Prayer and power

[Bri]

That is one of the questions. But one must also ask the question, "What kind of reason do they have to believe that God exists or grants prayers?" Can it be any reason whatsoever? If so, then nothing in the world is irrational (including the raping of virgins to cure AIDS.) If not, what separates the "good" reasons from the "bad" reasons?

Do you believe there can be invalid reasons to believe a thing?

Yes, a reason that contradicts available evidence, or a reason that contradicts itself (i.e. is logically inconsistent) would probably be invalid.

The raping virgins thing is a straw man. The belief that raping a virgin can sometimes cure AIDS would not justify the act even if it were true.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Given only the evidence you presented (including the very weak evidence by the juror claiming that God told her the man is innocent) I would have to say that the man is guilty were I a juror. From my perspective, the evidence against the accused is much greater than the evidence of his his innocence. Does that mean that the juror who claims to have spoken with God is necessarily irrational? No. She could be irrational based on the skimpy information you've provided. Specifically, we have no way of knowing why she believes as she does and doesn't question her own sanity. Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine how she could possibly believe as she does without coming to the conclusion that she's insane. Perhaps she IS insane (in which case her belief is probably irrational). It may even be impossible for her to convince me that she's not insane. But is she necessarily insane? Is her belief necessarily irrational? No, she may in fact have a good reason for believing as she does.

You don't really get to change the hypothetical. You see, it's my hypothetical. She believes what she believes, that God talked to her and told her the man was innocent. No more, no less, I realize that the hypothetical makes you uncomfortable but you will just have to deal with it, or, you can obfuscate which is where I guess you are going to go.

For most of us this isn't a difficult proposition that we need to wring our hands over. Her behavior is irrational. Period, full stop end of story.

Again, this is a straw man. Even if the belief was true (that rape sometimes results in a cure) it wouldn't justify rape. Even if the cure was guaranteed it wouldn't justify rape.

No, this is NOT a strawman but you are making one. I'm not talking about JUSTIFICATION. I'm talking about rationality. So stick with MY argument and not the one you want to make. Is the belief necassarily irrational?

See above.

See above

 

[RandFan]

My observations don't mean any more than yours. I simply said that I haven't had any observations at all of people who believe that God must grant all categories of prayers. You claimed that you knew people who believed this, and I asked you to post a link to a website or any evidence of someone who believes this and I'll admit that their belief is irrational.

I will ask you one more time, how do I post a link to my life experiences?

Now, this belief I have heard of (and is not contradicted by the scripture you've cited), although it is quite different from the belief you claimed to know of a few posts back:

You mean the strawman you are trying to force on me, no, sorry. This is all that I have ever claimed and it IS contradicted by the scripture that I cited.

The definition makes grammatical sense (but would be incomplete) without the word "irrational." So, "that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome" is the belief being referred to. In order to be considered superstition by this definition, the belief would also have to be irrational.

This violates your own argument that a belief can't simply be declared irrational. You aren't making sense.

This discussion about dictionary definitions is getting quite silly, especially since I've already conceded your premise that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is irrational (whether or not the dictionary definition requires it). Unfortunately, you still cannot prove that prayer fits the premise since Christians believe there to be a relation between the action and the course of events influenced by the action.

That is what you just are not getting. Every superstitions is based on the belief that the act is related.

The problem, Bri, is that there is no connection that is demonstrable, it is not logical. I can believe that my pink magic marker is connected to the weather but belief is NOT ENOUGH. There has to be a logical connection, something that is reasonable, something that isn't just belief.

If you'd like to continue to believe that the dictionary proves that prayer is irrational, there's probably nothing further I can do to convince you otherwise. In my opinion that is an irrational belief, but perhaps you have a better reason for believing it than you've posted here.

Since prayer is an action that can't be demonstrated or explained how it is connected to any event then it is, by definition, irrational.

This will continue to be a straw man regardless of how often you write it.

How is it a straw man, it isn't even an argument, it is a question that you refuse to answer, why? Is the belief irrational, yes or no?

Any reasons I might have to suppose that God exists or grants prayers is irrelevant. The question is whether Christians have reason to believe that God exists or grants prayers, and I'm fairly certain that they do.

You have no idea what those reasons are but you are fairly certain they exist, this is irrational. Why would you suppose such a notion?

 

[Tricky]

Yes, a reason that contradicts available evidence, or a reason that contradicts itself (i.e. is logically inconsistent) would probably be invalid.

If faith alone makes a thing valid, then nothing based on faith can be logically invalid, e.g. if God can do anything, then anything God does is not logically invalid.

The raping virgins thing is a straw man. The belief that raping a virgin can sometimes cure AIDS would not justify the act even if it were true.

Thats morality you're talking about. I'm asking about rationality. There are probably many things that Christians do that other religions/cultures find morally repugnant, but does that does not make them logically invalid. So it is not a straw man at all. It is a faith-based belief, just like prayer. As such, it is just as rational as prayer, even if morally repugnant, wouldn't you agree?

 

[RandFan]

3.) The Bible tells us that God sometimes wants people to kill for him. If one person kills another person because they believe God wants them to kill people is that belief "not necessarily irrational"?

Just want to be certain that this question is not forgotten. Please answer it. It is a valid question. There is historical context for the question. Even if there wasn't it would still be valid however the fact that God is quoted in the Bible many times as having told people to kill in his name gives additional reason for asking the question. So, are you going to tell us simply whether the belief is rational or not? Or are you too uncomfortable with it? Justification is not the issue. All that matters is the belief, is it necassarily irrational, yes or no?

 

[RandFan]

No, the evidence to the contrary is evidence to the contrary, which is why this is a straw man. We were discussing beliefs for which there is little evidence either way.

For some excellent reasons why prayer is irrational please see http://skepdic.com/prayer.html

 

[Bri]

You don't really get to change the hypothetical. You see, it's my hypothetical. She believes what she believes, that God talked to her and told her the man was innocent. No more, no less, I realize that the hypothetical makes you uncomfortable but you will just have to deal with it, or, you can obfuscate which is where I guess you are going to go.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I changed your hypothetical. I simply pointed out that you didn't provide me with enough information to make a definitive determination, although I did concede given only the information you gave me, the likelihood of the accused's guilt. It is also my opinion that the belief of the juror in question is probably, but not necessarily, irrational.

For most of us this isn't a difficult proposition that we need to wring our hands over. Her behavior is irrational. Period, full stop end of story.

(emphasis mine) I don't believe you stated her actual behavior in your hypothetical, so if you have come to the conclusion that her behavior is irrational, it would be due to some information that you haven't shared with us. It would be my opinion that her belief is probably irrational. However, most of us would also agree that it's only an opinion that her belief is irrational, and that it's possible that her belief is not irrational. In other words, her belief is not necessarily irrational.

No, this is NOT a strawman but you are making one. I'm not talking about JUSTIFICATION. I'm talking about rationality. So stick with MY argument and not the one you want to make. Is the belief necassarily irrational?

No, you're purposely using that particular example because you wish to confuse the rationality of a belief with the rationality of acting on that belief.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I will ask you one more time, how do I post a link to my life experiences?

Then (as I said) I will agree that someone who believes that God must grant all categories of prayer holds an irrational belief, and will stick with my opinion that few if any actual Christians hold such a belief.

You mean the strawman you are trying to force on me, no, sorry. This is all that I have ever claimed and it IS contradicted by the scripture that I cited.

Again, I cited your previous post where you made quite a different claim than this one, unless you are now claiming that the following refer to identical beliefs:

I know people that believe that God can grant any prayer he chooses. He doesn't grant every prayer but he is not limited by anything or anybody.

Choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does contradict many Christian beliefs that I know of.

They seem quite different to me.

This violates your own argument that a belief can't simply be declared irrational. You aren't making sense.

No idea what you mean. That a superstition isn't a superstition without being irrational has little to do with whether a prayer is a superstition unless you assume that prayer is irrational. If you assume that a prayer is irrational, then you're not proving prayer to be irrational based on the definition.

That is what you just are not getting. Every superstitions is based on the belief that the act is related.

Correct, which is why you cannot prove that any particular belief is a superstition by definition. The word is used to categorize certain beliefs that you think are both irrational and concern actions unrelated to the events they are believed to cause.

Since prayer is an action that can't be demonstrated or explained how it is connected to any event then it is, by definition, irrational.

Even if a belief in prayer was actually irrational, it's not by definition irrational. Nothing in that definition refers specifically to prayer.

You have no idea what those reasons are but you are fairly certain they exist, this is irrational. Why would you suppose such a notion?

I know their reasons exist because Christians (including elliotfc) have given you their reasons. Whether you or I accept these reasons as valid evidence that prayer works is another matter.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

If faith alone makes a thing valid, then nothing based on faith can be logically invalid, e.g. if God can do anything, then anything God does is not logically invalid.

Don't overstate my argument. I never said that faith alone makes something valid. I said that faith doesn't make it necessarily invalid.

Thats morality you're talking about. I'm asking about rationality. There are probably many things that Christians do that other religions/cultures find morally repugnant, but does that does not make them logically invalid. So it is not a straw man at all. It is a faith-based belief, just like prayer. As such, it is just as rational as prayer, even if morally repugnant, wouldn't you agree?

If that is the case, then you just answered your own question.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Just want to be certain that this question is not forgotten. Please answer it. It is a valid question. There is historical context for the question. Even if there wasn't it would still be valid however the fact that God is quoted in the Bible many times as having told people to kill in his name gives additional reason for asking the question. So, are you going to tell us simply whether the belief is rational or not? Or are you too uncomfortable with it? Justification is not the issue. All that matters is the belief, is it necassarily irrational, yes or no?

Again, you are putting forth an example which is a straw man, just like the second proposition you posted. You are hoping to confuse the rationality of a belief with the morality of acting on that belief. Whether or not the belief is necessarily rational is not related to whether it is right or wrong to act on the belief. In this case, you are also throwing in some Bible stories to confuse the issue further.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

For some excellent reasons why prayer is irrational please see http://skepdic.com/prayer.html

The article you cited doesn't contain the word "irrational." That said, I agree with the author's opinion that there is reason to believe that prayer doesn't work. I never claimed otherwise. I did say that Christians may also have reason to hold the opposite opinion.

BTW, the article you posted has a better definition of "miracle" than the one you previously posted (in my opinion), since it doesn't require the miracle to be obvious and doesn't suggest any particular purpose of the miracle. Using the definition from the article, prayers are believed to result in miracles, whereas using your previously posted definition prayers may result in other less obvious violations of the laws of nature that wouldn't qualify as "miracles."

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

Don't overstate my argument. I never said that faith alone makes something valid. I said that faith doesn't make it necessarily invalid.

Okay. I'll try again

Position 1 is based on faith and faith alone, and you believe it is valid.
Position 2 is based on faith and faith alone, and you believe it is invalid.

What criteria did you use to decide 1 was valid and 2 was invalid?

If that is the case, then you just answered your own question.

I have? Why don't you show me this is the case by telling me what that answer is. Do you agree with my answer?

 

[Bri]

Okay. I'll try again

Position 1 is based on faith and faith alone, and you believe it is valid.
Position 2 is based on faith and faith alone, and you believe it is invalid.

What criteria did you use to decide 1 was valid and 2 was invalid?

I have no idea what criteria you used. I said that faith alone doesn't make something necessarily valid or necessarily invalid. Therefore, I would have to disagree with both propositions.

I have? Why don't you show me this is the case by telling me what that answer is. Do you agree with my answer?

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that the rationality of a belief doesn't necessarily indicate the morality of using that belief to justify action. I agree with this. For example, if one believes that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, this belief wouldn't necessarily justify murder regardless of the fact that it is a rational opinion.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

I have no idea what criteria you used. I said that faith alone doesn't make something necessarily valid or necessarily invalid. Therefore, I would have to disagree with both propositions.

Then what is it that makes something valid or invalid. Do you have a way of determining the validity of a statement?

I Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that the rationality of a belief doesn't necessarily indicate the morality of using that belief to justify action. I agree with this.

That is correct. Then you agree that raping to prevent AIDS is just as rational as praying to God because since both of them are based on faith and faith alone, the morality of the of the act does not affect its rationality.

I For example, if one believes that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, this belief wouldn't necessarily justify murder regardless of the fact that it is a rational opinion.

Oy vey! Again with the aliens? Frankly, I'm having a hard time figuring out a way that accepting the possiblity that intelligent life may exist somewhere else in the universe could possibly be twisted to justify murder. On the other hand, I know of several instances where praying has triggered someone to commit murder.

 

[Bri]

Then what is it that makes something valid or invalid. Do you have a way of determining the validity of a statement?

I've already listed several ways of determining a statement invalid. Otherwise, I've heard of no objective means by which one statement can be determined invalid and another can be determined valid when little or no evidence is available. Again, by what criteria do you determine statements such as "intelligent life exists outside of the solar system" are more valid than other statements for which there is little evidence either way?

That is correct. Then you agree that raping to prevent AIDS is just as rational as praying to God because since both of them are based on faith and faith alone, the morality of the of the act does not affect its rationality.

Again, you are confusing actions (raping to prevent AIDS and praying to God) with beliefs. Furthermore, the two actions you are attempting to compare are not equivalent. I'll assume this straw man was unintentional.

Oy vey! Again with the aliens? Frankly, I'm having a hard time figuring out a way that accepting the possiblity that intelligent life may exist somewhere else in the universe could possibly be twisted to justify murder. On the other hand, I know of several instances where praying has triggered someone to commit murder.

Tricky, you simply lack imagination! Let's say that a scientist so strongly believes that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system that he goes to great lengths to prove it. In order to do so, he spends 30 years of his life convincing politicians that the government should spend millions of dollars on a large-scale project to try to discover evidence. Let's say that there is one particularly outspoken and powerful politician who backs up this scientist's efforts, but at the last minute decides it more important to spend the millions to help feed the hungry here on earth and threatens to squash 30 years of hard work. Furthermore, although the scientist points out to the politician that other intelligent life might hold the key to solving the hunger problem, this politician vows that as long as he lives, he will use his considerable power to prevent the government from spending a single dollar on such a project until the problem of world hunger is solved. So...the scientist decides to murder the politician.

Then you agree that murder is just as rational as praying to God because since both of them are based on faith and faith alone, right?

Do you now see the straw man?

-Bri

 

[slingblade]

I've already listed several ways of determining a statement invalid. Otherwise, I've heard of no objective means by which one statement can be determined invalid and another can be determined valid when little or no evidence is available.

Wiki:

In logic, the form of an argument is valid precisely if it cannot lead from true premises to a false conclusion. An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true. For example: "All A are B; some A are C; therefore some B are C" is a valid form.

A formula of logic is said to be valid if it is true under every interpretation (also called structure or model). See also model theory or mathematical logic.

A tautology, or tautologous formula, is truth functionally valid. Not all valid formulas of quantificational logic are tautologies.

 

[Tricky]

I've already listed several ways of determining a statement invalid. Otherwise, I've heard of no objective means by which one statement can be determined invalid and another can be determined valid when little or no evidence is available. Again, by what criteria do you determine statements such as "intelligent life exists outside of the solar system" are more valid than other statements for which there is little evidence either way?

All I've heard is "logical contradiction" as a way to invalidate a statement. But we've been through the difference between "unavailable data" versus "local data" before. I cannot see that explaining it to you again would make any difference.

Again, you are confusing actions (raping to prevent AIDS and praying to God) with beliefs. Furthermore, the two actions you are attempting to compare are not equivalent. I'll assume this straw man was unintentional.

Praying is an action. They are both actions based on solely on beliefs. There is no difference as far as the validity of the action goes. They are equivalent actions, not a straw man.

You lack imagination. Let's say that a scientist so strongly believes that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system that he goes to great lengths to prove it. In order to do so, he spends 30 years of his life convincing politicians that the government should spend millions of dollars on a large-scale project to try to discover evidence. Let's say that there is one particularly outspoken and powerful politician who backs up this scientist's efforts, but at the last minute decides it more important to spend the millions to help feed the hungry here on earth and threatens to squash 30 years of hard work. Furthermore, although the scientist points out to the politician that other intelligent life might hold the key to solving the hunger problem, this politician vows that as long as he lives, he will use his considerable power to prevent the government from spending a single dollar on such a project until the problem of world hunger is solved. So...the scientist decides to murder the politician.

Wow, quite a scenario propose there. And yet, it is not the same. Unless you are arguing that the scientist was TOLD by the aliens to murder the politician, (something I would definitely consider irrational) then it is nothing like a person murdering someone because God told them to.

Remember this little scenario you created next time you tell someone else they are using a straw man.

Then you agree that murder is just as rational as praying to God because since both of them are based on faith and faith alone, right?

Only if the murder is based on faith and faith alone. One person talks to God and He tells that person to give money to the church, so the person does it. Another person talks to God and He tells that person to put poison into kool-aid, so that person does it. Both of them have acted based on prayer. Both are, irrational acts, but with different outcomes.

Do you now see the straw man?

I see one big convoluted one.

 

[Bri]

Praying is an action. They are both actions based on solely on beliefs. There is no difference as far as the validity of the action goes. They are equivalent actions, not a straw man.

Do you really mean to imply that praying and raping someone are equivalent actions? If so, I respectfully disagree. Nonetheless, as you admitted, the rationality of a belief doesn't necessarily indicate the morality of using that belief to justify action. Therefore, the morality of actions are irrelevant to a discussion of the rationality of belief, despite the temptation to confuse the two. I assumed this straw man to be unintentional, but as you continue to make the argument, it seems less and less likely to be unintentional.

Wow, quite a scenario propose there. And yet, it is not the same. Unless you are arguing that the scientist was TOLD by the aliens to murder the politician, (something I would definitely consider irrational) then it is nothing like a person murdering someone because God told them to.

I don't recall any previous mention that the belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS came from a conversation with God, aliens, or anyone else. So, if the belief didn't come from a conversation with God or aliens, is raping a virgin any less morally repugnant?

Only if the murder is based on faith and faith alone.

What part of the scientist's belief wasn't based on faith alone? Are you referring to the very weak evidence showing that intelligent life is possible outside of the solar system? There is also weak evidence showing that prayer works.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Wiki:

An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true.

OK, so please present such a logical argument that belief in prayer is necessarily invalid. I suspect that any such argument for which the premises are true will also apply to other beliefs that have been previously claimed to be valid, such as belief that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system.

I simply don't think you'll find a logical formula for determining the truth of opinions concerning the unfalsifiable, particularly the unfalsifiable for which there is little evidence either way.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

Do you really mean to imply that praying and raping someone are equivalent actions? If so, I respectfully disagree.

Don't forget the "based on faith" part, Bri. When you leave out little things like that, you change the topic. If both are based on faith, they are rationally equivalent. But you knew that was what we were talking about.

Nonetheless, as you admitted, the rationality of a belief doesn't necessarily indicate the morality of using that belief to justify action. Therefore, the morality of actions are irrelevant to a discussion of the rationality of belief, despite the temptation to confuse the two. I assumed this straw man to be unintentional, but as you continue to make the argument, it seems less and less likely to be unintentional.

This is what I have been telling you, Bri. Are you paying attention?

I don't recall any previous mention that the belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS came from a conversation with God, aliens, or anyone else. So, if the belief didn't come from a conversation with God or aliens, is raping a virgin any less morally repugnant?

It is a religious belief. Most people who do this do so because their shaman or witch doctor (who speaks to the spirits) has told them it will work. It is essentially a religious ritual, like praying is a religious ritual.

What part of the scientist's belief wasn't based on faith alone?

The biggest straw man is of course that belief in the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere is not the same as belief in the certainty of intelligent life elsewhere. Then of course, the demand for money is not a faith-based thing but greed-based thing. And of course, his anger at the politician is based on his feeling of betrayal and the broken "promise" that the politician made. And of course, the reasoning that the aliens would figure out how to end world hunger is giving the aliens specific characteristics, nothing at all like believing in the possibility of intelligent life of some kind.

I could go on and on, but the simple fact is that this is a totally straw-filled scenario, one that has, as far as I am aware of, no basis in reality. But people have killed because God told them to. Many times.

There is also weak evidence showing that prayer works.

Very weak. And yet, with all the praying that goes on and all the things it could affect that would be very easy to see, the weakness of the evidence is damning.