Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[PruePhillip]

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

The lamb slain is symbolic. The bible is full of symbols, ie the Good Samaritan, the woman taken in adultery, the thirty pieces of silver, the crown of thorns etc..
Our brains are structured around symbols and images.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

No, one example does not prove causality. it is far more likely to be a coincidence than a cause.

 

[Polymath257]

The lamb slain is symbolic. The bible is full of symbols, ie the Good Samaritan, the woman taken in adultery, the thirty pieces of silver, the crown of thorns etc..
Our brains are structured around symbols and images.

I am a mathematician. I deal with symbols all the time.

This type of symbolism is characteristic of literature: in other words, of fiction. To think that those symbols have any relationship to the real world is what I consider to be crazy.

BI really don't see how saying it is symbolic makes it any less insane to paint a door with blood.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And that is *precisely* what it means to be a coincidence. it isn't from any actual causality (which would be a universal repeatable result), but of things completely irrelevant to the prayer.

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

It isn't bias. We just think you are wrong in your conclusion.

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.

And if he had worn his special socks on the day be bought the ticket, would he be justified in thinking that wearing the socks made him win the lottery?

Of course not.

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.

And the two (prayer and winning) were a coincidence because there was no universal repeatable result.

 

[PruePhillip]

I am a mathematician. I deal with symbols all the time.

This type of symbolism is characteristic of literature: in other words, of fiction. To think that those symbols have any relationship to the real world is what I consider to be crazy.

BI really don't see how saying it is symbolic makes it any less insane to paint a door with blood.

Actually, symbols are all around you that have nothing to do with fiction. Symbols are symbols, fact or fiction.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, symbols are all around you that have nothing to do with fiction. Symbols are symbols, fact or fiction.

No, symbols are fictions we create to make certain decisions easier.

For example, our money is a symbol for our ability to enter into certain types of economic exchange. The eagle is a symbol of the US (and of ancient Rome). Neither is reality: they are fictions we invent to help us along.

They are certainly not facts.

 

[Sheldon]

The problem here is that you all are demanding that Bob's conclusion to apply to everyone for it to be "truly effective".

Nope, the problem is that Bob's conclusion is irrational by definition, since it is based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, these are very common and irrational justifications for the claim prayers have been answered.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

It pertains to logic, as do all assertions, and it is demonstrably irrational. in your analogy, Bob , simply assumed that the prayer had been answered because the lottery came after the prayer, that's what a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallay is, it translates to mean after this therefore because of this. It is a known fallacy in informal logic.

And any scientist would understand that science cannot validate nor invalidate a subjective experience, or prove or disprove anecdotal claims.

You haven't read the research here then, as this straw man is not what it did. I suggest you stop making straw men arguments that have nothing to do with the research, and read it and understand it properly.

Which is why this 'study' was a total waste of time that any real scientist would have dismissed at it's inception.

Nope, that's just your irrational bias. Amply demonstrated by your use of logical fallacies, and unevidenced and inaccurate assumptions about the study. You simply haven't read it or haven't understood it.

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.

No true Scotsman fallacy, you're on fire. The research demonstrated here that the prayers offered did not work, the people praying believed it would clearly, as of course do many theists. You are simply reeling off irrational and inaccurate objections.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, symbols are fictions we create to make certain decisions easier.

For example, our money is a symbol for our ability to enter into certain types of economic exchange. The eagle is a symbol of the US (and of ancient Rome). Neither is reality: they are fictions we invent to help us along.

They are certainly not facts.

The flag raising at Iwa Jima is a symbol, and it happened (well, maybe, like the Russian flag raiser in Berlin it was after the ACTUAL event!)
The twin towers in NY were symbols, and bringing them down was symbolic too.
The bison is a symbol, so too the bald eagle, and let's not forget the symbol of the dodo.

The crucifixion of Jesus was symbolic, and I hold that it happened - and first recorded ca 1,000 BC by King David in Psalm 22.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Your analogy (I'm done pretending it was Bob) was irrational, as it used a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, also citing a single result as a success for a prayer is not evidence, it is blatant selection bias.

His prayer did in fact lead him to a means of resolving his problem.

There is no evidence to support this, as has been explained you are simply making an irrational assumption, and we know for an objective fact that people win the lottery literally everyday, without needing or using prayers or anything supernatural. This is quite a common logical error those arguing for the efficacy of prayer make all the time.

 

[Sheldon]

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).

Precisely correct, and the claim goddidit isn't an explanation, as it quite demonstrably has no explanatory powers whatsoever, it is an appeal to mystery.

 

[Sheldon]

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."

Indeed, or the reverse superstitions, I put a pair of new shoes on the table, the next day I had some bad luck. Or I walked under a ladder, or opened an umbrella indoors, or crossed the path of a black cat etc etc etc, such superstitions abound, and they are irrational. If properly tested they would demonstrably fail to produce the results claimed. Yet people cling to such superstitions out of fear and ignorance.

 

[Sheldon]

There were no "misses" for Bob.

Of course not, you offered a single example, good gravy didn't you boast on here just this week you are much smarter than most people? Surely the selection bias of your SINGLE HYPOTHETICAL claim are not lost on you?

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

That is how selection bias works, why are you telling us?

His prayer was specific to him, and it worked for him.

No it didn't, that is pure irrational assumption, you are assuming this based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Do you think using known logical fallacies to arrive at an irrational conclusion is sound reasoning?

That's what he knows, and what he claims.

IRRATIONALLY!!!

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 don't think you know what irrational means, but it means not in accordance with the principles of logic, and whilst several posters have explained why and how your claim violated a basic principle of logic, by using a known logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc, I'd love for you to explain which principle of logic you claim @9-10ths_Penguin's post violated, and explain why? As you seem you seem to be using the accusation as inaccurate and false rhetoric.

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

Because you have not offered any explanation of which principle of logic you are claiming was violated, or how. What's worse you have ignored the explanation that the conclusion in your Bob analogy was irrational, because it used a post hoc ergo propter fallacy. this suggests the bias is yours, it also suggests you haven't even a basic grasp of informal logical fallacies, or what they mean.

The evidence is he sought help through prayer, and he got help through the act of praying.

No that was your irrational conclusion. There was no objective evidence of this, only your fallacious conclusion. Bizarre that you can't see, but it does explain a lot.

Through the act of praying, he was inspired to buy a lotto ticket. And Because the ticket won, his problem was thus resolved.

The irrational part is where you assume the result was caused by the prayer, when there is no evidence for this, thus once again then, making it a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The fact you can't see this explains a great deal.

 

[Polymath257]

The flag raising at Iwa Jima is a symbol, and it happened (well, maybe, like the Russian flag raiser in Berlin it was the ACTUAL event!)
The twin towers in NY were symbols, and bringing them down was symbolic too.
The bison is a symbol, so too the bald eagle, and let's not forget the symbol of the dodo.

The crucifixion of Jesus was symbolic, and I hold that it happened - and first recorded ca 1,000 BC by King David in Psalm 22.

This is a very foreign way of thinking to me.

The flag raising on Iwo Jima was a symbol of our winning the battle there. It was NOT the same as winning the battle: it was a punctuation to say the battle was over. It was a fiction.

The twin towers were actual buildings. They became symbols of American power. They were brought down as an attack on that power with certain propaganda value because of the previous symbolism. But the buildings were not the same as the power. And bringing them down, while one part of a battle, was not the same as destroying that power.

The bison, eagle, and dodo are not the same as what we have decided that they stand for, They are/were animals.

In all cases, the symbols are human made fictions to represent something we want to say, do, or have done. The symbols are fictions, even if put onto real things or events.

I guess I just don't think symbolically in this way. It is part of why I have always had an issue with symbolic literature. It always seems strange to me.

And it is clear to me that the Davidic text has nothing to do with the events much later experienced by Jesus. That is a much later reading into the text and not what was originally meant by it.

 

[Sheldon]

The flag raising at Iwa Jima is a symbol, and it happened (well, maybe, like the Russian flag raiser in Berlin it was the ACTUAL event!)

Nope, the iconic image we all recognise of the flag raising at Iwo Jima (correct spelling), was in fact staged. Symbolism can be very powerful, as can all abstract ideas, like money for example. Money isn't real, its value is an abstract concept. However because we accept the abstract idea money has value, we use it in reality to buy goods and services, but it's value isn't real, it's abstract.

 

[Sheldon]

The crucifixion of Jesus was symbolic, and I hold that it happened - and first recorded ca 1,000 BC by King David in Psalm 22.

I am very dubious, have you anything to offer in support of your claim beyond the bare assertion? Does psalm 22 even mention crucifixion for example, or dates, or names? I bet it's the usual tenuous and subjective interpretations of biblical narratives, in a post ad hoc reading.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed, or the reverse superstitions, I put a pair of new shoes on the table, the next day I had some bad luck. Or I walked under a ladder, or opened an umbrella indoors, or crossed the path of a black cat etc etc etc, such superstitions abound, and they are irrational. If properly tested they would demonstrably fail to produce the results claimed. Yet people cling to such supervisions out of fear and ignorance.

"I had money troubles and prayed to God. Then, I was inspired to buy a lottery ticket. The ticket lost. God wants me to be poor."

 

[Polymath257]

I am very dubious, have you anything to offer in support of your claim beyond the bare assertion? Does psalm 22 even mention crucifixion for example, or dates, or names? I bet it's the usual tenuous and subjective interpretations of biblical narratives, in a post ad hoc reading.

You can read Psalm 22 here: Religious Forums

How that is interpreted as symbolizing Jesus is beyond me. It is clearly NOT saying anything about a crucifixion.

 

[Sheldon]

"I had money troubles and prayed to God. Then, I was inspired to buy a lottery ticket. The ticket lost. God wants me to be poor."

Or better still "god doesn't exist", funny how the irrational theistic rationale never cuts both ways. Selection bias anyone?

To paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, you can't dent the kind of reasoning that watches a baby fall and roll unharmed through traffic, then proclaims a miracle. Then shrugs their shoulders when a baby falls 6 inches and fatally fractures its skull on the corner of a table, and proclaims god mysterious.

 

[Sheldon]

You can read Psalm 22 here: Religious Forums

How that is interpreted as symbolizing Jesus is beyond me. It is clearly NOT saying anything about a crucifixion.

Thanks, I have read it, but I wanted @PruePhillip to explain his rationale, because as you say a prima facie reading suggests no kind of connection with the biblical account of crucifixion. Of course we have only scant evidence for the crucifixion itself, so reading into it millennia after the fact, is a doubly subjective fail.