Efficacy of Prayer

[Akhenaten]

Look, here's the bottom line because I'm getting awfully tired of having to keep repeating myself and referring to ignored or misunderstood previous posts of mine. I've said so many things so many times and people are still not getting it, and I have to say them yet again.

<snip>

I often find myself in a thread where everyone but me is posting complete nonsense. What I usually do is accuse everyone else in the group of having difficulties with their reading comprehension.


No, wait . . .


I was thinking of someone else.


ETA: I must pray for guidance in this matter. Does anyone here know if that works?

 

[Tempest_Rage]

A bit like "science fiction" - OK for light entertainment or escapism in an airport lounge, but not really productive or educational, or worth taking seriously!

I think the original poster meant that that the word supernatural is meaningless because what is classified under the heading is simply anything we don't really "get" at a particular period in history. Which changes. Not that it is meaningless because we've all decided we're smarter than the people who believe in it.

 

[Southwind17]

I think the original poster meant that that the word supernatural is meaningless because what is classified under the heading is simply anything we don't really "get" at a particular period in history. Which changes. Not that it is meaningless because we've all decided we're smarter than the people who believe in it.

I don't disagree. Some "science fiction" might well become "science fact" one day. Until then it's airport lounge material for me!

 

[Tempest_Rage]

I don't disagree. Some "science fiction" might well become "science fact" one day. Until then it's airport lounge material for me!

I was reading a bit about Mark Roth in my "airport lounge" the other day

 

[fls]

If science can study the supernatural then creationist "science" could possibly be a legimitate endeavor. Would you say that it is?

Of course. It's not considered legitimate because it doesn't use the scientific method, not because of the subject matter. Much of what science studies nowadays is the 'apparently capricious', which certainly includes 'apparently capricious' causes for the universe and its contents.

Linda

 

[fls]

Bottom line: God's existence in the first place, let alone as the destination of prayers, isn't verifiable in a scientific way since God is supernatural. If you're going to accept studies based around something involving God or the study of the supernatural by science, you may as well accept Young Earth Creationist science as real science. You can't have it both ways. God's degree of involvement in something happening or not happening which was prayed for, or whether the thing happened because it was prayed for, are not things which can be known and quantified scientifically. Whether the thing prayed for does happen is the only thing that can be measured and it is utterly irrelevant to measure it since petitionary prayer is not a gimmick or power which works or doesn't work but a supplication to a Being who may or may not have the desired effect produced, and if He does then it may or may not be because of the prayer, which again IS NOT A WORK/NOT WORK thing since we ourselves are not the ones making anything happen if the prayer is answered.

Bottom line: You are making a priori assumptions which are unwarranted. You are assuming that causes which are apparently capricious - i.e. they don't always seem to be present or to work in a consistent manner each time - are unable to be studied. Yet much of what we study, especially when it comes to medicine, fits that description. Taking aspirin may or may not have the desired effect produced, and if the desired effect is produced, it may or may not be because of the aspirin. Surely God is more effective than "take two aspirin and call me in the morning".

Linda

 

[Yahya Sulaiman]

If you had understood the post of mine you just quoted, you would know how the issue of medicine does not apply by any absolutely remote comparison to the principles and facts which that post of mine outlined. I really should stop bothering like I said I would. It's all in what I've already written, and as I predicted no rebuttals yet which what I've already written had not been already addressed and/or covered (although only one so far--I'm not optimistic). I really should stop wasting my time here. If God wills and my own curiosity and instinctive desire to correct such obvious and predicted fallacy and falsehood doesn't overcome me again, I will.

 

[fls]

If you had understood the post of mine you just quoted, you would know how the issue of medicine does not apply by any absolutely remote comparison to the principles and facts which that post of mine outlined. I really should stop bothering like I said I would. It's all in what I've already written, and as I predicted no rebuttals yet which what I've already written had not been already addressed and/or covered (although only one so far--I'm not optimistic). I really should stop wasting my time here. If God wills and my own curiosity and instinctive desire to correct such obvious and predicted fallacy and falsehood doesn't overcome me again, I will.

You could consider expanding on how the issue of medicine does not apply. You had enough interest in the topic to come here and ask questions of us. Maybe that's an indication that you have enough patience that you don't need to give up at the first sign of resistance? After all, you already knew that we would be approaching these questions from a different perspective, right?

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Surely God is more effective than "take two aspirin and call me in the morning".

Linda

Perhaps Moses misunderstood?

 

[foxholeatheist]

Bottom line: God's existence in the first place, let alone as the destination of prayers, isn't verifiable in a scientific way since God is supernatural.

Special Pleading. Next!

If you're going to accept studies based around something involving God or the study of the supernatural by science, you may as well accept Young Earth Creationist science as real science. You can't have it both ways.

Again, Special Pleading but an interesting one. So God is supernatural... and the supernatural cannot be investigated by science. Then what of the examples I mentioned earlier of technologies that would have been considered supernatural only a few hundred years ago? Would magnets have been considered off-limits to science because at one point in time they would have been considered supernatural? How about lightening?

That's just plain bad logic man. On who's authority did God place himself in the "out of bounds" area?

Oh please... I hope you say that God did himself... That would round out the logical fallacy hat-trick and make me oh so happy.

God's degree of involvement in something happening or not happening which was prayed for, or whether the thing happened because it was prayed for, are not things which can be known and quantified scientifically.

Again, so scientifically we stand at the null hypothesis.

I have yet to see anything you've stated that has not been addressed by several people. What I have not seen is a cogent rebuttal on your part.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think the standard believers get of jail free card is to argue that God's existence cannot be tested by science because it does not want us to verify it exists (and is all powerful, so can hide from any test us mere mortals can conceive), but take it on faith that it exists and has involvement in the course of our lives.

 

[porch]

I think the standard believers get of jail free card is to argue that God's existence cannot be tested by science because it does not want us to verify it exists (and is all powerful, so can hide from any test us mere mortals can conceive), but take it on faith that it exists and has involvement in the course of our lives.

You know, I'm starting to think that it might be irresponsible to do prayer studies involving people's health. It could be condemning them to a statistically predictable chance of recovery, whereas if we weren't studying them, God may have answered their prayers for healing. God seems stubborn to remain undiscovered, to the point that no quantity of prayer study hostages will elicit his mercy.

 

[Tempest_Rage]

You know, I'm starting to think that it might be irresponsible to do prayer studies involving people's health. It could be condemning them to a statistically predictable chance of recovery, whereas if we weren't studying them, God may have answered their prayers for healing. God seems stubborn to remain undiscovered, to the point that no quantity of prayer study hostages will elicit his mercy.

But then God already knows that we would study it. So it must be part of the plan to have us do that, and then fail to elicit his mercy.

 

[Tapio]

Whether the thing prayed for does happen is the only thing that can be measured and it is utterly irrelevant to measure it since petitionary prayer is not a gimmick or power which works or doesn't work but a supplication to a Being who may or may not have the desired effect produced, and if He does then it may or may not be because of the prayer, which again IS NOT A WORK/NOT WORK thing since we ourselves are not the ones making anything happen if the prayer is answered.

(bolding mine)

How did you get to know the gender of your god? I mean, from your post I gather you believe it's practically impossible to know (meaning to have firm assurance based on undisputed proof) anything about him/her/it.

 

[Southwind17]

Would magnets have been considered off-limits to science because at one point in time they would have been considered supernatural? How about lightening?

Derail! Baking should surely be discussed in the Social Issues and Current Events Sub-Forum!

 

[shuttlt]

Yahya,

I hope I'm not trying your patience further, but you seem to be saying that prayer 'works' is not the same as saying that prayer alters the odds of the prayed for event occurring. If that's the case then the efficacy of prayer would seem to me to be outside the scope of science.

Is this the sense in which you mean prayer 'works'?

Otherwise, surely the alteration in the odds of the event prayed for should be measurable, in theory at least.

 

[foxholeatheist]

(bolding mine)

How did you get to know the gender of your god? I mean, from your post I gather you believe it's practically impossible to know (meaning to have firm assurance based on undisputed proof) anything about him/her/it.

Because if there is a God it would have to be man. He made the universe, not a delicious honey baked ham dinner.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I've moved some off-topic posts to AAH. Keep to the topic everyone

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Professor Yaffle

 

[RSLancastr]

I had a stroke.

Many folks prayed for my recovery.

Many other folks not-prayed for my recovery.

I have, to a large extent, recovered.

I think that the results of this scientific test are self-evident.

 

[Southwind17]

I had a stroke.

Many folks prayed for my recovery.

Many other folks not-prayed for my recovery.

I have, to a large extent, recovered.

I think that the results of this scientific test are self-evident.

You forgot to mention the medical care. Factor that into the equation and I guess you've just about covered everything!