elsewhere in the galaxy? How about a scientist who believes that communicating life likely exists elsewhere in the galaxy and that they are likely attempting to communicate with us?

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

Yes, most Christians are of the opinion that God exists and responds to their prayers. I think this is very similar to those people who are of the opinion that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy.

Yes, that is what you think.

As usual, you're wrong.

The belief that God exists is indeed similar to the belief that aliens exist somewhere.

The belief that God exists and responds to prayers is similar to the belief that aliens exist somewhere and communicate sporadically with humans.

The first is a classic example of an unfalisifiable belief -- there is no expectation that mere "existence" would have testable consequences.

The second, however, has testable consequences; answering prayers or communicating would leave traces.

Basically, the first is

So, if a Christian told you that she or he believes that God likely exists and that God likely grants some prayers, [...] would that belief be rational?

No.

If not, how is it different from a scientist who believes that intelligent life likely exists elsewhere in the galaxy?

Because the scientist doesn't believe that other life is in contact with Earth.

How about a scientist who believes that communicating life likely exists elsewhere in the galaxy and that they are likely attempting to communicate with us?

See? Even you know the difference between the two beliefs.

 

[Bri]

I'm not sure how genuinge you are with this line.

I was simply asking if that was what you were implying. It sounded as though you might have been, but I wasn't certain so I asked the question.

You have completely missed the point. Forming an opinion as to the likelihood of something is not rational so far as the belief does not exceed the evidence.

Then it follows that belief that intelligent life likely exists elsewhere in the galaxy is indeed irrational. There is absolutely no evidence that would allow one to determine that the probability is greater for the existence of ET's than against it.

Christians don't simply hold an opinion, they act on faith.

I'm sorry, but we all act on opinions all the time. As do those scientists who think it likely enough that ET's will talk to us that they spend a great deal of time and money listening.

They don't simply hope that God hears them they believe that he does. Scientists don't believe that the aliens here them they hope that they do. Big difference. If scientists gave specific attributes to the aliens without evidence then I would agree that they were irrational.

Again, I find it more irrational to spend millions of dollars searching for something for which there is no evidence on just the "hope" that it's there. And, by the way, the assumption is that the aliens they're looking for are trying to communicate with us. So, yes, they do give them specific attributes.

This makes no sense whatsoever. If the scientists behaved in such a way as to demonstrate that they believed that there aliens to the degree that they started telling us the attributes of the aliens and that they believed the aliens were listening then I would believe them irrational.

They believe that there is a good likelihood that aliens are trying to communicate with us. We would be unable to even search for aliens who weren't trying to communicate with us given our current technology. Scientists have also spend money to send out probes because they believe that there is a good likelihood that aliens are listening to us.

You want to distill everything down to an opinion and then equate opinions. This is wrong. The actions of the individuals demonstrates just how wrong it is.

No, I'm not trying to do that. You are trying to imply that scientists who believe that ET's exist are rational because they acknowledge that it is only an opinion (albeit an opinion that they're willing to spend lots of time and money on).

If I am of the opinion that a leprechaun lives under my bed and I take care to leave fresh water for it every morning to ensure that it has something to drink then that IS irrational.

No more irrational than listening for evidence of the leprechaun with a very expensive stethoscope for an hour each night before you go to bed.

Scientists don't behave that way.
Christians do.

Apparently, they both do.

This is nonsense. You are saying that it is more rational to give my leprechaun water every morning because I believe it is likely living under my bed than for a scientist to hold an opinion that there is a degree of likelihood that ET's exist.

No, I'm saying that it is more rational to talk to a leprechaun that you believe likely exists and listens than to spend millions listening for a leprechaun that you don't believe likely exists or communicates.

Many Christians simply say "praise Jesus" when the find their lost car keys after having prayed for them, not "wow, I wonder if that was just a coincidence". I was a Christan and I have known many Christians throughout my life. I don't know of any that live and act as if it all might just as well be a coincidence. My experiences are anecdotal. Do you have evidence that Christan's don't believe that God answers their prayers?

You didn't answer my question.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

No, I'm saying that it is more rational to talk to a leprechaun that you believe likely exists and listens than to spend millions listening for a leprechaun that you don't believe likely exists or communicates.

If I needed to summarize just how out-of-touch belief in petitionary prayer actually is, then this would be a good example.

On planet Bri, it is more rational to believe in something than it is to check to see whether the belief is well-founded -- no matter what degree of evidence you have for that belief.

Similarly, on planet Bri, it is more rational to spend the lottery prize that you believe you won than it is to check to see if you really did win it.

 

[Bri]

The belief that God exists and responds to prayers is similar to the belief that aliens exist somewhere and communicate sporadically with humans.

Which is exactly what those SETI scientists are spending millions of dollars to prove.

The first is a classic example of an unfalisifiable belief -- there is no expectation that mere "existence" would have testable consequences.

The second, however, has testable consequences; answering prayers or communicating would leave traces.

Only if you believe that all prayers are answered.

Because the scientist doesn't believe that other life is in contact with Earth.

Some do. Are the members of SETI irrational?

See? Even you know the difference between the two beliefs.

So, you think that SETI scientists are irrational?

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

I'm sorry, but we all act on opinions all the time. As do those scientists who think it likely enough that ET's will talk to us that they spend a great deal of time and money listening.



Again, I find it more irrational to spend millions of dollars searching for something for which there is no evidence on just the "hope" that it's there. And, by the way, the assumption is that the aliens they're looking for are trying to communicate with us. So, yes, they do give them specific attributes.



They believe that there is a good likelihood that aliens are trying to communicate with us. We would be unable to even search for aliens who weren't trying to communicate with us given our current technology. Scientists have also spend money to send out probes because they believe that there is a good likelihood that aliens are listening to us.

They’re not looking for ET’s talking to us, nice straw man though. They are looking for signals like the kind we’re constantly pumping out into space. These signals have nothing to do with communication with ET’s but with radio, television, etc. We’ve been sending them out into space as side effect. SETI is simply looking for the same side effects. There is absolutely no assumption that they are actively trying to communicate with us.

 

[drkitten]

Which is exactly what those SETI scientists are spending millions of dollars to prove.

No. They are investigating to see whether or not it's true.

Looking for something does not imply either that it exists or that I believe it exists.

Only if you believe that all prayers are answered.

... or that you believe that some prayers are answered.

I can easily prove a die is loaded if it only comes up a six 50% of the time.

Some do. Are the members of SETI irrational?

No, but you are. And a poor reader, to boot.

 

[Bri]

If I needed to summarize just how out-of-touch belief in petitionary prayer actually is, then this would be a good example.

On planet Bri, it is more rational to believe in something than it is to check to see whether the belief is well-founded -- no matter what degree of evidence you have for that belief.

That's not even close to what I said. What I said is that it's more rational to talk to something that you think likely exists than to spend millions listening for something that you don't think likely exists.

Similarly, on planet Bri, it is more rational to spend the lottery prize that you believe you won than it is to check to see if you really did win it.

Again, not at all what I said, although that is pretty close to what SETI does.

-Bri