Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

The experiment was a waste of time because it was intended to look for evidence of "God-magic". Which any scientist would have understood as a foolish pursuit.

The study into the efficacy of intercessory prayer was designed in cooperation with theists who clearly believed their prayers could achieve what was being tested for, as do many theists, the Catholic church seem to think god magic, as you put it, happens all the time, ever heard of Lourdes? The last sentence is hilarious nonsense, since scientists designed the test, and published the results of the study. The only objections are from theists unsurprisingly, who are unhappy the results didn't show what they believe. One can imagine what the reaction would have been had the results gone their way of course.

If you don't believe prayers have the power to help heal, in the way the study tested for, that's your belief, not an absolute you can insist everyone else must adhere to.

 

[Sheldon]

See, your WHOLE argument is based on your loathing for the idea of "God-magic". So for you, ALL prayer is engaged in the pursuit of this "God-magic".

Can you give a detailed explanation of how a deity answers prayers, how it intervenes in the universe at all? Otherwise magic is a perfectly apropos description.

Magic
noun

1. the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

How is that not what many theists throughout the world claim their deities and prayers can do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you give a detailed explanation of how a deity answers prayers, how it intervenes in the universe at all? Otherwise magic is a perfectly apropos description.

Magic
noun

1. the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

How is that not what many theists throughout the world claim their deities and prayers can do?

It is extremely ironic that various theists accuse those that accept evolution of believing in magic when that is what they do themselves.

 

[PruePhillip]

There are only human definitions, we wouldn't understand anything else, that's axiomatic. This is like @KenS's claim that he has a moral standard beyond human reasoning, what the hell is he using to understand that exactly, if not human reasoning?

 

[PruePhillip]

Is that what you think I meant? Love is all about giving the object of love what it needs. But I don't see the relevance to our discussion. I was referring to what Christians call the love of God, which requires sacrifices on the human side, not the god side. Man has to conform to commandments, some of which are unnatural, especially those to do with sexuality, or be punished for eternity.



I also find the Bible failing to meet my needs and standards, but for me, that's a good reason to not go to it for answers.

And I used a different approach to overcome first born nature which included developing critical thinking skills and abandoning faith-based thinking and magical thinking, things we all do before school age and many continue doing throughout life.

Sure, you seek to have a personal standard for morality. And I respect that - many can't even bring themselves to do that.
Today I read about this guy who wanted to shoot a Supreme Court Judge - said of him that he had his own moral standards on gun control and abortion. And why not? You can make your own standards.
But a Christian (of the Apostolic type you read in the New Testament) could never shoot a judge for three biblical reasons
1 - you respect authority, it was placed there by God and can be removed by God
2 - you don't harm another, for any reason - love your enemies.
3 - you submit yourself to the ordinances of man

 

[Sheldon]

.

You have to write something if you want us to know what you're trying to say, prayer doesn't seem to have worked.

 

[PureX]

It is extremely ironic that various theists accuse those that accept evolution of believing in magic when that is what they do themselves.

Well, there is a similarity in that "believers" tends to want to protect their presumptions using whatever means they can muster. That's as true of the 'scientism' crowd as it is of the religious crowd.

 

[Sheldon]

Sure, you seek to have a personal standard for morality.

As do you, as does everyone. If it doesn't involve a subjective decision to differentiate between right and wrong behaviour, then it isn't morality by definition.

Today I read about this guy who wanted to shoot a Supreme Court Judge - said of him that he had his own moral standards on gun control and abortion. And why not? You can make your own standards.

Well how much of a surprise can it be that someone who doesn't respect the bodily autonomy of women. and wants lax gun laws, doesn't care about the life of a judge?

But a Christian (of the Apostolic type you read in the New Testament) could never shoot a judge for three biblical reasons
1 - you respect authority, it was placed there by God and can be removed by God
2 - you don't harm another, for any reason - love your enemies.
3 - you submit yourself to the ordinances of man

Just for once you might fact check one of you McClaims. Longstanding research in the US on those in prison for violent crimes like murder and rape, show a disproportionally higher percentage of theists than are in the general population.

Internationally Zuckerman ranks the top 5 countries with the highest possible ranges of atheists and agnostics: Sweden (46-85%), Vietnam (81%), Denmark (43-80%), Norway (31-72%), and Japan (64-65%).

International murder rates per 100000 people.

US 4.96
Vietnam 1.53
Sweden 1.08
Denmark 1,01
Norway 0.47
Japan 0.26

<CITATION>

 

[Sheldon]

Well, there is a similarity in that "believers" tends to want to protect their presumptions using whatever means they can muster. That's as true of the 'scientism' crowd as it is of the religious crowd.

What scientism crowd? You use a post hoc ergo proopter hoc in your Bob analogy, no one needs science let alone scientisim to see that's as weak as an argument can get, since it is irrational by definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, there is a similarity in that "believers" tends to want to protect their presumptions using whatever means they can muster. That's as true of the 'scientism' crowd as it is of the religious crowd.

Now you appear to either not know what scientism is or are making false claims about others.

As you should know, if anyone is using scientism here it would be you. Do you not understand why your implied falsehood is wrong here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What scientism crowd? You use a post hoc ergo proopter hoc in your Bob analogy, no one needs science let alone scientisim to see that's as weak as an argument can get, since it is irrational by definition.

That is another of his false claims that he loves. He conveniently forgets that this claim about prayers being effective was one that was claimed, and tested, by believers. The only thing that nonbelievers would have to do with it was giving advice on the test so that it would not be worthless. For example @ElishaElijah 's claimed test that only worked on confirmation bias as shown by his claim of "works for me". A testable claim was tested by theists. Where is the scientism of atheists there?

 

[ElishaElijah]

The study into the efficacy of intercessory prayer was designed in cooperation with theists who clearly believed their prayers could achieve what was being tested for, as do many theists, the Catholic church seem to think god magic, as you put it, happens all the time, ever heard of Lourdes? The last sentence is hilarious nonsense, since scientists designed the test, and published the results of the study. The only objections are from theists unsurprisingly, who are unhappy the results didn't show what they believe. One can imagine what the reaction would have been had the results gone their way of course.

If you don't believe prayers have the power to help heal, in the way the study tested for, that's your belief, not an absolute you can insist everyone else must adhere to.

I don’t believe prayer has the power to heal people. God has the power to heal people and you talk to Him by prayer.
If you pray to an idol, you get no answer, just silence
If you’re in Christ and have the Holy Spirit and pray He hears and answers you, directs your life.

 

[PureX]

Now you appear to either not know what scientism is or are making false claims about others.

As you should know, if anyone is using scientism here it would be you. Do you not understand why your implied falsehood is wrong here?

If you can tell me who the "others" are here that I'm making false claims about, I'd greatly appreciate it. And while you're at it, you might want to explain what the false claim actually is. Because from my perspective, all i'm saying is that when people decide to "believe in" things, they become very defensive of those beliefs. And that goes for all kinds of beliefs, not just religious beliefs. It also hsppens with people who "believe in" science as the singular pathway to truth, reason, and reality. And I really have no idea what you're objecting to in this.

 

[PruePhillip]

As do you, as does everyone. If it doesn't involve a subjective decision to differentiate between right and wrong behaviour, then it isn't morality by definition.
Well how much of a surprise can it be that someone who doesn't respect the bodily autonomy of women. and wants lax gun laws, doesn't care about the life of a judge?

You raise a good point about how subjective secular morality can be. This man:
has strong morality concerning the life of unborn children
has a moral stance concerning the rights given by the constitution.

His morality is different to yous by 180 degrees. This is the problem of secular, 'be true to yourself' morality - which is essentially a political rather than spiritual thing. Yuk.

 

[PureX]

You raise a good point about how subjective secular morality can be. This man:
has strong morality concerning the life of unborn children
has a moral stance concerning the rights given by the constitution.

His morality is different to yous by 180 degrees. This is the problem of secular, 'be true to yourself' morality - which is essentially a political rather than spiritual thing. Yuk.

I think it could be argued that it's the subjective nature of secular morality that keeps it vibrant and adaptable to the inevitable changes that come with time and culture. "One size fits all, for once and always" is a very rigid perspective that doesn't comport with reality as we experience and live it. And it does not allow us to grow, and change, and hopefully, to do better.

 

[PruePhillip]

I think it could be argued that it's the subjective nature of secular morality that keeps it vibrant and adaptable to the inevitable changes that come with time and culture. "One size fits all, for once and always" is a very rigid perspective that doesn't comport with reality as we experience and live it. And it does not allow us to grow, and change, and hopefully, to do better.

I take this as wholly wrong. One size fits all with
honesty
respect - in dress, for life, others
compassion
forgiveness
loving your neighbor as yourself
respect for authority
decency
hard work
thrift
saving
not drinking (to excess anyhow) smoking and gambling
not porn
not drugs
etc..

There's a religous element to this. There's also a political one which, like this current woke business, is cynical, twisting, ever mutating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you can tell me who the "others" are here that I'm making false claims about, I'd greatly appreciate it. And while you're at it, you might want to explain what the false claim actually is. Because from my perspective, all i'm saying is that when people decide to "believe in" things, they become very defensive of those beliefs. And that goes for all kinds of beliefs, not just religious beliefs. It also hsppens with people who "believe in" science as the singular pathway to truth, reason, and reality. And I really have no idea what you're objecting to in this.

Why did you even bring up "scientism"? Now it looks like a failed personal attack on your part.

 

[PureX]

I take this as wholly wrong. One size fits all with
honesty
respect - in dress, for life, others
compassion
forgiveness
loving your neighbor as yourself
respect for authority
decency
hard work
thrift
saving
not drinking (to excess anyhow) smoking and gambling
not porn
not drugs
etc..

There's a religous element to this. There's also a political one which, like this current woke business, is cynical, twisting, ever mutating.

But those are all very vague and very relative examples. And you are confusing ethical imperatives with moral behaviors based on them. "Honesty" is listed because it's wrong to deliberately deceive/mislead people. Right? Yet there are times when it may be better that others don't know the truth. It may even save their lives. So the value of "honestly" becomes subject to the value of human life, and/or of human well-being. Because human life without well-being isn't all that valuable to most of us. And what about "compassion"? I can think of countless ways compassion can become very confusing in actual practice. A drug addict panhandling on the street. Is it more compassionate to give him money or not to? Which does he need more? My righteous judgment or a fix? On and on it goes.

Ideals are nice and clean and easy until they have to be applied to our very muddy reality. Then everything starts getting murky. And when we try to force those clean and easy ideals into our very murky reality we often end up doing for more harm than good. Because we can't really see the whole picture. We think we can, and we mean well, but the truth is that we really don't know what the effect of our actions in the real world are going to be.

Which is why we need to be open-minded, and adaptable. Meaning well is all well and good, but doing well is a whole lot better. But doing well, or not, gets determined by the value gained within the circumstances, not by our presumed ethical righteousness going in. We need to constantly adapt and learn.

 

[Muffled]

I believe I can imagine a unicorn, so I'm not sure what value you "imagine" that claim has in a debate?

I believe then that you can say how prayer works if you don't believe there is someone to answer it.

 

[PureX]

Why did you even bring up "scientism"? Now it looks like a failed personal attack on your part.

I think you're seeing "attacks" where none exist. And "scientism" is the label that's currently being used in relation to the ideal that science is the only reliable method of knowing 'true reality'.