Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[KWED]

I find that prayers, when understood, are usually "yes".

Certainly some prayers are superfluous (like praying for a loan). But, if a child asks for bread (self-interest) - would you as a parent not answer the self-interest prayer?

And yet, starving children (or their parents) abound. Why does god not answer their prayers? Likewise the parents of the children dying in agony. They pray and pray, yet god ignores them and the child dies. Why doesn't god save them, when he seems happy to answer your prayers on trivial matters?

Why are you, with your safe, comfortable life, more deserving tan the starving child or the child suffering and dying of a congenital condition?

 

[KWED]

Yes... this list can go on.

There is also the point of:
James 4:3
Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

So the starving children and the parents of the children dying in agony are "asking amiss", merely to satisfy lusts are they, while you ask properly and are favoured by god?
This kind of distasteful hubris seems all too common amongst religionists.

 

[KWED]

Open a new thread please to keep this on track. with the OP.

The OP is about the efficacy of prayer. It is even in the title.
Therefore, such points about the efficacy of prayer are on-topic.
However, I understand why you are reluctant to address them.

 

[KWED]

In the sci-fi Red Dwarf, their computer is the most intelligent thing in the universe, yet, it has to take the trash out.

Think you're thinking of Marvin in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Holly, from Red Dwarf, is senile.

 

[KWED]

Well, it is obvious why it doesn't work for you as Jesus said, "Be it unto you according to your faith". It doesn't work for you because you don't believe (one of the points).

You simply have "unbelief" as Jesus said. (In the Christian perspective). Which is fine.

You don't have to have the benefits of prayer and you have the free will to exercise your capacity in your own strength.

I'm just glad I can reap the benefit.

What about the people who do believe yet don't have their prayers answered?
Why is whatever trivial issue you pray for more important than all those dying children?

 

[KWED]

I understand. He was an atheist because he couldn't tolerate nuts.

Think that applies to many atheists!

 

[KWED]

You get presents if you believe in Santa.

A brilliant analogy, because the presents aren't really from Santa, even though the believer thinks they are.

 

[KWED]

Prayer Prevents Sickness and Heals According to Several Studies - RachFeed

There are multiple sites by medical professions that support ti.

did you try searching for them?

"Russian scientists have scientifically proven that miraculous healing coupled with spirituality is a reality". Clearly nonsense. Miracles have not been "scientifically proven". The author is making stuff up.

"They have also confirmed that the believer who is engrossed in prayer completely closes his cerebral cortex, which indicates lack of stress". The benefits of meditation and similar practices are well known. There is no suggestion that the benefit is bestowed by gods.

 

[KWED]

Santa is real... it is your parents.
Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Oh dear.

Santa is not real. As you pointed out, it is actually the parents (natural process) but the child thinks it's magic (god).
So to apply the analogy to prayer, you think it's god but it is actually natural processes.

You have actually argues against your own position!

 

[metis]

Are the parameter of the study taking into account prayer principles? Or just saying "Would you pray for these people" without asking how they are going to pray, what do they believe, what prayer are they going to use et al.

I do pray for others more than I pray for myself, but I'm not sure that our prayers are more for God's purpose than for ours?

BTW, praying for others has no proven effect scientifically unless they know that others are indeed praying for them. Thus, we need to tell them we are praying for them.

 

[KWED]

What makes you think the things of the spirit are amendable to the scientific method?
That's like trying to study what happened before the Big Bang when no physics existed - how can you study that?

So we agree that any positive claims about the supernatural are flawed by definition. You have no way of knowing if your god even exists, let alone whether it answers your prayers.

But the bible makes the point OFTEN, that you have to 'prove for yourself' the verity of its claims. And if you don't
then you haven't learned anything, you are imitating.

How does one do this, when it is impossible to know anything about things of the spirit with any certainty?

 

[KWED]

Never? Don't think this is at all accurate.

"Seems to".
Feel free to give examples of where god has saved a child dying in agony.
And if he does save a few, why doesn't he save them all? Are his powers limited? Is he lazy? What?

 

[KWED]

I think they don't seek to determine that, at least not in the way that those so called "test" do.

So they just assume a priori that any positive outcome is necessarily due to prayer.
ie. confirmation bias.

 

[KWED]

I do pray for others more than I pray for myself, but I'm not sure that our prayers are more for God's purpose than for ours?

BTW, praying for others has no proven effect scientifically unless they know that others are indeed praying for them. Thus, we need to tell them we are praying for them.

The study cited in the OP showed that the people who knew they were being preyed for had worse outcomes.

 

[Polymath257]

You can't test because God can't and should not be tested.

And, again, how convenient to those power derives from people believing this.

That may be one of the problems "according to their beliefs".
I believe in one God, Yahweh and no others, if they prayed to the woods or the moon that may answer why there was no answer.

Or if they prayed to Yahweh, but their belief wasn't quite right.

 

[Wildswanderer]

"Seems to".
Feel free to give examples of where god has saved a child dying in agony.
And if he does save a few, why doesn't he save them all? Are his powers limited? Is he lazy? What?

If you want to read testimonials of people who were healed, simply type " testimonies of children healed" into a search engine.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If that is the case, then the studies are not constructed well or interpreted correctly.

I have no doubt that many or most studies are slanted deliberately.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no doubt that many or most studies are slanted deliberately.

How many researchers do you now?

The vast majority are simply trying to understand what is going on in their chosen field. Usually, they have two or three different possible explanations that they are trying to test between or even whether any of them are good at all.

Now, I would agree that anything done from the ICR is automatically slanted, but they have a written statement saying what their conclusions have to be.

Given that there have been prayer studies done by the Pew Foundation, that clearly *wants* to show prayer is valid, the negative results are interesting, yes?

 

[Polymath257]

If you want to read testimonials of people who were healed, simply type " testimonies of children healed" into a search engine.

And how many prayers were said where no healing was done? How many healings were there with no prayers?

And, ultimately, are the chances of healing any different between those with prayer involved and those without?

My bet would be that there is no difference: that it is ALL 'just chance'.

But it isn't an easy thing to test. How do you account for different severities of illness? Different access to medical care? Different nutrition?

And how do you get enough cases so that a statistically significant result will be obtained?

 

[Sheldon]

I only need the evidence of my eyes and mind.

For a biased subjective opinion maybe.

Studies can be made to show whatever they want to show.

Indeed, which means they can be made to remove subjective bias, which is the whole point. The kind of selection bias that only count successes, while ignoring failures.