Prayer and power

[RandFan]

I prefer to use the terms "less rational" and "more rational" because it avoids using absolutes.

I think things are more rational if they are supported by evidence and less rational if they are not, but have the opportunity to be.

I could live with this.

ETA: Yeah, I really do need to bow out. Soon.

 

[Bri]

RandFan, happy birthday!

But there is a logical mechanism (see earth).

Earth is a mechanism by which a being might have consciousness? I don't understand.

I didn't say that believing anything is rational.

You said previously that believing that anything is possible is rational. Then you said that believing it possible that a person can fly is irrational.

And I don't know if gravity doesn't work in some places.

Correct. It is possible that gravity doesn't work in some places. Therefore, belief that it is possible that gravity doesn't work in some places is rational. Furthermore, one can be of the opinion that gravity doesn't work in some places without being necessarily irrational, because one might have a good reason to believe it.

It is because it is counter to all evidence.

Counter to all evidence that you know of, you mean. Therefore, it is rational for you to believe that a person can levitate since you don't have any evidence of it. However, it is possible that someone else believes that a person can levitate because they have evidence that you don't know about. I personally wouldn't say that such evidence cannot possibly be enough to make their belief rational without knowing their evidence. In other words, they may very well have a good reason for believing as they do, making their belief rational.

No, but logic and reason compel reasonable people to reject irrational thinking. Logic and reason compel reasonable people to not doubt gravity. If you or anyone else choose to doubt gravity that is fine but it is not reasonable. I can't absolutely prove the law of gravity.

So, there is no amount of evidence that would cause you to doubt gravity? If you were presented with irrefutable evidence, would you admit that people who chose to doubt gravity because they saw the evidence before you were not irrational after all? Your assertion that "logic and reason compel reasonable people to not doubt gravity" seems to be only an opinion and not fact.

Reason and logic dictates that reasonable people accept reality. You can reject gravity simply because I lack absolute proof of gravity but your belief is irrational.

I never claimed that one should reject gravity (or anything else) simply because of lack of absolute proof. Quite the opposite, an opinion about something without absolute proof might certainly be rational. For example, an opinion that gravity doesn't hold in all cases might be rational, particularly if one had a good reason for holding such an opinion.

Not at all, there is a likely and understood mechanism and evidence that intelligent life away from earth is possible.

What is the understood mechanism that explains intelligence on Earth (much less outside of our solar system)? We don't understand the mechanism of intelligent life here on Earth, much less any mechanism by which we can say that it exists outside of our solar system. By your criteria, it is irrational to hold an opinion that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system since there is no known mechanism by which intelligent life exists and there is no empirical evidence that it exists outside of our solar system.

There is no mechanism and no evidence that would point to the likelihood that prayer works. Zero. Zip. Nada.

There is also no mechanism and no evidence of intelligent life outside of our solar system.

So let's suppose for a moment that gravity stopped working. That would be evidence that gravity is not constant. By your logic a belief that gravity is not constant is rational. By your logic, a person who is worried that gravity will fail at any moment is rational.

No, you're definitely creating a straw man here. I never said that belief that gravity is not constant is necessarily rational. I said that it isn't necessarily irrational. There is a difference. Additionally, your introduction of phobias just muddies the water. A fear is rational if it balances the chances of the event occurring and the potential consequences of the event occurring.

As far as gravity is concerned, if someone has reason to believe that gravity will fail, then that belief might be rational as might be their fears. If their reasons for believing that gravity will fail are weak, then their fears should be proportionally mild. I don't believe it likely at all that gravity will fail (even though I know it is possible) and therefore whatever fear I might have is extremely weak at best.

By this logic we have to admit that gravity might not be true. A belief that gravity is not constant is rational.

Uhhh...yes, we have to admit that gravity might not be constant. It is a fact that gravity actually might not be constant! A belief that gravity might not be constant is rational. If one had reason to be of the opinion that gravity isn't constant, then that opinion might also be rational.

And by your logic, should gravity suddenly fail it would verify any fear that gravity is not constant thus rendering any such fear rational.

If the belief that gravity would fail was based on a particular reason that proved to be true, then indeed that belief would have been rational all along.

If we could also believe that any belief in any possibility is rational.

Bri, by your logic there is no such thing as an irrational fear. Phobias don't exist.

No, that is wrong. Your fear of something that is possible should be proportionate to the reasons you have for it and the potential consequences of it occurring.

-Bri

 

[Ossai]

RandFan
You will have more success nailing jello to a wall than attempting to have a logical conversation with Bri .

 

[Bri]

Hmmmm.... No, I don't think so.

You don't think that it is rational to believe that the Christian God is possible, but also be of the opinion that this God exists? But it is rational to believe that the Christian God is possible, but also be of the opinion that this God doesn't exist.

By what mechanism and empiracal evidence is it rational to believe that the Christian God is possible but doesn't exist?

No. I'm saying that we have reason based on objective evidence to believe that it is possible [that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system]. We have no reason based on objective evidence to believe that prayer is possible.

I must be misunderstanding. Of course prayer is possible because it's not impossible. You previously admitted that it is rational to believe that it is possible for prayer to have an affect on the world, but now you seem to be contradicting that.

1.) We can objectively prove that intelligent life exists in the universe (see humans).
2.) We can objectively prove that there are other solar systems.
3.) We can objectively prove that there are other planets.
4.) We can objectively prove the minimal requirements of life.

Yet we do not have a shred of empical evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system. Nor do we have an understanding of the mechanism by which the "minimal requirements for life" of which you speak become intelligent life.

Using logic and reason we can surmise the likelihood of intelligent life on other planets in other solar systems.

Using your criteria, to be of the opinion that intelligent life on other planets exists is irrational.

Please, oh please give me an argument for prayer like the one above? Please?

You presented a valid argument that intelligent life outside of our solar system is possible, which was never in question. There is also no question that Christian belief in prayer is possible (unless you still hold that Christians believe that God grants any and all prayers).

The degree of possibility that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system is of many magnitudes greater that prayer.

Degree of possibility? That's a new one on me.

I apologize if I'm not clear. If you had the opinion that God exists but didn't actively act on that opinion or hold any firm attributes of God. Which is why I attempted to qualify my answer based on the attributes of God. I don't think a Deist is irrational JMO.

Odd. There is neither empirical evidence nor mechanism for a Deist belief in God. How exactly is such a belief rational by your criteria? Also, you seem to be admitting that it is only your opinion that a Deist belief is not irrational, yet you implied that the Christian belief in God is necessarily irrational.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I prefer to use the terms "less rational" and "more rational" because it avoids using absolutes.

I think things are more rational if they are supported by evidence and less rational if they are not, but have the opportunity to be.

I could live with this.

ETA: Yeah, I really do need to bow out. Soon.

I also prefer this, since it not only avoids absolutes, but clearly indicates the subjectivity of determining whether something is more or less rational than something else. Note that I'm not saying that there are no clear cases where something might be "more rational" than something else.

I'm still not sure that you can provide valid criteria by which belief in prayer is less rational than belief in intelligent life outside of our solar system, but at least saying that something is "less rational" avoids making a claim of fact that it is irrational.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, happy birthday!

Thank you.

Earth is a mechanism by which a being might have consciousness? I don't understand.

No, Earth is proof that such mechanisms exist in our universe.

You said previously that believing that anything is possible is rational. Then you said that believing it possible that a person can fly is irrational.

You will have to show me the quote.

Correct. It is possible that gravity doesn't work in some places. Therefore, belief that it is possible that gravity doesn't work in some places is rational. Furthermore, one can be of the opinion that gravity doesn't work in some places without being necessarily irrational, because one might have a good reason to believe it.

No. There might be demons under my bed but believing that there are demons under my bed is irrational. Your logic just doesn't work Bri.

Counter to all evidence that you know of, you mean. Therefore, it is rational for you to believe that a person can levitate since you don't have any evidence of it. However, it is possible that someone else believes that a person can levitate because they have evidence that you don't know about. I personally wouldn't say that such evidence cannot possibly be enough to make their belief rational without knowing their evidence. In other words, they may very well have a good reason for believing as they do, making their belief rational.

We have an enormous data base. It is irrational to believe that someone can do something counter to the laws of physics as we understand them without,

1.) Any evidence.
2.) Any known mechanism for it to happen.

So, there is no amount of evidence that would cause you to doubt gravity?

Of course there is. And there is an amount of evidence that would cause me to believe in Santa Claus. Absent the evidence, if I believed in him I would be irrational

If you were presented with irrefutable evidence, would you admit that people who chose to doubt gravity because they saw the evidence before you were not irrational after all? Your assertion that "logic and reason compel reasonable people to not doubt gravity" seems to be only an opinion and not fact.

See, this is where this gets frustrating. You know my answer. OF COURSE. I hold all beliefs provisionally.

"Opinion and not fact"? I don't think in such absolutes. Having been tested trillions upon trillions of times gravity always works the same way that we know of. It is predictable. It is testable. It is falsifiable. It can be understood mathematicaly. Using the law of gravity (and other things) we can pinpoint a trajectory to the Moon. If the law of gravity was not a constant then our world would be very different. It is irrational to dismiss all of the known evidence for the possibility of the unknown. THAT is why it is irrational.

I never claimed that one should reject gravity (or anything else) simply because of lack of absolute proof. Quite the opposite, an opinion about something without absolute proof might certainly be rational. For example, an opinion that gravity doesn't hold in all cases might be rational, particularly if one had a good reason for holding such an opinion.

And that's the point. We don't have a "good reason". You can't name one. Bri, this goes to my argument, lacking a "good reason" a belief that gravity is not constant is irrational. To what degree it is irrational I can't say.

Lacking a "good reason", a belief that prayer can alter an outcome is irrational. To what degree I can't say. You would have to take it on a case by case basis.

What is the understood mechanism that explains intelligence on Earth (much less outside of our solar system)?

Please see abiogenesis, evolution (pay particular attention to natural selection), Evolutionary Neuroscience and finally Evolution and the cognitive neuroscience of awareness, consciousness and language.

We don't understand the mechanism of intelligent life here on Earth...

This is just false. But let's be accurate, it isn't just a mechanism, it's many mechanisms. We don't completely understand all of them but we do have a very good understanding of many of them.

...much less any mechanism by which we can say that it exists outside of our solar system.

As we explore the universe we find more and more that the likelihood of planets like ours is increasing. It is reasonable to infer that the mechanisms here on Earth (see above) exist in other places.

By your criteria, it is irrational to hold an opinion that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system since there is no known mechanism by which intelligent life exists and there is no empirical evidence that it exists outside of our solar system.

Not at all, please reference the above links.

There is also no mechanism and no evidence of intelligent life outside of our solar system.

False, please see links above.

I said that it isn't necessarily irrational.

But it is. A person who refused to leave his home for fear of floating away is irrational

Additionally, your introduction of phobias just muddies the water.

Actually no, it clarifies it very well. As we shall see shortly.

A fear is rational if it balances the chances of the event occurring and the potential consequences of the event occurring.

Thank you. Yes, a belief is irrational if it balances the chances of the event occurring and the potential consequence or benefit of the event occurring and it choses the less likely over the more likely. The greater the difference the more irrational.

I accept your definition. Again, many thanks.

As far as gravity is concerned, if someone has reason to believe that gravity will fail, then that belief might be rational as might be their fears. If their reasons for believing that gravity will fail are weak, then their fears should be proportionally mild. I don't believe it likely at all that gravity will fail (even though I know it is possible) and therefore whatever fear I might have is extremely weak at best.

Please see your definition. I accept that irrationality can be measured in degrees. I'm not sure how it is or should be measured.

How about this, the less likely an event is to occur and the more a person believes in the event the more irrational the belief, sound good?

Uhhh...yes, we have to admit that gravity might not be constant. It is a fact that gravity actually might not be constant! A belief that gravity might not be constant is rational. If one had reason to be of the opinion that gravity isn't constant, then that opinion might also be rational.

The more a person believes that he or she might at any moment start to levitate the more irrational that person is.

If the belief that gravity would fail was based on a particular reason that proved to be true, then indeed that belief would have been rational all along.

Please to name this reason. Absent a reason then it is irrational.

Your fear of something that is possible should be proportionate to the reasons you have for it and the potential consequences of it occurring.

I concur with two edits. Your belief of something that is possible should be proportionate to the reasons you have for it and the potential consequences or benefits of it occurring.

Therapists cannot simply assume that the patient has a reason to fear that there are demons living under his or her bed. If after questioning the therapist finds that there is no such reason then it is a reasonable conclusion that the fear is irrational.

Lacking a reason that prayer works, by your own definition, we must conclude that it is irrational.

I think we are making progress, thanks Bri.

 

[RandFan]

You don't think that it is rational to believe that the Christian God is possible, but also be of the opinion that this God exists?

No, please see your definition above. The possibility of a Christian god is not in question. It does not advance your argument to keep asking me if the Christian God is possible since I have conceded over and over that anything that is not logically impossible is possible.

I will stipulate that anything that is logically possible is possible, ok? So can we dispense with that?

That being said, no, I don't think that the opinion that THIS God exists is rational. When you balance the likelihood of a Christian God existing against the likelihood that a Christian God does not exist I have to say that it is irrational. How irrational depends on a number of variables.

But it is rational to believe that the Christian God is possible, but also be of the opinion that this God doesn't exist.

Anything not logically impossible is possible. So asking me if the Christian God is possible does not advance anything at all. Or course it is rational to be of the opinion that the Christian God doesn't exist.

By what mechanism and empiracal evidence is it rational to believe that the Christian God is possible...

I stipulate that anything not logically impossible is possible. This does not advance your argument.

By what mechanism and empiracal evidence is it rational to believe that the Christian...doesn't exist?

I can't prove a negative. Absent any empirical evidence or mechanism that such a God exists then I must conclude that he does not.

I must be misunderstanding. Of course prayer is possible because it's not impossible. You previously admitted that it is rational to believe that it is possible for prayer to have an affect on the world, but now you seem to be contradicting that.

I'm sorry. A failure of mine to properly communicate. We have evidence as to the likelihood and degree of possibility of intelligent life existing outside of our solar system.

Let's go back to your definition.

1.) When I balance the chance of intelligent life occurring outside of our solar system with the chance that it doesn't occur then it is rational to assume that there is a high likelihood that intelligent life exists.

2.) When I balance the chance that prayer can alter the outcome of an event with the chance that it can't then it is rational to believe that there is a very low likelihood that prayer will not alter the outcome of an event.

I really love your definition.

Yet we do not have a shred of empical evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system. Nor do we have an understanding of the mechanism by which the "minimal requirements for life" of which you speak become intelligent life.

See my links that I posted in the previous thread.

Using your criteria, to be of the opinion that intelligent life on other planets exists is irrational.

No, because using your definition and the evidence when I balance the chance of intelligent life occurring outside of our solar system with the chance that it doesn't occur then it is rational to assume that there is a high likelihood that intelligent life exists.

You presented a valid argument that intelligent life outside of our solar system is possible, which was never in question. There is also no question that Christian belief in prayer is possible (unless you still hold that Christians believe that God grants any and all prayers).

There are stark differences between the two (please see my comparison above).

Degree of possibility? That's a new one on me.

Please see your own definition. Here it is with my edits.

A belief is irrational if it balances the chances of the event occurring and the potential consequence or benefit of the event occurring and it choses the less likely over the more likely. The greater the difference the more irrational.

I like it.

Odd. There is neither empirical evidence nor mechanism for a Deist belief in God. How exactly is such a belief rational by your criteria? Also, you seem to be admitting that it is only your opinion that a Deist belief is not irrational, yet you implied that the Christian belief in God is necessarily irrational.

I think we need to go back to your definition. I think it a matter of degree. If we assume for the sake of argument that a Deist is irrational then I would say that a Christian is more irrational.

I don't know to what degree if any a Deist is irrational. I'll concede that he could be.

 

[Bri]

You continue to make this comparison and it continues to be inappropriate. We have little information on what mechanisms exist outside our solar system. However we do know that using the basic materials of the universe, consciousness can exist. It would not be irrational to suspect that given enough chances (read: enough solar systems) it could happen again. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with theology.

I agree that belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system has little to do with theology. The only "comparison" I was making is the criteria by which one can determine which is irrational and which is rational. So far, I haven't heard any general, objective criteria that would allow one to be irrational and the other rational. We don't know the mechanism that allows consciousness period, nor do we have empirical evidence that consciousness exists outside of our solar system.

Theists believe God exists in this solar system, in fact, everwhere. So one cannot claim that we have had no opportunity to collect evidence for the existence of God. That no reliable evidence for His existence has yet been collected would make it less rational to believe in something which supposedly is in close proximity and yet leaves no evidence, than it would to believe in something for which evidence is very very far away.

And again, lack of evidence is a reason for withholding disbelief if there is a good reason why evidence is unavailable. I can see no good reason why evidence of God should be unavailable if He is as Christianity claims.

As you pointed out, there is no reason to believe that there must be evidence of intelligent life outside of the solar system, therefore I can agree that it is rational to believe in it despite the lack of evidence. But then the same must go for the Christian notion of God. I see no evidence that Christians believe that there should be evidence of God. Indeed, God might not want us to know for certain of his existence, in which case one wouldn't expect evidence.

We have the opportunity to collect evidence on levitating people, yet no such (reliable) evidence exists. That makes such a belief less rational.

Less rational, perhaps, depending on the reasons for such a belief. It is possible for the belief to be very rational.

True, but we should only change our understanding of the laws of physics if there is a good reason to do so, not because someone has made some unprovable hypothesis.

I agree. That was never in question.

As you say, logic doesn't dictate anything. It is solely dependant upon your assumptions. Here's one of mine. Real things leave real evidence. How do you feel about that assumption?

Certainly possible, of course. It is also possible that some real things leave no evidence. As there is no real evidence of intelligent life outside of our solar system. I wouldn't characterize the belief that there is intelligent life outside of the solar system as necessarily irrational, however.

I can't speak for RandFan, but to me, that belief would be completely rational, but they'd have to provide the evidence. As I understand RandFan, he has never said that belief in a thing for which there is good evidence is irrational. I'm not sure how you arrived at this mischaracterization of his position.

He implied that belief in rabbit's feet is necessarily irrational. I was providing an example that demonstrates that belief in rabbit's feet isn't necessarily irrational.

It is true that parsimony does not require that the simplest explanation is correct, but it suggests it is the best liklihood. I think it was Damon Runyon who said, "The race does not always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way you bet."

I agree.

That conclusion does not follow unless you can provide evidence that rabbits' feet are lucky. In the absence of such evidence (which should be easily available, given the plenitude of rabbits), such a belief is less rational.

I would agree that there is no reason to believe such a belief to be rational. I can't say that such a belief is necessarily irrational either. Whether it is "more" or "less" rational would depend on the reasons for holding the belief.

RandFan, in my opinion, misspoke when he said this. He should have said "parsimony suggests...". Nothing compels us to accept anything. Not rationality, not evidence, not logic. Nothing. And as evidence for this statement, I can show that there are people on these very boards who accept things without rationality, evidence or logic.

No. It was a less than ideal choice of words, but I think you understood his gist. I would say that your suggestion of RF's illogic is simply being pedantic.

Although I understood and even agree with the gist of what he was saying, I was referring more to his choice of the word "fact" as being illogical. But it's true that I was being pedantic.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I'm still not sure that you can provide valid criteria by which belief in prayer is less rational than belief in intelligent life outside of our solar system, but at least saying that something is "less rational" avoids making a claim of fact that it is irrational.

I've never held that anything is absolutely irrational. But we can agree as to more and less as far as rational is concerned.

 

[Bri]

Straw man. If a behavior fits the definition of a superstition then it is, by definition, a superstition. I haven't a clue where you are getting your ideas. Certainly no from the dictionary.

From your definition: superstition = an irrational belief that X.

An rational belief that fits X wouldn't be a superstition by your definition any more than a kangaroo is a frog by this definition: frog = a green animal that hops.

We'll then, please to demonstrate that it is. Simply saying the rabbits foot was the reason San Diego won the baseball game doesn't demonstrate that the rabbit's foot is logical related.

I agree, nor does it demonstrate that it isn't. Therefore, depending on the reason, it is possible to hold a rational belief that a rabbit's foot was the reason San Diego won the baseball game.

How is God logically related? And I don't mean some mumbo jumbo metaphysics which could apply to rabbits feet or voodoo.

If prayer (P) influences God (G) who influences event (E), then it seems to me to that P is logically related to E.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Thank you. You identified the error. Way too many variables.

I = irrational belief
B = belief in an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome
P = Prayer

All Beliefs in an action that is not logicaly related to a course of actions are irrational.

I've been reading the dictionary wrong all this time! So the definition "frog = a green animal that hops" means that all animals that hop are green?

Any prayer that is a belief in an action (God's influence) that is not logically related to a course of actions is irrational.

Any kangaroo that hops is green. Yes, I see now!

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

I've been reading the dictionary wrong all this time! So the definition "frog = a green animal that hops" means that all animals that hop are green?



Any kangaroo that hops is green. Yes, I see now!

-Bri

I just wonder what happens to your analogy to account for the fact that not all frogs are green?

Or that the term "animal" is too general?

 

[RandFan]

From your definition: superstition = an irrational belief that X.

Yes.

An rational belief that fits X

There is no such animal. Please to demonstrate that there is.

I agree, nor does it demonstrate that it isn't. Therefore, depending on the reason, it is possible to hold a rational belief that a rabbit's foot was the reason San Diego won the baseball game.

Lacking any "reason" that it is and having a lot of reason that it isn't then it is more rational to believe that a rabbit's foot isn't the cause or didn't influence the outcome of the game. Do you have any evidence that it did influence the game? The problem is the lack of reason for the affirmative in opposition to the evidence that it didn't.

If prayer (P) influences God (G) who influences event (E), then it seems to me to that P is logically related to E.

And there is the problem, demonstrate that (G) influences (E). It really is as simple as that. There is no logical connection.

 

[RandFan]

I've been reading the dictionary wrong all this time! So the definition "frog = a green animal that hops" means that all animals that hop are green?

This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from what I have said. No, not all animals that hop are green. Not all frogs are green.

Prayer is a belief that something that is not logically conected to an event can influence that event.

I = irrational belief
B = belief in an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome
P = Prayer

All Beliefs in an action that is not logicaly related to a course of actions are irrational.
Any prayer that is a belief in an action (God's influence) that is not logically related to a course of actions is irrational.


I = B
B = P
I = P

Valid

God can't even be demonstrated so it can't be said to be logically connected to the event any more than it can be said that invisible pink unicorns are connected to popcorn. It can only be believed.

Any kangaroo that hops is green. Yes, I see now!

Non-sequitur. This is not consistent with and does not follow from my logic.

 

[RandFan]

Bri,

God can only be logically connected to an event if one makes unfounded assumptions.

An assumption that a rabbit's foot can alter a course of events cannot be demonstrated.

An assumption that God can influence events cannot be demonstrated.

On the contrary, every study of the influence of prayer on events demonstrates that there is no such influence.

God is only logically connected to an even if we use faith. Like the faith in horseshoes, four leaf clover and rabbits feet.

 

[I less than three logic]

Therefore, depending on the reason, it is possible to hold a rational belief that a rabbit's foot was the reason San Diego won the baseball game.

I can agree with this. Depending on the reason it may be rational. Say, you used the said rabbit's foot to gouge out the eyes of the opposing team's pitcher, then it would be rational to hold the belief the rabbit's foot was the reason San Diego won the game. Apart from something that drastic, I can't think of any other reason the rabbit's foot could possibly be connected to the outcome of the game.

 

[RandFan]

I just wonder what happens to your analogy to account for the fact that not all frogs are green?

Or that the term "animal" is too general?

Agreed, but even assuming that all frogs are green and kangaroos and frogs are animals it still does not demonstrate that my logic is invalid. The comparison is a non-sequitur.

 

[Bri]

Similarly, are those who support supernatural ideas for how the world works just as rational as those who use good, objective evidence for their ideas about the subject? Again, I say they are not. They are less rational, though perhaps not totally irrational.

When it comes to having an opinion about something for which there is little evidence, particularly when evidence wouldn't necessarily be expected, then I cannot say that such belief is any less rational than other such opinions that many of us have.

Opinions should also be subject to scrutiny if one is judging between the legitimacy of various opinions. True, we have incomplete evidence for many, really, all things, but that does not mean that some should and do have more going for them than others. Some things are easy to judge, but others are clearly in the "I don't know" category, such as intelligent life in other solar systems.

This I agree with. I also would say that at least some Christian belief in prayer falls in the "I don't know" category. Certainly, we don't know that prayer doesn't work.

Would you say that prayer has any observable (by us) effect whatsoever? By this, I mean any effect that could not be achieved by non-prayer means, such as personal happiness.

I don't understand what you're asking here.

What is it that you think prayer does? How can you provide objective evidence that it does what you think? If you don't think it requires objective evidence, then why is belief in prayer any more rational than belief that your fairy godmother listens to you?

I imagine that Christians (at least some Christians) believe that prayer affects the natural world. I don't know why such a belief would require objective evidence any more than belief in the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system would require objective evidence.

I agree that there are many things which clearly exist yet which don't have any good explanation, like gravity.

And like consciousness.

But the fact remains that those thing are objectively observable, and in many cases, quantifiable and reliable (gravity being a good example of this). No similar thing can be said about any of the many beliefs in gods.

Nor about the belief that consciousness exists outside of the solar system.

We don't understand anything perfectly, but we have learned to empirically show that some things exist. God is not one of them.

I agree. Also, intelligent life outside our solar system.

As I say, everything is on a scale. I try not to say "fact" but rather "supported by evidence" or "unsupported by evidence. What we call superstitions are generally things which are unsupported by evidence. (Are you sick of hearing that word yet? )

Well, belief in the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system is unsupported by evidence also, so is it necessarily superstition?

I don't think, and I don't think many skeptics here claim that the ineffectiveness of prayer is an undeniable fact. However, in order to keep from having to go through all the linguistic gymnastics that you see me doing here, they may something like "irrational" or "superstitious" to avoid saying "very poorly supported by evidence". Language uses lots of shortcuts. It's easier to learn the shortcuts than to argue semantics every time a word that implies absolute factuality is used.

I would agree that RandFan simply meant that prayer was "poorly supported by evidence" had I not asked him time and again to confirm that he felt it a fact that belief in prayer was necessarily irrational. The difference between "fact" and "poorly supported by evidence" is exactly what I meant when I said that he was overstating his case. I doubt that Christians would deny that their belief in prayer isn't well supported by evidence, particularly if they believe that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence. I don't find such a belief to be necessarily irrational.

Yet it should be clear what he was saying, and it wasn't that there are absolute definitions of rational vs. irrational...

I would have agreed with you, but he has repeatedly argued against this point. In fact, he has attempted to come up with objective criteria by which one can place a belief into one category or another. Unfortunately, such criteria end up labeling some things as "irrational" that most of us would hold to be rational opinion and vice-versa.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I would agree that RandFan simply meant that prayer was "poorly supported by evidence" had I not asked him time and again to confirm that he felt it a fact that belief in prayer was necessarily irrational.

When did I use the word "fact"? How many times have I used the word "provisional"? I'm sorry but this is very unfair to me.

The difference between "fact" and "poorly supported by evidence" is exactly what I meant when I said that he was overstating his case.

I stated that prayer is irrational. I don't hold that it is absolute. I'm willing to hold that it is, to a degree, irrational but that it is irrational really can't be argued against (assuming that by prayer we are talking about a hope that prayer will alter events). I firmly stand by that.

I doubt that Christians would deny that their belief in prayer isn't well supported by evidence, particularly if they believe that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence. I don't find such a belief to be necessarily irrational.

I do.

I would have agreed with you, but he has repeatedly argued against this point. In fact, he has attempted to come up with objective criteria by which one can place a belief into one category or another. Unfortunately, such criteria end up labeling some things as "irrational" that most of us would hold to be rational opinion and vice-versa.

No, by your very own definition a belief is irrational if it balances the chances of the event occurring and the potential consequences of the event occurring.

Otherwise, there would be no such thing as irrational fears.

 

[Bri]

I just wonder what happens to your analogy to account for the fact that not all frogs are green?

Or that the term "animal" is too general?

Obviously, I made up the definition. According to that definition, all frogs are green (and hop). By that (made up) definition, a grasshopper is also a frog, but that doesn't affect my point.

My point was that a kangaroo isn't necessarily a frog, and isn't necessarily green according to that definition of frog, just as belief in prayer isn't necessarily superstion and isn't necessarily irrational using RandFan's definition of superstition.

-Bri