Prayer and power

[I less than three logic]

Seems to be becoming a heated discussion here. I'd just like to add my really quick.

I think it can be rational to believe in the possibility of extrasolar intelligent life and also the possibility of God existing. Note, that this is the possibility only, no certainty involved. However, I think it would be just as irrational to believe that talking to God, which may or may not exist, can change anything as it would be to talk to the extrasolar intelligence, which may or may not exist, for the same effect.

 

[Tricky]

I think it can be rational to believe in the possibility of extrasolar intelligent life and also the possibility of God existing. Note, that this is the possibility only, no certainty involved. However, I think it would be just as irrational to believe that talking to God, which may or may not exist, can change anything as it would be to talk to the extrasolar intelligence, which may or may not exist, for the same effect.

This is sort of the position that RandFan took when he said the "Deist God" was rational. The position is that as long as you put no restrictions whatsoever on the characteristics of God, then believing in God is essentially the same thing as believing in nature. But if that is the case, why add in God at all? Is there a rational reason to rename "nature" to God?

However, as soon as you start giving God traits, like "He listens to prayers", then such a belief is irrational in the absence of evidence for such listening. Sure, you could say "He listens but doesn't do anything", but once again, you are reducing God to something exactly resmbles no-god.

If you say "God is good", well we know what "good" normally means, so that claim requires evidence. If you counter with "we don't know what 'good' means to God," then our buddy Occam slices Him out of the equation again. If you can't tell whether or not your God is doing "good", then there is no difference between that concept of God and no-god.

And I agree, talking to aliens is less rational than believing they might exist.

 

[I less than three logic]

This is sort of the position that RandFan took when he said the "Deist God" was rational. The position is that as long as you put no restrictions whatsoever on the characteristics of God, then believing in God is essentially the same thing as believing in nature. But if that is the case, why add in God at all? Is there a rational reason to rename "nature" to God?

However, as soon as you start giving God traits, like "He listens to prayers", then such a belief is irrational in the absence of evidence for such listening. Sure, you could say "He listens but doesn't do anything", but once again, you are reducing God to something exactly resmbles no-god.

If you say "God is good", well we know what "good" normally means, so that claim requires evidence. If you counter with "we don't know what 'good' means to God," then our buddy Occam slices Him out of the equation again. If you can't tell whether or not your God is doing "good", then there is no difference between that concept of God and no-god.

And I agree, talking to aliens is less rational than believing they might exist.

I think you may have read too much into my statement.

I simply meant that it is rational to believe the possibility, that God exists, exists. Not that belief in God is rational, which is why I fall into the atheist category. If asked, "Do you believe God exists?" My answer would be, "No, I don't believe God exists." However, if asked, "Does God exist?" My answer would be, "I don't know."

From my point of view, there is not enough evidence to prove God does not exist, that whole "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" thing. However, there most certainly isn't enough evidence on the other side to support a belief in God's existence either.

Now, as for Bri's comparison to the belief in God vs. the belief in other intelligent life in the universe, I see a striking difference in the two. That is simply the size of the universe. To the belief in God this makes no difference at all, no matter what the size the possibility of God remains constant. This isn't true for the possibility of other life. The larger the universe the greater possibility for life, and given the nearly inconceivable size of the universe, the probability that this is the only place life occurred would equally inconceivable, although not impossible.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Fine, we disagree.

They seem quite different to me.

There is little I can do about your perception.

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.

No, I'm not ASSUMING anymore than the dictionary is assuming.

Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer is an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

They are identical, no assuming on the part of the dictionary and no assuming on my part. It is irrational because there is no connection. I don't say it very often but it called for here. QED

Correct, which is why you cannot prove that any particular belief is a superstition by definition.

You should contact the dictionary. They will be surprised of your assertion. Don't count on a change in definition.

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

Actually, it does. Prayer is an action that is not logically connected to the events it is supposed to influence.

If you ever care to demonstrate a connection then please do so. Until it is just an unsupported claim.

 

[RandFan]

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.

No, I am not.

Just answer the question, regardless of morality, is it necessarily irrational?

 

[RandFan]

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...

Thats BS, there is NO other information. Based on that information is it necessarily irrational?

...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.

We'll we know where you stand. That's BS.

(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.

Based on the information provided there is only one rational conclusion. She is 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]

Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer is an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

They are identical, no assuming on the part of the dictionary and no assuming on my part. It is irrational because there is no connection. I don't say it very often but it called for here. QED

You seem to have made up this second definition (the one for prayer). It isn't in any dictionary I can find (much less The Free Dictionary, which seems to list the definition you posted for "superstition" word for word). Using those two definitions, indeed prayer is a form of superstition. However, nobody uses that definition of prayer, least of all Christians.

You should contact the dictionary. They will be surprised of your assertion. Don't count on a change in definition.

There is little need for me to change dictionary definitions since I wasn't the one who claimed that prayer is irrational by definition. It would be nice if you could provide a dictionary definition that supports your claim, but instead you seem to have just made one up.

Actually, it does. Prayer is an action that is not logically connected to the events it is supposed to influence.

If you ever care to demonstrate a connection then please do so. Until it is just an unsupported claim.

I never claimed that there was a connection. You made the claim that there was no connection, so it is up to you to back it up with evidence.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

The article you cited doesn't contain the word "irrational."

I'm sorry, I assumed you had read the earlier post.

Introduction

The Skeptic’s Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term “occult” to refer to any and all of these subjects.

...

Also, it seems to be true that belief in the irrational is as appealing to the true believer as belief in the rational is to the hardened skeptic. According to many soft skeptics, whether one chooses a life devoted to rationality or irrationality is a matter of faith. For a good period of my adult life, I was a soft skeptic who believed that my commitment to rationality was as much an act of faith as my earlier commitment to Catholicism had been. For years I remained open to the possibility of all sorts of occult phenomena. My studies and reflections in recent years have led me to the conclusion that there is a preponderance of evidence against the reasonableness of belief in any occult phenomena. I have also concluded that choosing rationality over irrationality is not an act of faith at all. To even pose the question as one requiring thought to answer demonstrates the futility of claiming everything can be reduced to faith. One must use reason to argue for faith. While I do not deny that the consequences of believing in the occult are often beneficial, I do deny that such consequences have anything to do with establishing the reality of occult phenomena

The author makes it quite plain that, in his opinion, any belief in the occult is irrational. It's my opinion also

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.

They may have cause but as the author states, there is a preponderance of evidence against the reasonableness of belief in any occult phenomena. In other words, it is irrational.

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."

I'd be happy to discuss and debate such definitions. The bottom line is that the belief is irrational.

 

[RandFan]

You seem to have made up this second definition (the one for prayer).

I have no idea how you can sit there and say that. It is clear that they are the same. Prayer is but one of many such superstitions, by definition.

Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer is an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

How are they different?

It isn't in any dictionary I can find...

Here is one more that is not in the dictionary.

Belief that a horse shoe can bring good luck is an irrational belief that an object that is not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

You better notify the dictionary. And, BTW, your argument is silly.

I never claimed that there was a connection. You made the claim that there was no connection, so it is up to you to back it up with evidence.

You just defined everything that was otherwise considered superstitious to be rational because we can't prove a negative. The dictionary definition by your logic can never be met. How do you prove a negative. Now a belief in Santa Claus in the face of evidence to the contrary is not necessarily irrational? Nice job for critical thinking Bri.

 

[Bri]

From my point of view, there is not enough evidence to prove God does not exist, that whole "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" thing. However, there most certainly isn't enough evidence on the other side to support a belief in God's existence either.

I can agree with this, but keep in mind that you're suggesting that beliefs that others on this thread have already deemed "rational" are irrational. If you're willing to concede that all beliefs for which there is little or no evidence are irrational, then I'll agree to that, but it means that the only rational opinions on such matters are agnostic opinions (i.e. having no opinion at all). If, on the other hand, you think that having an opinion on such matters is not necessarily irrational, then it cannot be rational to hold one opinion but irrational to hold the opposite opinion when there is little or no evidence supporting either opinion.

Now, as for Bri's comparison to the belief in God vs. the belief in other intelligent life in the universe, I see a striking difference in the two. That is simply the size of the universe. To the belief in God this makes no difference at all, no matter what the size the possibility of God remains constant. This isn't true for the possibility of other life. The larger the universe the greater possibility for life, and given the nearly inconceivable size of the universe, the probability that this is the only place life occurred would equally inconceivable, although not impossible.

The size of the universe may provide evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, but it is very weak evidence at best that intelligent life actually exists elsewhere. There is simply no hard evidence of it. In that regard, a belief that intelligent life does exist elsewhere is quite similar to belief that God does exist. If one is necessarily irrational because it has little evidence to support it, then both must be (as must be the opposite opinions).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I have no idea how you can sit there and say that. It is clear that they are the same. Prayer is but one of many such superstitions, by definition.

Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer is an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

How are they different?

From where did you get this definition for "prayer" RandFan? Please cite your source. The one for "superstition" appears to be from The Free Dictionary. Where is the definition of "prayer" from?

Here is one more that is not in the dictionary.

Belief that a horse shoe can bring good luck is an irrational belief that an object that is not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

You better notify the dictionary. And, BTW, your argument is silly.

RandFan, if you're going to claim that something is irrational by definition, you may actually want to post a dictionary definition that supports your claim. Otherwise, you're just making up definitions that nobody uses.

You just defined everything that was otherwise considered superstitious to be rational because we can't prove a negative. The dictionary definition by your logic can never be met. How do you prove a negative. Now Santa Claus exists. Nice job for critical thinking Bri.

No, I didn't claim that prayer is rational by definition, therefore I didn't need to redefine prayer at all. You claimed prayer to be by definition irrational, so you had to change the definition for "prayer" to support your claim.

The dictionary's purpose is to provide a definition for words like "superstition," not to make judgments about what must fall under them. For example, although a Christian may believe that premarital sex falls under the definition of "evil" (defined in the dictionary as "morally bad or wrong") you won't see the word "evil" or "morally wrong" in any common definition for "premarital sex." Nor can you use the definition of "evil" to prove that premarital sex is by definition morally wrong.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

From where did you get this definition for "prayer" RandFan? Please cite your source. The one for "superstition" appears to be from The Free Dictionary. Where is the definition of "prayer" from?

It is prima facie. You said

In this discussion, I believe we've both used the phrase to mean "belief that prayer affects the outcome of events."

I'm not sure how it can be any more clear.

Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer is an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

I'll ask again, how is the first any different from the second?

The dictionary's purpose is to provide a definition, not to make judgments about what must fall under the definition.

Yes, and by this definition it is clear that prayer is irrational.

For example, although a Christian may believe that premarital sex falls under the definition of "evil" (defined in the dictionary as "morally bad or wrong") you won't see the word "evil" or "morally wrong" in any common definition for "premarital sex." Nor can you use the definition of "evil" to prove that premarital sex is by definition morally wrong.

But premarital sex IS premarital sex!

And prayer IS belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome and is therefore irrational.

 

[RandFan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship.

...

In keeping with the Latin etymology of the word, religious believers have often seen other religions as superstition. Likewise, Atheists, agnostics, and skeptics regard religious belief as superstition. (Edmund Burke, the Irish orator, once said, "Superstition is the religion of weak minds".) From the broadest perspective, all religion is a form of superstition.

Religious practices are most likely to be labelled "superstitious" by outsiders when they include belief in extraordinary events, supernatural interventions, apparitions or the efficacy of charms, incantations, the meaningfulness of omens, and prognostications.

Greek and Roman pagans, who modeled their relations with the gods on political and social terms scorned the man who constantly trembled with fear at the thought of the gods, as a slave feared a cruel and capricious master. "Such fear of the gods (deisidaimonia) was what the Romans meant by 'superstition' (Veyne 1987, p 211). For Christians just such fears might be worn proudly as a name: Desdemona.

 

[RandFan]

Robert Green Ingersoll

WHAT IS SUPERSTITION?

To believe in spite of evidence or without evidence.

To account for one mystery by another.

To believe that the world is governed by chance or caprice.

To disregard the true relation between cause and effect.

To believe in force apart from substance, or in substance
apart from force.

To believe in miracles, spells and charms, in dreams and
prophecies.

To believe in the supernatural.

 

[RandFan]

Merriam-Webster Online

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

"Trust in magic..." "A false concpetion of causation".

 

[RandFan]

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

superstition

Excessively credulous belief in the supernatural.

credulous

• adjective excessively ready to believe things; gullible.

FWIW, "Excessively credulous", I think, is redundant.

 

[RandFan]

The article you cited doesn't contain the word "irrational."

No, it dispenses with such nicities.

However, there are at least two reasons for believing that beseeching an SB to intervene in the natural course of events is absurd.

So, which is worse, "irrational" or "absurd"?

 

[I less than three logic]

I can agree with this, but keep in mind that you're suggesting that beliefs that others on this thread have already deemed "rational" are irrational. If you're willing to concede that all beliefs for which there is little or no evidence are irrational, then I'll agree to that, but it means that the only rational opinions on such matters are agnostic opinions (i.e. having no opinion at all). If, on the other hand, you think that having an opinion on such matters is not necessarily irrational, then it cannot be rational to hold one opinion but irrational to hold the opposite opinion when there is little or no evidence supporting either opinion.

I don’t agree that agonistic opinions are the only rational belief when there is no evidence on either side. I think the default position is that it doesn’t exist until there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The way I see it, there are an infinite number of things that do not exit, yet only a finite number that actually can. That does not mean the possibility does not exist however.

The size of the universe may provide evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, but it is very weak evidence at best that intelligent life actually exists elsewhere. There is simply no hard evidence of it. In that regard, a belief that intelligent life does exist elsewhere is quite similar to belief that God does exist. If one is necessarily irrational because it has little evidence to support it, then both must be (as must be the opposite opinions).

No, it is not similar at all. First, descriptions of God tend to contradict most of the known laws of physics; where as life on other planets would not. Also, given that life was created here, and lacking a belief in God, means that it must have occurred naturally. That means given similar conditions we could expect life to arise on other planets. Now, the conditions needed for life to be created might be exceedingly rare, but given the size of the universe, you could still expect it to happen a number of times. Perhaps it is very rare and only one life-capable planet is produced per 100 galaxies. That’s about 1 planet for every 20,000,000,000,000,000 – 40,000,000,000,000 stars, give or take a few. (Quick estimate based on an average galaxy being like the Milky Way^WP that is estimated at 200 to 400 billion stars.) Current estimates place the number of galaxies in the universe just above 100 billion galaxies, so you could still expect millions of life-capable planets to form. To be quite honest, I think that to believe Earth is the only planet to have life requires a belief in God.

 

[Bri]

It is prima facie.

Then I'm sorry, but you haven't proven that prayer is irrational by any definition that is generally used. The only definition you've posted to support your claim is one you made up. If I make up a definition of "premarital sex" such as "the morally wrong act of having sex before marriage" then I can also prove that premarital sex is evil by that definition, but that would be using a definition that isn't generally used.

But premarital sex IS premarital sex!

And prayer IS belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome and is therefore irrational.

And prayer IS prayer. But "prayer" isn't generally defined as "an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome" any more than "premarital sex" is generally defined as "the morally wrong act of having sex before marriage." You can prove me wrong by finding a commonly-accepted dictionary that matches your definition. Sorry, but wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

-Bri

 

[elliotfc]

Taken somewhat further, the upshot seems to be that, at some stage in the future (à la de Chardin's "Omega Point"), we shall no longer have any need for or of god, though I doubt you would willingly subscribe to such a notion. Am I wrong?

Whether or not *we* have a need for god is irrelevant. Need is a personal thing. You may be, on a personal level, correct. Nobody NEEDS God. But that is independent of personal choice.

If you want to live for eternity, without God, you will be allowed to do so. People who choose to need God are allowed to have that personal need as well.

Now, the question is...for those people who say that they need God, why do they need God? The reasons that I need God are probably irrelevant or ludicrous to you, so I could hardly expect you to need God as I do.

The kicker is in the meaning that attaches to "so what?" If, as I suspect, it connotes indifference...

It does not connote indifference. Rather, it means that I have no reason to dogmatically damn or exclude an anecdote just because it doesn't fit in a working model of reality. Will I consider that? Of course. Will it predetermine a personal conclusion? No.

...then physical reality surely can no longer offer up any surprises to you.

Depends what you mean by surprise I guess. I can be relatively surprised, but not essentially surprised.

On the other hand, as an earnest question, it would (and should!) prompt much curiosity about why the anecdote in question violates our model, and thereby lead to improved understanding.

I don't fundamentally consider models to be either equal or superior to events. Sure, they are useful. Are they inviolable? I guess that's a matter of personal opinion, you can figger where I stand.

I, of course, have my own working models, and they do serve as decent filters for me. Nobody has time to consider every anecdote under the sun. I'm more charitable to anecdotes that happen in abudance, as opposed to anecdotes that appear to be singular. I'm not saying I accept all anecdotes either, I just don't dogmatically dismiss them, a priori, because they don't fit whatever the common working models are.

Yet it seems that you are loath to apply a similar utilitarian conception to god, i.e. viewing god as a working model of the total reality. Why is this?

Because I think that God is more like a person than a construct, I guess? It follows from my religion.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't accept it. I get that others are intellectually satisfied by understanding god in such a way.

-Elliot