Jesus was very liberal in his explanation of prayer. The ability to cure sick people, work miracles or even move a mountain. Prayer may have personal health benefits similar to relaxation techniques like yoga and meditation. Otherwise, prayer has no measurable value.
I know I will likely hear the tired explanation of how prayer is time given to God to be in “relationship with Jesus”. But one-way conversations are not a relationship. It’s valuable time wasted on your knees talking to yourself.
Jesus didn’t teach to pray in order have relationship discussions with him. He said, “ask and it will be given.” Even Jesus begged God (a.k.a. himself) to not require his horrific crucifixion. Apparently God doesn’t even answer prayers to himself.
The following video discusses the measurable value of prayer from a scientific perspective.
December 7, 2009 at 1:13 am |
Don’t bother arguing with a believer about this, really – they’ll use the Jedi argument on you. As in “your faith is not strong enough so your prayer never reached him”. >_>
December 7, 2009 at 4:43 am |
Of course you will get the normal replies from christians on this. It is amazing how well people say they know their god and how he would act. I always like the excuse that god helps those that help themselves and god won’t answer prayers if it is part of some study.
December 7, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
[G]od won’t answer prayers if it is part of some study.
Well, he would be pretty inept as a god if he could not distinguish hackers from legitimate traffic.
December 7, 2009 at 1:21 pm |
The problem here is that during most of these studies I have seen it was actually the believers and those that knew they were being prayed for that were failing for the most part. The ones that didn’t know or weren’t prayed for did better.
December 7, 2009 at 9:50 am |
My favorite form of “proof that prayer works” is Incomplete Devastation. Some years ago I saw a woman being interviewed right after a tornado had hit her neighborhood, and she was raving on about how her prayers had saved her, a miracle! – meanwhile, her neighbor’s children were being carried by on sheet-covered stretchers. Complete solipsism and lack of decency.
“Fuzzy feelings,” such as feeling the “presence of god,” or believing that the universe is sentient, is a slightly different phenomenon. http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/scitech/25295-god-chemical-brain-chemistry-mysticism-part.html
December 7, 2009 at 7:52 pm |
Uhm… you can’t test god like that.
urr… you didn’t pray right.
ug… you had the wrong people pray
uhmm … god’s not a genie for you
ehhhh… don’t put god to the test
arggg… sometimes he says yes/no/maybe
ooohh… maybe he answered and you didn’t notice
aaahhh… I’m running out of apologetic drivel
December 7, 2009 at 10:37 pm |
I’ll translate your apologetics:
Pray for something and it happens. —God is good.
Pray and it doesn’t happen. —God is good.
Or in other words, God can be absolutely invisible and completely non-responsive. But he will still toss you into hell if you don’t believe the erroneous ancient stories you’ve read about him.
Sometimes he says nothing because he’s imaginary. Apologetics FAIL.
December 7, 2009 at 9:49 pm |
I sometimes believe that the power of prayer as for healing sick people can be real because the person that is sick can actually heal themselves by believing that God is healing them, or that “good vibes” are actually working.
I remember I once read that in Ancient Rome people who discovered that they had been cursed often died, because they believed so strongly on it that even when that doesn’t exist they believed that it was real and that the curse was killing them.
Most of this things are related to our mind.
December 7, 2009 at 10:27 pm |
Ah, yes, the power of prayer.
Oh, but you weren’t praying hard enough.
G-d pulled him out of abyss of addiction (not his own will power and determination).
Ridiculous ramblings from overly religious, self-righteous hypocrites. I say hypocrites because they say only their religion is valid and all others are wrong somehow.
Never mind that whenever I ask Zeus for rain, it actually does. Christians would say that “their god” is trying to show me . . . whatever it is they claim.
Fie!
I’d rather have a rational conversation with atheists!
December 7, 2009 at 11:51 pm |
“Even Jesus begged God (a.k.a. himself) to not require his horrific crucifixion. Apparently God doesn’t even answer prayers to himself.”
Not in John, where He mocks the very idea that he might pray such a thing:
John 12:27-28b “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? But for this cause came I unto this hour–Father, glorify thy name!”
December 12, 2009 at 8:48 am |
And then when he gets on the cross he goes “Why have you forsaken me?” <_<
December 8, 2009 at 12:07 pm |
Come on, man. Everyone knows God only answers prayers that ask for Him to do things that He was going to do anyway.
Which, of course, is totally different than asking for something to happen that might also happen within the normal realm of probability. Because, you know, this one time, a friend of a brother of a deposed Nigerian prince who heard about a guy who totally got healed because of prayer even though the doctors were like “there’s no way he’ll get healed, man, I’m totally serious, but then were like “woah, there’s absolutely no way this could have happened ever to anyone, and, by the way, we’re totally doctors.”
December 8, 2009 at 5:35 pm |
“Even Jesus begged God (a.k.a. himself) to not require his horrific crucifixion. Apparently God doesn’t even answer prayers to himself.”
Very good quote. I’ve quoted it on my Twitter (pointing back to your post, of course!). The whole relationship between Jesus and God the Father is silly at best, crazy at worst. Just like the practice of prayer, come to think of it!
To Rey: Jesus does beg God, in Mark 14
“And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me.” Jesus does tack on a “: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.”, but it’s clear Jesus *wants* God to stop the crucifixion. (KJV)
December 8, 2009 at 8:57 pm |
But not in John. That is what I said, isn’t it? There’s a battle going on between opposing editors on whether Jesus has one will or two. The editor of John believes Jesus only has the Divine will, hence he mocks the idea that he might pray for release from the very thing he came to earth for. When it says “for this cause came I unto this hour” that is probably ‘Catholic’ redaction away from “for this cause came I into this world” because they wanted to make him to have come into the world for more than the crucifixion, and for John it was originally just for that, but for them they wanted him to fulfill the law. Anyway, in canonical Mark the editor is trying to establish that Jesus had two wills, the human that wanted to not be crucified and was afraid, and the Divine that wanted to be crucified. There are two opposing schools of thought here, and I identify with the one found in John.
December 8, 2009 at 9:12 pm |
Yes, yes, we’re all aware that the Bible likes to say contrasting things and has probably been heavily edited and altered.
Saying that you’re cherry-picking verses simply because you’re pretty sure you know which one is right is doing little to help your case. In fact, it’s basically the crux of why most of us don’t consider the Bible to have any authority whatsoever, divine or otherwise.
December 9, 2009 at 8:57 pm
What case do you think I’m making exactly?
December 9, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Rey, you’re making the case that the Bible has been edited and modified. A common theme in many of your posts is that the Catholics usurped the Bible and had their way with it.
That’s all well and good, except not only do we all know that, it’s a pretty good reason why the Bible is nothing special. If I was omnipotent and omniscient and I had something to say to humanity that was so important, their very souls depended on it, I certainly wouldn’t allow it to be corrupted as you say it has.
December 11, 2009 at 12:55 am
That sounds reasonable, but you are missing the bigger picture. The one that’s too secretive to reveal to the non-initiated. Sorry but you’ll just have to grope around for it.
December 11, 2009 at 9:11 pm
OOOH Goody!! Guessing games! Arcane knowledge reserved for the inner circle! Opportunities for everyone else to buy a pig in a poke!
But wait a minute; maybe that was some kind of obscure irony. Marcion supposedly did not have any secret knowledge. Wikipedia on “Marcionism”: “Von Harnack argued that Marcion was not a Gnostic … because Marcion … and did not claim to have special revelation or secret knowledge.” That article also quotes the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica: “disclosed no mysteries for the privileged”.
Are you trying to confuse us, Rey?
December 12, 2009 at 1:59 am
Just wanted to see if you would catch it. Bravo.
December 9, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
The error that many make is in assuming that God’s promises to answer prayer are unconditional.
They are not.
Anyone who actually reads the Bible can see that these promises are indeed conditional.
So they end up arguing against something the Bible didn’t say, instead of what it actually does say.
I challenge anyone seeking ‘proof’ for themselves of answered prayer to do the following:
1. Find out what the Bible says about how and under what conditions God will answer prayer
2. Be very sure that you meet those conditions
3. Pray
Or you can continue to build strawmen. It’s up to you.
December 9, 2009 at 12:32 pm |
So when Jesus said that all prayers would be answered as long as you had the faith of a mustard seed was a lie. The verses this comes from lays down no conditions yet you claim there are. Show the conditions that Jesus stated.
December 10, 2009 at 8:33 am |
Anyone who actually reads the Bible can see that these promises are indeed conditional.
Anyone who actually reads the Bible can see that it says contradictory things about prayer, and about pretty much everything else. You can spend countless hours wondering which of the passages has priority, or you can reach the obvious conclusion: the Bible contains many mistakes, and there is no reason to believe any of it.
December 10, 2009 at 11:43 am |
And that’s where you hit the last condition. The one the apologists always leave out.
“Subject to God’s whims and fancies.”
December 10, 2009 at 12:16 pm |
I challenge you to do the same thing. It is ridiculous to give that 3 step process as a sure thing to answered prayer. Besides the fact that the conditions you talk about contradict based on what part of the Bible you read. According to Jesus, faith=answered prayer. Simple as that.
You can call it a straw-man because you ignore reality and ignore the absurdity of the book that claims to be inspired by a perfect god.
December 10, 2009 at 6:01 am |
@ Susan (OP)
Thanx for the video — I posted it too and gave you a HT. I also read an article by Epiphenom which I use (in this post) to support my belief that praying non-magically can be beneficial.
PS – today I also did a little post explaining the evils of comment hierarchies — which your site has. You might want to take a look.
December 10, 2009 at 10:07 am |
Nothing sticks to this guy: http://bythebookcomics.blogspot.com/2008/02/teflon-deity.html
December 10, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
baconsbud wrote:
“The verses this comes from lays down no conditions yet you claim there are.”
No conditions?
baconsbud wrote:
“as long as you had”
Don’t you realize that is a condition?
the beAttitude wrote:
“According to Jesus, faith=answered prayer. Simple as that.”
Well, you can pretend that the Bible is only one verse long if you wish. But it’s not.
December 10, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
LOL come on you know good and well you are lying to yourself about the so called conditions. If you want the mustard seed to be a condition fine but you said conditions still waiting for those. You are just being childish because your bluff was called.
December 11, 2009 at 11:52 am |
baconsbud,
Perhaps you should read the Bible for yourself.
You can easily verify that the promises of answered prayer are not unconditional, and yanking a verse out of context does not ‘prove’ otherwise.
December 11, 2009 at 12:20 pm
For laughs, why don’t you just post what those conditions are?
December 11, 2009 at 1:36 pm
It’s simple 9 step process, Janus.
1. Become like a child
2. Practice and teach the 613 Jewish Laws with righteousness that surpasses the Pharisees.
3. Don’t be rich.
4. Hate your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and your own life. Also give up EVERYTHING.
5. Love God and your neighbor with all your heart.
6. Do not commit adultery, murder, steal or give false testimony. Honor your father and mother and sell EVERYTHING you have.
7. Be born again.
8. Eat human flesh and drink human blood on a regular basis.
9. Believe in Jesus.
Biblical references here:
9 steps to heaven
Or here is a little Prayer 101 from the Bible:
Biblical prayer 101
God/Yahweh/Jesus (whatever you want to call him) makes getting prayers answered and earning your place in heaven very easy. But just for added insurance, you may also want to make the sign of the cross, say Amen at the end, or one of the many other hundreds of Christian rituals. Then you will have guaranteed prayer success.
Did I miss anything, Joe?
December 11, 2009 at 4:34 pm
You are the one making the claim to conditions. I said there aren’t any conditions based on the verse of Jesus saying all you need is the faith of a mustard seed. I’m not going to do your work for you instead get off your ass and read it yourself so you can actually know what you are talking about.
December 12, 2009 at 7:59 am
Joe, you’re making the standard Beliver’s Argument: Go Read The Bible.
I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree.
In many cases the rules outlined in the Bible are INCOMPATIBLE with real life, and it would take a good deal of cognitive dissonance to reconcile them.
Remember what the bible promised _AT FACE VALUE_: It’s strange that a book, that serves as God’s message to the “layman”, can only be “understood” and truly “discussed” by people who have read and studied the book again and again and again over the years.
Or even better, gained some sort of qualification to read it.
Apparently, Christianity is not for the common man, after all. <_<
December 11, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
Now I know! And knowing is one-tenth of the battle!
December 10, 2009 at 8:31 pm |
Agreed. The Bible is much more than one verse. It is a collection of contradicting verses on every page. Cherry pick your favorite teachings and ignore the rest.
Read my ongoing series:
http://thebeattitude.com/category/bible-teaching-of-the-week/
December 11, 2009 at 12:56 am |
Why thank you! Don’t mind if I do!
December 12, 2009 at 10:43 pm |
baconsbud wrote:
“You are the one making the claim to conditions. I said there aren’t any conditions based on the verse of Jesus saying all you need is the faith of a mustard seed. ”
And you still don’t seem to understand that your claim of ‘no conditions’ is undercut by your admission that one of the conditions is listed in the very verse you are referring to.
When He says, ‘You must have faith’, that is a condition.
Hello?
December 14, 2009 at 12:33 am |
OK. Faith is technically a condition.
Certainly a person who knows he has no faith in prayer is not in a position to complain that his prayers are not answered.
But if the amount of faith needed is described as “a mustard seed”, it is a trivial condition. A mustard seed is an exemplar of smallness. Wikipedia on “Mustard Seed”: “Mustard seeds of the various mustard plants are among the smallest of seeds. The seeds are about 3mm in diameter …” The typical believer, who considers that he has faith, can reasonably think he has at least the minimum amount of faith needed for any prayer to be answered, according to the statement under discussion. Thus, for believers, no significant conditions are stated.
And yet, believers do notice that their prayers have not been answered.
Perhaps you intend to argue that God also takes other important factors into consideration when judging a prayer. As a secular analogy, consider freedom of speech; it is typically stated as an absolute. But libel, inciting a riot, and a few other misuses of speech may be prohibited and punished. A natural limit to free speech is created by the existence of other equally important principles, such as other rights of individuals and public safety.
If it is your intention to argue that other principles stated in the Bible are of equal importance to the “mustard seed” statement, it is necessary to identify those principles and to show how they create a limit on the essentially unconditional granting of believer’s prayers promised by that statement; i.e., the conditions that may be deduced from other parts of the Scriptures.
December 14, 2009 at 3:17 am |
Thank you for say what I wanted to say but doubt I could have done it as well as you did it. I am still waiting for these conditions Joe.
December 14, 2009 at 9:11 am
Joe’s goal is only to let you know you are wrong. Not to actually give any proof for his statements.
December 17, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
Verbifex wrote:
“Faith is technically a condition.”
Its not just ‘technically’ a condition.
Its a condition.
Funny how you try to minimize it.
Yes and there other conditions also.
Anyone who has read the Bible knows that there are.
If you meet those conditions, God does answer.
December 17, 2009 at 1:12 pm
It must be nice to have this God in a little genie bottle awaiting your requests. Ask him to not be invisible and to stop allowing horrific atrocities to happen to good people. We’ll wait to see if he answers.
December 12, 2009 at 10:46 pm |
A chicken passeth by wrote:
“Joe, you’re making the standard Beliver’s Argument: Go Read The Bible. ”
Yes, I think it’s reasonable that someone objecting to Christian doctrine should first understand what it is they are objecting to.
Erecting strawmen to dash them down again is a waste of time.
December 13, 2009 at 12:46 am |
Pot, meet kettle – I agree with you.
Discussing religion always degenerates into strawmen vs strawmen.
The only difference between you and the OP right now is that, instead of using “that’s the way it is” common sense as weight, it is the intangible forces of “I cannot be questioned” God and the “nobody shall question this book” Bible and “it cannot be quantified” faith which gives your words weight.
Other than that… there’s nothing to suggest that you are more correct than the OP.
December 17, 2009 at 12:57 pm |
I’ve never said ‘Don’t question’
Question all you want.
The answer to the question ‘what are the conditions for answered prayer?’ is not hidden or unknowable.
It’s in the Bible.
December 17, 2009 at 1:12 pm
You’re very adept at telling people that they’re wrong and the right answer is in the Bible, yet you seem to be deficient in actually producing what these correct answers are.
Your very way of handling this discussion requires that we don’t question your knowledge of what the Bible says and just take it on faith that we’re wrong without you actually providing a verifiable counterpoint.
December 12, 2009 at 10:48 pm |
the beAttitude wrote:
“Did I miss anything, Joe?”
Besides accuracy?
No.
December 13, 2009 at 7:42 pm |
You seem to be an expert at unsubstantiated accusations. I’m inaccurate? Give me one example. Just one.
The above post pertaining to the biblical requirements for heaven are linked directly to the bible verses. I’m guessing you’ll say I pulled the verses out of context or that I’ve skewed their meaning. Again, proof is required to give your accusation any validity or credibility.
Without any backing to your claim, you’re comment equates to, “oh ya … well your stupid and my dad could beat up your dad.”
December 14, 2009 at 10:27 am |
“Jesus didn’t teach to pray in order have relationship discussions with him. He said, “ask and it will be given.” Even Jesus begged God (a.k.a. himself) to not require his horrific crucifixion. Apparently God doesn’t even answer prayers to himself.”
God going forward with JC’s crucifixion would qualify as an answer to JC’s prayer — not the answer JC had *asked* for, but an answer nonetheless. Would you not agree?
December 14, 2009 at 11:13 am
Ahh … the old apologetic response I’ve heard a hundred times. God always answers prayer. Sometimes it is yes, sometimes no, and other times it’s “not yet.”
Which is nothing more than a huge cop out. If God does whatever he wants anyway, why bother asking him for special favors? And how can this deity be called perfect and loving if he consistently ignores pleas for mercy and healing?
It must be nice to be God. You’re ritualistically worshiped and called just and holy no matter how malevolent, cruel, wrathful and invisible you are.
December 15, 2009 at 11:49 am
PS: A NO IS STILL AN UNANSWERED PRAYER, and so is abject silence >_>
I envy God’s job, really. He can twiddle his thumbs on his throne and people will still speak up for him. <_<
December 15, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“ask and it will be given.”
Not “ask and maybe you’ll get it and maybe not.”
Not “ask and I will think about it and maybe get back to you sometime – don’t hold your breath.”
December 15, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Just in case someone wants to contest that quote, Verbifex, here’s something to buttress it.
Mark 11:22-24:
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
That’s pretty cut and dry to me. All it says is to have faith in God and sincerely believe that you’re going to get what you pray for. It even makes a point to say that you can ask for anything you want on two separate occasions: “he shall have whatsoever he saith” and “what things soever ye desire.”
December 17, 2009 at 12:50 pm |
the beAttitude wrote:
“I’m inaccurate? Give me one example. Just one.
The above post pertaining to the biblical requirements for heaven……”
Since we weren’t discussing ‘requirements for heaven’, you are inaccurate.
It’s like if I asked ‘what’s two plus two’ and you answered ‘six’
I say ‘no, the answer is four’ and you say ‘but three plus three IS six, so six is accurate’
You gotta give a correct answer to the appropriate question.
The question was ‘what are the conditions for answered prayer?’
(We can discuss the inaccuracy of your answer to the question ‘what is required to get to heaven?’ later.)
December 14, 2009 at 10:26 am |
I like that. (JC’s prayer was to have the cup (all the bad stuff coming up) pass by Him (the ask part), but then He said, not to his own will, but to God’s. So, he asked… and the answer (obviously?) was “Sorry, bud.”)
BE, it’s tough to answer a call for a sign like this. It really is. If I could help your (and your family’s) believing to the point where your daughter is hurt and a prayer to God actually brought healing, I would have. But, without faith…
Hebrews 11:6, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”
Even Christians today are in the same boat. They *feel* a lot, A LOT… but they don’t experience the real POWER of God. To them, it’s still unknown. It’s still confusing. “Is it really available?”, “Can anyone/everyone do those great things?”
Ephesians 1:19, 20: “And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],”
This POWER God used to raise JC from the dead — now, other people had been raised from the dead, but by some other person working… this was God, uno, single, one, raising up a person — the power wasn’t in creating the world, or parting the Red Sea or any other thing, but God flexed His proverbial muscles in this feat, as recorded in scripture — and that’s the POWER latent within all of us (Christians) and to some (Christians) is also manifested. Imagine if the devil (if you believe in the devil) were able to “hide” this power from modern Christians — what a blow that would be to God’s will. (See 1 Corinthians 2:8, Colossians 1:27, 1 John 4:4, 1 John 4:17.)
But, without faith…
December 14, 2009 at 11:31 am |
You speak as though I’ve never believed. I’ve been in various phases of faith my entire life. But preceding my rejection of religion, I spent the previous 10+ years passionately seeking Jesus every day and with every breath. And my experience was the same as it is today. There are absolutely no biblically miraculous signs today to build any person’s faith.
The fact is biblical miracles don’t happen, because they have never happened. I didn’t beg God for special favors and get mad at him when he didn’t answer my prayers. He doesn’t answer any prayers because he is an imaginary deity invented by primitive Jewish men.
You can try the faith card, but it just doesn’t hold water. If faith led to miracles, we would see it happen. And I can also refute your faith explanation with the mustard seed analogy discussed above. According to Jesus, even the slightest amount of faith could work miracles.
December 14, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
I’ll just go ahead and reiterate a popular refutation of the “power of prayer.” It fits nicely here.
Are we to believe that there has never been an amputee in recorded medical history who had enough faith to get their limb healed? If there were, God rejected this prayer every single time? Surely such a feat is neither beyond God’s capability or willingness to fix. Jesus cured people in the middle of crowds all the time. Publicity was not an issue. Sure, he’d tell people to keep quiet about it, but it never stopped him from performing works of power in public place, nor did it stop people from talking about it. Clearly, “doing works in secret” has never been a big problem for God.
Yet, of all the people who have been reported to have been amputated, not a single one of the faithful who prayed for the restoration of their limb (not to mention the fact that many more would be praying for them, some of whom must meet the faith requirement), not one has ever been documented as having regenerated their limb.
I suppose God isn’t as powerful as He used to be.
December 17, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
the beAttitude wrote:
“You speak as though I’ve never believed. …According to Jesus, even the slightest amount of faith could work miracles.”
Did your belief extend to one verse in the Bible only?
Your disappointment is understandable, if you truly thought that this was God’s one and only statement on the matter of prayer.
But I suspect you actually know better.
Faith is not the only condition required and I am sure you are well aware of it.
December 17, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I’ve provided a small sampling of the laundry list of requirements from this God. So yes, I’m aware of the contradictory list of God’s conditions for prayer and salvation.
I am not disappointed in an imaginary God because he doesn’t answer prayer. I’m disappointed in myself for being duped into believing absurd superstition for most of my life.
December 16, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
Prayer, as described in the Bible passages cited in this discussion, is too good to be true. I doubt that any deity would grant prayer, even for the faithful, in such an automatic and promiscuous way, that bypasses divine judgment and makes the deity into a supernatural servant of every believer. If it did, there would soon be a serious mess on Earth. Imagine mountains being moved around at the whim of anyone (with a little faith) and perhaps dumped in nearby bodies of water. Maybe moved back again by someone else who “liked the view just fine as it was, thank you very much”.
Imagine, on a smaller scale, that someone decides his yard is too small. “Yo, God. I’d like you to remove the house behind mine, um, Porcius Crassus’s house. Yeah, that’s right. And take away all his rusting broken chariots, too. Oh, fill in the hole where the basement was. And while you’re at it, it needs a little landscaping: make it flat, level, and grassy so the kids can play football. Excellent! Thanks, Dude.”
We can guess what Porcius might pray for next.
Not everyone would do this, of course; only those whose “sinful nature” gave them bad impulse control and a tendency not to think through the consequences of their actions. But others would have to protect themselves somehow.
No competent god would want to become enmeshed in a situation like this. So it does not seem likely that he would really grant every prayer, even to those with faith. Nor would a competent god promise to do so, knowing (presumably) what would happen. There must be some actual rules and limits. And realistically, the rules and limits would have to be very restrictive.
So what is going on here? Did God think he had made the rules and limits clear somewhere else in the Bible? Did the imperfect man who was charged with writing that book just forget to do it, or die prematurely of measles? Maybe God assigned that work to a woman and therefore the guys at the Synod of Hippo automatically excluded it from the canon.
Was this originally a scam like The Emperor’s New Clothes? If your prayers are not being granted, obviously you do not have faith, regardless of what you think. You need more study, more instruction, to attend more services. To a person who thinks he has an invisible friend who can do anything, what would appear as too good to be true?
Is it simply the usual wishful thinking and cognitive dissonance that religions use to help people feel comfortable with their circumstances? Did the authors who wrote these documents simply not work out the implications?
Whatever the origin, believers, even those who pray regularly, do not behave as if they expect to have access to the nuclear-powered prayers described in these Bible passages. When waiting for the bus, they do not waste energy praying for God to save them some time by teleporting them straight home. Even if they consciously believe that every word of the Bible is literally true, they seem to know subconsciously that no matter how much faith they have, God will not move any literal mountains for them. They must be mystified why atheists keep harping on this.
December 17, 2009 at 1:04 pm |
Verbifex wrote:
“I doubt that any deity would grant prayer, even for the faithful, in such an automatic and promiscuous way, that bypasses divine judgment and makes the deity into a supernatural servant of every believer. If it did, there would soon be a serious mess on Earth.”
Which is probably why it’s not unconditional, and never has been.
December 17, 2009 at 1:20 pm |
But if you meet his conditions, he’ll do whatever you want? God has a divine plan, unless you talk him into something better? Please.
December 17, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Who says that what I ask for is ‘better’?
It may not be.
God may give me good instead of better if I want it. (This assumes I’m not asking for something sinful, for example.)
Had to come back and briefly address this which I had missed. Again, have a great afternoon and take good care.
December 17, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
the beAttitude wrote:
“contradictory list of God’s conditions for prayer”
I haven’t seen any list of ‘contradictions’ from you on the subject of prayer.
(Note: just because YOU happen to disagree with a condition, or think it irrelevant, odd, burdensome, etc doesn’t make it a ‘contradicton’.)
What I have seen is your insistence that there is one condition and one condition only, which is (as you are aware) false.
December 17, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
My only insistence is that it makes absolutely no difference what a person does. You’re praying to a fictional character. You can give me all of the appologetic rationalizations you want. It doesn’t make prayer anything more than a waste of time. Make your list of conditions and pray away if it somehow helps you cope with the world we live in.
December 17, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
Pointing out that there’s more than one verse that lays out the Biblical position on prayer is hardly an ‘apologetic rationalization’.
Its basic to reading and understanding ANY document.
You don’t yank one sentence, pretend like the rest doesnt matter and then build a complete misrepresentation based on your flawed method.
The Bible is fairly straightforward on the subject of prayer. I’ve laid out a simple method for those who may have a skeptical (yet honestly open) mind:
1. Find out what the Bible says about how and under what conditions God will answer prayer
2. Be very sure that you meet those conditions
3. Pray
But purposefully ignoring what the scripture says doesnt really ‘prove’ anything to anyone.
Have a good afternoon, my friend.
December 17, 2009 at 4:12 pm
After a lifetime of faith and prayer, let’s just say I’m not remotely convinced by your three step process. But I do appreciate you being a good sport. Religion is not an easy thing to discuss without it getting ugly. Most Christians who have posted here in the past would have condemned me to hell and boycotted my blog by now (of course they always make sure to close by saying they would pray for me … which is nice).
December 17, 2009 at 3:50 pm |
Janus Grayden wrote:
“Your very way of handling this discussion requires that we don’t question your knowledge of what the Bible says”
I’ve not said you shouldnt question my knowledge.
If you can show that the Bible actually DOES teach that answered prayer is an unconditional promise, go for it.
Most of the players, including the most of the atheists in this discussion, have already conceded that it is indeed conditional.
December 17, 2009 at 5:33 pm |
Seems like you missed the big issue. Let me go ahead and reiterate:
“…you seem to be deficient in actually producing what these correct answers are.”
I have asked you about 3 or 4 times for what the conditions are under which God will answer prayer. You’ve yet to mention what they are. I’m not arguing with you about whether or not there are conditions.
You’re the one making the claim that there are specific circumstances under which God will answer prayer. Therefore, unless you’re full of it, you can cite what conditions they are. If you are not blowing smoke, you will mention them to confirm your argument.
Until you do this, you are, in fact, forcing us to just take your word for it.
December 17, 2009 at 8:29 pm |
Joe White: What do you consider the most important condition for the granting of a prayer, other than faith? In your opinion, when God receives a prayer from a devout and faithful Christian, what do you think is the most important factor in deciding whether to grant that prayer?
December 20, 2009 at 10:28 pm |
Verbifex,
Well you’ve asked my opinion so I will give it. I don’t know that the Bible gives an answer to your question because I’m not sure if God considers one factor ‘more important’ than others.
But here’s my answer:
No one deserves an answer to prayer from God. It cannot be earned.
It doesn’t matter ‘how good’ you’ve been, or how ‘faithful’ or ‘devout’ you are (or think you are).
You may have faith (or you may only THINK you have what God calls faith. The apostle tells us “The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.”) but even then you haven’t ‘earned’ the right to have God answer your prayer.
So anytime God gives you what you have asked, it is because of His mercy and His grace, not because we have earned or deserve it.
Not sure what label you’d put on this (humility, awareness of God’s grace), but there it is.
Hope you’re having a terrific weekend, Verbifex.
December 20, 2009 at 11:46 pm
My bigger question is how a person qualifies answered prayer over random chance.
Why doesn’t God answer the basic prayer for food and shelter in third world countries? I received two emails from friends this week praising God for leading them to new jobs after being laid off. Why does God find it more deserving of his grace to help two very highly paid men further their careers, rather than feeding starving children? That is only one of two things; the sign of a malevolent god, or an imaginary one.
December 21, 2009 at 10:22 am |
If you can show that the Bible actually DOES teach that answered prayer is an unconditional promise, go for it.
Well in a sense that can’t be shown because of the beauty of interpretation. No matter how clearly the Bible states something, if you don’t want to believe what it clearly states, then you just whip out your handy, hermeneutic-colored glasses and reinterpret it to suit.
But here at least are a some passages to contort:
James 5:14-15 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. [Obviously the condition is 'faith'. No one even has a mustard seed of that.]
Matt 17:20 He [Jesus] replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
Then there’s the “ask, seek, knock” passage. And there are others where it’s pretty clear that the Bible is saying prayers are supposed to be answered clearly and directly.
Really the only place where you get the “yes, no, maybe”, and the “prayers are answered obscurely” silliness is not from the Bible, but from wimpy apologists who have to defend their ineffective, imaginary deity. You don’t get it from Peter and Paul
December 21, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
LeoPardus,
It has very little to do with ‘interpretation’.
Your failure to show that the Bible promises unconditional answers to prayer stems chiefly from quoting a passage and admitting that it DOES state a required condition.
There was no need to ‘contort’ or ‘reinterpret to suit’ any passage. You conceded my very point.
Hopefully you’re not going to be as inefficient in defending your assertion that God is ‘an imaginary deity’.
But we’ll see.
Go ahead and tell us why you think God is ‘imaginary’.
December 21, 2009 at 5:19 pm
He never shows up; never answers prayers; doesn’t accomplish miracles; doesn’t changes lives. His effect in the world equates to the same as random chance.
I don’t really expect you to accept this anymore than the poverty of your Hebrew mythology text. I spent 25 years being just as recalcitrant; just as impervious to reality. I actually don’t know just why I finally opened my eyes and accepted reality. So I have no way of knowing what would get you do do likewise.
What you’re in now is a very comforting fantasy. I know. You can live out your life in it. Millions have. I doubt it’ll make any real difference. I just can’t be a part of anymore. My eyes opened up and they can’t be shut again.
So if you want your imaginary life, have it. You can even pray to it ‘for my soul’ if you like.
December 22, 2009 at 11:57 am |
Joe White, following up on my question about the conditions for the granting of a prayer: In your answer, you touch on the requirement of faith as discussed above. Although it is a real condition, it seems to most commenters here not to be very relevant to this discussion because it only seems to eliminate non-Christians; I doubt that anyone imagines non-Christians praying to the Christian god, and the discussion is about the criteria for God granting the prayer of a Christian. Thus, most commenters suppose that all the petitioners under discussion a priori have the requisite minimum (“mustard seed” sized) amount of faith, the only condition expressly stated for the granting of a prayer; thus it appears unconditional for the persons being discussed. But maybe you will assert that most Christians do not actually have the necessary minimum faith or that they do not really understand what God means by the word “faith” and consequently have none at all. If that is true, then faith is a significant condition for the granting of prayer; but still, those who have it appear to have carte blanche and ought to be producing objectively observable miracles, which are not evident.
In a comment above, I argued that there must be other conditions and that believers clearly know this even if they do not say what those conditions are. And in your comments you insisted that other conditions exist but appeared reluctant to state them explicitly. So I asked for your opinion regarding the most important.
Regarding your answer, I see your point that a person whose prayer is granted should recognize that God is not required to do anything. Everyone dislikes a person with an aggressive “attitude” who demands to be given things when no one is obligated to give him anything. So it is reasonable that a god would ignore prayers of that type.
In looking over the previous comments, I noticed that you also stated another condition, in a parenthesis: “This assumes I’m not asking for something sinful, for example.” I agree that it would be unseemly for a god to grant a prayer with a result that would be immoral, unethical, or illegal if the petitioner caused the result himself.
That gives us three reasonable conditions, a good start.
It also gives us a lot of questions.
But for now I will stick to the question implicit in theBEattitude’s original post and its embedded video: Why are there no unambiguously observable cases of granted prayer? It seems that a lot of prayers go ungranted which do not appear to violate any of these three conditions, especially prayers for relief from afflictions of disease and injury. Are you prepared to say that these three conditions rule out all the prayers of all the Christians in all the world? They do not have faith according to God’s definition or not enough of it. Or they have an exaggerated sense of their own worth and a mistaken notion that it entitles them to receive what they requested. Or they are asking for something wrongful. Are there other reasonable specific conditions that explain some ungranted prayers; and, if so, in your opinion, what are they?
December 23, 2009 at 8:22 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“it seems to most commenters here not to be very relevant to this discussion”
The existence of a condition such as this would seem to be quite relevant to a discussion of whether prayer were unconditionally promised or not.
Verbifex wrote:
“most commenters suppose that all the petitioners under discussion a priori have the requisite minimum (“mustard seed” sized) amount of faith”
A reading of the new testament would show both Jesus Himself and the apostles giving examples of Christians praying but having no faith.
Perhaps it is your faulty understanding of what faith actually is, that is at the heart of your error.
Verbifex wrote:
“faith, the only condition expressly stated for the granting of a prayer”
No, it is not.
Verbifex wrote:
“Why are there no unambiguously observable cases of granted prayer?”
Why you have not observed answers to prayer, I am not qualified to say.
Others however have, and they would tell you so.
The problem of course is that you either doubt their honesty or their rationality.
Implicit in your denial of ‘observable cases’ is the assumption that answers to prayer should somehow be satisfactorally evident to those other than the one who prayed.
I’m not sure why you think it should be, but the new testament nowhere says it will be.
God offers no promise to alleviate either the curiosity or the doubt of those who have not offered the prayer.
December 24, 2009 at 11:16 am |
Joe White:
A reading of the new testament would show both Jesus Himself and the apostles giving examples of Christians praying but having no faith.
So, apparently, you do assert that many Christians do not actually have the minimum faith or the understanding necessary for a grantable prayer. I am inclined to think you are right about this: considering what a poor grasp most people have of government, law, ethics, economics, physics, etc., etc., it seems likely that most people also have a poor grasp of religion. Still, it would be good if you could cite (you know, by chapter and verse) some of the more important New Testament passages that give the examples you mention, so that the biblically literate among the readers here could see what significance the “mustard seed of faith” requirement had for the authors.
Regarding your denial that faith is the only condition expressly stated for the granting of a prayer: The biblically literate readers here apparently are not familiar with any other expressly stated conditions, and many of them measure their study of the Bible in decades. You have mentioned two other conditions for the granting of a prayer (which seem quite reasonable, as I said before), but you have not indicated where in the Bible these are stated or even implied. To support your position, you need to cite (chapter and verse, again) the places where other conditions are expressly stated in the Bible.
Implicit in your denial of ‘observable cases’ is the assumption that answers to prayer should somehow be satisfactorally evident to those other than the one who prayed.
I’m not sure why you think it should be, but the new testament nowhere says it will be.
This is not a religious matter, but the normal process of evaluating the truth of a proposition. Can the results be seen reliably and predictably? Passages from the Bible have been quoted on this page which promise that (under the right conditions) God may grant a prayer for physical effects in the natural world (of which examples are given). Such physical effects would be evident to those other than the one who prayed. Any otherwise inexplicable and essentially impossible events would be noticed by others.
Certainly the conditions that were discussed before would substantially reduce the number of objectively observable cases of granted prayer that could be expected. Still, given the large number of religious persons and the amazing nature of the possible prayer results, there should have been by now enough unambiguously observed and documented cases of granted prayer to indicate a real phenomenon.
December 21, 2009 at 9:49 am |
The phrase ‘deserving of His grace’ goes to the point that I tried to explain.
No one deserves grace.
To the larger question of why evil is in the world (or why do people lack or suffer):
God could eliminate evil from the world in two ways –
– he could kill us all
– he could make us robots
He hasnt done either, and I can see why neither would be a good option.
Starving children are often a direct example of evil , not God, but man. Many countries have enough food to feed their people but the distribution of the food never takes place for various reasons, political , economic , etc. Evil systems, such as totalitarian governments that divert food to the army and keep it from the people definitely qualify as evil, IMHO.
Your other question about qualifying or ‘proving’ something is an answered prayer instead of random chance is an interesting one.
Of course answers to prayer cannot be ‘proven’ or ‘verified’ in a scientific sense because each one is a unique, non-repeatable event.
A scientific type of proof generally requires the ability to reproduce the result a number of times.
But of course ‘scientific proof’ isn’t the only type of proof there is.
Our courts use ‘legal proof’ and a standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to ‘prove’ what took place in the past, (a crime for instance, which is a one time event with unique circumstances that wont repeat).
This is why I ask people who may be skeptical to ‘prove’ it to themselves, using the method I outlined, because its generally pointless to discuss ‘scientifically’ proving a one time event.
December 21, 2009 at 11:02 pm |
Actually, your god did use a giant flood to “kill us all” and every living creature on earth that couldn’t fit on a big boat. What a brilliant and loving plan.
And according the many “predestination” Bible verses, Christians are robots on the end of God’s fishing pole:
God hated an unborn baby. Nice.
I did a post several months ago about the Bible’s take on Christian “free will”.
http://thebeattitude.com/2009/02/06/does-god-give-people-free-will-not-exactl/
You are correct to blame human beings for the evils of the world. Blame the ones who are responsible. But that doesn’t change the fact that this god you believe exists malevolently allows these evils to happen.
December 22, 2009 at 8:58 am |
LeoPardus wrote:
“He never shows up; never answers prayers…….”
If you meant to say that He has never answered YOUR prayer, I can believe it.
However, wouldn’t you have to be omniscient yourself to know if He has never answered ANY prayer?
December 22, 2009 at 9:15 am |
No. It only requires two eyes to see that prayer isn’t answered. The idea of being omniscient is a man-made invention anyway.
Look at our world. You can see as well as I do how good and bad happens to all people. Completely random in every way and not constrained by how faithful or prayerful you are. If a person makes unwise choices, they reap the consequences. The rest is either completely random, or God is a giant ass for allowing the evil atrocities that occur in our world.
Answered prayer or not, God gets credit for the good and the devil for the bad. You should watch this episode of Mr. Diety. It gives a funny, but very honest perspective of God and prayer:
December 22, 2009 at 10:59 am |
the beAttitude wrote:
“how faithful or prayerful you are”
I’ve addressed this, but it can be a difficult concept to get past.
Prayer is not answered by virtue of ‘how prayerful’ or ‘how faithful’ one is.
It is by grace, not earned.
I’m not faulting you for associating these false concepts with the God of the Bible, because they are common, even (and especially) among church people, among whom you’ve spent a lot of time.
But ‘how faithful’ one is, is not the basis on which prayer is answered.
It is by grace, not merit.
December 22, 2009 at 11:49 am
Based on your perspective of Christian theology, God allows thousands of children to die of starvation because he didn’t feel like bestowing his grace on them. They either didn’t merit or deserve his grace. I find it absurd to worship a god that allows rape, murder, child molestation, genocide, torture and starvation as part of his divine plan. And even allows it within his own church history.
You can attempt to justify the process of grace God uses to answer prayer. But it doesn’t change the image of an extremely cruel God. I’ll say it again, either God is completely malevolent, or he is a figment of human imagination. And the act of having a Jewish man butchered as a sacrifice to himself only further proves his malevolent or fictional nature.
December 22, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Your concept that God grants prayer by grace alone is hard get past because the phrase “by grace alone” seems to translate into ordinary English as “according to whim”. It conjures up an analogous image of a king throwing coins from his carriage as he rides past his subjects in a parade; some get a coin and are a little better off, some do not. The whim of a person or a king or a god is essentially random.
A god could behave this way. Who could stop him? And I suppose in such a system, praying does no harm: the petitioner might get lucky. If you cannot do anything else, then it is not a waste of time. But this does not seem like a satisfactory way to run a universe.
You could argue that God has his own method of determining what needs to be adjusted or what he wants to change and that he acts accordingly. Very possibly this method does not take into account the faithfulness or merit of the humans who are affected; perhaps it does not even take into account the desires or welfare of those humans. Where a prayer appears to have been granted, God might have taken the requested action even without the prayer, simply because it fits his own needs or desires. Then if one of the humans benefits from God’s action, you can say that that the benefit is an act of God’s grace. But this also undercuts any argument for the power or usefulness of prayer.
Is it a lottery or complete indifference?
December 22, 2009 at 3:14 pm |
the BEattitude wrote:
“Based on your perspective of Christian theology…….They either didn’t merit or deserve his grace.”
That’s actually the opposite of what I said.
December 23, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
“In a 1997 survey in the science journal Nature, 40 percent of U.S. scientists said they believe in God—not just a creator, but a God to whom one can pray in expectation of an answer.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion_2.html
If you had the opportunity, what would you ask these scientists?
December 23, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
I’d ask them if they had evidence or if they were just satisfying a need for fuzzy warm feelings. Or just following whatever religious practice they were brought up in.
December 23, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
Ah, ‘evidence’.
I suppose by that you may mean ‘scientific’ evidence.
Science, of course, deals with natural phenomena.
Prayer, by definition and if it is indeed answered, is a supernatural phenomena.
Wouldn’t it be just a bit odd, asking for natural evidence of the supernatural?
December 23, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Scientific evidence would be nice, yes. And if prayer was answered it would be evidence of something because we could record what worked and what didn’t and how long it took to work. What’s odd about asking for evidence of the supernatural? Are you saying that if someone calls something supernatural we should just believe it? So you believe in all religions as being equally valid. Interesting.
December 23, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Would you mind refining what you mean by “supernatural?” The scientific method, which is the foundation of most good science, is a body of techniques used to test phenomena based on observable, empirical, and measurable evidence.
Based on your statement of what supernatural phenomena is, science, and ergo the scientific method, cannot be applied to it. This implication of this is supernatural phenomena does not have observable, empirical, or measurable evidence. Based on this logic, what the fuck does supernatural phenomena do? Even the sheer enjoyment people get from believing in something can be scientifically measured.
Sure you can say that supernatural phenomena can happen and leave no evidence, or the sheer act of observing may interrupt the phenomena, but once again this holds little sway. The loss of this supernatural phenomena is a small price to pay considering the constant, consistent benefits scientific analysis of “natural phenomena” brings us.
December 23, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Prayer, by definition and if it is indeed answered, is a supernatural phenomena.
Wouldn’t it be just a bit odd, asking for natural evidence of the supernatural?
Well, the advertisements say it can have an effect on the real physical world; for example, moving a mountain or curing disease or healing an injury. People regularly say that as a result of prayer they were saved from tornados and any number of other very natural disasters. Are you excluding all these requests for physical results from bona fide prayer?
December 23, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
What do they pray about or pray for? What kind of answer do they expect; how do they recognize it as an answer; and how do they know the answer comes from God?
December 24, 2009 at 8:06 am |
jumblestuff wrote:
“Based on your statement of what supernatural phenomena is, science, and ergo the scientific method, cannot be applied to it. ”
That’s true.
jumblestuff wrote:
“This implication of this is supernatural phenomena does not have observable, empirical, or measurable evidence.”
Let’s not confuse cause with effect, however. Answered prayer may often have observable results.
December 24, 2009 at 8:08 am |
Blue says:
“So you believe in all religions as being equally valid. Interesting.”
Where in the world did you get that?
December 24, 2009 at 10:09 am |
You’ve taken any way of determining what god is answering prayer or if prayer is even being answered. If prayer were to work for you it could be the Christian god, Zeus, a rabbit or random chance. So you must hold all religions as being equally valid. You’re the ultimate polytheist.
December 24, 2009 at 3:21 pm |
Blue,
If anyone has a clue as to what you’re trying to say, I’ll let them explain it, because last time I checked, rabbits are not supernatural.
Have a Merry Christmas, Blue.
December 24, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Joe,
Merry Christmas to you as well.
And I quote you from above.
jumblestuff wrote:
“Based on your statement of what supernatural phenomena is, science, and ergo the scientific method, cannot be applied to it. ”
That’s true.
And from further above:
Science, of course, deals with natural phenomena.
Prayer, by definition and if it is indeed answered, is a supernatural phenomena.
Wouldn’t it be just a bit odd, asking for natural evidence of the supernatural?
So Joe I’m just taking what you say as what you believe. You have said there is no way to verify anything supernatural, apparently it just happens. At that point you must have no idea what deity if any is reacting to prayer. Thus you must be a polytheist, since you never know what god, gods, demon, elemental or what have you is answering prayer. I said rabbit for comedic effect, but perhaps that’s not your thing.
I’m amazed that you’ve essentially destroyed any way for anyone to know what god is working/blessing/cursing them. I disagree, but you do have a new and fascinating religious outlook.
December 25, 2009 at 12:44 am |
Blue,
My outlook is far from ‘new’. It is a traditional Christian view of prayer and the supernatural.
Your underlying assumption seems to be that one cannot know anything unless it is by the scientific method.
The scientific method deals with natural phenomena. I think we would both agree on that.
By definition, it is not suited to investigate the supernatural.
But there are many areas that the scientific method is not capable of effectively addressing.
Can you scientifically prove what George Washington ate for dinner on his tenth birthday?
NO?
Well, does that mean he didn’t eat on his birthday? Of course not.
Most of the events in the lives of people down thru history are not verifiable by the scientific method.
Does that mean that those people didn’t exist, or that the events didn’t happen just because we are unable to ‘prove’ or ‘verify’ that they did? Certainly not.
Its time for those who love the scientific method , as I do also, to also admit its inherent limitations, and not elevate it to the place of a god.
December 25, 2009 at 11:12 am |
You said above:
Let’s not confuse cause with effect, however. Answered prayer may often have observable results.
Those observable results can be studied and can be compared to circumstances that are known to exist in the absence of answered prayer. The knowledge from that study of observable results can be used to infer something about the properties of prayer even if prayer cannot be studied directly. This is a common technique in scientific work.
December 25, 2009 at 6:22 am |
“Its time for those who love the scientific method , as I do also, to also admit its inherent limitations, and not elevate it to the place of a god.”
… besides the fact that the scientific method has not been elevated to the place of a god nothing you have said has demonstrated why prayer should not be testable by the scientific method.
December 26, 2009 at 12:48 am |
And how would you propose to test prayer scientifically, Jabster?
December 26, 2009 at 5:02 am |
Prayer has already been tested scientifically and been shown not to work … what more do you want?
Is it like CAM in that it really does work but for some strange reason when tested in a more controlled way doesn’t seem to work?
December 26, 2009 at 9:38 am
Jabster wrote:
“Prayer has already been tested scientifically and been shown not to work”
I knew this would be your answer.
The so-called scientific studies of prayer that I’ve seen are a joke.
If you want to stand behind them, you’d do well to think it through first because they are easily ripped to shreds.
December 27, 2009 at 4:05 am
@Joe White
“… they are easily ripped to shreds.”
Then please rip them to shreds don’t just say they are easily ripped to shreds …
“The so-called scientific studies of prayer that I’ve seen are a joke.”
Because they don’t agree with your pre-concived ideas … if on the other hand they had shown that prayer worked you would have jumped up and down saying how prayer had been proved.
December 27, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
First off Joe, you’ve once again demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of what reasoning and the scientific method are. I’m assuming this same misunderstanding is present in the critique of the scientific studies involving prayer, so here are two of them I simply found by googling.
http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/press_releases/060407step.html
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1849/have-studies-proven-that-prayer-can-help-heal-the-sick
Well, I’m certain that, considering your well equipped methods of applying ad hominems and red herrings you’ll find issue with the ethos of these websites. So here’s another providing a bit more ethos for you.
http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/neuro/neurology-spiritual-experience
Despite the unfalsifiable claims for the mechanisms responsible, he provides support for the neurological areas active in the brain (http://www.hplusmagazine.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/brain-scan-comparisons.png). He shows that there are neurological areas active during prayer. Now you can assume that it is God interacting with your neurology and making you feel the ways you do when praying, but as I said this is unfalsifiable. Doesn’t this also show how impotent prayer has become, if compared to previous accounts in your holy book.
Prayer, supposedly, once had the power to grant the individual whatever they so desired, so long as they believed (John 14:12-18) and now it’s simply teetered into the gaps of our synapses. It’s gone from something that’s supposed to have external results to a feeling duplicated with an opiate. So why would this be? Is this god testing us? Is he too busy fighing the cosmic guild of calamitous intent to answer our prayers? Or is it simply less bombastic now that the world is no longer populated by a bunch of existentially frightened goatherders?
December 28, 2009 at 5:43 am |
I’m just waiting for Joe to rip to shreds the evidence that prayer does not work … or should I say I’m waithing for lots of hand waving and that’s not right because I say so?
December 28, 2009 at 8:39 am |
Good morning Jabster,
If you were going to scientifically study the behavior of a chemical, for instance, you’d carefully define what the composition of the chemical was, measure it out and standardize your procedure so that the same amount of the same substance was used each time you tested.
In all of the prayer studies I’ve seen there is no standardization.
Pray-ers are each praying basically whatever words they want to say, in whatever manner they chose to do so.
That is the chief flaw (and a deadly one) from a scientific POV.
From a Biblical point of view, the studies don’t take into account the conditional nature of prayer as we’ve discussed, and so they make no effort to see that the conditions are fulfilled.
The failure of our scientist friends to define the ‘prayer’ they were testing leads to a failure from a theological perspective, just as it did from a scientific perspective.
So in essence SOME sort of non-Biblical prayer may be said to have been examined, but not Biblical prayer.
If you want to make the point that these studies have proven the ineffectiveness of non-Biblical prayer, I have room for agreement with you.
December 28, 2009 at 9:33 am
Please state the studies you have reviewed and why they are incorrect. Then please state the paper(s) you have published in a scientific journal that shows why they are incorrect.
Here’s a hint, just saying they are incorrect is not enough you have to demonstrate why they are incorrect which you have failed to do.
December 28, 2009 at 10:57 am |
hmmm ok very sorry
I thought I was pretty clear in saying ‘why’ the studies aren’t really valid examples of scientific research.
Which part of ‘no definition’ and ‘no standardization’ needs more clarification?
From a scientific POV, the studies that I have seen, (and I dont say that I’ve seen every so-called study ever done) do not define what is and is not prayer.
Nor do they standarize what is being prayed, or in what manner.
So I hardly think that these can be called ‘scientific’ in any real sense of the word.
From a theological POV, my point is that Biblical prayer does in fact get answered.
I do not now, nor have I stated previously that ‘any and all prayers of whatever type’ get answered.
Since the studies do not even attempt to fulfill the Biblical conditions for answered prayer, they aren’t really much use theologically either, except as examples of what doesn’t work.
December 28, 2009 at 11:22 am |
So you are saying that you cannot prove the effectiveness of prayer, nor show that “Biblical” prayer gets answered. All you can say is that you think it is. How do you know this? What if you’re being deceived by that lovable scamp Loki? Or and this is more likely you are fooling yourself and asking everyone else to join in on your delusion. This is why I called you the ultimate polytheist, Joe. You have given yourself no way to prove, record or even point to tangible prayer for even your god. You could have saved us all the time by just saying prayer works cause I say it does and nothing can change that for me, not even reality. La, La, La, I’m not listening.
The title of the post is right. You can’t prove anything beyond warm fuzzy feelings. Your god is an awesome god indeed, since it can be whatever you want it to be inside your head.
December 28, 2009 at 11:45 am |
Blue wrote:
“So you are saying….”
No.
You are.
I said that the studies I’ve seen that attempt to ‘scientifically’ prove (or disprove) prayer, aren’t really very scientific at all, IMHO.
If you can lay out a framework by which a scientifically based study could investigate prayer, I’ll listen to what you have to say, but I am skeptical, since the scientific method is (last time I checked) designed for investigating the natural, not the supernatural.
Does that mean one cannot ever know if prayer is answered?
No.
It would only be so if the only way to ‘know’ something were by the scientific method. And of course that’s not the case.
But quite often I do see participants (like yourself) in discussions of this type attempt to conflate the two.
December 28, 2009 at 11:59 am
But Joe you’ve left us with no way to try to measure the supernatural. I’m not conflating anything, I’m applying your direct statements on this to their logical conclusion, you just may not like it.
You have effectively closed off the supernatural from any sort of inquiry.
You say:
“Does that mean one cannot ever know if prayer is answered?
No.
It would only be so if the only way to ‘know’ something were by the scientific method. And of course that’s not the case.”
You have a different way of knowing, Joe? A different way of showing anything beyond, wait for it, fuzzy feelings? By your own statements you do not. If you do, please I’m all ears (or eyes in this case). But I’m seeing like so quite often participants like yourself saying there’s no way to prove, no way to show, no way to know, just make yourself believe.
How can you expect me to believe that? Just trust you? Just trust warm fuzzy feelings? Joe, come on man, you can do better then this. Really look at what you’re saying.
December 28, 2009 at 3:56 pm |
@Joe W
I’ll repeat the same question … please state the studies you have reviewed and what your problems are with them.
December 28, 2009 at 12:28 pm |
Blue wrote:
“You have effectively closed off the supernatural from any sort of inquiry”
No, I’ve not ‘closed off the supernatural from any sort of inquiry’. I laid out a very simple method:
1. Find out what the Bible says about how and under what conditions God will answer prayer
2. Be very sure that you meet those conditions
3. Pray
But I didn’t claim it to be a ‘scientific’ method.
The scientific method is a valuable (but limited) tool for advancing knowledge.
Let’s just admit it’s not the be-all and know-all of human enlightenment.
Sure there are other methods of proof and other ways to know apart from a scientific method.
Our courts try cases every day , and acquit or convict the accused — proving beyond a reasonable doubt — don’t they?
But in your mind, apparently the words ‘proof’ , ‘know’ , ‘verify’ all necessitate ONLY the scientific method be used.
As some have said, ‘To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail’.
Except everything is NOT a nail, Blue.
Blue wrote:
“You have a different way of knowing, Joe?”
Yeah, Blue. We all do.
The scientific method is not the only bullet in the arsenal of human inquiry.
We are not predestined to be the Barney Fifes of history, endlessly struggling to reach that one bullet in the pocket.
December 28, 2009 at 12:57 pm |
Oh my, Joe. You really can’t see it can you? I feel sorry for you. But I’ll try, because maybe someone will read our exchange and stay away from a religious life, because it saps the reasoning process.
First lets go over the requirements for prayer from your Bible. Lets see if we can find the proper incantation. Because at this point you have it all set up like any magic spell I’ve read. You must have a nifty variant of the standard Christian belief if you have this much complexity.
Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
Matthew 17:20 For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.”
Matthew 21:21 I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
Mark 11:24: Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
And most telling:
John chapter 14:12-14 12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. 13 Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; 14 if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
Oops. That seems pretty easy to test. And has it been done by Christians? Why yes it has. But they weren’t True Christians I’m betting, right Joe? Or somehow, magically, they didn’t get the conditions just right.
You also said:
Blue wrote:
“You have a different way of knowing, Joe?”
Yeah, Blue. We all do.
The scientific method is not the only bullet in the arsenal of human inquiry.”
What is this way of knowing Joe? You continually try to disprove all other methods, but somehow you never come out and say much in regards to anything else. It was like pulling teeth to get you to present a way to test for the supernatural. I find it fascinating you bring up the law, where we do use proof, we do use evidence, in ways that follow the scientific method. Yet you then decry proving beyond the shadow of a doubt your own God. Is he so powerless and feckless? The really funny thing though is this. I don’t have to do anything to prove you wrong. Prayer doesn’t work, and you’ve cut yourself off from showing that it does. Personal testimony? Nope, doesn’t work, you could be lying or insane. A ton of followers? Ooh, to bad about those billions of Muslims, Dharmics (Hindu), Buddhists and assorted others. Inerrant word? Damn those contradictions and a 13+ Billion year old universe. Your god gets smaller and smaller, and less and less obvious. But you have a new way of “knowing”.
Don’t be scared letting go of your fantasy, Joe. The real world is a wonderous place and you don’t have to fear the nightmares and demons in your own head.
Oh and hope your Christmas was a good one.
December 29, 2009 at 3:41 am |
“Oops. That seems pretty easy to test. And has it been done by Christians? Why yes it has. But they weren’t True Christians I’m betting, right Joe? Or somehow, magically, they didn’t get the conditions just right.”
Unfortunately that is exactly the answer you will get from Joe. As far as I can see he has deceided that prayer does work regardless of evidence to the contary. So when he says he respects science what he really means is he respects science unless it contridicts his book of myths. Of course if the study had been does prayer work for a different faith then he would have be all in favour of it.
December 29, 2009 at 6:54 am
Jabster wrote:
“he has deceided that prayer does work regardless of evidence to the contary”
Evidence gathered using a faulty method isn’t really evidence at all, is it?
If you’re going to claim that these studies are valid scientific studies, I would think you would demand that the studies be conducted properly.
Maybe not though.
December 29, 2009 at 11:26 pm
@Joe W
Continually repeating the same mantra of “that’s not correct” without providing details is not very helpful is it?
December 28, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
Blue wrote:
“t was like pulling teeth to get you to present a way to test for the supernatural.”
Actually, I had posted this three step process in my very first post on this thread, and reposted it at least one other time before today.
Blue wrote:
“What is this way of knowing Joe?”
You can’t seriously think that knowledge is only obtained via the scientific method.
Most of the events of ordinary life are not ‘provable’ scientifically.
Can you ‘scientifically’ prove what you ate on the day before your eighth birthday? In the absence of ‘scientific proof’, must we conclude that you didn’t eat anything?
Blue wrote:
“You continually try to disprove all other methods”
No, what I’ve said was that the scientific method is quite valuable but we need to understand its limitations as well.
–
thanks yes, my Christmas was quite enjoyable. I hope yours was too.
Wishing you a Happy New Year also, my friend.
December 28, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
@Joe W
I’ll repeat the same question … please state the studies you have reviewed and what your problems are with them.
December 29, 2009 at 6:47 am |
lol
No matter how many times I tell you, you answer ‘but why?’
I don’t know any simpler way to explain to you why I think the studies that I have seen aren’t good representations of the scientific method.
Go back and read it again. Maybe you’ll eventually get it.
Which studies? All of them that I’ve seen. No, I did not keep a catalog of them in the hope that one day you’d ask about them.
You know how to use Google (I assume). Look up anything you want. See if the points I’ve noted are properly addressed by any of them.
December 29, 2009 at 11:45 am
Details and specifics are important to a discussion like this. Naturally, you “did not keep a catalog of [studies] in the hope that one day [someone would] ask about them”. That is why Jumbletuff (on December 27, 2009 at 6:12 pm) provided a link on this very page to one very good study, which repeat I here: Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP).
It was published in American Heart Journal, April 4, 2006, but the sponsor provides a manuscript copy of the paper, Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients – A Multi-Center Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer, so that anyone can read it easily.
So it is not necessary to remember all the studies you have ever read. Just look at this one and give a critique. Then the readers here can compare your opinion with their own. That, in turn, will give a real measure of the strength your position.
December 29, 2009 at 11:53 pm
@Joe W
“lol
No matter how many times I tell you, you answer ‘but why?’”
LOL indeed … studies means more than one yet that is precisely the number you can remember. So how many did you study; was it 1, 10, 100 and you can’t even remember the names. Maybe you should follow your own advice and it will jog you memory?
“You know how to use Google (I assume). Look up anything you want.”
———————————————————-
The problem you have in this thread is that you sound as though you are making this up as it goes along. It really doesn’t look good when you boldly imply to have read many studies and can rip them to shreds yet seem to be able to provide very little detail on why those studies are incorrect and fail to name even more than one of these studies. The cynic in me says that you are playing the game of being very quick to claim something is wrong but very guarded in giving details of why something is wrong because a) in reality you know very little about what you are claiming is wrong above it doesn’t agree with your pre-conceived ideas so it must be wrong and b) by providing very little detail in support of your case it’s much easier to then twist what you have previously said and still claim you are right. Of course this can eaily be solved by following Verbifex’s advice and giving a proper critic of just one paper. As you must have already done this to numerous papers, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to claim that you could rip them to shreds, I don’t see why it should take very long for you to do this at all.
December 29, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
Verbifex,
This study (the Templeton study, as it is known), is one I’m familiar with. I’ve seen it often referenced as the ‘most scientific study of prayer to date.’
I beg to differ.
My earlier comments are based partly on it, since it exhibits the shortcomings I’ve noted i.e. there is no definition for the ‘prayer’ that participants are to offer, and there is apparently no substantive standardization of what is prayed (except that all participants were to include a single 12 word phrase somewhere in their otherwise self composed prayers of indeterminate content. There was no verification provided that they had actually done so, nor of how accurately and consistently had or hadn’t done so) and in what manner.
Or if there is any real standardization, it is not mentioned at all in the report — a significant problem in any study purported to be ‘scientific’.
So from a scientific view, it fails.
At best , the study can be considered a test of a specific 12 word phrase. That’s about it.
———————–
In addition, from a theological perspective, there is no attempt made by the researchers to address the conditions necessary for Biblical prayer.
So even if the case were made that it is a valid scientific study of generic ‘prayer’ , it is not a study of ‘Biblical prayer’.
None of this is any different from the commentary I’ve given before, since as I said my earlier comments were based upon my knowledge and remembrance of this, as well as other studies.
Hope you are having a super day, my friend.
December 29, 2009 at 9:41 pm |
The Templeton study is a test of the effectiveness of an existing practice, intercessory prayer for medical patients. A test of effectiveness needs to take the practice essentially as it is normally performed and find a way to measure whether it produces the results claimed for it.
Thus, “there is no definition for the ‘prayer’ that participants are to offer” because there is no such definition in the established practice being studied. In this ongoing practice, as normally performed, there is indeed “no substantive standardization of what is prayed … and in what manner”. In ordinary practice, the praying participants use “self composed prayers of indeterminate content” and there is no verification of what the participants do.
Lack of definition or standardization might be a shortcoming of the practice of intercessory prayer, but it is not a flaw of this study because the researchers had no business imposing definitions or standards on the operation of what they were trying to study. They were only measuring the effect of a religious practice whose specification and performance were in the hands others.
Therefore, the study did not change the way in which the prayers were performed from the normal procedure except to specify “that all participants were to include a single 12 word phrase” in whatever prayers they normally used: “for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications”; in short, a direct and unambiguous statement of what was requested. “There was no verification provided that they had actually done so, nor of how accurately and consistently had or hadn’t done so”; that is, there was no more verification of the prayers than is the normal procedure for intercessory prayer.
Thus, the study actually had more standardization and more specificity than is normally seen in intercessory prayer, by requiring the specific phrase, but otherwise the prayer in the study was conducted in the same way as usual.
That is what was being tested: Whether these intercessory prayers as normally performed actually have the power that they are believed to have. In this study, the practice was not effective.
———-
From a theological perspective you are attempting to distinguish the common public perception of prayer, what you call “generic prayer”, from a more rigorously defined “Biblical prayer”. I think your argument here is that a null result was to be expected because the whole practice of intercessory prayer fails to satisfy the conditions for a “Biblical prayer” to be granted. The hospital chaplains involved in the study apparently did not raise this issue.
If this is right, it implies a massive failure of the religious community to understand the nature of prayer. There is a widespread belief that the kind of prayer tested can produce an actual benefit in the kind of circumstances tested in the study. There are organizations and individuals who do this kind of praying regularly in the belief that it produces a benefit. There are medical patients who ask for this kind of prayer for the same reason. Apparently no one anywhere in the system has the right stuff, because all it would take is one person to produce a positive result.
But, in any case, the prayer tested is something that the general religious community declared to be an effective practice for improving or optimizing the outcome of medical treatment. If you think that this prayer does not meet God’s standards, you need to persuade the general religious community to improve it, not to persuade outsiders to adopt a different (and, so far, unspecified) definition that the religious community does not seem to be aware of.
———-
The Templeton study researchers acknowledge that the study has a limited scope. It tests only one kind of prayer, a distant, public, almost anonymous kind of prayer. Private or personal prayer might work better.
Even for the kind of prayer tested, this is only one experiment. The result needs to be replicated a few times before it can be regarded as established.
So it really is too early for anyone to say that prayer has been definitively disproved by scientific study. But there is one good experiment.
December 30, 2009 at 12:18 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“It tests only one kind of prayer”
Actually we don’t know how many ‘kinds’ of prayer were tested, because we have little idea of what was prayed (except for one phrase that was requested, but not verified), and in what manner.
That’s the point.
It’s not a ‘double blind’ study, it’s a ‘flying blind’ study.
It’s akin to pouring some fluid in the engine, and hoping it’s clean motor oil.
If you think this was a ‘scientific’ study, you’ve got a pretty low standard for science.
It simply reinforces my point that the scientific method is not suited to the study of the supernatural.
But as I pointed out, to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.
So I won’t be surprised to hear folks continue to insist that it must be a scientific study because they simply cannot conceive of anything else.
December 30, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
To be honest, this isn’t about science vs religion. It’s about religion insisting that its beyond scrutiny.
I’ve asked this question before, but NOBODY has provided a satisfactory answer. Let’s see what you say about this.
When someone lies, as in a con artist job or ponzi scheme, they rely on a person’s trust and faith to carry that lie. When called on the lie, they will insist that the con is a truth, by virtue of faith and that “we will never know” or “wait and see” or “you need to have faith”.
Like religion, a scam ALSO insists that it cannot be scrutinized!
Therefore I ask: what makes religion more believable than a scam? There are just too many similarities, I’m afraid.
We both already know God can randomly allow sinners to commit sins, AND forgive them of their sins thereafter. In the same vein in the secular world, the existence of laws doesn’t actually mean nobody will try to make a living out of cheating people.
It’s just so profitable that the jail time’s worth it. Ask Madoff – and if he’s of any indication, the stamp of approval economists had on Madoff is just like the stamp of approval God has on the Bible. <_<
When God doesn't answer prayers, its easy enough to blame the person who kneeled down, opened his mouth and ASKED. In the same vein, Scam artists use every trick in the book to blame or discourage their victims from confronting them, and continue on their merry way.
When religion breaks its promises and doesn't answer any prayers, it's always argued that it's the devotee's fault. When someone falls for a scam, it can be argued that it's the victim's fault. After all, the devotee and the victim were in the wrong to believe in empty promises, or misinterpret the rules, right?
I'll be honest here: from my point of view, your reasoning doesn't actually reinforce any points – because you're using the same reasoning techniques that a con artist would use.
(Handy hint: if you decide to become a real sinner, moralistic arguments of the "let he who is without sin" variety tend to get people off your back real quick. <_<)
December 30, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
(and that’s what I get for replying at 2:22 am. An unchecked repetition of points.
opening myself up to personal attacks from people who can’t really answer me properly. But ah well, at least I get to see the true character of the guy behind a nickname that way. )
December 30, 2009 at 12:48 pm
ACPB,
Actually, I haven’t said that religion (specifically we are discussing prayer) is beyond scrutiny.
I posted a three step method by which one can investigate prayer for themselves.
Hope you are having a good day.
December 31, 2009 at 3:07 am
Oh, the famous 3 (or was it 5? I recall it was 5… <_<) step method. NiceI've got something real nice to sell you in return.
]
December 31, 2009 at 3:25 am
And it got cut off. Anyway, as I’ve said, in return for your kindness, I’ve got something to sell you in return… see, there’re many of those famous X-step programs to better health and wealth out there.
Of course you wouldn’t believe in them. But therein I drive home my question once again. You and I know most of these X-step programs ARE A CROCK. Thus, what makes your X-step program to having your prayers answered more believable? All we have is YOUR WORD FOR IT.
(And if you want to bring in God, well sure, he counts so long as he endorses it WITH HIS OWN VOICE, which he hardly ever does. >_>)
Your claim that you’re not (or haven’t) said that religion is beyond scrutiny is kinda-sorta weakened by the fact that you behave as tho it is.
Now, before you ask me to go try your X-step program myself, I’m sorry, to disappoint you, but I’ve done so many times, long before you’ve even entered this board.
No answer from the big guy. You’d think he’d at least have the decency to say NO when the situation requires it, but God always, 100% of the time in my case, gives “No Answer”.
You’re free to declare that it has worked for you, and thus it’s my problem; you’re free to accuse me of “not praying properly”, “praying for the wrong things”, “praying to the wrong God”, “Not Listening Properly etc etc etc, and all the other usual blame shifting idiocy.
But of course, I’ll have to warn you that you retroactively prove my point by doing so. Once again, it’s pretty easy to blame the devotee and shift all responsibility away from God for not having his prayers answered.
(To be honest, I haven’t had a good year, so you’ll have to excuse me. I have little patience for people who act like Job’s friends in the time of his need.)
Happy new year.
December 30, 2009 at 11:39 am |
Jabster wrote:
“you are playing the game of being very quick to claim something is wrong but very guarded in giving details of why something is wrong”
Actually I told you very specifically why.
Perhaps you didn’t (or still don’t) understand why it is important in a scientific study to have definitions and standards.
December 30, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
So have you googled for those studies that you’ve looked at before to jog your memory?
December 30, 2009 at 12:51 pm |
Jabster wrote:
“Prayer has already been tested scientifically and been shown not to work … what more do you want?”
What study specifically are you referring to in your statement?
December 30, 2009 at 1:26 pm
One of the ones that you claimed to have studied and ripped to shreds … can you still not remember any more than one of them. You must have a very bad memory.
December 30, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
I’ve got a photographic memory, but I probably didn’t put in the film that day.
No, the name of the study probably wasn’t as important to remember as the reason I found it to be pretty worthless.
I made note of the reason and each time I’ve run across similar claims of a ‘scientific study of prayer’ , I’ve noticed that they all skirt the scientific part by not defining the very thing being studied (prayer) and not standardizing it’s use.
How can you claim to have ‘scientifically’ studied something that you refuse to define?
It’s far better to simply admit that prayer isn’t really the sort of thing that the scientific method is designed to probe.
It’s kind of like saying “we’re going to have a scientific study of love”.
What’s the first thing you’d do? Well, if you were a scientist, you’d define what you mean by ‘love’.
If you were unable to satisfactorally define ‘love’ (and especially to differentiate the particular ‘kind’ of love that you intended to examine), there would be little point in proceeding.
December 30, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
“I’ve got a photographic memory, but I probably didn’t put in the film that day.”
Or you’re just making stuff up as you go along … you’ve already said ““You know how to use Google (I assume). Look up anything you want.” which presumably means you think you can find the stuidies relatively easy so why don’t you use google to jog your memory — unless of course you haven’t looked at the studies in the first place?
Here’s an even easier question just how many studies have you actually looked at and when did you do this “research”?
December 30, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
Jabster,
Since you seem to be unable to produce a study to fit your claim (“Prayer has already been tested scientifically and been shown not to work”) why don’t you give your rebuttal to my commentary on the Templeton study?
Show why it’s really a valid scientific study despite it’s lack of definition and standardization (or if you agree with me that it’s not scientific, then swallow your pride and say so).
December 30, 2009 at 3:44 pm
So now we come down to it … you’ve basically lied about reading these studies haven’t you? Maybe you can pray for forgiveness …
December 30, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
Jabster,
I’ve seen these studies pop up every couple years over the last 30 years since I became a Christian.
And no I didn’t write down the names with the hope that you would one day ask about them. (I wont ask your forgiveness. Live with it.)
But as I read them, they all exhibit the same characteristics. They want to claim the ‘scientific’ tag. But they don’t really qualify.
You made a specific claim that prayer had been scientifically disproven, but you’ve yet to offer anything to show that this is so.
Wassup?
December 31, 2009 at 3:58 am |
Memory still failing you is it Joe … maybe you could pray for divine inspiration as to what some of them where or even how many you’ve read. Lets face it you’re just making stuff up … is that classed as a sin or is lying for Jebus ok in your book?
December 31, 2009 at 6:59 am |
I don’t know how many I’ve read. It certainly isn’t all of the 100 or so that I’ve seen some people claim have been conducted.
But you’ve apparently read at least one, because you said “Prayer has already been tested scientifically and been shown not to work … what more do you want?”
So tell us, which study is the ‘scientific’ study of which you speak?
Since you like to mock others for poor memory, no doubt you’ve got a good memory of your own.
Why are you unwilling to talk about the one silver bullet study that ‘scientifically’ proves your point?
I gave you a pretty good rundown on the Templeton study. How ’bout a rebuttal to that?
Is the Templeton study a ‘scientific’ one, Jabster?
A simple yes or no, will do for starters.
December 31, 2009 at 9:44 am
“I don’t know how many I’ve read.”
Well my guess would be about one and you read that what a couple of days ago. Face it Joe you’ve been caught out as utterly dishonest but lying for Jebus is ok in your book isn’t it?
December 30, 2009 at 11:26 pm |
The only study I have read that deals with prayer is the Templeton Study; so that is the only one on which I can comment.
It tested the claim that certain prayers could affect medical outcomes and its result was that the tested prayers did not have the claimed effects.
The Templeton Study did not “scientifically disprove prayer”. It is one experiment on one kind of prayer in one situation. A lot more is needed to scientifically disprove prayer. Some replications of this study are needed even to say scientifically that this kind of prayer does not affect medical outcomes. That’s just how it is: after a bunch of different researchers do the experiment a bunch of times and all get the same result, then it is possible to say that something has been shown. That has not yet happened.
A study which tests the effectiveness of a treatment does not define that treatment, as Joe White seems to think. The treatment has already been defined by those who developed and who practice it. An effectiveness study only measures whether the treatment, as defined and performed by those others, does the job as well as or better than other treatments or, as in this case, whether it actually does what is claimed for it.
Nor is it useful to insist that prayer is supernatural. The religious community claims that these prayers can have a physical effect in the natural world. The natural world is the province of science and that is the only claim that was tested. The study said nothing about the supernatural aspect of prayer.
Joe White has spent a lot of time here asserting that there are many divine conditions for the granting of prayer that he says are specified in the Bible but which he did not completely identify. As I indicated in a previous comment, some of Mr. White’s comments regarding faith, humility, and non-sinful requests seem reasonable, so maybe he is on to something that the general religious community has missed. But at present his concept of “Biblical prayer” represents a minority (or perhaps idiosyncratic) view. In particular, there is a widespread belief that the kind of prayer tested can produce an actual benefit. Anyone attempting to deal with religion in a general way needs to deal with the majority view.
The medical people involved in the Templeton Study were not in a position to determine (or even ask) whether the normal practice of intercessory prayer meets Mr. White’s (or any other) standard of “Biblical prayer”. That practice is presented to the public as an effective way to improve or optimize medical outcomes. That claim of effectiveness is all that was tested. From the description of the intercessory prayer service, I think it is apparent that the Templeton Study did not involve Joe White’s “Biblical prayer”.
The conditions that Mr. White asserts might substantially reduce (perhaps to zero) the number of grantable prayers in any set, even in the set of prayers performed by an intercessory prayer service. Thus when Mr. White complains about lack of definition and standardization in the intercessory prayers, he is pointing out that, according to his view, there may not be anything grantable among the intercessory prayers: they might all be divine junk mail with no potential for affecting anything. If so, the null result would be expected. This is why he keeps saying that the scientific studies are invalid and bad science.
But if Mr. White’s theology is correct, the fault lies not in the science, but in all those non-Biblical intercessory prayers, in the services providing them, and in the thinking of the religious public, both clergy and laity, who do not understand the real requirements of “Biblical prayer” (per Mr. White) and seem not to be aware of the issue. Rather than call the Templeton Study bad science, Mr. White should, in fact, recognize its validity and use it as a support in persuading the religious community to adopt his view of prayer, since he can point to it as evidence that the current practice is not getting results. If this, in turn, leads to more effective prayers for health and well-being, he will have helped everyone immensely.
December 31, 2009 at 4:07 am |
You’re far to charitable to Joe W, the reason that he won’t define what Biblical prayer is because of the same reason Creationists won’t define what they mean by transitional fossils, macro-evolution or kind. It means you will hear a scrapping sound in the background to any reply when he moves the goals posts and claims “that’s not Biblical prayer”. He has made his mind up that prayer works and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise. The fact is that you could met all his currently stated criteria and when prayer was still shown not to work another excuse would be put forward.
December 31, 2009 at 6:44 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“Anyone attempting to deal with religion in a general way needs to deal with the majority view.”
I don’t claim to represent religion in a general way.
I have a specific view which I’m very upfront about. I am a Bible believing Christian.
The Templeton study included two Catholic groups and one Unitarian group, therefore it’s anybody’s guess as to what was prayed in the study.
The fact that the study’s organizers did not attempt to standardize, or even verify after the fact what was prayed, or in what manner, thoroughly disqualifies this study from the designation ‘scientific’.
Verbifex wrote:
“The Templeton Study did not “scientifically disprove prayer”……….A lot more is needed to scientifically disprove prayer.”
Yes, you’d need at least one scientific study.
December 31, 2009 at 8:40 am |
Not that I’m representing science, but the aforementioned Templeton Study is about as close to a scientific/philosophical/”common-sensical” study as you can get. Especially when dealing with the intangible. And here you are claiming that you want MOAR SCIENCE… I guess you’re as hard to satisfy as a non-believer, eh.
Yes, “secular science” finds it difficult to recognize that any sort of truth with no physical evidence. But that doesn’t give any sort of metaphysical reasoning (such as, my apologies, yours) a free lunch.
See, “Religious reasoning” has this flaw. It understands well that man cannot live on bread alone, but it refuses to believe that man cannot live on faith, belief and hope without food – despite the fact that these obviously have zero nutritional value. >_>
December 31, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
No, you do not “represent religion in a general way”. That was my point: the Templeton Study (and probably any other) addressed a belief held by the religious public generally, not any idiosyncratic views such as yours, of which they presumably had no knowledge.
You are upfront about having a specific view and one which is different from most others. You are upfront about the general outlines of your view. But you are not upfront about the details of that view, because, for example, you will not enumerate all the conditions that you believe the Bible specifies for the granting of a prayer; time after time you have said on this page that other people should figure these out for themselves; that’s not being upfront, that’s being evasive.
You misunderstand the roles of the parties involved in a study of therapeutic effectiveness. The testers do not define the therapy being tested. If a new drug regimen is being tested for effectiveness, that regimen has been worked out, defined, and documented by whatever research group developed the drug. If a new surgical technique is being tested for effectiveness, that technique has been defined and refined by the doctors who developed it and who practice it. The testers only measure whether and how well the tested therapy works. They do not hang around in the operating room checking that each incision is exactly right or that every suture is in the exactly correct location. It is expected that the professionals are doing their jobs with normal competence, since they are, after all, treating real patients who are counting on them for proper care.
For the Templeton Study the roles are the same. Religion claims to have a practice that will improve or optimize recovery from illness or surgery: intercessory prayer. This is defined by religion and by those who offer this kind of prayer. The doctors and chaplains in charge of the study only tested whether that prayer produces the claimed results. They did not hang out with the people praying to count the number of prayers, clock the duration of the praying, or check theological correctness. It is expected that the prayer participants were doing their jobs with normal competence, since they were, after all, praying on behalf of real patients who were hoping they would provide help in recovery from surgery.
You have doubts about whether the prayers offered by the intercessory prayer services meet the conditions that you believe are specified for Biblical prayer. That is a disagreement you have with those practitioners and the religions on which their prayers are based. It it not a reason to say the study is not scientific. Scientists are not required to consult you and apply your criteria to something another religion offers to the public.
It is not the duty of scientists to define or standardize what religious individuals believe or how they pray, neither what you believe nor how anyone else prays. If religious people claim that their practices (however theologically sloppy or rigorous they may be) affect the natural world, then scientists may measure the natural-world effects alleged for those practices without inquiring into the theological bases of the practices. They are measuring the effect of whatever the religion claims is doing the job.
If you (or your specific religious community) think that the intercessory prayer community at present is using theologically faulty practices, it is up to you to find a way to improve those practices, and it is up to you to document the differences so that if your updated practices are tested someday, it will be clear to everyone that they are different from what was tested before.
If you spell out all the conditions you think the Bible specifies for prayer; and develop specific protocols (definitions and standards) for meeting them all and for identifying who has the right kind of faith and enough of it, etc.; and persuade some others to join you, you will then be able to set up your own intercessory prayer service that meets your criteria for grantable prayer, and you will be able to promise the ailing religious public better results than are available now in prayer-driven medical recovery. When you do this and your new service becomes popular with religious medical patients, then perhaps the John Templeton Foundation may fund a study to assess the effectiveness of your intercessory prayers. If this ever happens, the doctors doing the assessment should not make their own definitions and standards of what your service does, but should simply measure the effects you claim to produce.
December 31, 2009 at 6:53 am |
Jabster wrote:
“define what Biblical prayer is”
It is prayer that fulfills Biblical conditions.
Just as you are unwilling to Google and find proof for your assertion “Prayer has already been tested scientifically and been shown not to work … what more do you want?”………
……..so too you are probably unwilling to look in the Bible to see what it actually says beyond the few cherry picked verses that are presented devoid of context.
But if you did have a reasonable grasp of what the Bible says about prayer, you’d notice that it is not presented as an unconditional promise.
Your cutesy ‘moving the goal posts’ aside, that’s always been my position.
In fact, it is the subject of the very first post I made in this thread.
December 31, 2009 at 8:27 am |
At this point I don’t know what you’re getting at.
You’re refusing to prove your point as well – you’re simply redirecting all queries back to the book ( which is the source of the argument in the first place), and not saying another word… so you don’t really have any rights to throw any counter-accusations.
If you wish to continue circular reasoning, go ahead. In the end you MIGHT win when the opponent tires out, but that’s a silly win if you ask me – a win with absolutely nothing answered and people mistrusting God and his servants more. <_<
December 31, 2009 at 9:48 am |
“It is prayer that fulfills Biblical conditions.”
… and that is what exactly?
“Just as you are unwilling to Google and find proof for your assertion ”
Google … LOL unlike you I don’t have to google to find the information. There are some rather good sources already … I’m sure you know what they are?
December 31, 2009 at 9:58 am |
You can’t counter-argue that Jabster needs to provide proof when you’ve given no proof of any of your claims. Your answer “read the Bible for proof,” is a lazy counter arguement that holds no weight. Cite specific verses and explain your stance or we might as be having a discussion with a brick wall.
And claiming the verses from the video in this post are “cherry picked” and devoid of context is also an empty argument. If the context of the verses proves a clear guideline of prayer, please enlighten us.
After all of your numerous comments here, you have yet to list a single biblical condition for your magical formula to answered prayer.
December 31, 2009 at 12:48 pm |
“After all of your numerous comments here, you have yet to list a single biblical condition for your magical formula to answered prayer.”
Why would he do that … it’s far easier to just say no that’s not right.
December 31, 2009 at 12:38 pm |
I’m incredibly surprised that the discussion with Joe has gone on as long as it has.
His entire defense is “read the Bible” and “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Sure he might dress it up like he’s reading studies and knows which verses in the Bible would prove his point, but, when pressed, he never produces anything.
Reading through here, I’ve asked him about 4 times myself for what the specific conditions or “steps” he cites are to praying. Each time he didn’t answer anything specific. When asked about what studies he’s referencing, which has been done so a good number of times, he pulls the same trick.
I’m not really sure why the discussion continues when he has yet to cite any of his claims. Obviously if he’s not going to volunteer anything concrete, Joe can keep re-framing the debate in a circular manner. He can keep deflecting criticism because he’s not actually defending anything tangible.
For the record, Joe, your 3 or 5 step approach to prayer and the studies you say you’ve read do not count as tangible. They’re simply in your head and will remain there, subject to justifiable skepticism until you actually tell us what the steps to prayer are, with references, and a link to the study or studies you’ve read. If we can’t see what you’re talking about, then this discussion is over and you’ve lost by virtue of failing to provide sufficient backing to your claims. It really is that simple: make a claim and back it up by evidence.
December 31, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
“I’m incredibly surprised that the discussion with Joe has gone on as long as it has.”
It fun to see him twist and turn to try and justify his position though isn’t it? Give him a few days and he may have “remembered” all those studies that he has read. Perosonaly I know an ideal place to look for the information so it surprises me that an excellent researcher lie Joe W hasn’t just posted the URL already … maybe god has told him not to do it as his evidence should be based on faith and not silly little things like evidence?
December 31, 2009 at 4:42 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“After all of your numerous comments here, you have yet to list a single biblical condition”
Actually, we’ve discussed three that I can recall.
December 31, 2009 at 9:14 pm |
Scorecard: Biblical references: 0
Faith is the well-known explicit condition for the granting of a prayer and you said it is not trivial:
“A reading of the new testament would show both Jesus Himself and the apostles giving examples of Christians praying but having no faith.”
But you did not cite any of the verses where such examples are given.
Two reasonable conditions came up in discussion:
You said in your opinion, the most important condition is humility.
You said in a parenthesis that:
“This assumes I’m not asking for something sinful, for example.”
But you did not cite where either of these is explicitly stated as a condition in the Bible.
You said or implied that there are other conditions, but did not say what they are; instead, you said repeatedly that everyone should look them up for themselves.
December 31, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
ACPB wrote:
“Not that I’m representing science, but the aforementioned Templeton Study is about as close to a scientific/philosophical/”common-sensical” study as you can get. ”
We’ve been specifically discussing whether it is scientific. Close but no cigar. Actually though, it’s not very close at all.
ACPB wrote:
“Especially when dealing with the intangible. ”
And that’s the point. The scientific method is being misused in this instance.
ACPB wrote:
“I guess you’re as hard to satisfy as a non-believer, eh.”
yes tis true
ACPB wrote:
“Yes, “secular science” finds it difficult to recognize that any sort of truth with no physical evidence. ”
yep
ACPB wrote:
“But that doesn’t give any sort of metaphysical reasoning (such as, my apologies, yours) a free lunch.”
I didn’t say it did.
That’s why I offered a method of examination, while making it clear that I don’t claim it to be a ‘scientific’ method. (and making it clear that I’m not here to preach a sermon of four points and a poem. Those that want to know what the Bible says can find out.)
I wish that others who claim they are standing up for science would be honest enough to admit the limitations of the scientific method.
But instead many seem to have elevated the method to the level of a god. It gives science a bad name when it’s misused.
December 31, 2009 at 8:13 pm |
“I didn’t say it did.”
Then don’t behave as if it did. <_<
"That’s why I offered a method of examination, while making it clear that I don’t claim it to be a ’scientific’ method. (and making it clear that I’m not here to preach a sermon of four points and a poem. Those that want to know what the Bible says can find out.)"
And that's why I'm the first to claim it DID NOT WORK under repeated testing.
(And to pre-empt you, "Funny it worked for me" is not convincing enough for anyone. Believe me, I've done my fair share of using this excuse.)
"I wish that others who claim they are standing up for science would be honest enough to admit the limitations of the scientific method.
But instead many seem to have elevated the method to the level of a god. It gives science a bad name when it’s misused."
Personally, religion needs to stop redirecting people back to God and the Bible, and devotees who profess the "correctness" of their point of view should stop assuming everyone else (including devotees of other branches!) is wrong.
To a devotee it might look like loyalty. To others, it reeks of irresponsibility, and once again, it gives God and the Bible a bad name. We both know (and I hope YOU do) folks have shunned Christ because of such messengers. folks have turned away from God because of such messengers.
January 4, 2010 at 12:49 am |
ACPB wrote:
“religion needs to stop redirecting people back to God and the Bible”
And listen to you instead, I suppose.
January 4, 2010 at 10:15 am
Let me guess, you were just waiting for me to go “and why not? I can do things just the same as God did etc etc etc”
But I’m not, really. I don’t have answers, and I never did claim to have them. YOU DID.
(You can go back and check…. about the only claim I made was “religion needs to stop redirecting…”, and that’s only after I got sick of the standard evasive answer that pins all responsibility on God and the Bible instead of yourself, for the claims that you typed out here…)
I never did claim I was right (and yeah, you can go back and check, never did). I merely refuted you.
If you find that a problem, then maybe you need to tweak your convincing skills a bit.
But you’re free not to listen and go about preaching emptily about a X-step program that you can’t even remember from which part or study you got that kind of “fact” from.
(Next time, just argue from a philosophical standpoint. It’s much easier, then at least you won’t get scrutinzed so badly by, ugh, scientists, eh?)
January 4, 2010 at 12:46 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“you said repeatedly that everyone should look them up for themselves.”
I think it’s reasonable to expect those who think they can provide a critique of the Bible to first know what’s in it (beyond the few cherry picked verses that they usually can provide).
January 4, 2010 at 10:40 am |
The problem being that some conversions, and some radical misinterpretations on the believers’ part, are indeed also gleaned through cherry picked quotes.
Do you know the real meaning of the “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” line? Well, since I can’t verify the correctness or incorrectness of the Bible, I can state the two common points of view around it.
(Which I’ll pre-empt you and leave here:
1) You too are a sinner, so maybe you might wanna stop pointin’ fingers and look at yourself in the mirror, before you decide you have any right to do so. — commonly used by non-believers to get Christians off their backs. It’s not the correct interpretation, tho.
2) Yeah, the other party may be in the wrong, but you have no right to punish or judge anyone. Only Jesus/God does, and if he chooses to forgive, so should you — is the Christian (or “correct”) point of view, tho believers tend to forget this sometimes and start throwing accusatory statements willy-nilly anyhoo.)
Back to business, tho – if you claim that this board O’ non-believers seem to be cherry picking quotes as reasons NOT to believe, then why is Christianity and its branches itself exempt from this rule? Why are cherry picked quotes still used to answer people, or to make people believe in God?
Now can we please stop it with the standard defense of accusatory offense, please? <_<
January 4, 2010 at 11:49 pm |
The easiest way to refute a statement is to show a fact that is contrary to it. The easiest way to show that Biblical prayer is not unconditional is to explicitly cite by chapter and verse the actual Biblical text which states some conditions. Every time you refuse (or neglect) to cite the relevant text which states such conditions you are acknowledging that there are none.
I assume that you hope to persuade some readers of the validity of your view. In order to persuade, you need to do more than just assert your conclusion. You need to show how you came to that conclusion so that the readers can follow the logic. You need to present facts or authority or sound reasoning or a combination of these. That is how a discussion works. Nobody can read your mind. This is such common knowledge that if you do not show how you reached your conclusions, your audience soon concludes that you are a fraud.
Nobody knows which verses (if any) you think refute the notion of unconditional granting of prayer for believers. Nobody can evaluate your refutation unless you tell them which verses you have in mind to support it. Nobody can read your mind.
January 5, 2010 at 12:37 am |
“… your audience soon concludes that you are a fraud.”
Say it ain’t so, Joe …
January 5, 2010 at 7:55 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“Nobody can read your mind”
If you wanted to offer commentary and/or critique of the Hugo’s Les Miserables, the first thing you would do is read it.
Scanning the Cliff Notes won’t do it.
I have little patience with those who pretend to critique the scripture while refusing to inform themselves of it’s contents.
Cherry picking and pulling a few verses from the context is not the mark of an informed individual.
No one has to read my mind, but if they want to critique the Bible they should read the text.
January 5, 2010 at 9:13 am
And if you said that the secret to having anything you wanted was in Les Miserables, I’d ask you to point out the specific location of it so we could put it to scientific scrutiny.
January 4, 2010 at 11:42 am |
ACPB wrote:
“some radical misinterpretations on the believers’ part, are indeed also gleaned through cherry picked quotes”
Ok, I agree. Not all believers use context correctly, or have a broad understanding of the scriptures.
How does that negate my point that if you want to critique the Bible that you ought to know what it says?
January 4, 2010 at 12:31 pm |
Well, it negates it in a sense that anyone who wants to point people to the Book should also know exactly what it says before doing so.
(And honestly, I don’t know if you do, because IIRC there’s no X-step program in the Bible outside of the 10 commandments, Deuteronomy and one other chapter whose name escapes me at the moment. These are roadmaps to life in general, not particular instructions for getting any prayers answered.
Now you do have the right idea about how to call upon God’s help, but thing is, maybe it ain’t mentioned in the book, or you pulled out a quote from somewhere, rephrased it, and stuck it in step 1, 2 or 3, I don’t know.
Could be why you conveniently missed the “subject to will of God” part.
I’m open to being corrected.)
January 4, 2010 at 1:45 pm |
ACPB wrote:
“it negates it in a sense that anyone who wants to point people to the Book should also know exactly what it says before doing so”
I do know what it says. So again, how does it negate my point that those critiquing the Bible ought to know what it says? It doesn’t.
ACPB wrote:
“Could be why you conveniently missed the “subject to will of God” part”
That could certainly be considered one of the conditions the Bible talks about. In fact we’ve already discussed not asking for something that is sinful (i.e. out of God’s will). Maybe you missed that part of the discussion.
January 5, 2010 at 11:06 am
“In fact we’ve already discussed not asking for something that is sinful (i.e. out of God’s will). Maybe you missed that part of the discussion.”
I didn’t miss it at all. What I’m claiming here is completely different.
You haven’t actually touched on God’s possible decision to NOT answer prayers even if your conditions are met, and especially if you’re not asking for something evil.
Now, I suppose you can argue that someone who isn’t answered has accidentially made a selfish prayer. Selfish prayers won’t ever be answered, as selfishness is, by definition, evil. Even if this prayer is for a good cause.
And therefore, you’ve already answered my question.
Problem is, all prayers are selfish (as a request to anyone should be. Think: asking for a favor).
Even a basic prayer like the Lord’s Prayer has a twinge of I or Us in it, as we pray for things that benefit us, for the avoidance of things that aren’t desirable. (No, I’m not going to quote. It’s simply THAT well known. If you wish to, tho…)
About the only general prayers that aren’t selfish are the ones thanking God for a favor granted, and even the selfishness of that is arguable.
This suggests that most prayers won’t ever be answered, because if the logic of implied were to apply, then your X-step program becomes utterly impossible to follow.
Yet, as you probably know, God does answer selfish prayers sometimes.
When I say “subject to the will of God, or the Whim of God” from the very beginning, it means that, no matter how you phrase the prayer, no matter how noble or honorable your request is:
God can:
1. Choose to answer
2. Choose not to answer
3. Choose to answer to a limited extent
4. Choose to answer in a different way (sometimes opposite).
And that is the point you missed.
January 4, 2010 at 12:05 pm |
Jabster wrote:
“I know an ideal place to look for the information”
Good. Since you are the one who made the claim “Prayer has already been tested scientifically and been shown not to work … what more do you want?” then maybe you’ll back it up.
But I doubt it.
I’ve given you my reasons for rejecting the ‘scientific’ Templeton study.
Why no rebuttal or defense of it?
It is because it is indefensible.
No one with an understanding of the scientific method can maintain that a ‘scientific’ study need not define what it is purporting to study nor standardize what it is attempting to measure the effectiveness of.
January 4, 2010 at 2:13 pm |
Still twisting and turning with your little games then; still can’t remember all those studies that you’ve looked at; still can’t remember even roughly how many studies you’ve looked at; still can’t post what Bibilical prayer actually is; still can’t answer the many questions put to you.
The answer to all the above is yes isn’t it Joe?
January 4, 2010 at 2:24 pm |
Jabster wrote:
“still can’t remember all those studies that you’ve looked at”
Since you cant seem to be able to discuss the one study you claimed as conclusive —
Jabster wrote:
“Prayer has already been tested scientifically and been shown not to work … what more do you want?”
then exactly what is your point in asking about additional studies beyond that?
Let’s start with one, Jabster. Tell us why you think the Templeton study is scientific.
I’ve already told you why it’s not.
Why are you unwilling to defend your position on even a single study?
January 4, 2010 at 3:28 pm
“then exactly what is your point in asking about additional studies beyond that?”
Why did you lie when you claimed to have read many studies when it’s obvious that you haven’t; why are you so unwilling to state, and back up, what Biblical prayer is?
January 5, 2010 at 12:29 am |
Joe White Says:
I’ve given you my reasons for rejecting the ’scientific’ Templeton study.
Why no rebuttal or defense of it?
Apparently you have forgotten my rebuttals and defenses.
———
No one with an understanding of the scientific method can maintain that a ’scientific’ study need not define what it is purporting to study nor standardize what it is attempting to measure the effectiveness of.
No one really knows what gravity is or how it works, but we know what it does, can measure its effects, and can accurately predict through calculations how bodies will move under its influence. Certainly Galileo could not define or standardize it when he began to study it.
But no one had any doubt about the existence of gravity.
January 4, 2010 at 12:14 pm |
ACPB wrote:
“But you’re free not to listen and go about preaching emptily about a X-step program that you can’t even remember from which part or study you got that kind of “fact” from.”
I never claimed that the 3 step process I gave came from any one other than myself.
It was not outlined in any research study and I didnt say it was.
ACPB wrote:
“then at least you won’t get scrutinzed so badly by, ugh, scientists, eh?”
I haven’t seen any scientific scrutiny of my view from anyone on this board.
If any of the participants are indeed qualified scientists, they have not stated their credentials, which is probably good considering the poor level of criticism they’ve been able to offer thus far.
I’ve got a pretty high degree of respect for scientists and the scientific method, which is one of the reasons I have defended it against misuse by those claiming to have investigated prayer ‘scientifically’.
January 5, 2010 at 12:55 am |
Possibly the ‘scrutiny’ to which A Chicken referred consists of my extensive explanations of why your comments show that you do not understand the nature and import of the Templeton Study.
January 5, 2010 at 8:00 am |
The Templeton study ‘studied’ exactly what, or what kind of prayer?
No one knows.
The researchers neither provided standardization prior, nor defined and verified afterward exactly what was prayed and in what manner.
As I said earlier, it’s like saying ‘we are going to do a scientific study of love’.
Ok, what ‘love’ are you studying?
Oh, just whatever you think it is, it really doesn’t matter that we define it , does it?
That might work fine on Regis or Oprah, but not in science.
January 5, 2010 at 9:54 am
Well, I think I know the problem here.
You don’t seem to recognize that Sociology and Psychology are forms of “science”, nor do you recognize the legitimacy of “Behavioral sciences”. You fully expect any science to generate not just statistics, but general, tangible, I can see it, I can hold it results.
Which is why you vehemently reject the Templeton Study as a non-science, and repeatedly try to tell us it doesn’t count – because all it does is generate numbers.
January 5, 2010 at 9:58 am
(cut off too early again.)
Now, I admit I don’t know much about the soft sciences, but I make this observation. Take it as you will.
If you can’t believe in the intangible, one wonders about how you arrived at the stance you’re taking with the Bible and God.
It’s as if you’re practicing some sort of double standard.
January 5, 2010 at 1:06 pm
If a prospector digs up some stuff that looks like gold ore and offers to sell it to a smelter, the smelter will first do an assay to find out whether the stuff is of any value. The assayer does not know what the stuff is before doing the test, cannot define or standardize it; that is the point of the assay. If the stuff reacts in a specific way with specific chemicals applied in a specified way, then it can be recognized as containing gold and some estimate can be made about what fraction of it is gold.
There are now many people offering prayer as a practical activity, and specifically as a therapeutic treatment of disease and injury. Doctors do not know what prayer is but they do know how to test substances and practices for therapeutic value. That is what the Templeton Study did. It tested some specific prayers offered by some specific people to find whether they had the claimed effectiveness.
You have doubts (or perhaps complete disagreement) about whether the prayers offered by those specific religious organizations constitute Biblical prayer. It is not the scientist’s job to determine whether a religion is praying right. It also is not the scientist’s job to determine whether you are praying right. Nor to guess whether your prayer is better than that of someone else. The scientist tests physical phenomena. Establish your own service that meets your criteria for Biblical prayer, offer your style of prayer as a therapeutic treatment as those others did, and let it be put to the same test of effectiveness.
In fact, this is part of why I say that although the Templeton Study is valid evidence, it is not proof, and that more experiments of this sort are needed before there is a definite scientific finding. Perhaps some kinds of prayer work better than others; this cannot be known until at least one kind has been found to produce a physical effect. So really, for definitive knowledge of this matter, every kind of prayer, including the prayers of all religions (not just Christians), would need to be tested carefully and thoroughly.
If someone ever provides prayer that measurably and consistently produces improved outcomes in medical situations as defined by the medical profession (or in any other scientifically measurable circumstance), then that style of prayer and the folks who perform it can be studied more carefully and specifically to find out how they differ from everyone else who prays. Then it will start to be possible to differentiate among religions and prayers and to study specific aspects of prayer, distinguishing gold from iron pyrite.
January 5, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Verbifex that was beautiful.
January 4, 2010 at 3:58 pm |
Jabster wrote:
“you claimed to have read many studies”
yes, I’ve seen many come and go over the last 30 years or so.
Each one that I’ve seen suffers from the same basic flaws, no definition of prayer, no standardization.
How can you claim to ‘scientifically’ study something you refuse to define?
But you can’t even seem to bring yourself to discuss the one you claimed would ‘prove’ your point :
You wrote “Prayer has already been tested scientifically and been shown not to work … what more do you want?”
So tell us about this conclusive study, Jabster.
Or if you prefer, tell us why the Templeton study, which I’ve shown to be non-scientific since it lacks a definition and standardization of the very thing being studied (prayer) , is to be considered ‘scientific’ in your world.
I’m willing to discuss either, but you seem unable to do so.
January 5, 2010 at 11:20 am |
ACPB wrote:
“You haven’t actually touched on God’s possible decision to NOT answer prayers even if your conditions are met”
My post on Dec 20th addresses this. Answered prayer isn’t earned (i.e. God doesn’t ‘owe’ you an answer to prayer).
January 5, 2010 at 11:25 am |
And therefore, your X-step program isn’t actually the answer, because there are no guarantees whether you follow it or not.
January 5, 2010 at 12:41 pm |
I didnt state or imply that it was ‘guaranteed’. Where did you get that?
January 6, 2010 at 6:02 am
If you knew it wasn’t guaranteed, then why did you even see fit to CHALLENGE us to follow your x-step program, knowing it would answer nobody’s questions?
January 5, 2010 at 12:43 pm |
Janus wrote:
“And if you said that the secret to having anything you wanted”
Where did I say such a thing?
January 5, 2010 at 2:33 pm |
I didn’t say you did. All I’m saying is that if you make a specific claim about a book, you need to be able to cite it. Yes, if we were having a general discussion about the Bible (or Les Miserables), then telling someone to read the book through would be appropriate.
However, that’s not the case. You’re making a very specific claim requiring specific passages from the book you’re referencing. Seeing as how the material in question is incredibly large and, by virtue of the fact that you are assuring the Bible backs your claim up, you are saying that you know where these specific references are.
Failing to produce them can only mean you don’t know where they are, rendering your claim to certainty of your position invalid or you’re bluffing and it has been called, meaning your claims won’t be taken seriously until you provide your references.
January 5, 2010 at 7:26 pm |
Verbifex wrote:
“It tested some specific prayers offered by some specific people to find whether they had the claimed effectiveness.”
And what were the specific prayers?
No one knows.
The ‘scientific’ study didn’t record what specifically was prayed or in what manner.
January 5, 2010 at 11:14 pm |
I have done all I can to explain why the details of the prayers and the manner of their execution are irrelevant to this kind of preliminary study, which only deals with the general question of whether effects are produced, not the specifics of how or by whom they are produced nor comparisons among religions.
You continue to say the same thing in the same way, indicating that you have not understood anything I have said. This is not intelligent disagreement and debate. I do not know what it is.
There is no point in further discussion unless you can give a thoughtful response or new substantive issues are raised.
January 6, 2010 at 7:47 am |
Verbifex,
I have had to repeat myself because apparently you miss the point.
The Templeton study purports to ‘test’ prayer, but there is no record of WHAT was tested.
How is that scientific?
Nobody knows what was prayed, or how.
So what did we learn from the study? That ‘something’ that someone called prayer didn’t have an affect?
C’mon.
That’s not science, my friend.
January 6, 2010 at 9:26 am
You attempt to be very rational in your assessment of science. Try applying the same rational thought to your religion.
For you, science must be held up to documented process and measurable results (as it should). But religion requires only faith with no valid documentation or measurable results.
That is not truth, it’s man-made superstition.
January 6, 2010 at 9:28 am
Even if you disregard the Templeton Study, all we have is a form of limbo.
You can’t come up with conclusive “scientific” proof that prayer works either.
Sure you can reason it into truth, and you can use God’s seal of approval, but that ain’t science either, my friend… that’s more philosophy than science.
January 6, 2010 at 1:36 pm |
ACPB wrote:
“You can’t come up with conclusive “scientific” proof that prayer works either.”
I agree.
And I’ve not stated or implied otherwise.
The scientific method is not designed to investigate, validate or disprove the supernatural.
January 6, 2010 at 1:40 pm |
At this point Joe all your left with in regards to the supernatural is that it is made up and simply in your head. If the supernatural can affect reality then it is now part of reality and therefor measurable. If it can’t then its not part of reality and is just a concept that is imaginary. It may be a fantastic make believe story that gives comfort as an idea to its followers, but its still made up. But thank you for boldly stating that there is no way for the supernatural to be real.
January 6, 2010 at 1:50 pm |
Blue,
Prove to me that your love for your Mom is ‘real’, using the same criteria you demand for proving God is ‘real’.
January 6, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Joe,
Why that is easy. I can’t prove my love for my mom or my wife or for anything or anyone I love is real, because love is just a concept not a concrete thing. I can point to behaviors I exhibit towards them and actions I take but that can be shown to be a part of simple reciprocity and social bonding for survival. But prove love is real? Impossible because love is not a real thing, a tangible thing or a measurable thing. Its a simple concept that beings in my circle of love (sigh, yes I’m paraphrasing Lion King) share. Is that love the same thing for all of us? Nope.
Here’s the thing Joe. I don’t claim my love changes the world. I don’t even claim my love is real to you even if you don’t believe my claims of love for my loved ones. Love has no power beyond as a motivational idea and belief. Love is the evolutionarily predisposed warm-fuzzies which help propagate the species coupled with the human being’s ability to intellectualize.
This goes back to my point above. It’s a made believe story, one that helps me through my days. Its real to me, but hey I can be delusional.
January 6, 2010 at 1:42 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“no valid documentation or measurable results”
Most of the events of ordinary life down thru history were not documented nor measured.
Does that mean these events did not occur?
theBEattitude wrote:
“That is not truth”
Is your view of truth ONLY that which can be documented by science?
Do you believe all else to be outside of reality?
January 6, 2010 at 3:24 pm |
Circular logic must be fun for you. What is your measurement of truth? The Bible says it’s true, so it is?
Yes, undocumented events have occurred throughout history as well as today. But you believe in Yahweh, Jesus, Angels and Satan because of a collection of poorly documented archaic texts. Just because an ancient person wrote down fables and a fictional testimonies does it automatically elevate it to truth.
No human being has all of the answers to our universe. But we can all do better than worshiping Gods invented by primitive men who believed the earth was flat, slaves and concubines were acceptable, women were less clean and subordinate to men and it was God’s law to murder disobedient children.
Pray if it makes you feel good. It’s a waste of your time, but your certainly not harming anyone.
January 6, 2010 at 10:28 pm |
Blue wrote:
“Love has no power beyond as a motivational idea and belief.”
Ideas and beliefs are the basis of all of your behavior and mine.
Ideas are real, but they are not tangible, i.e. concrete.
And that’s my point.
Thanks for helping me to make it.
Not everything is tangible, Blue.
Sorry, it doesn’t make it ‘not real.’
Close your eyes, stop your ears and pretend it doesn’t exist if you want to.
But it’s real.
To behave as if it were otherwise would be truly a willful blindness.
January 7, 2010 at 1:13 am |
Oh poppycock Joe. Unless your point is that your god really doesn’t exist except as a way to make you feel better I’ve helped you prove nothing. You can ignore all the rest of what I said all you want, it seems to be a habit for you. But at the end you’ve shown nothing except that you can’t prove anything about your god, your idea of prayer or anything supernatural. Heck I can substitute unicorns, leprechauns, Thoth or any myth that people tell themselves to enjoy pleasant lies.
I’ll say it again. Love is the evolutionarily predisposed warm-fuzzies which help propagate the species coupled with the human being’s ability to intellectualize. Now if you want to put your god at that level of real, awesome. Enjoy your warm fuzzies. If you want to claim it has any actual reality you continue to fail. Continue to ignore what is actually said in case it might cause you to actually think critically about what you lazily think and write here.
Enjoy your fantasies, Joe. When you’re ready to take the step, reality is out here with the rest of us.
January 7, 2010 at 2:30 am |
Joe I was reading Daylight Atheism and came across something that I think will show you the false point you’re trying to make here.
“The problem is that the existence of God is a fact about the external world. Facts about values are facts that directly involve subjective states. They are fundamentally disanalogous epistemological issues.”
Love is a subjective state. If prayer has any effect, or if “god” interacts with reality then it is external and subject to observation. Love is something completely subjective, as I said above.
January 7, 2010 at 6:57 am |
Blue’s devotional handbook reads:
“The problem is that the existence of God is a fact about the external world.”
This is a fundamental mischaracterization of the Christian view of God.
God is not part of the physical universe. As creator, He transcends that which he created.
To expect Him to be subject to that which He made would be a bit absurd.
If you think the physical universe is all there is to ‘reality’, then from where or what did matter/energy arise?
Entropy shows that matter/energy cannot be eternally pre-existent (i.e. it must have had a beginning point) because if it was eternal , heat death would’ve been its fate already.
So, where did matter/energy come from and why isn’t its place/dimension of origin ‘observable’?
January 7, 2010 at 6:32 am |
Blue wrote:
“you’ve shown nothing except that you can’t prove anything about your god, your idea of prayer or anything supernatural….If you want to claim it has any actual reality you continue to fail”
Herein is the core of your confusion. You continue to try to show that anything ‘real’ must also be ‘scientifically provable’.
It’s just not the case.
Can you ‘scientifically’ prove what your great grandfather ate on his 20th birthday?
No.
So does that mean he must not have eaten anything since it’s not provable by the scientific method?
Lots of things (for instance, an idea, as we discussed) are not tangible, but are nonetheless real.
The scientific method is a terrific tool. But those who refuse to recognize it’s inherent limitations give it a bad name by elevating it to the place of a god.
Blue wrote:
“Love is the evolutionarily predisposed warm-fuzzies which help propagate the species”
I was asking about your love for your Mom. You might want to rethink your answer.
January 7, 2010 at 10:57 am |
Joe obfuscates,
“I was asking about your love for your Mom. You might want to rethink your answer.”
You really can’t think things through that much, can you? Those warm fuzzies for my mom do help propagate the species. I bonded to her, she to me and what do you know, I survive and she gets to pass her genes on. So no, no need to rethink that.
Joe continues,
“The problem is that the existence of God is a fact about the external world.”
This is a fundamental mischaracterization of the Christian view of God.”
The Christian view of its particular god is to be whatever it wants to be at that time. You want that god to be able to interact with the universe, yet not a part of it. I realize you like magic and want to give your god as much magical powers as possible, but here in the real world that doesn’t fly except as something I can look at you and go “How cute. Joe has an imaginary friend for grownups.”
Joe hauls out silly canards,
“If you think the physical universe is all there is to ‘reality’, then from where or what did matter/energy arise?”
Easy answer, are you going to stop handing me softballs anytime soon? And that answer is…wait for it….I don’t know yet and to the best of my knowledge no one does. We can get close to the start of the universe but we can’t yet get past t=0. But you want to stick a god into that gap. However you then trap yourself by the same question. All you’ve done is push back the first cause one step further. What caused god? Oh wait, I bet I know your answer, he’s magical and not needing a beginning, not actually experiancable, outside of time and the universe, yet actually a part of it to. Why don’t you just say your god is a square circle? Makes as much sense. Special pleading has always been staple of Christian apologia, and you definitely have learned your lessons there. The Kalaam Cosmological argument, really Joe? Really?
Are you sure your not on our side just demonstrating the nonexistence of the supernatural and its effects? All you show is warm fun feelings, desperate gambits to avoid showing what your god can do, and questions completely beyond the scope of the OP.
January 7, 2010 at 11:15 am |
The point is, Blue, that matter/energy cannot have caused itself to come into being. Neither can it be eternal.
So you’re left with something non-tangible, outside the bounds of the physical universe and therefore not subject to the laws of our universe. And not verifiable by the scientific method.
IOW, something that is, by definition, supernatural.
January 7, 2010 at 11:26 am
Way to skip the majority of my reply, Joe. You said, “The point is, Blue, that matter/energy cannot have caused itself to come into being. Neither can it be eternal.” Bzzt! We don’t know yet. Also have you read up on virtual particles? You should before you try to keep going down this road.
If this is the best possible evidence, and I use that term loosely here, you can summon for your god and the supernatural, what separates you from a worshiper of Thor and the Aesir? Both of you just make wild guesses and create reasoning out of whole cloth.
Tell you what, here’s a great explanation about a universe from nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
January 7, 2010 at 11:46 am |
Yes, I know Blue.
It is wonderfully unfalsifiable stuff. ‘these unknown, unobserved and unobservable particles don’t obey physical laws except when they do…..’
Supernatural, by definition they are.
That’s what you’re left with. A supernatural explanation.
January 7, 2010 at 11:52 am |
Something is unknow therefore the Christian god exists … well I think you’ve even surpassed your, admittedly low, standard of evidence for prayer with this one.
Hint: Not knowing something doesn’t give you the right to just make stuff up as you go along. Is there a Bible passge that says this is ok as you seem to do it a lot?
January 7, 2010 at 11:55 am |
Jabster at this point I’m thinking Joe is actually a Poe showing the inherent dishonesty and silliness of the supernatural position.
January 7, 2010 at 12:34 pm
I don’t think he’s a Poe but he does seem to like the little line of “argument” that the Christian god is supernatural therefore it exists. Strangely enough this doesn’t apply to any other gods, who don’t exsist because there is no evidence or because the Bible says so.
January 7, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Good point Jabster. Just makes me sad to see a thinking human limit themselves so much and try to make reality so small and sad. I think I’m done responding to him here though. Reminds me to much of talking to a schizophrenic I used to know, and he’s been so darn effective in proving the OP’s and my points.
January 7, 2010 at 1:13 pm
@Blue
It really doesn’t matter what you say as he’ll either ignore it or say that doesn’t count. I think you’re right though, no more repsonses from me either.
January 7, 2010 at 12:31 pm |
Your supernaturalist position, or mine?
Because we both take a supernaturalist POV in the end, Blue.
You don’t get it, do you?
January 7, 2010 at 12:38 pm |
Joe it must be fun making up whatever you want to believe. Thank you for proving mine and everyone else who’s tried to engage with you point. You have no proof beyond warm fuzzy feelings that you make up shit to justify.
I know its scary, Joe. But your god doesn’t exist, there is no supernatural, and you have no way to point to it except by trying to desperately fit all that into the tiniest gaps in our knowledge.
But like BE said, believe what you want. I’m sure you know now that it’s all make believe, but hey its fun to believe that for a while. I know I liked the idea of god when I was child. I also liked the idea of Zeus. Childish beliefs let you like and believe anything.
January 7, 2010 at 1:01 pm |
Try examining your presupps some time, Blue.
Like the one that goes ‘Science doesn’t know everything, but we KNOW the supernatural doesn’t exist’
or the one that goes ‘Everything that is real can be verified by science’
January 7, 2010 at 1:10 pm |
Blue wrote:
“I think I’m done responding to him here though.”
I see you’ve hung your Mission Accomplished banner.
Nice.
January 8, 2010 at 12:03 pm |
Just found this site. Its always good to see common sense and logic in discussions. These things are lacking in religion.
June 7, 2010 at 1:31 am |
Why NUVIGIL builds on the success of Modafinil…
General Information on Nuvigil and Modalert I think many of us have already experienced conditions of recurring sleepiness during the day……