I have no option here. Btw, can prayer give some positive effects alike meditation or alike thinking for yourself/others something good or with good motive? Can there be some positive psychlogical effects by praying? Why prayers are common in schools--i.e. at basic level?
CurtC
Illuminator
See, as soon as a poll is published with no "I am from Planet X" option, someone needs it.
BTW, I voted "no" - to whom would I pray? It would be like someone saying to you "I believe in a three-headed dragon who lives under my bed, and sometimes I talk to him. Now I know that you, Openmind, don't believe in dragons under your bed, but do you ever catch yourself talking to it?"
BTW, I voted "no" - to whom would I pray? It would be like someone saying to you "I believe in a three-headed dragon who lives under my bed, and sometimes I talk to him. Now I know that you, Openmind, don't believe in dragons under your bed, but do you ever catch yourself talking to it?"
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
To: Open Mind - Get real.
To: CFLarson - How??
To: CFLarson - How??
Open Mind,
Prayer was a created as a resort to fill in the area where Man REALLY wanted something to happen but his ability to control it was limited.
The less control man had the more likely he was to “prayâ€.
As man has grown up (well some of us) and realised that there probably is no such thing as God or the Easter Bunny, prayer has become pretty pointless.
Prayer was a created as a resort to fill in the area where Man REALLY wanted something to happen but his ability to control it was limited.
The less control man had the more likely he was to “prayâ€.
As man has grown up (well some of us) and realised that there probably is no such thing as God or the Easter Bunny, prayer has become pretty pointless.
fishbob said:
I can't speak for Mr Larsen but as far as I am concerned it's quite easy.
The existence of God is unproven and in my view unprovable, so I am free to believe in Him or not, as I choose. In contrast the existence of a paranormal function such as telepathy is provable by properly designed tests. So as a skeptic I would need to be shown such proof before I accepted the reality of telepathy.
So it is with the existence of God. If someone were to devise a way in which His existence could be experimentally verified beyond doubt then I would not have a choice of whether to believe or not; I would have to abide by the result of such tests.
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,949
Traveller,
In fact, if we were to logically expand on your line of reasoning, since the scientific evidence which you claim you must abide by concerning other sorts of paranormal beliefs, itself depends on assumptions about the nature of reality which can neither be proven nor disproved, it follows that it is your choice whether or not to believe in that, too. In this case, all skepticism goes out the window.
In fact, this is exactly the approach which many religious people take. They reject the very axioms of the scientific method. How is their choice to disbelieve this any different than your choice to disbelieve or believe, in god?
This entire view of epistemology is simply not coherent.
Skepticism means believing only that for which their is supporting evidence, and believing it only as much as is justified by the evidence. Which epistemological methodology you choose for assessing what does and does not constitute "supporting evidence" for a belief will then determine what your actual beliefs are.
Scientific epistemology is one such epistemological method, and this is what most modern people have in mind when they talk about skepticism. But it is not the only one possible. I will say, however, that it is the only one I know of which is both coherent, and useful.
That said, I nevertheless agree with Claus that it is possible for a skeptic to believe in god. I was once such a skeptic myself. The reason was simple, I was working based on false information, and I was mistakenly in agreement with logical arguments which were not sound. It is precisely because I was, even then as a believer, a skeptic, that I came to question these "facts" which I had previously believed to be justified, and to investigate the logical arguments which seemed to support my beliefs. When I found them to be lacking, and found that my belief in god was not justified, I stopped believing.
It is quite easy for somebody to believe something which is unjustified, or even false, and still be a skeptic. All that it requires is that he mistakenly think that the belief is justified. Garbage in, garbage out.
Dr. Stupid
The question of whether or not god exists is not a matter of opinion, and the fact that you have no way of knowing whether he does or not does not make it a matter of opinion. Treating it as though it were, by saying that it is your "choice" whether to believe it or not, makes absolutely no sense. I don't know what George Washington had for lunch on February 7, 1765, and there is no experiment I could conceivably do to find out, but that does not mean that it would be rational for me to simply choose to believe that he had a ham sandwich.
In fact, if we were to logically expand on your line of reasoning, since the scientific evidence which you claim you must abide by concerning other sorts of paranormal beliefs, itself depends on assumptions about the nature of reality which can neither be proven nor disproved, it follows that it is your choice whether or not to believe in that, too. In this case, all skepticism goes out the window.
In fact, this is exactly the approach which many religious people take. They reject the very axioms of the scientific method. How is their choice to disbelieve this any different than your choice to disbelieve or believe, in god?
This entire view of epistemology is simply not coherent.
Skepticism means believing only that for which their is supporting evidence, and believing it only as much as is justified by the evidence. Which epistemological methodology you choose for assessing what does and does not constitute "supporting evidence" for a belief will then determine what your actual beliefs are.
Scientific epistemology is one such epistemological method, and this is what most modern people have in mind when they talk about skepticism. But it is not the only one possible. I will say, however, that it is the only one I know of which is both coherent, and useful.
That said, I nevertheless agree with Claus that it is possible for a skeptic to believe in god. I was once such a skeptic myself. The reason was simple, I was working based on false information, and I was mistakenly in agreement with logical arguments which were not sound. It is precisely because I was, even then as a believer, a skeptic, that I came to question these "facts" which I had previously believed to be justified, and to investigate the logical arguments which seemed to support my beliefs. When I found them to be lacking, and found that my belief in god was not justified, I stopped believing.
It is quite easy for somebody to believe something which is unjustified, or even false, and still be a skeptic. All that it requires is that he mistakenly think that the belief is justified. Garbage in, garbage out.
Dr. Stupid
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
The first option is clearly misleading, considering it's the only "no" option. Prayer is but one of the many paranormal claims. Even if one doesn't believe in prayer, it does not automatically follow that if one doesn't pray, one does not believe any paranormal phenomena exists.
I suspect that OM knew about this when he made the poll, but chose to make a misrepresenting poll that will by default be inaccurate as it lacks several necessary options, like the one I just described ("No, because I don't believe in prayer"). At the very least, an "other" option would be absolutely crucial. And OM was most likely aware that the "other" option should be included. But he still didn't. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
I suspect that OM knew about this when he made the poll, but chose to make a misrepresenting poll that will by default be inaccurate as it lacks several necessary options, like the one I just described ("No, because I don't believe in prayer"). At the very least, an "other" option would be absolutely crucial. And OM was most likely aware that the "other" option should be included. But he still didn't. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Stimpson J. Cat
I shouldn’t have tried to be concise. Let me see if I can explain in a little more detail.
I agree, either God exists or He does not. I could believe either, or as a skeptic doubt that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. But this would not preclude my believing Him because, as you say, skepticism means believing only that for which there is supporting evidence, and believing it only as much as is justified by the evidence.
But what evidence is there? None, certainly, that can be scientifically demonstrated. But the fact remains that we are here and the whole Universe is here. Now since nothing causeless happens the Universe must have had a cause. There are only three possibilities: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe was created by something or someone.
I don’t want to go through all the arguments for and against those propositions in this thread – whole books would be required to do that, but I have read and considered these arguments and the proposition which makes the most sense to me is the third. I am aware that this is, to an extent, because I would prefer that to be the case and to that extent I admit to a degree of irrationality. But then, the same could be said whichever I choose to believe.
Like you, I have investigated the logical arguments which support my belief, as well as those which did not. Unlike you, I did not find them lacking or, to put it another way, I found no more reason to believe in the counter arguments. But I would not have characterised my assessment as a mere matter of opinion. If and when more evidence for the first or second proposition above is produced then I will evaluate that and my beliefs will change or not, depending upon how compelling I find it.
I shouldn’t have tried to be concise. Let me see if I can explain in a little more detail.
I agree, either God exists or He does not. I could believe either, or as a skeptic doubt that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. But this would not preclude my believing Him because, as you say, skepticism means believing only that for which there is supporting evidence, and believing it only as much as is justified by the evidence.
But what evidence is there? None, certainly, that can be scientifically demonstrated. But the fact remains that we are here and the whole Universe is here. Now since nothing causeless happens the Universe must have had a cause. There are only three possibilities: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe was created by something or someone.
I don’t want to go through all the arguments for and against those propositions in this thread – whole books would be required to do that, but I have read and considered these arguments and the proposition which makes the most sense to me is the third. I am aware that this is, to an extent, because I would prefer that to be the case and to that extent I admit to a degree of irrationality. But then, the same could be said whichever I choose to believe.
Like you, I have investigated the logical arguments which support my belief, as well as those which did not. Unlike you, I did not find them lacking or, to put it another way, I found no more reason to believe in the counter arguments. But I would not have characterised my assessment as a mere matter of opinion. If and when more evidence for the first or second proposition above is produced then I will evaluate that and my beliefs will change or not, depending upon how compelling I find it.
CFLarsen said:
Yeah but they wouldn't necessarily agree on what God is. To some it will be an external intelligence beyond earthly human ape brain understanding, to some it might be a collective unconscious we are all part of, to some it is the traditional manlike being, then there are Catholics praying not just to God but Mary or angels, etc. That is what a I mean by 'something' greater outside oneself
I am not religious, I seldom pray but I would pray for someone if seriously ill that medical treatment cannot help, I would assume it is worth a try whether it works or not. I’m not sure science has evolved enough to measure the benefit or lack of benefit of prayer. For example can science measure any emotional benefit accurately yet? It seems to rely on the person in misery saying ‘I feel better’, we might only be measuring a person in suffering, ability to admit improvement in mind or body.
For example if doctors conducted a trial to pray for someone without their knowledge, even if the person had been feeling slightly better, the patient thinking the doctor had done nothing might claim 'I feel just the same' .. a nocebo like effect. So the trial would need to give a placebo and see if the prayer + placebo beats the placebo only group ..... then you are adding placebo (to deceive) + prayer (that must be sincere?) is that a fair trial of prayer? Or how do we know those praying aren't just useless at praying?
I have told the story on this forum before where my grandmother was healed from blindness by a priest, similar claims are in many religions, not just Christianity. Science measures what normally occurs and in doing so might miss what very seldom occurs i.e. paranormal. The rarely normal, unless easily detected and regularly occurring could always be given an loosely undefined 'something else' such as psychological benefit or misdiagnosis.
What is real? Must the real only be a clear strong effect, a weak very consistent effect or produce only predictable outcomes?fishbob said:
Aussie Thinker said:
Do skeptics ever watch sport thinking ‘miss’ or ‘come on, score!’
Actually I’m surprised so many said they will never pray again in this topic, life tends to get more unpleasant with age, when all in life goes logically wrong and is beyond current human ape science to improve, does one just commit suicide and be done with it? Or is the belief life has a greater purpose of greater comfort? I don’t see the great benefit of atheism upon the miserable
The poll question is for skeptics, perhaps I should have said ‘paranormal’ skeptics…. It wasn’t a poll for believers. You are correct there will be some, I would guess extremely few, who believe in some paranormal phenomena but not necessarily prayer, I almost fall into that category myself. However as I said above I would pray for someone whether I think it works or not being open minded to the possibility it might do something beneficial.Hawk one said:
Name these other options
I don’t think it is likely to be crucial but I now wish I had added that too. Point accepted, I could have missed something .... personally I like ‘other’ categories to be further defined ...... also people usually pray or not and have intentions of continuing to do so or not (I don’t mean self program or meditate) so there isn’t much ‘other’ options in there IMHO
I wanted to find out if skeptics had ruled out ever praying again and it seems they have largely done so ....
Donn
Philosopher
I don't pray, but I do eat vegetables. Therefore before dinner I usually say:
"Lettuce prey"
"Lettuce prey"
Open Mind said:
You cannot decide for other people what they believe in, and how. There doesn't need to be agreement at all.
Open Mind said:
If you can show the evidence that prayer works, we would be delighted to see it. Just don't give us the same old "science hasn't evolved enough" song. It's old, it's tired, and it's a waste of time.
Open Mind said:
It is highly unethical to try and cure someone without them knowing.
Open Mind said:
Your story is worthless, because it cannot be verified. You need to understand this.
Open Mind said:
If you had studied an inkling of science, you would know the answer to that one. An effect can be very weak - extremely weak, in fact, but what separates real effects from paranormal ones is that real effects can be detected.
Open Mind said:
What is better: Real knowledge or fake hope?
Open Mind said:
Then perhaps you shouldn't have chosen a religious theme.
Open Mind said:
Perhaps because skeptics look at the evidence and draw the consequences?
Yes, so you are now agreeing with me, it was you who said define 'something', I deliberately left the definition of what they are praying to openCFLarsen said:
I doubt it could be verified to you, even if it was verified by other witnesses you would probably still dismiss it. It has to be regular, predictable laboratory effect ...... I'm not sure that is a reliable guide to what can possibly occur and what cannot.
When the effects are weak these are more open to various alternate explanations. When it involves the paranormal skeptics are more apt to assume fraud as being much more likely than an anomalous effect.
I'm not sure, when the emotions of other humans beings are involved. I personally would not remove someone's hope if in circumstances considered hopeless by medical science. I wouldn't be certain enough to think some good might come from their hope.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Would you say then that to "hope for" something is equivalent to praying?Open Mind said:
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 4,993
Open Mind said:
Leaving it too open means the findings of the poll will be useless.
Eyewitness testimony is useless because human beings all have similar failings. The point of the "laboratory" controls is to make sure the countless ways in which humans deceive themselves don't affect the result.
I have yet to see any effects, period. So far, most of the reports on psi I've seen are attributable to mundane explanations. They make no effort to rule out those mundane explanations, therefore there's no need to come up with a paranormal explanation. Additionally, fraud is only one of many explanations: Self-delusion, statistically insignificant luck, and confirmation bias are some others that come to mind.