Efficacy of Prayer

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.
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.
Click to expand...

Whether a cause is capricious or simply variable does not preclude its study.

Supernatural causes can be studied by science, since science asks only for an effect. It doesn't make any distinction a priori as to the nature of that effect.

Linda
 
If prayer is effective then things that are prayed for would happen more often than would be expected by chance, whilst things that are not prayed for would not. Good luck would be more common than bad luck. That would produce statistical anomalies, which would be detectable. No such anomalies have been identified.
 
Pixel42 said:
If prayer is effective then things that are prayed for would happen more often than would be expected by chance, whilst things that are not prayed for would not. Good luck would be more common than bad luck. That would produce statistical anomalies, which would be detectable. No such anomalies have been identified.
Click to expand...
Ah ... Wiltshire. That's one place I might consider moving back to the UK to. If one can't find evidence of supernature there then where?! :)
 
fls said:
Whether a cause is capricious or simply variable does not preclude its study.

Supernatural causes can be studied by science, since science asks only for an effect. It doesn't make any distinction a priori as to the nature of that effect.

Linda
Click to expand...

See? Smart is sexy!

Supernatural is a meaningless term really. There was a time when electricity would have been considered supernatural. There was a time when magnets would have been considered supernatural. There was a time when controlled fire would have been considered supernatural.

I may be going out on a limb here but most of the folks here, including Yours Truly, hold the null hypothesis. That means that nothing of any real value has been proven yet. I could never prove that prayer categorically does not "work" or that there are no extant reptiles swimming around Scottish lakes. I can merely demonstrate the improbability of these things.

So here's my position: Let's see some good strong statistical evidence; then we'll talk. Until then I believe only in death, war and, taxes.
 
foxholeatheist said:
See? Smart is sexy!
Click to expand...
Sure, there's hope for you yet! ;)

foxholeatheist said:
Supernatural is a meaningless term really.
Click to expand...
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!

foxholeatheist said:
I could never prove that prayer categorically does not "work" or that there are no extant reptiles swimming around Scottish lakes. I can merely demonstrate the improbability of these things.
Click to expand...
It's "lochs" round these parts, not "lakes". See you Jimmy!

foxholeatheist said:
So here's my position: Let's see some good strong statistical evidence; then we'll talk. Until then I believe only in death, war and, taxes.
Click to expand...
Happy go lucky type? Nice ;)
 
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...


Since the stereotypical views of skeptics and non-theists are only maintained by a group of people for which I hold a mild contempt, I'll risk it.


Waenre
 
Last edited:
Yahya Sulaiman said:
And as for the "whether or not my asking has really influenced their behavior if they do" part?



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



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.
Click to expand...
There have been a number of studies done in a variety of ways.

Your claim none of the studies suit ideal conditions for testing may be valid. But your claim no such test is possible is not.
 
Yahya Sulaiman said:
...

The whole thing isn't measurable. How's that for a clarifying summary?
Click to expand...
If it exists, it is observable in some way. If it is observable it is measurable. If not observable (directly or indirectly), then it is irrelevant. For example, a god which started up the Universe but does nothing to intervene after that point, not only is irrelevant, but there is no way for people to be aware of such a god since the god did nothing people could have detected.

The reason you believe you are communicating and no one is getting it, is because you propose an illogical premise.


Try this one: describe what an answered prayer consists of.

Yahya Sulaiman said:
...I am concerned with the flaw in the notion of the evidence being possible.
Click to expand...
Then describe what a prayer answer would consist of that could not be measurable.
 
paximperium said:
And Logical Evidence is useless in isolation. It requires confirmation with actual empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
How can you claim anything is logical without the description of the empirical evidence to go with it? But being pedantic, I suppose the term logical evidence is wrong. It was a lazy answer. My bad.

You can't just declare it is logical that gods exist. That doesn't meet any standard logic rule.

Besides, I never said logic was the equivalent of the scientific process, just that logical inferences/deductions were within the realm of the scientific process. My point is, if it exists, we can look at it using the scientific process. There is no magical 'other' kind of evidence one can see things in the Universe with that is outside the realm of science.

If it is truly undetectable, it either doesn't exist or it is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
subvicepresident said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that's refuted by:

"Logical evidence is used in the scientific process." And Logical Evidence is useless in isolation. It requires confirmation with actual empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
 
Whether a cause is capricious or simply variable does not preclude its study.

Supernatural causes can be studied by science, since science asks only for an effect. It doesn't make any distinction a priori as to the nature of that effect.
Click to expand...

If science can study the supernatural then creationist "science" could possibly be a legimitate endeavor. Would you say that it is?
 
If prayer is effective then things that are prayed for would happen more often than would be expected by chance, whilst things that are not prayed for would not. Good luck would be more common than bad luck.
Click to expand...

That is a mere presumption blindly assuming the X-factor of the situation (whether things are happening because they're prayed for or for some other reason and again for the inverse)--not to mention the possibility that God's decisions might match what be the same "by chance".

* * * * *

Also, message for foxholeatheist: there is a difference between supernatural and preternatural. They're not the same thing. Consult a dictionary.
 
Yahya Sulaiman said:
If science can study the supernatural then creationist "science" could possibly be a legimitate endeavor. Would you say that it is?
Click to expand...


How can legitimate science study that which, by it's very definition, is outside of the natural laws upon which science itself is based? Why would it want to? Why would anyone, for that matter. It's drivel.

Creationist science exists only as an oxymoron.
 
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. I hope this will be the last time. If any posts follow responding to this one which are not already things I've responded to above or things what I've written here and above already refute, I will post again in this thread (God willing), but experience with this thread so far leads me to the prediction that this will not be the case.

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.

Again, I expect to have no more need to post in this thread since it's always points I've already made or responded to which refute the things people are bringing up and apparently it's just going to keep on happening and happening, but I'll check here from time to time, and God willing if by chance someone does bring up something which isn't answered by what I've already said, I suppose I'll respond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom