Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[PruePhillip]

The problem with Christian claims of love is that it is not referring to what I would call love, but rather, something that shouldn't be called love at all. The examples cited as acts of love include a crucifixion. There are scriptures about cutting off hands, plucking out eyes, and castration. There is punishment for those who don't comply with commandments. This comment helps one understand what scripture means by love: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." As an unbeliever very familiar with scripture, I can tell you that scripture teaches hatred of atheists, who are depicted as immoral and fit for perdition simply for not believing those same scriptures.

None of this is appealing. In fact, it's quite off-putting, and as I said, falls very short of what I call love. I can't imagine treating somebody I loved the way this deity is depicted treating humanity. Love is about the needs of the object of love, not the needs of the one claiming to love.



He's pointing out that you made contradictory claims, that he identified them for you, has asked you repeatedly to comment on the apparent incoherency of claiming that something is incomprehensible and then describing some of its qualities. We see this kind of activity almost exclusively with thinkers who are unfamiliar with academic standards for debate, and really never debate. They just dissent, but they don't rebut.

I'll remind you what that word means in case you're not clear: It means to offer a counterargument that, if sound, demonstrates that the original claim cannot be true. He has said that you made an incoherent (internally self-contradictory) comment and explained why he calls it that. His argument is convincing. In academic circles or in a court of law, the debate ends when the last plausible, unrebutted statement is made. He made that last statement. He was hoping that it wouldn't be the last statement, that you would defend your claim against his rebuttal if you thought his argument flawed or agree with him if you could find no fallacy.

But as I said, that's behavior we almost never see coming from those not well versed in critical thought. I used t be more like @Sheldon , pointing out how somebody is evading a question, but I got the same results he has, namely being ignored, so, I've modified my approach and simply declare that if there will be no rebuttal forthcoming, the debate is over. This debate is over. It has been convincingly demonstrated that your claims about the incomprehensible were incoherent, and you have no rebuttal to that.

And in the future, when the apologist makes the same already rebutted claim, which also happens commonly, I don't debate it again. I simply explained that his position has already been ruled out, and unless he wants to try rebutting, the issue is resolved.

So to 'debate' a point - the love of the Messiah is that he lays down his life for his people. The Exodus account of the lamb is symbolic (as is the crucifixion) - a male lamb is taken into the house for three days. It is then slain and consumed whole (not just the choice cutlets) and its blood is daubed on the lintel. This saved the household from the 'angel of death' who went over Egypt that night. Why three days? Because you bond quickly to little lambs (don't I know it...) and its hard to kill that little animal when you are familiar with it. This is symbolic of Jesus - 'the lamb slain from the foundation of the world', who life and death is resonant with meaning and symbolism. God's people must shelter under the blood of the lamb, a sacrifice has been made for you.

Sound crazy?

Wll imagine we did all this in a very human form, whatever it might be. You would then say, 'But this whole scenario is so human, it just shows it was invented by humans, and proves there's no God.'

 

[Sheldon]

In John 14:13 there’s a sentence: “Whatever you ask for in my name I will do.” People take that as carte blanche to treat God as a cosmic Santa Claus.

Well to be fair that is how it reads, and many Christians take it to be literally true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Marijuana and LSD are not narcotics.

This expert may disagree with you:

 

[Polymath257]

So to 'debate' a point - the love of the Messiah is that he lays down his life for his people. The Exodus account of the lamb is symbolic (as is the crucifixion) - a male lamb is taken into the house for three days. It is then slain and consumed whole (not just the choice cutlets) and its blood is daubed on the lintel. This saved the household from the 'angel of death' who went over Egypt that night. Why three days? Because you bond quickly to little lambs (don't I know it...) and its hard to kill that little animal when you are familiar with it. This is symbolic of Jesus - 'the lamb slain from the foundation of the world', who life and death is resonant with meaning and symbolism. God's people must shelter under the blood of the lamb, a sacrifice has been made for you.

Sound crazy?

To me, yes, it does.

Wll imagine we did all this in a very human form, whatever it might be. You would then say, 'But this whole scenario is so human, it just shows it was invented by humans, and proves there's no God.'

Doesn't sound any less crazy.

 

[PureX]

Well the inference there is pretty clear, at least for the claims of theists that make claims about what prayers can do. As addressed in the research that was cited.



I think you're creating something fo a straw man here, as the research and this thread is addressing specific claims. So calling it foolish for not addressing your beliefs is irrational
.


Well you don't even have to pray, meditation will achieve the results you're describing, again there is a pretty obvious inference there.

Meditation is a very broad category of intellectual activity. Prayer is one aspect of it that itself has a variety of methods and goals.

The research has was foolish because it did not address the effective purpose of prayer, and then declared it ineffective.

One does not have to be a theist to pray, or for prayer to be effective. So your insistence on lumping prayer with theism and deities is injecting a bias that’s not relevant to the actual effectiveness of prayer.

As to people’s claims about prayer, they are subjective and anecdotal. That does not make them untrue. It just makes them irrelevant to you or I. For example, Bob prays for a solution to his money problems, and suddenly gets the idea to buy a lotto ticket. And the ticket wins, resolving his money problems. So Bob is now convinced that whatever he prayed to for help, helped. And he is right about that. But that doesn’t mean that his experience and conclusion will apply to us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As to people’s claims about prayer, they are subjective and anecdotal. That does not make them untrue. It just makes them irrelevant to you or I. For example, Bob prays for a solution to his money problems, and suddenly gets the idea to buy a lotto ticket. And the ticket wins, resolving his money problems. So Bob is now convinced that whatever he prayed to for help, helped. And he is right about that. But that doesn’t mean that his experience and conclusion will apply to us.

In the scenario you describe, Bob is irrational.

 

[PruePhillip]

To me, yes, it does.

Doesn't sound any less crazy.

Bible says this lamb is symbolic of the Christ, the Redeemer.

In the scenario you describe, Bob is irrational.

Bob is also
1 - gambling
2 - praying for material things

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bob is also
1 - gambling

So?

2 - praying for material things

Yes, that violates the cardinal unwritten rule: at all times, God's behaviour has to be indistinguishable from that of a god that doesn't exist.

 

[PruePhillip]

So?


Yes, that violates the cardinal unwritten rule: at all times, God's behaviour has to be indistinguishable from that of a god that doesn't exist.

So, gambling is considered a sin. It's like praying that God might give you an opportunity to committ adultery, or kill someone.
You are praying amiss.
But society agrees with you that gambling is not a bad thing - hence the social problems of gambling... and adultery, murder etc..

 

[PureX]

In the scenario you describe, Bob is irrational.

No, he's not. He did not come to the same conclusion as you, but his thought process is rational given the information he has. You, in fact, are being irrationally biased. Because you cannot possibly know his conclusion is untrue. Especially when the evidence he has indicates clearly that his conclusion is correct. His prayer did in fact lead him to a means of resolving his problem.

 

[Sheldon]

The research has was foolish because it did not address the effective purpose of prayer, and then declared it ineffective.

It specifically addressed claims theists had made for the efficacy of prayer, and tested those claims, so I'm at a loss as to why you keep insisting it's flawed just because you have a different view of what prayer can do to those theists?

One does not have to be a theist to pray, or for prayer to be effective.

Effective how, only all you have offered is the suggestion it "can make you calm" and "might help you recover from illness" so I pointed out you don't need prayer for what you're describing, or theistic belief, and you then falsely assumed this was a claim only theists pray, which is just bizarre? Lets try an analogy, you claim doing a "car starting dance" is efficacious, because you do this and your car starts every time. I then point out that my car starts fine without this, and we can easily test this of course. You then tell me I am somehow missing the point?

One does not have to be a theist to pray, or for prayer to be effective. So your insistence on lumping prayer with theism and deities is injecting a bias that’s not relevant to the actual effectiveness of prayer.

I am not lumping anything with anything, this thread was opened specifically to challenge some specific research into specific claims some theists make about the efficacy of prayer.

As to people’s claims about prayer, they are subjective and anecdotal. That does not make them untrue.

Like buses, no straw men for ages then two at once, since I have made neither claim.

It just makes them irrelevant to you or I. For example, Bob prays for a solution to his money problems, and suddenly gets the idea to buy a lotto ticket. And the ticket wins, resolving his money problems. So Bob is now convinced that whatever he prayed to for help, helped. And he is right about that.

Or Bob doesn't know or understand what a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is, and fails to differentiate between correlation and causation. Now since you're effectively Bob here, maybe you ought to learn why those make your / Bob's claim fallacious and irrational?

But that doesn’t mean that his experience and conclusion will apply to us.

Bob's conclusion is irrational, so I am obliged to disbelieve it, obviously. Further I could point out to Bob that people win the lottery every day of every week all around the world, many of them without ever praying, and that gambling is not a good solution to money worries, with or without the belief a prayer will make a win more likely, since we can easily design a test to examine the merits of this claim. Like the research this thread is predicated on, and the claims it examined, and found that the prayers had no discernible effect. Thus falsifying that claim.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sheldon]

Bob is also
1 - gambling
2 - praying for material things

You understand that Bob is fictional right, @PureX created a hypothetical analogy, and it's / his conclusion was irrational, as it used a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? These fallacies conflate correlation with causation.

 

[Sheldon]

So, gambling is considered a sin. It's like praying that God might give you an opportunity to committ adultery, or kill someone.
You are praying amiss.

The example wasn't @9-10ths_Penguin's, it was @PureX's analogy, offered as an example of efficacious prayer.

For example, Bob prays for a solution to his money problems, and suddenly gets the idea to buy a lotto ticket. And the ticket wins, resolving his money problems. So Bob is now convinced that whatever he prayed to for help, helped. And he is right about that. But that doesn’t mean that his experience and conclusion will apply to us.

Note the conclusion emboldened. Now it maybe just poorly worded, but it is nonetheless irrational.

 

[PureX]

The problem here is that you all are demanding that Bob's conclusion to apply to everyone for it to be "truly effective". And then when it doesn't you proclaim it to be false. And this is a blatant logical flaw, since Bob's conclusion is both subjective and anecdotal, and therefor does not pertain to anyone but Bob. And any scientist would understand that science cannot validate nor invalidate a subjective experience, or prove or disprove anecdotal claims.

Which is why this 'study' was a total waste of time that any real scientist would have dismissed at it's inception. You all aren't seeing this because it feeds your bias and ignorane regarding the purpose and effectiveness of prayer. It can and does work for anyone, but only when appropriately applied, and only for the specific subject. These limitations, however, do NOT make prayer ineffective. Or people's claims of it's effectiveness untrue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, he's not. He did not come to the same conclusion as you, but his thought process is rational given the information he has.

Bob committed a post hoc fallacy. He also either tried to generalize from one single data point or he counted the hits while ignoring the misses.

Again: Bob is irrational.

You, in fact, are being irrationally biased. Because you cannot possibly know his conclusion is untrue.

His conclusion is irrational. Whether he coincidentally landed on a correct answer doesn't change this.

If God really did answer Bob's prayer, then Bob is correct for bad reasons.

Especially when the evidence he has indicates clearly that his conclusion is correct. His prayer did in fact lead him to a means of resolving his problem.

No, the evidence doesn't indicate this.

One possible explanation for what happened is that God answered Bob's prayer and rigged the lottery... but this is only one of the explanations that fits the facts. Another explanation that fits the facts is that God did nothing and the lottery win was just a coincidence.

Because both of these explanations fit the facts at hand, it's irrational to say that those facts support choosing one explanation (God did it) over another (coincidence).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem here is that you all are demanding that Bob's conclusion to apply to everyone for it to be "truly effective". And then when it doesn't you proclaim it to be false. And this is a blatant logical flaw, since Bob's conclusion is both subjective and anecdotal, and therefor does not pertain to anyone but Bob. And any scientist would understand that science cannot validate nor invalidate a subjective experience, or prove or disprove anecdotal claims.

Which is why this 'study' was a total waste of time that any real scientist would have dismissed at it's inception. You all aren't seeing this because it feeds your bias and ignorane regarding the purpose and effectiveness of prayer. It can and does work for anyone, but only when appropriately applied, and only for the specific subject. These limitations, however, do NOT make prayer ineffective. Or people's claims of it's effectiveness untrue.

Would you say the same about other superstitions? They apply the same reasoning that you're suggesting here:

"I prayed and won the lottery - the prayer must have worked."

"I wore these socks when I won the big game - these must be lucky socks."

 

[PureX]

Bob committed a post hoc fallacy. He also either tried to generalize from one single data point or he counted the hits while ignoring the misses.

Again: Bob is irrational.


His conclusion is irrational. Whether he coincidentally landed on a correct answer doesn't change this.

If God really did answer Bob's prayer, then Bob is correct for bad reasons.


No, the evidence doesn't indicate this.

One possible explanation for what happened is that God answered Bob's prayer and rigged the lottery... but this is only one of the explanations that fits the facts. Another explanation that fits the facts is that God did nothing and the lottery win was just a coincidence.

Because both of these explanations fit the facts at hand, it's irrational to say that those facts support choosing one explanation (God did it) over another (coincidence).

There were no "misses" for Bob. He is not conducting an experiment seeking a universal, repeatable result. His prayer was specific to him, and it worked for him. That's what he knows, and what he claims. Your demand for universality and repeatability is irrational to the efficacy of his prayer, and his conclusion, or to anyone else's subjective and anecdotal claims.

How can you not see this, except by the blindness of bias?

Also, I posted nothing about Bob praying to God because that aspect of the act of praying is not relevant to the effectiveness of the act of praying.

The evidence is he sought help through prayer, and he got help through the act of praying. Through the act of praying, he was inspired to buy a lotto ticket. And Because the ticket won, his problem was thus resolved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There were no "misses" for Bob.

So this was a lottery with one ticket? No wonder he won, then.

Bob sounds pretty self-absorbed. Someone with a bit of perspective would have been able to appreciate that saying "I prayed and God answered my prayer with the lotto jackpot" implies "out of the millions of tickets bought for this lottery by people praying to win, almost all of those prayers went unanswered and only mine was answered by God."

He is not conducting an experiment seeking a universal, repeatable result.

No, but hopefully he's looking for a rational basis to use as a foundation for his views.

His prayer was specific to him, and it worked for him. That's what he knows, and what he claims.

No, all he has is "I prayed, and then I won the lottery." He has nothing to say "I won the lottery because I prayed."

Your demand for universality and repeatability is irrational to the efficacy of his prayer, and his conclusion, or to anyone else's subjective and anecdotal claims.

I haven't said anything about universality or repeatability. All I'm suggesting is that Bob should try a rational basis for his views.

How can you not see this, except by the blindness of bias?

Maybe ask the straw man version of me that resides in your head. You haven't argued against anything that I've actually said.

Also, I posted nothing about Bob praying to God because that aspect of the act of praying is not relevant to the effectiveness of prayer.

The evidence is he sought help through prayer, and he got help through the act of praying. Through his prayer, he was inspired to buy a lotto ticket. And his problem was thus resolved.

It was resolved irrationally.

Buying a lottery ticket is an irrational way to try to fix money issues, even if the odds of winning the jackpot are non-zero.

 

[Polymath257]

Bible says this lamb is symbolic of the Christ, the Redeemer.

And how does that make it any less crazy? Of anything, it makes it seem even more insane to me.

 

[Polymath257]

As to people’s claims about prayer, they are subjective and anecdotal. That does not make them untrue. It just makes them irrelevant to you or I. For example, Bob prays for a solution to his money problems, and suddenly gets the idea to buy a lotto ticket. And the ticket wins, resolving his money problems. So Bob is now convinced that whatever he prayed to for help, helped. And he is right about that. But that doesn’t mean that his experience and conclusion will apply to us.

Bob is irrational to believe that his prayer had anything to do with winning the lottery. That is irrational.

So, no, he was NOT right about that.