Efficacy of Prayer

There's also the project, carried out by Christians to prove prayer, that found that patients who were to undergo surgery and knew they were being prayed for did worse than the ones who either did not receive prayers, or didn't know it.
 
What is difficult to understand about this? You can't perform reliable experiments with something when the following conditions are inevitably involved:

1. It is not about an ability that works or doesn't work but an instance of asking a Being to do something. If I say I can read minds then experiments could show I'm either doing it at the time of the experiments or not doing it, but if I ask someone to do something then whether they don't do it doesn't automatically indicate by any measure whether or not they exist or whether or not my asking has really influenced their behavior if they do.
2. This and #3 go along the same lines. If the thing prayed for happens, there is no scientifically verifiable way of knowing whether it has happened because the Being accepted the supplication.
3. If the thing doesn't happen, there is no scientifically verifiable way of knowing whether it has happened because the Being did not accept the supplication.
4. The very existence of the Being in question has not and cannot be verified by science in the first place since the Being is supernatural and science is the study of nature, not supernature.
5. Only a miniscule slice of the total number of petitionary prayers that have been answered or not answered throughout history could be viewed anyway. Not that this particularly matters in light of 1-4, but I suppose it at least bears mention.

Of course this does not mean that God "runs and hides" when the matter of evidence comes up, but only that scientific evidence isn't the kind that could be theoretically possible when the issue of something supernatural comes up. This is why "creationist science" is an oxymoron. If you recognize that, you should recognize this. It seems to me (I can only speculate; I can't read her mind) that skeptigirl might be operating out of that same old mindset of the ludicrous circular reasoning: "I refuse to believe in the existence of this thing which by definition could not yield the scientific type of evidence for its existence even if it does exist because there is no scientific evidence for its existence." Or at least that's what her accusation seems to suggest to me. I've seen it sooooo many times, so perhaps I'm perceiving it where it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Yahya Sulaiman said:
1. ... If I say I can read minds then experiments could show I'm either doing it at the time of the experiments or not doing it ...
2. This and #3 go along the same lines.
3. ...
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know whether you can read minds (although I'd hazard a guess!), but it sure seems you can read the future! ;)
 
Yahya Sulaiman said:
What is difficult to understand about this?
Click to expand...

Not much, apparently. Most posters seem to understand perfectly.


You can't perform reliable experiments with something when the following conditions are inevitably involved:
Click to expand...

First we will need to ensure, reliably, that these conditions are actually inevitable. I suspect they are not.


1. It is not about an ability that works or doesn't work but an instance of asking a Being to do something.
Click to expand...

OK then, it's about an ability to communicate an intercessory request to a being. Wanna play semantics?


If I say I can read minds then experiments could show I'm either doing it at the time of the experiments or not doing it, but if I ask someone to do something then whether they don't do it doesn't automatically indicate by any measure whether or not they exist or whether or not my asking has really influenced their behavior if they do.
Click to expand...

If you say that, I'll have to buy you a beer, because I don't believe anyone could keep track of a sentence like that while they were speaking it.


2. This and #3 go along the same lines. If the thing prayed for happens, there is no scientifically verifiable way of knowing whether it has happened because the Being accepted the supplication.
Click to expand...

We could use analysis of statistics to establish the average occurrence of things, and then test to see if prayer can alter these statistics. Correlations between praying tasks and variations in the Mean Occurrence of Stuff™ could be measured and tested.

The variations need only be small, but consistent, to provide a quantifiable result.


3. If the thing doesn't happen, there is no scientifically verifiable way of knowing whether it has happened because the Being did not accept
the supplication.
Click to expand...

As for #2, slight variations in the Mean Occurrence of Stuff™ could be measured.

BTW, it's conventional to refer internally to items back up the list from your reference point, not further down it. It's more chronological or something.


4. The very existence of the Being in question has not and cannot be verified by science in the first place since the Being is supernatural and science is the study of nature, not supernature.
Click to expand...

The test is to see if prayer works. If it fails because of puppies, QM, or the simple lack of a being to hear is all irrelevant detail.

Either it works or it doesn't, and questions about why it doesn't are up to the prayer-believers to pursue, as the major stakeholders.


5. Only a miniscule slice of the total number of petitionary prayers that have been answered or not answered throughout history could be viewed anyway. Not that this particularly matters in light of 1-4, but I suppose it at least bears mention.
Click to expand...

It's really easy to generate new prayers. You can even get wheels that do it automatically. I know a Barkhang Monastary where I can find five of them, if Marco Bartolli's henchmen don't get me first.


<snipped an occurence of stuff>


I've seen it sooooo many times, so perhaps I'm perceiving it where it isn't.
Click to expand...

That occurred to me too.
 
Akhenaten said:
Not much, apparently. Most posters seem to understand perfectly.
Click to expand...

If they do then your own remarks in the very post I'm responding to indicate that you're not among them.

First we will need to ensure, reliably, that these conditions are actually inevitable. I suspect they are not.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of common sense, for the very reason I stated: "If I ask someone to do something then whether they don't do it doesn't automatically indicate by any measure whether or not they exist or whether or not my asking has really influenced their behavior if they do."

OK then, it's about an ability to communicate an intercessory request to a being. Wanna play semantics?
Click to expand...

No, but apparently you do. Our ability to communicate the request has never been in question from the beginning. The issue is whether or not the occurence or non-occurence of the event afterwards can possibly prove anything one way or another (which, once again, cannot, for the reason stated above).

If you say that, I'll have to buy you a beer, because I don't believe anyone could keep track of a sentence like that while they were speaking it.
Click to expand...

If you genuinely don't understand something, speak up, but don't just sit there and mock my writing instead of addressing its point. It's classic ad hominem-based evasion.

We could use analysis of statistics to establish the average occurrence of things, and then test to see if prayer can alter these statistics. Correlations between praying tasks and variations in the Mean Occurrence of Stuff™ could be measured and tested. The variations need only be small, but consistent, to provide a quantifiable result. As for #2, slight variations in the Mean Occurrence of Stuff™ could be measured.
Click to expand...

The fatal logical flaw in all such statistics write large: that A happens and then B happens or doesn't happen does not mean that A was the cause of B. This is literally the very definition of the Fallacy of Questionable Cause (although the fallacy goes by several other names as well). If the cause indeed is not definite as you seem to be saying, it completely destroys your position of prayer either "working" or "not working" since the results, whatever they are, might have had nothing to do with the prayer at all.

BTW, it's conventional to refer internally to items back up the list from your reference point, not further down it. It's more chronological or something.
Click to expand...

As usual, I don't give a hoot about convention, and if a mere pointing out that something from one item on a list will be carried over or connected to something immediately upcoming on the list strikes you as confusing or counter-intuitive then I suppose it casts your accusation above of incoherency in or difficulty in saying that very coherent and natural sentence in even more of a light of an apparent lack of reading comprehension on your part.

The test is to see if prayer works. If it fails because of puppies, QM, or the simple lack of a being to hear is all irrelevant detail. Either it works or it doesn't, and questions about why it doesn't are up to the prayer-believers to pursue, as the major stakeholders.
Click to expand...

I've already shown above that it doesn't either work or not work, and exactly why. All of this is just things I've already refuted.

It's really easy to generate new prayers [etc. etc., more childish mockery]
Click to expand...

So what of it?
 
Last edited:
Yahya Sulaiman said:
It is a matter of common sense, for the very reason I stated: "If I ask someone to do something then whether they don't do it doesn't automatically indicate by any measure whether or not they exist or whether or not my asking has really influenced their behavior if they do."
Click to expand...
If you ask someone which you have no verifiable evidence of existence, works via unknown mechanism(ie. magic) and who never seems to answers any of these requests; tell me what's your conclusion?
The issue is whether or not the occurence or non-occurence of the event afterwards can possibly prove anything one way or another (which, once again, cannot, for the reason stated above).
Click to expand...
Hey I agree here. This piece of evidence just shows that intercessory prayer does nothing in this situation...and in that other experient...and that other one...and that other one etc etc etc.

Sorry but people get bored of neverfinding something when it is expected. When should we falsify this hypothesis?
The fatal logical flaw in all such statistics write large: that A happens and then B happens or doesn't happen does not mean that A was the cause of B. This is literally the very definition of the Fallacy of Questionable Cause (although the fallacy goes by several other names as well). If the cause indeed is not definite as you seem to be saying, it completely destroys your position of prayer either "working" or "not working" since the results, whatever they are, might have had nothing to do with the prayer at all.
Click to expand...
So do you think praying does have ANY measurable effect at all?
As usual, I don't give a hoot about convention...
Click to expand...
I suggest you do. If you have ANY interest in communicating your ideas at all you will actually to a framework so that others will understand you.

If you truly "don't give a hoot", I suggest you should just keep in your room and talk to the wall.
 
paximperium said:
If you ask someone which you have no verifiable evidence of existence, works via unknown mechanism(ie. magic) and who never seems to answers any of these requests; tell me what's your conclusion?
Click to expand...

Unload the question and I'll answer it. If scientific evidence is the only verifiable evidence to you then the circular reasoning I absolutely established above for requiring it is key. Also, I never said anything one way or another about God "never seeming to answer any of these requests", only about it not being something that can be established via things like studies if it is true.

Hey I agree here. This piece of evidence just shows that intercessory prayer does nothing in this situation...and in that other experient...and that other one...and that other one etc etc etc. Sorry but people get bored of neverfinding something when it is expected. When should we falsify this hypothesis?
Click to expand...

Boy are you contradicting yourself. If you agree with me then you can't say that such a thing is evidence showing that intercessory prayer does nothing or that the hypothesis can possibly be falsified or verified (at least by such means, if by any at all).

So do you think praying does have ANY measurable effect at all?
Click to expand...

Do I think that petitionary prayer has any measurable and definite effect in terms of whether the thing being prayed for happening or not happening is because of the prayer being answered or not answered? That's exactly what I've been saying and proving over and over and over again. I'm getting awfully tired of having to repeat myself and gratuitously refer again and again to what I've already said. If I have to keep it up much longer then I just won't bother anymore.

I suggest you do. If you have ANY interest in communicating your ideas at all you will actually to a framework so that others will understand you.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand something I've said, ask me about it specifically. Vague criticisms about general style--especially ones which could not apparently be made by anyone who is reading with even an even marginally intermediate level of reading comprehension--are absolutely worthless.

If you truly "don't give a hoot", I suggest you should just keep in your room and talk to the wall.
Click to expand...

This message, of course, is not addressed only to you, but also to Akhenaten, skeptigirl, and countless others: if you don't want to feed stereotypes about skeptics and nontheists all being morally wretched, cut down on the vastly immature mockery.
 
Why don't people ever pray for someone's severed limb to regenerate? You never hear the preacher reading this week's prayer requests mention it, or Pat Robertson mentalizing, "someone watching today has lost a limb, we pray jesus that you'll grow little Timmy's leg back."
 
Yahya Sulaiman said:
...
Of course this does not mean that God "runs and hides" when the matter of evidence comes up, but only that scientific evidence isn't the kind that could be theoretically possible when the issue of something supernatural comes up. ...
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

There is evidence which supports a conclusion and there is the possibility no evidence supports a conclusion. There is no such thing as supernatural evidence or some other kind of evidence besides scientific evidence. The reason it is called scientific merely indicates there are certain rules of logic and verification involved.

You hear this often from woo believers, "there is evidence but it isn't scientific evidence", as if there is some other kind.
 
Yahya Sulaiman said:
...

It is a matter of common sense, for the very reason I stated: "If I ask someone to do something then whether they don't do it doesn't automatically indicate by any measure whether or not they exist or whether or not my asking has really influenced their behavior if they do."
Click to expand...
The studies involved are testing the effect of prayer, not whether gods exist.


Yahya Sulaiman said:
...The fatal logical flaw in all such statistics write large: that A happens and then B happens or doesn't happen does not mean that A was the cause of B. This is literally the very definition of the Fallacy of Questionable Cause (although the fallacy goes by several other names as well). If the cause indeed is not definite as you seem to be saying, it completely destroys your position of prayer either "working" or "not working" since the results, whatever they are, might have had nothing to do with the prayer at all.
Click to expand...
The cumulative result of all the studies to date supports the conclusion prayer has no effect unless the person being prayed for knows they are being prayed for. There's no need to determine if the association is causative, the association doesn't exist.



Many people believe there is a god or gods that answers prayers. But there is no evidence supporting this conclusion. You are welcome to move the goal post and say, well it demonstrates gods are not answering prayers but it doesn't demonstrate there is no god. Feel free to make another claim about gods and let's look at that one.
 
Last edited:
Yahya Sulaiman said:
Unload the question and I'll answer it. If scientific evidence is the only verifiable evidence to you then the circular reasoning I absolutely established above for requiring it is key. Also, I never said anything one way or another about God "never seeming to answer any of these requests", only about it not being something that can be established via things like studies if it is true.
Click to expand...
Again you refer to this 'other method' of determining if prayers have any effect. Care to describe that non-scientific method?


Yahya Sulaiman said:
Do I think that petitionary prayer has any measurable and definite effect in terms of whether the thing being prayed for happening or not happening is because of the prayer being answered or not answered? That's exactly what I've been saying and proving over and over and over again. I'm getting awfully tired of having to repeat myself and gratuitously refer again and again to what I've already said. If I have to keep it up much longer then I just won't bother anymore.

If you don't understand something I've said, ask me about it specifically....
Click to expand...
So you are saying then, that "petitionary prayer has [a] measurable and definite effect"? Because your sentence is very confusing as you've worded it.

Or are you saying prayer has an effect but it is not measurable or definite? What would be an effect that was not measurable? What method would one use that was unscientific to observe this effect?


Yahya Sulaiman said:
This message, of course, is not addressed only to you, but also to Akhenaten, skeptigirl, and countless others: if you don't want to feed stereotypes about skeptics and nontheists all being morally wretched, cut down on the vastly immature mockery.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I haven't mocked you and I most certainly am not "morally wretched" though I can only guess what you mean by that.

You are in a tough position. It appears you believe there is a god who answers prayers. Yet the evidence appears to contradict that belief. It is difficult to have one's beliefs challenged. But it is the evidence you should consider, not the people discussing the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Yahya Sulaiman said:
What is difficult to understand about this? You can't perform reliable experiments with something when the following conditions are inevitably involved:

1. It is not about an ability that works or doesn't work but an instance of asking a Being to do something. If I say I can read minds then experiments could show I'm either doing it at the time of the experiments or not doing it, but if I ask someone to do something then whether they don't do it doesn't automatically indicate by any measure whether or not they exist or whether or not my asking has really influenced their behavior if they do.
Click to expand...

You might want to actually click on the link Yaffle provided earlier.

Professor Yaffle said:
The Cochrane review on intercessory prayer:

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000368/frame.html
Click to expand...

Cochrane Library:

The question of whether this may contribute towards proving or disproving the existence of God is a philosophical question lying outside the scope of this review of the effects of prayer.
Click to expand...

Wrt the highlited part of your post, I think no one here is seriously claiming that the aquired evidence so far (which is quite clearly against the efficacy of prayer) is necessarily connected with the existence/non-existence of the Being to which these prayers were directed to. I think this is in some ways analogous to abiogenesis relationship with evolution. We can study the latter (and get reliable data) without knowledge of the former.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
(emphasis mine)

There is evidence which supports a conclusion and there is the possibility no evidence supports a conclusion. There is no such thing as supernatural evidence or some other kind of evidence besides scientific evidence. The reason it is called scientific merely indicates there are certain rules of logic and verification involved.

You hear this often from woo believers, "there is evidence but it isn't scientific evidence", as if there is some other kind.
Click to expand...

There is at least one more kind (the only kind I'll appeal to here): logical evidence. To discuss its existence or nonexistence on this matter would require a different thread.
 
skeptigirl said:
The studies involved are testing the effect of prayer, not whether gods exist.
Click to expand...

And as for the "whether or not my asking has really influenced their behavior if they do" part?

The cumulative result of all the studies to date supports the conclusion prayer has no effect unless the person being prayed for knows they are being prayed for. There's no need to determine if the association is causative, the association doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I told you why that kind of study is based on a flawed notion. Just more stuff I've already refuted above.

Many people believe there is a god or gods that answers prayers. But there is no evidence supporting this conclusion. You are welcome to move the goal post and say, well it demonstrates gods are not answering prayers but it doesn't demonstrate there is no god. Feel free to make another claim about gods and let's look at that one.
Click to expand...

My only claim here is that petitionary prayer cannot be tested or quantified for the reasons that I stated above and apparently will have to keep referring to indefinitely.
 
skeptigirl said:
Again you refer to this 'other method' of determining if prayers have any effect. Care to describe that non-scientific method?
Click to expand...

I referred to no such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth.

So you are saying then, that "petitionary prayer has [a] measurable and definite effect"? Because your sentence is very confusing as you've worded it. Or are you saying prayer has an effect but it is not measurable or definite? What would be an effect that was not measurable? What method would one use that was unscientific to observe this effect?
Click to expand...

The whole thing isn't measurable. How's that for a clarifying summary?

I'm pretty sure I haven't mocked you and I most certainly am not "morally wretched" though I can only guess what you mean by that.
Click to expand...

I did not call you that. I said that such mockery feeds a common stereotype of people of your sort being morally wretched and you have quoted me out of context. As for mockery, you said:

So all those people claiming God answers prayers are full of it then? I would have to agree.
Click to expand...

Sounds like mockery to me. Although you weren't the worst of the bunch. Regardless.

You are in a tough position. It appears you believe there is a god who answers prayers. Yet the evidence appears to contradict that belief. It is difficult to have one's beliefs challenged. But it is the evidence you should consider, not the people discussing the evidence.
Click to expand...

I am concerned with the flaw in the notion of the evidence being possible.
 
Last edited:
Yahya Sulaiman said:
There is at least one more kind (the only kind I'll appeal to here): logical evidence. To discuss its existence or nonexistence on this matter would require a different thread.
Click to expand...

Creating sound arguments by using logic is crucial part of scientific process. Logical evidence, as you put it, is not something distinct from scientific evidence. Logical evidence is scientific evidence if the premises are true and the argument sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom