Prayer and power

[Bri]

Tests can be run on numerous kinds of prayer. In fact, they have been run on the efficacy of praying on illness. But here's a simple one.

You may have come into the conversation late, but I've already admitted that some beliefs in prayer are irrational, particularly those that can and have been proven wrong. However, many Christian beliefs in prayer, particularly those in conjunction with the belief that God might not want us to know for certain that he exists, cannot be "shown to be extremely unlikely."

In my experience, praying has no significant influence on the outcome of events. I know of no non-religious studies that show that praying has a significant influence on the outcome of events, but if there are, you can show them to me and I'll retract the statement.

I completely agree that there is no evidence of prayer working, but absence of evidence is only evidence if a particular testable outcome would be expected. Since many Christians don't believe that God grants all prayers, there is no reason to assume that a particular outcome will necessarily occur even if prayer works.

There are some academic studies that show that prayer has minimal to insignificant influence on healing. Most researchers consider it to be so unlikely as to not be worth study.

The research that was done recently on the efficacy of praying on illness doesn't prove that prayer doesn't work. Most researchers consider most beliefs in prayer untestable, and therefore ridiculous to study. I tend to agree.

Now of course, this is only testable for intercessory prayers.

It is only testable for certain beliefs in intercessory prayers, specifically those beliefs that involve God granting prayers under testable conditions. If a Christian believes that God must grant prayers under testable conditions, then I agree that research would indicate otherwise.

For prayers where you are simply talking to God, the protocol would require that you have a way of determining whether or not God heard you. That's a bit of a sticky point, considering that it would first require a comprehensive definition of "God" and some evidence that He exists. In short, you cannot show communication with an entity that you cannot show exists.

Yes, which is why we specifically eliminated this sort of belief from consideration earlier in the thread. We were talking only about belief that prayer can influence events. Unfortunately, these beliefs cannot necessarily be "shown to be extremely unlikely."

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

Yes, which is why we specifically eliminated this sort of belief from consideration earlier in the thread. We were talking only about belief that prayer can influence events. Unfortunately, these beliefs cannot necessarily be "shown to be extremely unlikely."

The basic procedure remains the same:

Decide in advance what a "affected outcome" means in a way that can be unambiguously shown.
Pray.
Record whether or not the previously agreed upon "affected outcome" occurred.

Now if you are trying to argue that we cannot know what an "affected outcome" is, then you are, in essence, saying prayer is innefective because the "affected outcome" is indistinguishable from what might be expected without prayer.

 

[Bri]

The basic procedure remains the same:

Decide in advance what a "affected outcome" means in a way that can be unambiguously shown.
Pray.
Record whether or not the previously agreed upon "affected outcome" occurred.

Now if you are trying to argue that we cannot know what an "affected outcome" is, then you are, in essence, saying prayer is innefective because the "affected outcome" is indistinguishable from what might be expected without prayer.

No, I'm arguing that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence, and therefore might not make the outcome obvious. However, it doesn't follow that a prayer is necessarily ineffective even if it isn't obvious that the outcome is the result of the prayer.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

No, I'm arguing that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence, and therefore might not make the outcome obvious. However, it doesn't follow that a prayer is necessarily ineffective even if it isn't obvious that the outcome is the result of the prayer.

What do you think "effective" means? If you can't perceive an effect, then it is ineffective. If you can't define what an effect is, it is ineffective, since an undefinded effect cannot be perceived. There is no difference between an effect which cannot be perceived versus no effect.

Hypothesizing about what God might or might not want us to know is not going to change that.

 

[Bri]

What do you think "effective" means? If you can't perceive an effect, then it is ineffective. If you can't define what an effect is, it is ineffective, since an undefinded effect cannot be perceived.

Effective simply means that it achieves its goals. A prayer would be effective even if it isn't obvious unless the goal of the prayer is to make God's existence clear. God could simply choose not to grant such prayers if he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence.

There is no difference between an effect which cannot be perceived versus no effect.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that. First, I didn't say that the effect isn't perceived, only that it might not be obvious that it was caused by the prayer. Second, an effect which is not perceived is still an effect.

Hypothesizing about what God might or might not want us to know is not going to change that.

No idea what you mean here. If God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence, he could certainly ensure that the only prayers that are granted are prayers that don't have obvious results.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

This entire discussion has been about whether belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. Not only do you "not object" to the term, but you've agreed that you think that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. I've pointed out that the phrase "belief in prayer is necessarily irrational" implies an absolute fact, but you seem to believe that it means the same thing as "belief in prayer is provisionally irrational."

(emphasis mine). Please pay close attention to the above bolded text. Got it?

I'm getting really tired of repeating myself (not to mention pissed off).

I've re-written this post several times and I have whittled it down to just 6 propositions. Please look carefully at them and try to understand them to the best of your ability. I hate to be condescending but if you do not understand the word proposition will you please read this link? Feel free to chose a different source or dictionary if you so choose. If you should choose a dictionary use the definition that would address logical argument.

The propositions are in bold and are numbered.

P1: I do not hold any position as absolute!

P2: Science does not hold any position as absolute!

P3: The sun won't necessarily rise tomorrow.

P4: I am not necessarily a descendant of 4 grandparents.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

P5: Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"

...

P6: In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

So, are there any of the propositions that you disagree with or that you do not understand?

Your position concerns naked men? The thread certainly has taken an odd turn.

I was trying to point out the absurdity of your position. It comes from an old parable, The Emperors New Clothes. If you get an opportunity I suggest you take the time to read it. Just follow the link.

I will try and make the point (of not seeing clothes that are not there) clear for you but we are going to have to take this a step at a time. First things first. Tell me which if any of the above propositions that you have a problem with?

 

[Bri]

I've re-written this post several times and I have whittled it down to just 6 propositions.

I only saw 4:

P1: I do not hold any position as absolute!

P2: Science does not hold any position as absolute!

P3: The sun won't necessarily rise tomorrow.

P4: I am not necessarily a descendant of 4 grandparents.

So, are there any of the propositions that you disagree with or that you do not understand?

I agree with P1 and P2, and they don't seem to conflict with any argument I've made thus far in this thread. P3, although true, seems to be irrelevant to the discussion. P4 is certainly true since your parents could be siblings (which means that you'd have only 2 grandparents).

I was trying to point out the absurdity of your position. It comes from an old parable, The Emperors New Clothes. If you get an opportunity I suggest you take the time to read it. Just follow the link.

I'm familiar with the parable, but I still find the example odd (not to mention irrelevant to the discussion). Sorry.

Assuming these 4 propositions represent the extent of your position, you appear to now fully agree with what I've been saying all along.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I only saw 4:

? Are you playing games?

5 & 6 were in the quote. I will remove the quote. Do you see them now?

>>>>>>Start Quote

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

P5: Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"

...

P6: In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

>>>>>> End Quote

P4 is certainly true since your parents could be siblings (which means that you'd have only 2 grandparents).

If you are playing games I'm really not in the mood for it. Could you please be serious?

P4: I am not necessarily descendant from at least one grandparent.

Assuming these 4 propositions represent the extent of your position, you appear to now fully agree with what I've been saying all along.

This really pisses me off.

I'll respond but I need to you to respond to #4, #5 and #6 first.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

No, I'm arguing that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence, and therefore might not make the outcome obvious.

You have propounded such a caveat at least once before in this thread, yet you fail, or possibly refuse, to see the fatal damage it does to your argument: if true, this provision necessitates that belief in the effectiveness of prayer be classed as irrational, for we cannot know in advance what outcome any given prayer will produce. Any result that differs from the one intended will constitute "evidence" for both of the two opposing perspectives about prayer's effectiveness. The latter view is only tenable in a postmodernist frame of mind.

However, it doesn't follow that a prayer is necessarily ineffective even if it isn't obvious that the outcome is the result of the prayer.

Agreed. But it does, as indicated above, follow that it is then necessarily irrational.

'Luthon64

 

[Tricky]

Effective simply means that it achieves its goals. A prayer would be effective even if it isn't obvious unless the goal of the prayer is to make God's existence clear.

But by your own admission it may be impossible to tell if a prayer succeeds. Tell me, in what other situation would an action which produced no discernable result be called "effective"?

God could simply choose not to grant such prayers if he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence.

There you go hypothesizing about what God may want again. What if God hates prayer? Would you also agree that it is rational to believe that prayer is countereffective?

I'm not sure how you arrive at that. First, I didn't say that the effect isn't perceived, only that it might not be obvious that it was caused by the prayer.

If you can't tie it to the cause, then you can't call it an effect.

Second, an effect which is not perceived is still an effect.

But you'd never know it. So it would be irrational to believe it had an effect that you could not perceive.

No idea what you mean here. If God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence, he could certainly ensure that the only prayers that are granted are prayers that don't have obvious results.

And as soon as you can provide some evidence that God doesn't want us to know for certain of His existence, then that belief becomes rational. Until then, it is not.

 

[Bri]

P5: Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"

P6: In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Sorry I missed them. Yes, I also agree with P5 and P6. Two additional comment. First, the word "necessary" indicates an absolute fact. If you say that B necessarily follows from A, that means that there is no chance that B doesn't follow from A (which is why the word is seldom used in science except in conjunction with the word "not" such as "not necessarily" and is otherwise generally restricted to logic). Second, evolution and the sun rising tomorrow and the number of grandparents you have and even naked men are facts because there is significant evidence to back them up. They therefore meet the requirement of P6 and are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." Not so with opinions for which there is little evidence. If you include the word "necessarily" to indicate an absolute fact rather than just a fact, the evidence required to back it up is even higher.

If you are playing games I'm really not in the mood for it. Could you please be serious?

P4: I am not necessarily descendant from at least one grandparent.

Lighten up. I was actually making a point, that even if you accept that facts don't require absolute certainty, you still need significant evidence to back them up (see P6). I now agree with P4, with the above comments applied.

So, I agree with all of your premises! Again, if that is the extent of your argument, then we are in total agreement!

-Bri

 

[Bri]

But by your own admission it may be impossible to tell if a prayer succeeds. Tell me, in what other situation would an action which produced no discernable result be called "effective"?

I don't know where you get "no discernible result" from. A prayer is effective if it does what it is intended to do, regardless of whether the result is obvious.

There you go hypothesizing about what God may want again. What if God hates prayer? Would you also agree that it is rational to believe that prayer is countereffective?

All are possibilities, and if someone held such belief, I wouldn't say that their belief is necessarily irrational (depending on the belief and their reasons for holding it, of course. But we were talking about Christian belief in prayer on this thread.

If you can't tie it to the cause, then you can't call it an effect.

If there is a cause, it is an effect regardless of whether we know the cause or not.

But you'd never know it. So it would be irrational to believe it had an effect that you could not perceive.

Who said that you cannot perceive the effect?

And as soon as you can provide some evidence that God doesn't want us to know for certain of His existence, then that belief becomes rational. Until then, it is not.

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

Nonetheless, using the same logic, until you can provide some evidence for such beliefs as "intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy" or "Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational" then those beliefs also become irrational.

-Bri

 

[Cuddles]

Nonetheless, using the same logic, until you can provide some evidence for such beliefs as "intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy"

We know intelligent life exists and we know elsewhere exists. It is therefore not irrational to consider the possibility that there is intelligent life elsewhere. It is no way proven, but a belief of this could in no way be considered irrational.

or "Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational" then those beliefs also become irrational.

-Bri

If you read Anacoluthon64s post a couple above yours this has already been explained.

 

[Ossai]

Bri

I don't know where you get "no discernible result" from.

General result of all prayer, no better than chance or placebo.

A prayer is effective if it does what it is intended to do, regardless of whether the result is obvious.

A father prays for his son to be healed, the son dies. Therefore, according to you, the prayer was answered.

If there is a cause, it is an effect regardless of whether we know the cause or not.

An effect is the cause which is the effect because we don’t know the cause? huh?

Who said that you cannot perceive the effect?

Well, a number of people including yourself.

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

Dizzy enough yet?
That whole statement is meaningless.

Nonetheless, using the same logic,

Logic this is Bri, Bri this is logic. You haven’t been properly introduced.

Ossai

 

[Freethinker]

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

That is quite possibly the most nonsensical thing I've ever read. I presume then that the fact that we don't know for certain that the Tooth Fairy exists is solid evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists. Wow, I bow in the face of this irrefuteable logic.

 

[Beth]

Tell me, in what other situation would an action which produced no discernable result be called "effective"?

Corporate Politics. Or maybe just politics.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Tell me, in what other situation would an action which produced no discernable result be called "effective"?

To add to Beth's answer, the entirety of CAM springs to mind.

And, apparently, this thread.

'Luthon64

 

[elliotfc]

Been busy recently! Don't know what the state of this thread is exactly, but Bri appears to be doing yeowoman's work.

Came across this prayer recently...

I asked and God gave...
I asked for strength and God gave me difficulties to make me strong.
I asked for wisdom and God gave me problems to solve.
I asked for prosperity and God gave me muscles and brains to work.
I asked for courage and God gave me dangers to overcome.
I asked for patience and God placed me in situations where I was forced to wait.
I asked for love and God gave me troubled people to help.
I asked for favors and God gave me opportunities.
I received nothing I wanted; I received everything I needed.
My prayers have all been answered.

A good prayer! Not very testable though.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The basic procedure remains the same:

Decide in advance what a "affected outcome" means in a way that can be unambiguously shown.
Pray.
Record whether or not the previously agreed upon "affected outcome" occurred.

This would fall under "putting God to the test". Unambiguously. We Christians don't believe that God is an unthinking procedure like gravity.

We can "agree" upon outcomes, but if God is akin to a personality, as we believe, you'd kind of need God to agree on the outcomes as well, don't you think?

Now if you are trying to argue that we cannot know what an "affected outcome" is, then you are, in essence, saying prayer is innefective because the "affected outcome" is indistinguishable from what might be expected without prayer.

To those who think that testing prayer in such a way is ludicrous, any conclusion reached in regards to ineffectiveness is likewise ludicrous.

I understand and accept that from a different mindset (yours), all that you propose seems quite reasonable.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

No, I'm arguing that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence, and therefore might not make the outcome obvious.

Most everyone who reads the New Testament would agree that God wants us to know him by "faith". That's how we are supposed to have a relationship with God. So I'd agree, but phrase it differently. It isn't that God specifically does not want us to know of his existence in the same way that we know rocks and trees exist. That might not actually occur to him (although that may deductively follow). Rather, the *best* way for us to know God, at this juncture in our existence, is by having faith in him.

And if that's correct (from the Christian perspective of course), manifold things follow as well. Including what you propose, that prayer outcomes would, or ought, not be obvious in the way we would have them be. As I've said before, if God did anything we asked him to do exactly as we asked him to do it, what's the point of faith? There would be no faith, just as you wouldn't have faith in pressing buttons on a microwave. It is what it is. But we are supposed to have faith. Ergo...

However, it doesn't follow that a prayer is necessarily ineffective even if it isn't obvious that the outcome is the result of the prayer.

It could be necessarily ineffective to the outsider. But I think the outsider ought to be able to recognize, at the very least, the possibility of subjective effectiveness, or, some kind of indirect actual effectiveness.

-Elliot