Prayer and power

[Ceritus]

One more thing Darat if you'd care to address...how would God handle situation 1 that I offered, in your opinion? Of course this assumes that God exists.

-Elliot

Let me break down my thoughts

1. If God did answer prayer, the mind absolutely boggles. If I prayed that the most beautiful woman in the world would fall in love with me, and 180982 other guys prayed the same thing, then what? If I prayed that I had all the money in the world, and another person prayed that they had enough money to survive, then what? If I prayed that I would never experience physical death, but my neighbor prays for me to die a painful death, then what?

1.) It could make 180982 women with different appearences for the 180982 men and appear to be the most beautiful woman in the world individually for each man and vice versa for the women. While making it impossible for these people to not meet their counterpart and fall in love.

It could make it so that there would be no need for money to survive and allow each person who prayed to have all the money in the world to obtain it for a brief period of time until they spent it....Or atleast allow every person to have special skills and the proper environment to make a wealthy living if they decided to act upon their desire of wealth.

It could allow you to die a very painful death and then be brought back to life moments after and force you to move locations so the neighbor is rid of you.

2. Given the above, it seems reasonable for God to *detach* himself from the whole prayer situation, dontcha think?

2.) If an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God existed it does not seem reasonable one bit.

When we pray, *we are rejecting power, not embracing it*. Prayer is different from, say, a superstition like the Ghost Dance. Various Indian groups performed the Ghost Dance because they believed in would exert power and control over God, who would then give benefits to them and resurrect their dead warriors and all that. Press the button, and X happens. *BUT CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE THIS EXPECTATION IN PRAYER*. Or, rather, they ought not to have that expectation. Christians reject superstition, the belief that God can be controlled if I just do A, B, and C. When we pray, we ask, we question, we praise, we think, we talk, all that. But it is not result orientated! If it was, *IT WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED COMPELTELY, JUST AS THE GHOST DANCE DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY*.

3.) But in my opinion christians do expect to control their God. If a christian asks for forgiveness do they not expect to be forgiven even when they repeat the offense a second or third time? Do christians not try to "appease" their God by following scripture and expect it not to toss them into a lake of fire? When it comes to control the relationship between God and christians are very similar to that of a whore and a client of a whore. A whore appears to be the controlled and the client the master but in the end the client pays the whore and the whore gets what they wanted all along.

4. The Lord's Prayer, given to us by Jesus, contains all that anyone ought to need to know about the reality of prayer, for the Christian. It is directed to the Father. It is about the Father. It is not about us. It recognizes the relationship, and keeps our reality in perspective. His will be done, not ours. In the kind of prayer I often see ruminated about on this forum, we wonder why *OUR WILL* is not done when we pray. That is out of order. When we pray, we ask that *God's will* be done. Do we ask for things? Of course. Food, forgiveness, strength, all that stuff, culminating in deliverance from evil. Yet those requests are within the framework of God's will. Jesus prayed before the crucifixion, and God's will was done. *That's prayer*.

4.)Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

See... 3.)

As for the whole Gods "will" thing then obviously his will is not of good intention at times. What one may judge as good another could just as easily judge as bad as you have stated in 1.) with your prayer scenerio's which were completed by a mere mortal. Explain to me an exact deinifition of God's will. How is a person who has an abortion not God's will? What if the child to be born were to become the next hitler? What if God's will has already been set into place and whatever event or decision already made or about to be made has been forseen and dealt with since the creation of the universe?

Seems like a lot of words to describe something that could easily be described as non existant.

 

[elliotfc]

A curious observation. Our best current understanding surely rates resurrection from death as a considerably more difficult task than regenerating a limb (c.f. stem cells, though it's early days yet).

I disagree actually. People have been resuscitated (I probably spelled that wrong), buried alive, had hearst zapped into beating again, etc. Also, with regenerating a limb, you're kind of materializing matter our of nowhere...unless...you think of it as cell growth at an obscene rate.

If we're talking about regenerating a limb over a period of time...let's say a week...we see analogues of that in nature. I get the idea that when people say why can't God regrow limbs or whatever, people are not thinking of something like that. But maybe I'm wrong?

In any case, believing prayer in and of itself to be capable of affecting the course of objective events is irrational for the same reason that believing that the sun will rise in the West tomorrow is irrational:

I'll work with this analogy...but let's me first make a point. Prayer is a *real thing*, as in, people know what prayer is. Even atheists know what prayer is, as they want to keep it out of schools. Objective events are also *real things*. The issue is cause/effect. Now...is the sun rising in the West a real thing? And there's no cause-effect to be identified in that situation. But whatever, here goes the analogy...

each belief has an inordinately tiny probability of being true;

I don't see how you can calculate probabilities with these two...that may be commensurate to inordinately tiny I guess.

in each case an extraordinarily problematical mechanism is required to bring about the reality of the belief,

It's problematic from *certain* points of view (I won't even say the human point of view because others would disagree). Reality doesn't care about whether or not a problematical mechanism is needed. Happen happens. Anyhow, problematic is a word needed by humans, and it's nothing more than that.

and in each case a violation of well-established understanding would occur.

I think it's well-established that specific prayers usually aren't answered in the exact way as the person praying asks? Does anyone in this thread disagree?

-Elliot

 

[Bri]

I want to work with you here Bri. I'll change #1. There exist a number of scriptures in the Bible that clearly promise that God will answer all prayers --"all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive".

Emphasis is mine. I'm guessing that Christians note the word in red there, and consider it a condition. Again, the fact that you read the scripture as saying that God answers all prayers is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, which is about Christian belief. Even fundamentalists don't seem to interpret the scripture the way you have. In order for your conclusion to follow from your premise(s) you have to at some point make the leap from what is written to what is believed, which makes any interpretation of the scripture irrelevant to your conclusion without Christian belief to back it up.

Would it be reasonable for a Christian to infer from this scripture that God can grant miracles? Not every, not all (even though it says "all things"). Is there anything in this scripture or any other that would limit God's power?

I imagine that not only would it be reasonable for a Christian to infer this, but many Christians actually do infer from this scripture and others that God can grant miracles. Of course, few if any infer that he always grants miracles. I see nothing in that scripture that limits God's power (nor do I imagine most Christians believe that God's power is limited).

Why are there categories of prayer that are never answered?

God works in mysterious ways. God doesn't want us to know he exists. God only grants prayers that are ultimately for our own good. Take your pick. If those aren't good enough, I may be able to come up with more. If the Christian God exists, we likely couldn't know for certain what his reasons might be.

All things are possible. It's possible for a person to fly by flapping his or her arms. That all things are possible does not mean that it is rational to believe all things. So, ok, it's not irrational to simply believe that something is possible. It is irrational to act in a way that is counter to logic and reason. There is no rational basis to believe that an act (prayer) that is not connected to events can influence those events.

I may not personally believe that Christians have a good enough reason to believe that prayer influences events. But I have to admit that my judgement of their reasons is only my opinion -- it's not fact. I cannot claim their belief to be necessarily irrational, even though I may disagree with it. There are a lot of things that I disagree with that are perfectly rational. If I were to label all of them "irrational" then I would also have to label other beliefs that I think are rational as irrational as well.

I am honestly and sincerely trying to be accommodating. Tricky made that distinction and you said you agreed that it was appropriate. Please be fair to me. If I make a mistake I apologize. I have admitted making mistakes in this thread and apologized. If I wanted to obfuscate I would not have admitted my mistake and I would not have appologized.

I do understand that it wasn't your intention to obfuscate, and I apologize if I made it sound as though you did it on purpose. The terms "irrational" or "rational" would have to have some special meaning under Tricky's system (otherwise they would mean the same thing). Without something to compare them to (i.e. in conjunction with the words "more" or "less") the terms "rational" and "irrational" would either be meaningless, or else they would refer to one of the far ends of the scale, which is why I made the claim that the terms were obfuscated. Since you have continued to use the word "irrational" to describe belief in prayer while at the same time accepting Tricky's idea, then the question remains: what does "irrational" mean under this system other than "entirely irrational" (or at least at the far end of the scale on the "irrational" side)?

If you meant that prayer was at the far end of the scale, then it would necessarily be "less rational" than something you have labeled "rational" (which would be at the other end of the scale). If you're going to use the term "irrational" to describe belief in prayer, then you should provide some criteria by which you determine that belief in prayer is necessarily "less rational" than other beliefs you hold to be "rational."

No.

There are no unicorns (as far as we know).
The government is not out to get me (as far as I know).
There are no leprechauns (as far as we know).
Humans can't fly by flapping their hands (as far as we know).
Zeus doesn't live atop Mount Olympus (as far as we know.

1.) I have said over and over that I hold all beliefs provisionally.
2.) I have said over and over that all things are possible (that are not logically impossible).

The statement stands. It is a falsifiable claim and you are free to falsify it. I await your doing so. However, until you demonstrate that a human can fly by simply flapping his or her arms then the belief that it is more likely than not that someone actually can fly by flapping his or her arms will remain irrational.

Oh, I didn't disagree with the statement (with the provision included). I was just pointing out that because it is necessary to include the provision, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from this premise. I can add "there is no intelligent life outside of our solar system (as far as we know)" to the list, and (as you've already acknowledged) that fact doesn't preclude the belief that there is intelligent life outside the solar system from being rational.

Wow, well hold me down and slap me silly. And mayonnaise on the elbow to cure colds doesn't work any better than chance. And it could work. Is it rational for me to put mayonnaise on my elbow?

That would of course depend on whether you would expect there to be evidence. In the case of mayonnaise on the elbow, one might expect there to be evidence, but if one had a reason to believe that it was unfalsifiable, then it might be a rational belief. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of irrationality. You've already acknowledged that the premise "there is zero evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" wouldn't preclude the belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system from being rational.

#4 is a premise. It isn't meant to accurately describe prayer as Christians believe it. It has nothing to do with that.

I apologize. I may have misread it the first time. At any rate, I see that it's a premise rather than a conclusion.

Bri, #4 only applies to any Christian who believing that his disconnected actions has some likelihood of influencing events. The more a person believes that his actions (prayer) are likely to alter a course of events the more irrational his beliefs.

Premise #4 said "Belief in an object or act (prayer) that is not related to a course of events that influences those events is irrational." You cannot show that prayer is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. Therefore, you cannot show that a belief in prayer is irrational, even if we accept the statement without the parenthetical as true. Because you included the parenthetical, it isn't necessarily true at all.

Person A: Believes that a rabbits foot might influence events but isn't fervent in his belief.
Person B: Believes that rabbits feet are far more likely than not to work and never leaves home without one.

Person B is more irrational than person A.

Again, it would depend on each individual's reasons for believing as they do. It is possible for person B to be more rational than person A. Person A might hold the belief for no apparent reason whatsoever. Person B might have done careful experiments in his basement and found that his rabbit's foot always works for him as long as nobody else is observing.

-Bri

 

[Beth]

Yes, a belief in God is quite irrational. That is my opinion.

Okay. I think I'm clear on where you stand now. I disagree, but that's okay. We're both entitled to our opinions.

 

[Beth]

A curious observation. Our best current understanding surely rates resurrection from death as a considerably more difficult task than regenerating a limb (c.f. stem cells, though it's early days yet).

Yes it is a curious observation. But it fits with the observation that there are certain classes of prayers that are never answered. People do sometimes recover after being declared dead, while no one has ever regrown a severed limb.

In any case, believing prayer in and of itself to be capable of affecting the course of objective events

I don't think anyone believes that prayer in and of itself is capable of affecting the course of objective events. My understanding is that they believe prayer is capable of influencing God who in turn is capable of affecting events. If someone believes in God (leaving aside the rationality/irrationality of belief in God) believing that prayer can influence God does not seem irrational to me.

 

[RandFan]

1. If God did answer prayer, the mind absolutely boggles. If I prayed that the most beautiful woman in the world would fall in love with me, and 180982 other guys prayed the same thing, then what? If I prayed that I had all the money in the world, and another person prayed that they had enough money to survive, then what? If I prayed that I would never experience physical death, but my neighbor prays for me to die a painful death, then what?

This is, of course, simply setting up logical impossibilities. Can God create a rock to big for him/her to lift? By this paradox God is not omnipotent. This has been dealt with and Christians tell us that God can do anything that is not logically impossible. So if you are going to be consistent elliot you have two choices. God is omnipotent or he isn't. If you think he is then you will have to jettison this argument.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

I disagree actually.

That is your prerogative.

People have been resuscitated (I probably spelled that wrong), buried alive, had hearst zapped into beating again, etc.

Yes, such resuscitations invariably happen within a short time span of clinical death. Similarly, severed limbs have been successfully grafted back onto their original owners, again within a short period after separation. Wonderful thing, this medical science.

Also, with regenerating a limb, you're kind of materializing matter our of nowhere...unless...you think of it as cell growth at an obscene rate.

Either would be miraculous, don't you agree?

If we're talking about regenerating a limb over a period of time...let's say a week...we see analogues of that in nature.

Yes, but not of complex structures on complex life forms. The arm of a starfish is hardly as complex as that of a person.

I get the idea that when people say why can't God regrow limbs or whatever, people are not thinking of something like that. But maybe I'm wrong?

There's no reason to suppose that limb regrowth should occur instantaneously in order for it to qualify as miraculous. If it occurred at all it would be a wondrous thing.

I'll work with this analogy...but let's me first make a point. Prayer is a *real thing*, as in, people know what prayer is. Even atheists know what prayer is, as they want to keep it out of schools. Objective events are also *real things*. The issue is cause/effect. Now...is the sun rising in the West a real thing? And there's no cause-effect to be identified in that situation.

Really? And if god decided (or some other mechanism managed) to change the Earth's sense of spin or flip the planet North-to-South? Clearly this is a real, objective thing, albeit one that is unlikely to eventuate.

I don't see how you can calculate probabilities with these two...that may be commensurate to inordinately tiny I guess.

Nobody is calculating probabilities here - it is sufficient to say that they are close to nil.

It's problematic from *certain* points of view (I won't even say the human point of view because others would disagree). Reality doesn't care about whether or not a problematical mechanism is needed. Happen happens. Anyhow, problematic is a word needed by humans, and it's nothing more than that.

Reality certainly does care very much about mechanisms; e.g. there is no known mechanism for attaining a temperature of 0° K or below. Attempting to chill to such temperatures is problematic irrespective of any point of view one might assume in respect of this endeavour.

I think it's well-established that specific prayers usually aren't answered in the exact way as the person praying asks? Does anyone in this thread disagree?

Not I, though I would amend some of your chosen adjectives.

'Luthon64

 

[RandFan]

Emphasis is mine. I'm guessing that Christians note the word in red there, and consider it a condition.

So there are categories of prayer where the believer never believes? This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Again, the fact that you read the scripture as saying that God answers all prayers...

Asked and answered Bri. This is your strawman. I'm not saying that God answers all prayers. I'm simply demonstrating some logical problems between scripture and belief.

I imagine that not only would it be reasonable for a Christian to infer this, but many Christians actually do infer from this scripture and others that God can grant miracles.

If they were logically consistent they should infer from this scripture that God can grant and is as likely to grant one miracle as any other. In other words the scripture doesn't limit God's ability to grant miracles. On the contrary. It clearly points out that all miracles are possible. Yet we have a category of miracles that are never answered (a falsifiable claim). Please to falsify it.

{strawman snipped}

God works in mysterious ways. God doesn't want us to know he exists. God only grants prayers that are ultimately for our own good. Take your pick. If those aren't good enough, I may be able to come up with more. If the Christian God exists, we likely couldn't know for certain what his reasons might be.

If the purpose of a miracle is to manifest god and we can't tell the miracles from the non-miracles then the purpose of prayer and miracles is for-naught. (please note emphasis)

I may not personally believe that Christians have a good enough reason to believe that prayer influences events. But I have to admit that my judgment of their reasons is only my opinion -- it's not fact. I cannot claim their belief to be necessarily irrational, even though I may disagree with it. There are a lot of things that I disagree with that are perfectly rational. If I were to label all of them "irrational" then I would also have to label other beliefs that I think are rational as irrational as well.

Perhaps you should label your other beliefs irrational. This shouldn't be about not wanting to hurt your ego. If you have irrational beliefs then they are irrational. Just accept it.

Since you have continued to use the word "irrational" to describe belief in prayer while at the same time accepting Tricky's idea, then the question remains: what does "irrational" mean under this system other than "entirely irrational" (or at least at the far end of the scale on the "irrational" side)?

Irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Just as wet means to a degree wet.

If you're going to use the term "irrational" to describe belief in prayer, then you should provide some criteria by which you determine that belief in prayer is necessarily "less rational" than other beliefs you hold to be "rational."

I do hold irrational beliefs. And beliefs that are, to a degree, irrational. Not founded on logic and reason and without evidence is irrational. I don't have a problem admitting that I have irrational beliefs.

Oh, I didn't disagree with the statement (with the provision included). I was just pointing out that because it is necessary to include the provision, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from this premise.

But that is wrong. It does follow from this premise. If I put mayonnaise on my elbow to cure my cold that is irrational because there is no known mechanism for mayonnaise to work and there is no evidence for mayonnaise to work (so far as we know). Now, if you want to put mayonnaise on your elbow to cure your cold then that is fine but it IS irrational. And again, it does work for people.

I can add "there is no intelligent life outside of our solar system (as far as we know)" to the list, and (as you've already acknowledged) that fact doesn't preclude the belief that there is intelligent life outside the solar system from being rational.

{sigh} There is logic and reason to believe this. If you would like to state that there is a degree of irrationality to this belief I won't object.

1. There is a good likelihood that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system.
2. There is intelligent life outside of the solar system.
3. Prayer can influence the outcome of events.

#1 is rational
#2 is, to a degree, irrational.
#3 is, to a much larger degree than #3, irrational.

Are we clear?

That would of course depend on whether you would expect there to be evidence. In the case of mayonnaise on the elbow, one might expect there to be evidence, but if one had a reason to believe that it was unfalsifiable, then it might be a rational belief.

I hate going around and around. THERE IS NO REASON. That's the point.

Lack of evidence isn't evidence of irrationality.

{sigh} Bri, I have conceded this over and over. Lack of reason is evidence of irrationality. Evidence is but one reason.

1.) No evidence.
2.) No known mechanism (no logical connection).
3.) It flies in the face of all attempts to demonstrate that it does work.

This leaves "no reason" to believe that it does work. All that is left is faith. Faith in and of itself is not reason.

You've already acknowledged that the premise "there is zero evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" wouldn't preclude the belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system from being rational.

But evidence ISN'T the only criteria. I have made that point many times. There must be SOME reason.

You cannot show that prayer is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it.

Fallacy. I can't show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. It's not my job to prove a negative. The claim is falsifiable. You are free to falsify it as you are free to falsify that mayonnaise on the elbow will cure colds.

Again, it would depend on each individual's reasons for believing as they do.

There is no rational reason to believe. It's that simple Bri. If you have one we would all like to know it. All attempts to demonstrate that rabbits feet have anything to do with the outcome of events fails.

It is possible for person B to be more rational than person A. Person A might hold the belief for no apparent reason whatsoever. Person B might have done careful experiments in his basement and found that his rabbit's foot always works for him as long as nobody else is observing.

But there is scientific explanation for this and Randi's million dollar challenge helps illustrate this. We can rationally assume, based on all logical evidence and reason that rabbits feet don't work.

 

[Bri]

So there are categories of prayer where the believer never believes? This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Of course, you'd have to ask a Christian, but it could mean that it is possible for any prayer to be granted if your belief were perfect.

Asked and answered Bri. This is your strawman. I'm not saying that God answers all prayers. I'm simply demonstrating some logical problems between scripture and belief.

It's your strawman, regardless of how much you try to pin it on me. You keep insisting that the scripture must indicate that God answers all prayers. You listed this as one of four premises upon which you base your conclusion concerning Christian belief, even though your interpretation has little to do with Christian belief.

If they were logically consistent they should infer from this scripture that God can grant and is as likely to grant one miracle as any other.

Emphasis mine. One can logically infer that God is able to grant one miracle as any other. That anyone can infer from the scripture that God is as likely to grant one miracle as any other is your own wishful thinking. The scripture simply doesn't indicate that in the least.

In other words the scripture doesn't limit God's ability to grant miracles. On the contrary. It clearly points out that all miracles are possible. Yet we have a category of miracles that are never answered (a falsifiable claim). Please to falsify it.

Your "in other words" doesn't match what you're attempting to paraphrase. True, the scripture doesn't limit God's ability to grant miracles. Nor does it indicate that God must exercize his ability in order to grant all miracles.

If the purpose of a miracle is to manifest god and we can't tell the miracles from the non-miracles then the purpose of prayer and miracles is for-naught. (please note emphasis)

If the purpose of a miracle is to make clear God's existance to everyone in the world, then I would agree that the purpose of miracles would be for naught. If a Christian believes that miracles occur and that the only purpose of miracles is to make it clear to everyone in the world that God exists, then I would agree that this belief would be inconsistent with reality since it is obviously not clear to everyone in the world that God exists. I'm just not sure there are many (if any) Christians who believe this.

Perhaps you should label your other beliefs irrational. This shouldn't be about not wanting to hurt your ego. If you have irrational beliefs then they are irrational. Just accept it.

Unfortunately, it would also include beliefs that you and most others hold to be rational as well, and I don't want to hurt your ego either.

Irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Just as wet means to a degree wet.

I see, and rational means that there is a degree of rationality. I concede that all beliefs are both rational and irrational by those definitions. Unfortunately, those aren't very useful definitions.

I do hold irrational beliefs. And beliefs that are, to a degree, irrational. Not founded on logic and reason and without evidence is irrational. I don't have a problem admitting that I have irrational beliefs.

That's not what I said. I said that you'd have to label "irrational" beliefs that you hold as "rational" (or at least beliefs that you've previously stated are rational).

But that is wrong. It does follow from this premise. If I put mayonnaise on my elbow to cure my cold that is irrational because there is no known mechanism for mayonnaise to work and there is no evidence for mayonnaise to work (so far as we know). Now, if you want to put mayonnaise on your elbow to cure your cold then that is fine but it IS irrational. And again, it does work for people.

Both of your criteria have been shown not to hold for all beliefs that you have stated are rational. It is clear that one or the other doesn't hold about many beliefs including those commonly held by science, therefore I'm assuming that you mean that only one or the other must hold for something to be considered rational. Still, some beliefs that you hold to be rational don't meet either criteria.

{sigh} There is logic and reason to believe this. If you would like to state that there is a degree of irrationality to this belief I won't object.

OK, so now you have introduced a third criteria by which something may be more rational than something else: if there is logic and reason to believe it, it can be more rational than something for which there is no logic and (or?) no reason. Oddly, I think that's the criteria I had suggested previously, that if it's not inconsistent and there is a good reason to believe something, it is probably rational. But it's possible that you're confusing two commonly-used definition of the word "reason" (one being synonymous to "logic" and the other being "a basis or motive for a belief") so I'll hold off on commenting further until you've confirmed exactly what you mean by this third criteria. In further comments, you seem to be going back and forth between these two meanings of the word "reason."

1. There is a good likelihood that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system.
2. There is intelligent life outside of the solar system.
3. Prayer can influence the outcome of events.

#1 is rational
#2 is, to a degree, irrational.
#3 is, to a much larger degree than #3, irrational.

Are we clear?

Words like "good liklihood" betray the fact that you don't really have any objective criteria by which you rank these items the way you did. Specifically, your ranking is based on assumptions that are debatable. In this case, it is undoubtedly possible that prayer influences the outcome of events, making #3 the most rational statement in the list (if by "can" you mean "can possibly" rather than "does").

Fallacy. I can't show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. It's not my job to prove a negative. The claim is falsifiable. You are free to falsify it as you are free to falsify that mayonnaise on the elbow will cure colds.

If you can't show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it then you cannot show that belief in rabbit's feet is necessarily irrational even if we accept your basic premise that belief that something not related to a course of events influences those events is irrational.

Also, whether or not a belief in a rabbit's foot is falsifiable would depend on the belief. For example, if the claim is that a rabbit's foot affects a course of events only when nobody else is observing, then it's not falsifiable.

But there is scientific explanation for this and Randi's million dollar challenge helps illustrate this. We can rationally assume, based on all logical evidence and reason that rabbits feet don't work.

That's true. I never said they do work, nor that it's irrational to assume that they don't. I said that belief that a rabbit's foot works isn't necessarily irrational.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

Bri, I have conceded this over and over. Lack of reason is evidence of irrationality. Evidence is but one reason.

1.) No evidence.
2.) No known mechanism (no logical connection).
3.) It flies in the face of all attempts to demonstrate that it does work.

I gotta disagree with you here, RF. Both 2 and 3 are also evidence. consider:

2.) No known mechanism (no logical connection).
What does "known" mean? Many a Christian will contend that they "know" God, so the mechanism is "known". I would counter that such a statement defines faith, not knowledge. True knowledge must be demonstrable and objective, so in order to know a mechanism you must have evidence for that mechanism.

3.) It flies in the face of all attempts to demonstrate that it does work.
The attempt to demonstrate whether or not something works is the attempt to gather evidence that something works.

In my opinion, reason can never be divorced from evidence. I do not deny that this is because of my assumption that real things have evidence for them, but if someone wants to explain to me why this is a bad assumption, I'm willing to discuss it.

We can rationally assume, based on all logical evidence and reason that rabbits feet don't work.

Rabbits feet do work. The person rubs the rabbits foot and they feel better because they believe that they have somehow influenced the universe. Prayer works in the exact same way.

 

[Bri]

In my opinion, reason can never be divorced from evidence. I do not deny that this is because of my assumption that real things have evidence for them, but if someone wants to explain to me why this is a bad assumption, I'm willing to discuss it.

I tend to agree that all of the criteria RF presented all equate to the same criterion: evidence.

Perhaps where we disagree is that I don't think it necessarily irrational to hold a belief about an idea for which there is little or no objective evidence one way or the other, such as the belief in the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system, the belief that no gods exist, or the belief in the existence of a Deist God.

When objective evidence is lacking, we all hold opinions based on more subjective reasoning. As long as one doesn't hold such reasoning to be fact, I don't think all such opinions can be deemed irrational. The alternative is to be agnostic about everything for which there is no clear objective evidence.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

I tend to agree that all of the criteria RF presented all equate to the same criterion: evidence.

Perhaps where we disagree is that I don't think it necessarily irrational to hold a belief about an idea for which there is little or no objective evidence one way or the other, such as the belief in the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system, the belief that no gods exist, or the belief in the existence of a Deist God.

These are different things entirely. If intelligent life exists outside our solar system, there is evidence for it. Sadly we cannot access that evidence (if it exists) but if we were in the vicinity of extraterrestrial intelligence, we would know what to look for. We would have a good idea about the nature of the evidence, because we have a good definition of what intelligence is and how it manifests itself. The evidence would be accessible in the same ways we access evidence locally.

This cannot be said of the existence of a Deist God. You could go to the ends of the universe, (theoretically) looking for one, but you still would not know what to look for.

So if you equate the lack of (discovered) evidence for extra-solar life versus the lack of (discovered) evidence for God, you must either agree that the evidence for extra-solar life is not even potentially knowable, or that the evidence for God is potentially knowable.

Now I will not deny that it is possible that we may someday discover some method for recognizing the evidence for God, but considering how long people have been searching for God, His supposed proximity, His supposed influence on everything, and his purported interest in humanity, the total lack of evidence for Him is pretty damning.

When objective evidence is lacking, we all hold opinions based on more subjective reasoning. As long as one doesn't hold such reasoning to be fact, I don't think all such opinions can be deemed irrational. The alternative is to be agnostic about everything for which there is no clear objective evidence.

I think you should be agnostic about everything for which there is no clear objective evidence. Going back to your extraterrestrial life example, there is evidence for life in our solar system. There is evidence of many times many other solar systems like ours, so you might reasonably extrapolate that there is a good chance of our situation being repeated. Nevertheless, it would be correct to be agnostic as the nature of a space alien (without better evidence than what we have).

But there is no such corollary for God. We cannot say, "God exists on Earth, so He might exist elsewhere." There is no evidence for even a single God, so there is no evidence to extrapolate. And yet, believers in God not only believe He exists, but that they know a good bit about His nature.

I can tell you what evidence intelligent extraterrestrials might potentially leave. Can you tell me what evidence God might potentially leave?

 

[RandFan]

Of course, you'd have to ask a Christian, but it could mean that it is possible for any prayer to be granted if your belief were perfect.

I don't know what that means.

It's your strawman, regardless of how much you try to pin it on me.

Since it's not an argument that I have made then no.

Emphasis mine. One can logically infer that God is able to grant one miracle as any other.

One can grant that anything is possible.

That anyone can infer from the scripture that God is as likely to grant one miracle as any other is your own wishful thinking.

No. But I understand that is what makes you feel better.

Nor does it indicate that God must exercize his ability in order to grant all miracles.

No one is arguing that it does. Only that since his ability is not limited and yet he never answers a category of prayer then we have a problem.

If the purpose of a miracle is to make clear God's existance to everyone in the world, then I would agree that the purpose of miracles would be for naught.

miracle
n 1: any amazing or wonderful occurrence 2: a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God

We are in agreement.

Unfortunately, it would also include beliefs that you and most others hold to be rational as well, and I don't want to hurt your ego either.

My ego won't be hurt. If my beliefs are irrational I can accept that. It really is a trivial matter.

I see, and rational means that there is a degree of rationality. I concede that all beliefs are both rational and irrational by those definitions. Unfortunately, those aren't very useful definitions.

Not quite my definition but in any event quite useful. When is day not night? There is a gradient. Some people are more rational than others.

That's not what I said. I said that you'd have to label "irrational" beliefs that you hold as "rational" (or at least beliefs that you've previously stated are rational).

If that is truly the case then I don't have any problem with it. Big deal. Point out an irrational belief and if it fits the definition then I will accept it, and perhaps reevaluate my belief. All this hand wringing over the definition of irrational is quite silly. It is simple and logical to determine what is and is not rational.

Both of your criteria have been shown not to hold for all beliefs that you have stated are rational.

? I don't have a clue what you are talking about. You assert these things from out of the blue, huh?

It is clear that one or the other doesn't hold about many beliefs including those commonly held by science...

Like what?

Still, some beliefs that you hold to be rational don't meet either criteria.

Like what?

OK, so now you have introduced a third criteria by which something may be more rational than something else

No, evidence is reason. A mechanism is reason.

if there is logic and reason to believe it, it can be more rational than something for which there is no logic and (or?) no reason.

If there is no logic and no reason it is not rational.

Oddly, I think that's the criteria I had suggested previously, that if it's not inconsistent and there is a good reason to believe something But it's possible that you're confusing two commonly-used definition of the word "reason" (one being synonymous to "logic" and the other being "a basis or motive for a belief") so I'll hold off on commenting further until you've confirmed exactly what you mean by this third criteria.

Thank you. This is a fair request. Wanting there to be a Santa Claus is a reason to believe in Santa Claus (see #1 below). This is NOT how I'm using the word reason.

rea·son
n.

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because. See Usage Note at why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

Let's stick with #3. When I say reason it will be that definition. I will try to be very careful with my use of that word.

Words like "good liklihood" betray the fact that you don't really have any objective criteria by which you rank these items the way you did.

This is so frustrating. I'm honestly trying. I've retyped this response like 6 times. I'm stripping out all of the emotion. {deep breath}.

Can I ask you a favor? Would you avoid words like "betray"? It isn't applicable here. I'll confess that my words aren't always the best to convey my meaning so I will try and be careful.

Ok, I don't know how much you know about probabilities. We both agree that all things are possible, right? Would you agree that not all things are equally probable?

Odds of intelligent life outside of our solar system: See Drake Equation. If we assume Drake's equation and we assume that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy then the odds are that there are at least 1,000 communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

Bri, that is logic, that is reason (#3).

Specifically, your ranking is based on assumptions that are debatable.

No, not reasonably debatable.

In this case, it is undoubtedly possible that prayer influences the outcome of events...

Anything is possible. Is it probable? Can you calculate the probability? What is the logic and reason that you use to arrive at your conclusion?

...making #3 the most rational statement in the list (if by "can" you mean "can possibly" rather than "does").

This has really got me stumped. I'll admit I have thought about this one long and hard. And I can't think of any reason for you to come up with your conclusion.

#1 is possible and there is a means to calculate the probability.
#2 is believing that there is enough probability to come to a conclusion.
#3 has no reason (#3), no evidence, and no logic to believe it.

Yes, all are possible. Why in your mind is #3 more rational?

If you can't show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it then you cannot show that belief in rabbit's feet is necessarily irrational even if we accept your basic premise that belief that something not related to a course of events influences those events is irrational.

? Again, I'm stumped. You use the definition of irrational belief to prove that the belief is not necessarily irrational? This is twisted and upside down logic. I can't begin to get my head around it. If A = B then B !=B Huh?

Also, whether or not a belief in a rabbit's foot is falsifiable would depend on the belief. For example, if the claim is that a rabbit's foot affects a course of events only when nobody else is observing, then it's not falsifiable.

True, but it is silly and irrational. Would you trust someone who asserted that he could fly by flapping his arms when you were not looking?

That's true. I never said they do work, nor that it's irrational to assume that they don't. I said that belief that a rabbit's foot works isn't necessarily irrational.

It is. By definition. It is.

 

[Bri]

These are different things entirely. If intelligent life exists outside our solar system, there is evidence for it.

Not a very compelling argument, unfortunately. If God exists, there is evidence for it if he chooses to make himself known. And although we might fail to recognize the evidence for intelligent life if it is significantly different than us, an omnipotent God could ensure that we would recognize his existence if he so chose.

BTW, I believe RandFan mentioned in a previous post his opinion that belief in the Deist God is rational while belief in the Christian God isn't (which is why I mentioned the Deist God).

So if you equate the lack of (discovered) evidence for extra-solar life versus the lack of (discovered) evidence for God, you must either agree that the evidence for extra-solar life is not even potentially knowable, or that the evidence for God is potentially knowable.

Both are potentially knowable if they exist.

I think you should be agnostic about everything for which there is no clear objective evidence. Going back to your extraterrestrial life example, there is evidence for life in our solar system.

While it is true that there is evidence of intelligent life in our solar system, I believe the question was about the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

There is evidence of many times many other solar systems like ours, so you might reasonably extrapolate that there is a good chance of our situation being repeated.

And yet there still is no evidence of it. There are plenty of teapots on our planet. Can one reasonably extrapolate that there is one orbitting Saturn?

Nevertheless, it would be correct to be agnostic as the nature of a space alien (without better evidence than what we have).

What is the difference between space aliens and intelligent life outside of our solar system?

But there is no such corollary for God. We cannot say, "God exists on Earth, so He might exist elsewhere." There is no evidence for even a single God, so there is no evidence to extrapolate. And yet, believers in God not only believe He exists, but that they know a good bit about His nature.

So, if something exists in one place, it would be rational to believe that it exists elsewhere, such as a teapot orbitting Saturn? We'd even know what to look for if we found it (which was another criteria you suggested above).

I can tell you what evidence intelligent extraterrestrials might potentially leave. Can you tell me what evidence God might potentially leave?

I can tell you that it wouldn't matter what evidence God might leave. If an omnipotent being wanted us to know of his existence, there would be no question of our recognizing the evidence. On the other hand, if an extra terrestrial were significantly different than we are, you would have no idea what sorts of evidence one might leave. On the other hand, it would be very clear what would constitute evidence of a teapot orbitting Saturn.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I gotta disagree with you here, RF. Both 2 and 3 are also evidence. consider:

2.) No known mechanism (no logical connection).
What does "known" mean? Many a Christian will contend that they "know" God, so the mechanism is "known". I would counter that such a statement defines faith, not knowledge. True knowledge must be demonstrable and objective, so in order to know a mechanism you must have evidence for that mechanism.

3.) It flies in the face of all attempts to demonstrate that it does work.
The attempt to demonstrate whether or not something works is the attempt to gather evidence that something works.

In my opinion, reason can never be divorced from evidence. I do not deny that this is because of my assumption that real things have evidence for them, but if someone wants to explain to me why this is a bad assumption, I'm willing to discuss it.

Rabbits feet do work. The person rubs the rabbits foot and they feel better because they believe that they have somehow influenced the universe. Prayer works in the exact same way.

Thanks tricky. Good post.

1.) There is no objective/empirical evidence.
2.) No known mechanism (no logical connection).
3.) It flies in the face of all attempts to demonstrate that it does work.

All 3 are evidence that it doesn't work. Yes, you are correct.

For a long time it was a said that a bumble bee couldn't fly because it seemingly defied our understanding of the laws of physics as the govern flight. In other words the bumble bee seemed to lack #2.

Only idiots said that though, bumble bees CAN fly because I can observe them flying, others can observe them flying. It is empirical. That is #1.

There are many things that we don't have empirical evidence for but we do have logic, reason and an understood mechanism for them so we can infer them to be probable and calculate the likelihood of them. This is what Einstein did when he formulated E=MC2.

The theory of relativity is not equal to prayer.

Give me a Drake's equation for prayer? Give me an E=MC2 equivalent for prayer and I will call it rational.

 

[RandFan]

So, if something exists in one place, it would be rational to believe that it exists elsewhere, such as a teapot orbitting Saturn? We'd even know what to look for if we found it (which was another criteria you suggested above).

Fallacy, there is no teapot orbiting any planet that we know of so it would be irrational to assume that one would be orbiting Saturn. That is not how logic and reason work.

Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.


​

Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.


​

Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.


Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.


​

Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.


​

Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
Answer: 10% to 20%

Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?
​

Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.




​

That is logic and reason. Not exact science. Certainly not proof that there is life outside of our solar system but it is logic and reason based on our understanding of our natural world and our universe.

There is no such logic for prayer. It is predicated ONLY on faith and the notion that anything is possible.

 

[RandFan]

Bri,

I really don't understand your POV. I've tried but I just can't. Even when I was a true believer I understood that prayer was the realm of faith and not logic and reason (#3).

In the past people believed the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth and that blood letting was an effective medial procedure for many ailments that we now rely on modern medicine for.

We made progress because we gave up a lot of irrational thinking. And believe me it wasn't always easy to give it up. But scientists used empericsim, logic and reason (#3) to jetison such irrational beliefs and replace them with rational ones.

Yes, it is possible that you can be healed with blood letting. It is possible that the Sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat. Those things are possible.

Why should we believe them?

I doubt I will change your mind so I'm not certain how much longer to carry this on. My mind can be changed but it will take logic and reason (#3) and so far you haven't given me that logic and reason.

It is appropriate to identify what is irrational because irrational thought doesn't advance our culture or our understanding of the natural world. And what is and isn't rational isn't simply a matter of opinion. It is looking at the evidence and weighing the probabilities. When the odds are heavily against a belief and there is no evidence in support of that belief while there is evidence against the belief and there is no logical and natural basis for the belief then it is irrational.

 

[Bri]

Fallacy, there is no teapot orbiting any planet that we know of so it would be irrational to assume that one would be orbiting Saturn. That is not how logic and reason work.

So its rational to believe that there is a teapot ON Saturn, but not orbitting Saturn.

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

And here we can see the subjective nature of Drake's equation. We know of only one planet that is captable of sustaining life where life has actually evolved. Where is the objective evidence for any number you place here? There is none.

I've seen mathematical equations that supposedly calculate the probability of God's existence. Unfortunately, the variables are subjective, just like Drake's.

You don't really think you can use these sorts of equations to accurately calculate the probability of the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system much less the existence of God, do you? Given the subjective nature of these sorts of calculations, can you really accurately calculate the probability of either one in order to proclaim it a fact that one is more rational than the other?

There is no such logic for prayer. It is predicated ONLY on faith and the notion that anything is possible.

Unfortunately, if being able to calculate an exact probability of anything were necessary for it to be rational, nothing would be rational. Nor does the fact that belief in prayer is based on faith preclude it from being rational any more than the belief that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system (which is also based on faith) is precluded from being rational.

Not to mention the fact that we hold entirely subjective opinions all the time. I am of the opinion that black licorice is better than red. Is it irrational for me to believe so?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I really don't understand your POV. I've tried but I just can't. Even when I was a true believer I understood that prayer was the realm of faith and not logic and reason (#3).

Of course belief in prayer is based on faith (as are all opinions) since it cannot be proven or disproven. But that doesn't mean that it's illogical or unreasonable to hold an opinion about prayer, even if your opinion is that it might work. That's all I'm saying.

In the past people believed the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth and that blood letting was an effective medial procedure for many ailments that we now rely on modern medicine for.

Oddly, those who claimed that to believe something other than what was currently thought to be true was irrational used arguments very similar to yours. While it is now perhaps irrational to hold the view that the world is flat, before evidence to the contrary was discovered it was considered "irrational" to be of the opinion that the world was round (and your argument was probably used to support it).

We made progress because we gave up a lot of irrational thinking. And believe me it wasn't always easy to give it up. But scientists used empericsim, logic and reason (#3) to jetison such irrational beliefs and replace them with rational ones.

Yes, it is possible that you can be healed with blood letting. It is possible that the Sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat. Those things are possible.

Why should we believe them?

I never said that we should believe them. I didn't say that we should believe in prayer either. I said that a belief in prayer isn't necessarily irrational.

I doubt I will change your mind so I'm not certain how much longer to carry this on. My mind can be changed but it will take logic and reason (#3) and so far you haven't given me that logic and reason.

And it isn't my intention to do so since I happen to agree with you concerning the quality and amount of evidence that prayer works. I don't personally have reason to believe that prayer works. However, many Christians apparently do, perhaps through personal experience. Therefore, the Christian belief in prayer is not necessarily irrational, no matter how much I may disagree with it.

It is appropriate to identify what is irrational because irrational thought doesn't advance our culture or our understanding of the natural world.

Unless it is later proven to be true, such as your examples of "irrational thought" above, like the earth being round instead of flat.

And what is and isn't rational isn't simply a matter of opinion. It is looking at the evidence and weighing the probabilities. When the odds are heavily against a belief and there is no evidence in support of that belief while there is evidence against the belief and there is no logical and natural basis for the belief then it is irrational.

By your criteria, before there was evidence to support the fact that the earth is round, the opinion that the earth was flat was irrational (and it wouldn't have been simply a matter of opinion that it was irrational).

There is no evidence against at least some Christian beliefs in prayer, specifically those in conjunction with belief in a God who doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. I'm just not sure how you can accurately calculate the probability of such a belief being true. Unfortunately, it is simply a matter of opinion whether these beliefs are more or less rational than other opinions that you hold to be rational.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

So its rational to believe that there is a teapot ON Saturn, but not orbitting Saturn.

This is just a strawman since no one is making this argument.

And here we can see the subjective nature of Drake's equation.

I'm not sure of your use of the word "subjective". Could you define your usage of the word. It is true that Drake's Equation is purely theoretical, abstract. It is of the mind. Is that what you mean?

We know of only one planet that is captable of sustaining life where life has actually evolved. Where is the objective evidence for any number you place here? There is none.

There is no direct evidence that there is intelligent life on other planets. Be careful here my friend. There was no direct evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity either. I never said that there had to be direct evidence. Only logic and reason (#3). Drake's equation is logic and reason based on observations of real world phenomenon. It is irrational if there is no evidence, no mechanism (no logical connection) and no logic and reason (#3) to suppose that it is true.

I've seen mathematical equations that supposedly calculate the probability of God's existence. Unfortunately, the variables are subjective, just like Drake's.

I hesitate to respond since I'm not certain as to your usage of the word. The equations are abstract as were Einstein's theories as were Euclid's, Newton's, Bohr's and others but that they were of the mind does not mean that they were purely subjective. The math can be objectively checked. I suggest you think carefully about that one. If you are honestly suggesting that theoretical science is simply subjective then I would say that you are ignorant of theoretical science, logic, math and philosophy. 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 are two abstract equations. One is rational and the other isn't.

FWIW, there is no such math to calculate the probability of God's existence.

You don't really think you can use these sorts of equations to accurately calculate the probability of the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system...

No one said "accurately" on a degree of probability and bear in mind Drakes Equations only take into account a single galaxy.

To answer your question, we can calculate a reasonable probability for the existence of intelligent life in our galaxy.

...much less the existence of God, do you?

There is no reasonable equation to calculate the probability of God. Please to share one with us and I will demonstrate why the equation is spurious.

Given the subjective nature...

I think the word you are looking for is speculative.

...of these sorts of calculations, can you really accurately calculate the probability of either one in order to proclaim it a fact that one is more rational than the other?

You are conflating two things that can't be conflated.

What is the Drake Equation?

The Drake Equation, as it came to be known, was formulated in 1961 and is generally accepted by the scientific community.

If there were such an equation for God it could be generally accepted by the scientific community. The problem is there is no logic or reason (#3) to consider such equations.

To answer your question as it relates to advanced civilizations besides those on earth I would not use the term "accurately". Your insistence of that word is a straw man. I would say to a degree of probability the answer would be yes.

To answer your question as it relates to god the answer regardless of accuracy or degree of probability the answer is no.

Unfortunately, if being able to calculate an exact probability of anything were necessary for it to be rational...

"Exact probability"? Your strawman are procreating. No one has suggested an exact probability that is in your head.

...the fact that belief in prayer is based on faith preclude it from being rational...

Lacking any empirical evidence, mechanism, or real world logic and reason then a belief that a logically unconnected act (prayer) can influence events is irrational.

Not to mention the fact that we hold entirely subjective opinions all the time. I am of the opinion that black licorice is better than red. Is it irrational for me to believe so?

No one but you is discussing the subjective. You'll have to have that debate with yourself.