HUNTSVILLE, AL – Republican gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne is under attack for saying, “I believe there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not,” in the state of Alabama.
Byrne believes in Jesus, but by honestly acknowledging the absurdity of ancient Bible fables is now a political black sheep. In a recent appearance at a Piggly Wiggly grocery store in New Hope, many people came in protest of Byrne. One protester said:
“Just got a call from a person at my Church letting me know about this,” said uafan1198. “My family will not be shopping at Ragland Piggly Wiggly stores anymore or anything else they own…. I don’t shop at places that think it is OK to stand next to people who don’t believe the Bible is all true.”
Byne is scrambling to save his political career by recanting his statement claiming, “I believe the Bible is true. Every word of it.”
If a person is ostracized for not being a Bible literalist in Alabama, what do they do to atheists? People have the freedom to live their lives with their head in the sand, but do the rest of us a favor and keep your irrational superstition to yourself.
Tags: Alabama, Bible, Bradley Byrne, Error, Flawless, Fundamental, Govenor, Inerrant, Literalist, Politics
January 10, 2010 at 10:11 pm |
it’s one of the reasons i’m glad i don’t live in alabama… 8/
January 10, 2010 at 11:59 pm |
Florida is no secular haven, but at least it’s not that bad (although I am looking at the church across the street right now, with their light up 25′ cross beaming in crazy messages to my kid through his window at night. Or maybe I’m just a bit paranoid of osmosis indoctrination.)
January 11, 2010 at 3:53 am |
I figure that the number of people like Byrne are higher then many think. I agree with him that parts of the bible are literal, of course it is way less then what he sees that way. I doubt many people will quit shopping at a chain of grocery stores simply because of his views but you have a few who are so afraid they will think it is right to quit. This is the type of actions I think you will be seeing in the republican party this election since it has already been shown they will be attacking their own if they feel they aren’t strong enough believers.
Angie try living in Arkansas if you think Florida is bad.
January 11, 2010 at 5:58 am |
Wow. I’m glad I don’t live in Alabama.
So this guy is a Republican? Refuting the inerrancy of the bible was a huge gaffe for him. His career will probably be over.
January 11, 2010 at 6:36 am |
Saying ‘not all things in the Bible are literally true’ is not at all the same as ‘acknowledging the absurdity of ancient Bible fables.’
In fact the story you linked to quotes him “”I believe the Bible is true,” Republican gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne said here Wednesday. “Every word of it.”
January 11, 2010 at 8:19 am |
Byrne was quoted saying the “Bible is true” only after saying it was not. This was an obvious attempt to repair the damage done by his previous comment. This is what politicians do. Tell people what they want to hear to win elections.
January 11, 2010 at 9:21 am |
“Saying ‘not all things in the Bible are literally true’ is not at all the same as ‘acknowledging the absurdity of ancient Bible fables.’”
Quick observation:
You’re right. They don’t mean the same thing.
BUT they point to different criticisms, and thus now you have TWO arguments against the Book.
Why you have decided to try and separate them, I have no idea. >_>
January 11, 2010 at 12:07 pm |
Why you have decided to try and separate [the two criticisms], I have no idea.
Well, because some fables, parables, and other kinds of fiction may be useful and beneficial in illustrating points or stimulating thought or both, and those might reasonably be included in scripture, especially if unambiguously identified as such. But not absurd material of this kind.
January 12, 2010 at 12:13 pm |
What he was quoted as saying was that it wasn’t ‘literally’ true. IOW he recognizes, as most Christian groups do, that the Bible often uses figurative or symbolic language to convey truth.
Thus, not everything is considered ‘literally’ true. Example: Jesus said ‘I am the door’ , obviously he wasn’t saying that he was a piece of wood.
So it’s not ‘literally’ true. It’s a figure of speech that is still true.
I find it odd that you claim to have spent years in church, but the simplest concepts of Biblical interpretation seem to be completely foreign to you.
January 12, 2010 at 12:47 pm |
The concept is far from foreign to me. I was a proud member of the not “literally” true camp as a Christian. How else could a rational person believe such an absurd story?
My point is Christians walk a very fine line with this version of Biblical interpretation. They take the word literally when it is somewhat logical, but read other parts as metaphor or allegory when it makes no rational sense.
For example: When a person claims the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory or parable to teach humans about the fall of man, they ignore the true intention of the story. It was written as a literal story about the creation of first two (real) humans. And to tell the story of their children and bloodline leading up to King David and later Jesus. Most Christians view the story as an allegory today because it is absolutely ridiculous to read it literally with our current knowledge through archeological science.
You call it a figure of speech within God’s word. I call it cafeteria Christianity for rational believers.
January 11, 2010 at 8:45 am |
Excellent post. I feel sorry for the guy, because I think he is right on in what he said.
There are parts of the Bible that are to be taken literally and there are parts of the Bible that are to be taken figuratively. These are known as Figures of Speech, a departure from normal rules of grammar. And we humans do them all the time. Since God chose to communicate with us via language (ie, the Bible), knowing when God is using a Figure of Speech is all part of properly understanding God’s Word in the proper context.
For example, Isaiah 55:12, “For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap [their] hands.”
Does God actually expect us to believe that the mountains and hills shall sing and trees clap their hands? No, this is a figure of speech known as “personification” (we humans do this to things in our lives today too: cars, houses, etc.).
Why would God choose to use figures of speech? Isn’t that sneaky of Him? Figures of speech are used by God (much like they are used with us) to call attention to areas of scripture (imagine there wasn’t any punctuation or capitalization or other CSS3′s back in the day).
The Bible should be taken literally whenever possible. BUT, there are literally hundreds of Figures of Speech used in the Bible all over.
Good to know.
January 11, 2010 at 9:10 am |
If only a part of the Bible is true, that doesn’t mean that the book should be taken literally, as FACT of HISTORY.
“Figures of speech” are dangerous. They have the potential to rewrite truth into half-truth. The effect is cascading: any other words of truth that are associated with a half-truth now will be called into question.
To illustrate how dangerous a “figure of speech” is: take the following perspective:
“It is unacceptable that The Being cannot answer. This technically makes us better than It – because, as a product of Its creation, we do something that It doesn’t: answer for ourselves on a daily basis. Just saying.”
Note that while the faithful would claim otherwise, there is NOTHING that proves that this “figure of speech” is false, save for faith that their deity would reveal so.
I find it unacceptable that we are encouraged to accept, wholeheartedly and without question, holy books branded as history texts with even the faithful claiming that “not every single word in their scriptures apply or is true”.
January 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm |
There is a lot of variation among believers. It is not clear to me that those who call the Bible “history” to be “accept[ed] wholeheartedly and without question” are the same ones who acknowledge that “not every single word in their scriptures apply or is true”.
Often in these discussions a complaint about the ideas of orangites is answered by the ideas of applites. Sometimes lemonites and grapefruitists and pearians chime in, everyone talking about something a little different; or, like the bananarianists, a lot different.
Then on the other side, there is a tendency to try to treat them all as a single voice, mixing them all together into some kind of fruitsmoothieism; and finally complaining that the flavors clash.
But don’t make the mistake of reading this literally: it’s a metaphor.
January 11, 2010 at 2:18 pm |
Who gets to decide what is literal vs. figurative? The answer is each person picks the version of Christianity that suits them best.
Many silly people still believe the earth is 6,000 years old because an old fable told them it is. Many of these books were originally written as historical fact until science and technology proved their absurdity. Then they miraculously became figurative stories.
Why would a fictional character, Adam, from a figurative story be included in Jesus’ genealogy? Was his genealogy also figurative? Maybe the entire story of Jesus was a figurative analogy. The possibilities are endless.
January 12, 2010 at 12:32 pm |
“Who gets to decide what is literal vs. figurative? The answer is each person picks the version of Christianity that suits them best.”
Well, the alternative is to have a central authority figure dictate for all which portions are literal and which are not.
So which do you prefer: each person reading and deciding for themselves, or a central authority figure?
January 12, 2010 at 12:52 pm |
Neither. No authority figure is required to dictate the literal interpretation of a fictional book.
January 11, 2010 at 1:38 pm |
This is indicative of a much larger problem, politically and religiously. The hard right is completely unwilling to compromise on anything and it’s becoming more and more that way. Even once moderate candidates are forced to tow this new line of complete and utter homogeneity within the group or face political exile. When it comes to religion, this is especially the case as is evidenced by this article.
January 11, 2010 at 1:57 pm |
I get more frustrated each day by how polarized our country has become. Each side with their heals dug in while the rest of us watch the idiocy from the middle ground.
People by nature are sheep, unless their version of reality is threatened. Then they go into irrational attack mode. You have to love politics.
January 11, 2010 at 8:16 pm |
The Left does the same thing.
January 11, 2010 at 8:41 pm |
Care to explain why the Democrats are unable to pass anything remotely resembling the initial bill as drafted? It’s because they don’t have the oneness of purpose that the Republicans do.
It’s easy to just say “yeah, well, so do they,” but, in this scenario, it’s flat wrong. The left has its own problems, but rallying around definite talking points to the exclusion of people because they aren’t left enough isn’t one of them.
January 11, 2010 at 8:47 pm
The reason is because the bill sucks and they are afraid to ram it through without some of them pretending to kinda be against it. They all want it, but they also all know it sucks. They know that eventually it will be discovered by the people that it is only in the interest of the elite in congress and not the people. They have to put on a good show of pretending to try and make it not suck so they draw it out and blame the republicans for the slowness of the process even though they’ve always had the votes to pass it.
January 11, 2010 at 11:36 pm
You realize that “they want it but they want to pretend like they don’t want it” doesn’t make any sense, right? Are you aware that’s how nothing works ever?
January 12, 2010 at 12:10 am
It makes perfect sense. For example, those Democrats who needed to posture against it and yet also wanted to pass it, voted for the procedural move to allow debate, then voted against the bill. That way they could keep the bill alive, and yet also claim to their contituents that they didn’t support it. Politicians do this crap all the time. And with respect to the abortion deal, that Senator that held out till the end because he wanted tighter anti-abortion measures, remember him? He knew good and well that once his vote broke the 60 they needed and the bill passed, all the pro-abortion stuff would be put back in in conference. He was merely posturing to keep his constituents stupid.
January 12, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Its also a nice way of saying that they cant get their act together. The Dems are the gang that cant shoot straight.
The funniest was when three different Senate committees were trying to be the one to put THE bill together, and the spotlight fell to the Baucus committee.
After days of labor and negotiation, committee chair Baucus holds a presser to tout the release of the bill to the floor.
The next day Senate leader Reid said ‘That bill won’t work in my state (Nevada)’ http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/sep/16/harry-reid-health-care-bill-wont-work-nevada/
lol
And you want them IN CHARGE of your health care?
God help us.
Do you really want politicians to horse trade funding for medical specialists and medical equipment like they do with roads and bridges now? Powerful pols will push the gravy to their districts and leave you with the scraps.
January 12, 2010 at 1:44 pm
First off, Joe, you proved my point in that the left has a strong difference of opinion on a number of issues.
Secondly, yes, I do trust a body of elected officials to regulate healthcare over the current system run by unelected profiteers which deemed it fit to drop coverage for my girlfriend’s epilepsy medicine in order to cover their bottom line.
Thirdly, both of you guys might have a leg to stand on if socialized medicine hasn’t been demonstrably cheaper and more effective in the countries that practice it. However, the proof is in the pudding, gentlemen. The United States has, perhaps, the most inept and expensive healthcare system in the world. The majority of this spending doesn’t go towards providing actual healthcare, but because of the bloated bureaucracy associated with reconciling all of the enormous pharmaceutical interests, health insurers, and the like. Countries with single-payer care pay less because the system is streamlined and simple.
Now, seeing as how this blog is not about politics, I’m going to take my leave of this subject.
January 13, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Hopefully the Democrats won’t get their crap together and this bill will fall apart and the country will be saved.
January 11, 2010 at 7:49 pm |
So people say they won’t shop at the Piggly-Wiggly anymore. Palease, they’ll give in! Where else will the Fundies buy their beer and condoms?
January 11, 2010 at 7:51 pm |
Good point. Walmart’s run by the godless Chinese that don’t even have Bibles.
January 12, 2010 at 8:53 am |
I am Chinese and I have my own God, thank you very much.
January 12, 2010 at 9:36 pm
He needs to lose a few pounds too. (Relax, it was a joke.)
January 12, 2010 at 6:59 am |
I love the way fundies are able to compartmentalize their knowledge. Can they really not be aware that most of the stuff that makes it to their tables was raised, picked, and probably prayed over by people they would consider heathens? Who do they think is stocking the shelves at 4 a.m.? Remember the bit about Halloween candy being cursed? How much fun would it be to chalk on trucks and warehouses “This food is consecrated to Satan.” Yes, I am a mean-spirited person.
January 12, 2010 at 1:36 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“They take the word literally when it is somewhat logical, but read other parts as metaphor or allegory when it makes no rational sense.”
Isn’t this pretty much the approach you’d take in reading and understanding any document?
If it seemed to make sense when taken literally, then no other ‘sense’ need be sought. But if a literal reading encounters problems, our minds automatically begin to explore figurative or metaphorical uses, ironic references, sarcasm, or a number of other ‘non-literal’ writing styles, don’t we?
And it’s second nature for us to do so, so that when reading our minds are able to easily shift back and forth as a writer employs various modes within a given piece of writing.
What’s so unusual about that?
Doesn’t it make perfect sense for the Bible to be written in such a way as to use a literal sense at times and figurative language when needed to illustrate or highlight a point?
I really don’t see what the big deal is.
Show me a novel, or a noteworthy speech of some kind that does NOT use an occasional non-literal device.
These are really very ordinary tools of communication. Why wouldn’t they be used in the Bible?
Your real objection isn’t that the Bible contains some literal and some non-literal language.
No.
Your objection is you just do not want to believe it.
ok
So just don’t.
But please don’t hide behind these bogus objections ‘the Bible isn’t always literal’ or ‘some of it is and some of it isnt and who gets to decide’ or some such claptrap
please
Just say you don’t believe it.
But these phony pseudo-intellectual ‘objections’ are really a waste of time.
January 12, 2010 at 1:55 pm |
My objection is not about literary language. My objection is about fictional stories.
Joe, do you believe the story of the Garden of Eden is true? Do you believe a man lived inside a whale for 3 days? Do you believe God flooded the entire earth and put every animal on a big boat with a man and his family? Do you believe it’s possible for manna bread to fall from the sky, or for a man to part the sea if he asks God nicely? Do you believe a man could lose his strength if a woman cut his hair? Do you believe a woman could be turned into a pillar of salt? Do you believe it is possible for the sun and the moon to stand still in the sky?
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
If you’re going to assert how I interpret the Bible, explain to me how you view these verses. Are these true stories, or “literary devices”? If my objections are bogus, please enlighten me on how to interpret this book of fables and conflicting testimony.
January 12, 2010 at 2:31 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“My objection is not about literary language…. Do you believe it’s possible for manna bread to fall from the sky…?”
I don’t recall the Bible ever saying ‘bread fell from the sky’.
Your real objection is that you don’t believe there is a God, or that He would do ANYTHING.
Therefore any story which contains a supernatural element, you reject.
The funny part is you keep making up these bogus objections about the whether the Bible is ‘literal’ or not which completely sidesteps the question you should be trying to make.
Atheism is first of all a rather dishonest position since no one can ‘prove’ the non-existence of God. Agnosticism would be a more honest POV.
That being said, if an agnostic simply admits that he DOESNT know if there is a God who can or did perform supernatural deeds, then the agnostic wouldn’t waste his time objecting to the Bible, because he would admit it could be true.
January 12, 2010 at 3:01 pm |
How is your religious belief more “honest” than my lack of theistic belief? You also can’t prove God exists, so Agnosticism may be a more honest choice for you as well. Just because you live by Pascal’s Wager doesn’t somehow make you more honest. You just choose to err on the side of theism … just in case your version of god is real.
I don’t believe their is a deity up in the clouds, thus I am an atheist. But I also don’t claim to have all the answers, unlike my Christian counterparts. You put God in the gaps for everything unexplained and look to a archaic book for answers. I simply admit there are things we don’t yet understand or have yet to discover. The immeasurable universe is far too awe inspiring to attribute to an extremely flawed diety invented by ancient Jewish men. A primitive God used to justify evil laws and blood sacrifices.
You need to apply your own insight to yourself. If you honestly admit their is no rational reason to believe in your version of god, you would consider worshipping other gods because you would admit they could also be true. Or even worse, that maybe there isn’t a god. Why exactly are you so convinced you’ve chosen the right deity? 70% of the earth disagrees with you.
January 12, 2010 at 1:51 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“I was a proud member of the not “literally” true camp as a Christian.”
btw I am sure I could point to any number of passages that you would concede (and would’ve agreed then) should be understood literally.
So, we are ALL part of the ‘some of it is literal and some of it is not’ camp.
Its always a question of which parts are or aren’t.
January 12, 2010 at 2:05 pm |
Janus Grayden wrote:
“First off, Joe, you proved my point in that the left has a strong difference of opinion on a number of issues.”
Yes, I agreed with you that they do. The same is true on the right, and they also cant get their ducks in a row on a regular basis. One of many reasons that I’m an Independent.
Janus Grayden wrote:
“Secondly, yes, I do trust a body of elected officials to regulate healthcare over the current system run by unelected profiteers which deemed it fit to drop coverage for my girlfriend’s epilepsy medicine in order to cover their bottom line.”
If a company violates their contract, there is legal recourse. And you can economically punish them when you switch companies and urge others to do so.
But if the government is the only game in town, there is no options left to switch to, and you can’t sue either. Game over.
Janus Grayden wrote:
“Thirdly, both of you guys might have a leg to stand on if socialized medicine hasn’t been demonstrably cheaper and more effective in the countries that practice it”
Cheaper isn’t necessarily better. I don’t want my daughter driving the cheapest car possible down the highway.
More effective? I hardly think so. Which country produces more innovative procedures, groundbreaking medicines etc than any other?
HINT , it aint Britain , France, Canada et al
Where do people from other nations go when they need an advanced treatment, or can’t wait in line til they die?
More often than not, it’s the US.
Going to Vancouver any time soon? http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506
What’s all this have to do with religion?
A lot I think.
The left, while claiming to value freedom of thought, is rushing to hand over their minds and decision making to politicians.
The right continues to uphold the right of the individual to decide what’s in his own best interest.
January 12, 2010 at 3:22 pm |
The right continues to uphold the right of the individual to decide what’s in his own best interest.
You don’t really believe this, do you? After eight years of Bush and another year of “right in all but name and camoflage” Obama?
LOL
January 12, 2010 at 9:40 pm |
The liberals are worse than gods because that’s what they think they are. A Democrat regime is a theocrasy. And since they see themselves as gods, they allow no dissent. At least when a Republican is in office opposition is allowed, and the media does oppose. Put a Democrat in there and they worship him. “All hail Lord Obama, Lord of heaven and Earth. Give us this day our daily lie, and lead us not into prosperity but deliver us from our jobs. For thine is the communism for ever and ever. Amen.”
January 13, 2010 at 11:11 am |
yo: Every sentence in your post is utterly ridiculous. Practically every word. No point in even attempting to respond if you truly believe the Republicans encourage dissent or that Obama is a communist.
January 13, 2010 at 11:55 am |
theBEattitude wrote:
“How is your religious belief more “honest” than my lack of theistic belief?”
Because I honestly admit that mine is a position of faith.
You have no scientific proof of the non-existence of God, but you demand scientific proof from theists.
January 13, 2010 at 1:24 pm |
I’m required to prove God doesn’t exist, but you don’t have to prove he does exist? Faith is a nice Christian loophole out of justifying their erroneous theology.
To recap:
I’m less honest because I don’t believe in an ancient Jewish deity. He’s invisible, he doesn’t answer prayer, he allows horrific atrocities against innocent people, and his church is full of an army of hypocrites. That Joe, is my proof. Scientific proof is only icing on the cake.
You on the other hand are more honest because you have faith. You don’t demand proof of God, so that makes you more honest than me. Joe, not demanding proof does not make a person honest, it makes them gullible. Do you believe everything you are told, or do you verify it first? Or does faith only apply to your religion?
January 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm |
“I’m required to prove God doesn’t exist, but you don’t have to prove he does exist?”
Seems fair … what’s you problem with that?
“he doesn’t answer prayer, …”
Well unless they’re done using the Biblical Prayer Method(c).
“Or does faith only apply to your religion?”
Well my favourite answer to that one is that only Christianity has a saviour that died for our sins … must be true then.
January 13, 2010 at 1:59 pm |
… gullible. Do you believe everything you are told, or do you verify it first? Or does faith only apply to your religion?
Meaning “Do you only use faith in religion or do you use it in every aspect of life?” Including, as an extreme example, emails offering a 40% commission for help in transferring $10M out of Elbonia.
January 13, 2010 at 2:52 pm |
Verbifex, I thought they only had mud in Elbonia.
January 13, 2010 at 3:28 pm |
@Verbifex
I think Joe W believes everything on faith unless there is scientific proof that it doesn’t exist. I must say it’s an interesting way of approaching life …
January 14, 2010 at 11:44 am |
That’s right, Janus; only mud and very poor quality mud. It’s one of the publicly available facts that do not need to be considered before investing when one already knows all the really important stuff through faith.
January 15, 2010 at 1:16 am |
Yes but you only think it’s poor quality mud because of your worldview.
January 13, 2010 at 2:58 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“I’m required to prove God doesn’t exist….?”
No.
What I said was that if you demand scientific proof from others, THEN you should be held to the same standard.
It’s simple.
Admit that atheism has no evidentiary basis, but is a position of faith, not science.
January 13, 2010 at 5:14 pm |
Do you really understand the scientific method?
January 14, 2010 at 12:25 am |
@Baconsbud
Don’t suppress his right to claim something is wrong even though he is totally ignorant of the subject.
Haven’t you heard that believing in god requires just as much faith as not believing in god and science says so, in fact not only does is say so it’s got scientific proof; I mean everybody knows that scientific theories are just that, theories … but no this is proof!
January 14, 2010 at 8:09 am |
I wrote:
“Admit that atheism has no evidentiary basis, but is a position of faith, not science.”
Baconsbud responded:
“Do you really understand the scientific method?”
BB, if you want to submit scientific evidence to prove the non-existence of God, go for it. I could use a good laugh.
January 14, 2010 at 12:11 pm |
Also, while you’re working on that Baconsbud, we need some scientific evidence that none of us has a big bushy tail. There is a widespread conviction that humans do not have tails, but nobody has proved it scientifically or even offered any evidence. Until someone does, it will be said that we anourists are just operating on faith.
January 14, 2010 at 1:19 pm |
“Do you really understand the scientific method?”
So that’s a no then …
January 15, 2010 at 3:19 am |
Joe when you prove scientifically that the Purple Unicorn doesn’t exist then you will have your answer. If you can’t prove he/she doesn’t exist it then means he/she does and therefore your puny god doesn’t exist. With your views that is basically what you are saying. Since you will deny anything that doesn’t fit with your current views it wouldn’t matter what I proved. You have closed your mind to facts out of fear and until you are willing to throw all you believe out the window don’t waste my time.
January 15, 2010 at 9:30 am |
BB,
What I am saying is that not everything is ‘provable’ by the scientific method.
So, when atheists demand ‘scientific proof’ of the existence of God, or of the efficacy of prayer or some other aspect of the supernatural, they are misusing the scientific method and asking something it is not designed to answer.
And they know it , or at least they should. And they give science an undeserved bad name in the process.
January 15, 2010 at 11:59 am
Many atheists demand scientific proof of the existence of God. I do not.
My eyes and common sense tell me no god exists. Certainly not your Judea-Christian version. Every earthly description of god comes from a very primitive perspective. Continue to be superstitious if it gives you kicks. But we all need to honestly admit that it is asinine to worship flawed fictional deities invented thousands of years ago.
We have much to discover and understand about our existence, our planet and our immeasurable universe. Religion only belittles these unknowns by attempting to define them with primitive folklore.
I guess you could call me a “soft” atheist or many would say agnostic. It makes no difference to me what you call me. I’m not a member of an organized theology. The fact is we don’t know why we are here, and I’m just fine with that.
A supernatural sky daddy is not watching over us. Look at the thousands of dead in Haiti for proof of his non-existence. How do you justify a “true” god that has a plan for every human in a world that is so fucked up and so completely random and unjust?
January 15, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Joe if you take the idea that there are things that are out there that can’t be proved that’s fine. But don’t expect people to join your delusion or to take you seriously.
I can see no proof beyond the delusions of wishful followers of an idea. You have again put yourself in the position of believing every claim anyone makes. You are the ultimate polytheist because you have limited that you can’t even understand for sure that what you think your god is doing is your god, because it just might be another god. You can’t prove its not, because you’ve left no way to disprove your conclusions. The second you say you know because of supernatural means, logically you can’t because it could be another supernatural means, which could be another supernatural means, ad nausea. So here in reality we’re going to do the best we can and not just count on everyone’s feelings and delusions as being correct.
At this point I can see that you are arguing in bad faith just like you were on the prayer thread. You avoid points that are made like a child going “LA LA LA I CAN”T HEAR YOU”. That cognitive dissonance must be a bitch for you to deal with, since you can’t let go of the idea that nothing can be proven.
January 15, 2010 at 7:04 pm
I never said anything about needing scientific proof I just asked if you understood the scientific method. I don’t need proof to know that the bible is a pack of lies created by men and that if there is a god it is nothing like any religions on this planet seem to think it is.
No people asking for proof of a god by scientific method aren’t misusing it, it is simply that you aren’t willing to admit you have no clue if there is a god or not. You claim that an event is supernatural is more about your lack of knowledge then it is about anything else. You believe you have to have a reason for all events that happen.
January 15, 2010 at 12:29 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“Look at the thousands of dead in Haiti for proof of his non-existence.”
How does an earthquake ‘prove’ God doesn’t exist?
So only a world with no pain and no death would ‘prove’ God existed?
Such a world once did exist, and man rejected it by disobeying God.
The Bible doesn’t dodge the issue of human suffering. It takes it on squarely, not only acknowledging suffering but explaining WHY it happens.
Death exists because God would not allow man to live in sin forever.
Imagine what it would be like to live forever in a world that has war, murder, rape, etc
God determined that life on earth (now that it is polluted with sin) would only be temporary.
Death, which you see as a bad thing, is actually a guarantee that we won’t have to live in an evil world forever.
January 15, 2010 at 1:22 pm |
Such a world once did exist, and man rejected it by disobeying God.
Clarification needed:
Was the whole universe completely static until Adam and Eve ate that knowledge fruit?
Or did earthquakes and galactic collisions, etc. occur even then, but A & E were unaware of them in their ignorance and in the protected zone of the Garden of Eden?
In short, apparently according to you, Adam and Eve are responsible for the recent earthquake deaths in Haiti because if they had not eaten that knowledge fruit, A & E (presumably without any descendants) would still be living in happy ignorance in the G of E, nobody would today be living on Hispaniola (or anywhere else), and the earthquake there could not have injured any people. Something is wrong with this picture.
January 15, 2010 at 1:55 pm |
Death, which you see as a bad thing, is actually a guarantee that we won’t have to live in an evil world forever.
So following this logic, suicide would be considered wrong only because a person experiencing unbearable and incurable pain is required to wait for God to get around to pulling the plug.
What does this logic say about murder? It gives the decedent an exit from the evil world. Could God be behind it?
And are you saying that all those Haitians who died (and will die) as a result of the earthquake simply got an unexpected release from the evil world, thanks to an act of God?
Something is wrong with this picture.
January 15, 2010 at 2:07 pm |
This only proves your “loving” and “just” version of god doesn’t exist.
A god who forces humans to live in a world plagued with “war, murder, rape, etc.” as a test to see if we are worthy of heaven is sadistic. Why not skip earth and just create everyone in heaven?
God puts us on this “evil world” simply to see if we’re willing to have faith that a Jewish guy was God and was butchered as a blood payment for sin? Brilliant. Too bad for people born in the Middle East that were indoctrinated into the wrong religion. They failed God’s sadistic test simply because they were born in the wrong region of the world to the wrong parents.
You can wish for a fantasy land after death if it helps you cope with your own mortality.
You claim,
Why do other animals die? So they won’t live in sin forever too? I always laugh at religion’s propensity to devalue all other lifeforms on earth because we have higher functioning brains. We’re God’s special creation and everything else is disposable. The arrogance of religion.
January 15, 2010 at 1:54 pm |
Blue wrote:
“Joe….you can’t let go of the idea that nothing can be proven”
Not sure who you think made such a claim, but it wasn’t me.
January 15, 2010 at 1:55 pm |
Verbifex wrote:
“Something is wrong with this picture.”
Sure is.
You’ve painted in a lot of things I never said. That’s whats wrong.
January 15, 2010 at 9:56 pm |
Such a world [with no pain and no death] once did exist, and man rejected it by disobeying God [Christianese shorthand for the Garden of Eden incident and original sin]. … Death exists because God would not allow man to live in sin forever.
You said that but you do not want to acknowledge its logical implication.
The logical implication of the statement is that all deaths were made possible (nay, mandatory) by A’s & E’s eating of the knowledge fruit; although the exact mechanism of each death might not be attributable to them. Certainly in the case of a natural disaster (e.g., earthquake), no human culpability intervenes between the requirement of death and the means of making it happen.
This includes the usual Christian assumption that God could not have responded in any other way to the knowledge-fruit incident. It requires a little additional inference to see just how things would have been different if A & E had left the knowledge fruit alone.
So, although you did not say it explicitly, what you did say implies that “Adam and Eve are responsible for the recent earthquake deaths in Haiti” as outlined previously. Of course it is silly to blame them; but that is the implication of what you said: people suffer pain and death because of original sin.
If you do not like the implications of your statement, you need to reconsider it. Or perhaps you can explain, in a way that others can follow and understand, how that statement can be applied to real situations in some other way.
January 15, 2010 at 11:03 pm |
Verbifex wrote:
“Or perhaps you can explain, in a way that others can follow and understand, how that statement can be applied to real situations in some other way.”
I think my post was easily understandable.
It’s really not my fault that you made up a bunch of garbage and claimed ‘this logically follows from what you said.’
January 15, 2010 at 10:06 pm |
Imagine what it would be like to live forever in a world that has war, murder, rape, etc
God determined that life on earth (now that it is polluted with sin) would only be temporary.
Death, which you see as a bad thing, is actually a guarantee that we won’t have to live in an evil world forever.
You said that but you do not want to acknowledge its logical implications.
The primary implication of your statement is that death is a good thing, a benefit, maybe a blessing; apparently because you think everyone is eager to get out of this violent world. Why would “liv[ing] forever in [this] world that has war, murder, rape, etc” be particularly worse than living in it for the normal lifespan? Is your life in this world so terrible that you are eager for death to let you out of it? If so, I would be sorry to hear it. But that does not seem to be the case for most people.
According to your statement, God provided death so that “we won’t have to live in an evil world forever”. It follows, therefore, that a person whose life really is unbearable should be able to accept God’s gift and choose death for himself. Sometimes there are objectively good reasons for it, often not. But if life in this “evil world” were really so terrible that we need death to escape it, there would be no reason for anyone to try to face, live through, and overcome any temporary difficulty. The only argument then would be that a suffering person is required to wait for God to end the suffering.
Indeed, if you assert that “[d]eath, which [people other than you, Joe White] see as a bad thing,” is actually a good thing, a release from the “evil world”; then you imply that murder and death from accident or disease or natural disaster are simply God’s way of taking some people out of their misery unexpectedly.
You did not say these things explicitly, but they are the implications of what you did say.
If you do not like the implications of your statement, you need to reconsider it. Or perhaps you can explain, in a way that others can follow and understand, how that statement can be applied to real situations in some other way.
January 15, 2010 at 2:27 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“I always laugh at religion’s propensity to devalue all other lifeforms on earth because we have higher functioning brains.”
The alternative I suppose, is to treat humans, fish, snails and cockroaches all equally.
No thanks.
You like to pretend that your atheism has actually given you a superior moral footing, i.e. that Christians are evil in comparison with you — ‘the rational thinker’.
I don’t think so.
Treating humans as equal to bugs isn’t an improvement in morality.
January 15, 2010 at 10:38 pm |
I claimed that atheism has made me superiorly moral? I’m the same man I was as a Christian. I just don’t ask an invisible man for forgiveness after I make mistakes anymore. Not a more or less moral, only less superstitious.
Morality has nothing to do with how religious a person is. People do good and bad things regardless of religion.
As Steve Weinberg so eloquently stated:
January 15, 2010 at 10:59 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“I’m the same man I was as a Christian.”
Really?
Did your church teach you to ‘laugh at religion’ for considering human life more valuable than that of a bug?
Admit it. You think you make moral judgements that are superior to that of a Christian.
I, however, dont agree that equating human life with the cockroach is particularly moral.
In fact, I will say it plainly. It’s immoral.
And a bit irrational as well.
Any position which would put one’s own survival and that of his family at stake for the sake of a bug is not rational, IMHO.
January 15, 2010 at 11:52 pm |
Wow. Your comments never cease to surprise me. I’d respond to you irrational ramblings, but I’m too immoral at the moment “putting my family at stake for the sake of a cockroach.”
January 15, 2010 at 2:29 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“as a test to see if we are worthy of heaven”
This shows a fundamental and willful misrepresentation of Christian doctrine.
Nowhere does the Bible teach that one can ‘earn’ a place in heaven.
January 15, 2010 at 10:31 pm |
It certainly does. I did a post if you’d like to read up.
http://thebeattitude.com/2009/07/15/how-does-a-person-earn-eternal-life-a-simple-eight-step-process/
January 15, 2010 at 11:21 pm |
Baconsbud wrote:
“people asking for proof of a god by scientific method aren’t misusing it”
The scientific method is not designed to prove or disprove the existence of God, or of any other supernatural being or phenomena.
The scientific method is designed to examine natural phenomena by gathering and understanding observable evidence and measuring against our understanding of the scientific laws which govern the physical universe.
A decent explanation of this can be found here http://science.howstuffworks.com/scientific-method10.htm by William Harris http://science.howstuffworks.com/about-author.htm#william%20harris
“Clearly, the scientific method is a powerful tool, but it does have its limitations. These limitations are based on the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and that experiments and observations be repeatable. This places certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot prove or refute the existence of God or any other supernatural entity…..”
or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
“In Karl Popper’s philosophy of science, belief in a supernatural God is outside the natural domain of scientific investigation because all scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable in the natural world. The Non-overlapping Magisteria view proposed by Stephen Jay Gould also holds that the existence (or otherwise) of God is irrelevant to and beyond the domain of science…..”
January 17, 2010 at 8:48 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“Wow. Your comments never cease to surprise me. I’d respond to you irrational ramblings, but I’m too immoral at the moment “putting my family at stake for the sake of a cockroach.”
”
If your philosophy causes you to value human life the same as a bug or a slug, you do indeed put your family at risk. What is surprising is that you cannot see it.
January 19, 2010 at 12:21 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“Many atheists demand scientific proof of the existence of God. I do not.”
oh ok
It must not have been you who wrote:
“The power of prayer? Prove it. And not warm fuzzy feelings … actual proof”
and
“The following video discusses the measurable value of prayer from a scientific perspective.”
sorry. I guess I had you confused with the other guy named theBEattitude who posts here.
January 19, 2010 at 7:24 pm |
It is impossible to scientifically disprove the existence of a supernatural deity. I don’t believe in the god of the Bible because he is based in very poorly documented, conflicting texts proclaiming an absurd and primitive theology. I do not demand scientific proof of his existence. You rely on faith, I rely on common sense.
Prayer is something completely different. It is a measurable act that can be scientifically tested. However, this evidence cannot conclusively disprove the existence of a god. It does prove that prayer is consistently unanswered by an imaginary god, or one who could care less about your problems. Either way it is a huge waste of time.
January 20, 2010 at 4:27 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“It is impossible to scientifically disprove the existence of a supernatural deity……Prayer is something completely different”
Answers to prayer are by definition supernatural.
(It is the ANSWER you are testing for, right? Not just the fact that someone prayed?
And even so, none of the so-called ‘scientific studies of prayer’ actually do measure or record who prayed what, or in what manner, do they?)
January 21, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
Apparently we need to use very rigorous language here. The word “answer” is too ambiguous because some believers consider that a result contrary to or different from their prayers is nonetheless an “answer”, i.e., a denial of the request. Whether a prayer is “granted” seems better; at least it focuses on the notion that a petitioner is expected to feel better off as a result of a prayer. Even so, most prayer is about spiritual or subjective matters; and so most prayer is just as invisible (or maybe supernatural) and untestable as the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God, Zeus, Shiva, et al.
But sometimes a claim is made that a certain prayer can produce some particular result in the physical (natural) world, a result which would be observable and measurable. Because such a claim involves the natural world, the claim may be tested to see whether the promised result actually occurs, how often such an event occurs, how often the promised result occurs without prayer, and other measures of causation and credibility.
Nothing is known about prayer itself; it cannot at present be studied directly. At present only the claims for prayer can be tested: essentially, person P says “I will pray and observable result R will occur”. If a scientific test can be devised for this, it will be a test of P’s claim by looking for R.
You may quibble about whether P actually prays, about whether P’s prayers are done right, about whether P has sufficient standing or a proper relationship with God, and on and on. But science does not now have any way of judging those matters. The issue at present is the claim that a result can be produced.
So far, no such claim has been confirmed by a series of rigorous scientific tests. When individuals appear who can consistently, reliably, and testably produce physical (natural world) results by means of whatever they call “prayer”, then it will be time to examine closely what those persons do and how their practice differs from others, and maybe learn something about prayer per se.
Meanwhile, in the absence of any evidence of the effectiveness of prayer and in light of personal experience that nothing comes of prayer, non-believers will continue to infer that the power of prayer is an empty claim. To the extent that the power of prayer is presented by believers as evidence of one god or another, the emptiness of that claim underscores the emptiness of the larger claim that there is a supernatural, intelligent, and powerful entity who is interested in humans.
January 22, 2010 at 6:53 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“a series of rigorous scientific tests”
Your standard for science is apparently quite low.
Imagine a scientific study to determine ‘if medication eases back pain’.
But you don’t know what medication was given, (or if the substance even qualified as real medication) nor do you know in what amounts this substance was given, etc.
Could ANY scientific conclusion be drawn from giving subjects with back pain ‘something’ to see if their pain was relieved?
Please.
January 22, 2010 at 3:53 pm
We already know huge amounts about medicine and, in particular, about back pain. We are way beyond the point of guessing about what might be a treatment for back pain. The medical profession has a very good idea about what kinds of treatments might help back pain. So, in regard to back pain, we have reached the point where specific substances and techniques can be tested methodically and rigorously. We know the answer to “Can back pain be relieved?”; the answer is “often”. We know the answer to “What kinds of treatments relieve back pain?”; doctors can give a list of treatments and predict when each is likely to help, etc.
But, suppose there were some folklore that the leaves of Elbonian blobwort are effective in relieving back pain. The first step in checking this would be to find out whether it contains some substance which is already known to relieve back pain. But the second step would not be to exhaustively analyze Elbonian blobwort. The second step would be to test various Elbonian blobwort preparations as used by the people who claim it relieves back pain; in other words, to test the claim that Elbonian blobwort is effective for that purpose. Some care should be taken to be sure that all common preparations of Elbonian blobwort are tested; maybe there is an effect from one of the other ingredients. If these tests show that Elbonian blobwort does no better than placebo, then the claims are refuted and no further work needs to be done with Elbonian blobwort.
If Elbonian blobwort does better than placebo, then the real work begins to find just what components of Elbonian blobwort give the relief from back pain. If some preparations of Elbonian blobwort work better than others, that gives more information because the preparations can be compared. Then specific substances in specific doses prepared and administered in specific ways can be tested to find in detail just what part of Elbonian blobwort does the job of relieving back pain. Once the active components are known they can be tested for safety, can be compared to other treatments with regard to effectiveness, etc.
In contrast, nothing at all is known about prayer from a scientific standpoint. All we have is the folklore that prayer can produce effects in the physical (natural) world, of various kinds including improvements in health and recovery from injury and disease. Less is known about prayer than would be known about Elbonian blobwort if it existed; it is not even possible to check whether prayer contains something already known to produce anything physical.
Therefore, the present step, if anyone wants to confirm the folklore about prayer, is to test the various kinds of prayer as used by the people who claim it produces some physical effect; in other words, to test the claim that prayer is effective for natural world results. Some care should be taken to be sure that all common forms of prayer are tested; maybe some are better than others. And no conclusion can be reached unless the tests are rigorous and exhaustive. If these tests show that prayer is no better than chance, then the claims are refuted and no further work needs to be done with prayer.
If prayer does better than chance, then the real work begins to analyze prayer and find just what makes it tick. If some kinds of prayer work better than others, that gives more information because the practices can be compared. Then specific language and states of mind in specific rites prepared and administered in specific ways can be tested to find in detail just what part of prayer does the job of producing the physical result. Once the active components are known they can be tested for safety, can be compared to other techniques with regard to effectiveness, etc.
The report of a study of the claims about Elbonian blobwort might state, “We acquired six cases each of three popular brands (Golden Mud, Wader’s Balm, and Schreetch’s) of Elbonian blobwort paste, all advertised as remedies for back pain.” The report of a study of the claims about prayer might state, “We arranged for three organizations (one Catholic, one Lutheran, and one Jewish) that provide intercessory prayer for medical patients to receive the names of patients in our study and to pray on behalf of those patients in their normal way for a result that we specified”. These are equivalent. A claimed treatment is tested in the form in which it is normally available to the public. Maybe you think Backward Progress brand of Elbonian blobwort should have been included in the test; that does not make the study unscientific. Maybe you think some other religious denomination should have been included in the test; that does not make the study unscientific. In both cases, it just means that more work is needed to make sure that all candidates have been studied.
This is how investigations work: step by step, adding a little more information each time until enough has accumulated for a conclusion.
January 25, 2010 at 1:28 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“suppose there were some folklore that the leaves of Elbonian blobwort are effective in relieving back pain”
Not a really good comparison here VF.
The chemical composition of the leaves is no doubt the same in every EB plant.
The composition of every prayer is not the same.
When one states that they are ‘scientifically testing’ prayer and does not record what is prayed or in what manner, then exactly what is it that has been tested at the end of the day?
Nobody knows.
It is ‘something’ that ‘someone’ called prayer.
That’s not science.
————
Suppose we were to conduct a ‘scientific’ test to see ‘if listening to motivational speeches improves the grades’ of students in high school.
So the ‘scientific study’ moves forward and at the end, the students do not appear to have improved their grades.
Wouldn’t it be a reasonable question if one inquired exactly what the content of said speeches was?
No, you say?
You’d accept ANYTHING that anyone decided to say to the students as qualifying as ‘motivational speech’?
January 26, 2010 at 12:48 am |
Nobody knows.
That’s right. Scientifically, nobody knows anything at all about prayer. At present it would be fruitless to note “what is prayed or in what manner” because nobody knows which things are important. And even if something were recorded, nobody would know how to categorize it. And the defining and standardizing which you mentioned in a previous discussion are tasks that require at least a little study and knowledge before they can be attempted.
In fact, before an analysis can really begin, it is necessary have examples of subjects that exhibit the characteristics to be studied: in this case, persons and groups who can produce natural world effects through prayer. Then comparisons are possible: in this case, after observing the actions of effective petitioners, it would be possible to look for similarities among effective petitioners, similarities among ineffective petitioners, and differences between the groups. Then it would be possible to develop protocols for recording a prayer session as part of a study. But at present, there are no confirmed examples of prayer that produces a result in the natural world and, consequently, no basis for any preliminary analysis.
The scientific study of any subject matter is expensive and time-consuming. People are reluctant to spend time and money on an investigation unless there is clearly something to study. At present, there is no evidence that study of prayer would result in any useful information.
Proseychimetry (if I may invent a name for the science of measuring prayer) is still in its infancy; well really, I think it may not even have been born yet. At present, the most it can do is examine specific claims of prayer producing a result in the natural world.
—————
When you refer to the prayer in these early tests as “’something’ that ’someone’ called prayer“, you imply a random and indiscriminate selection of subjects. That was not the case in the one study with which I am familiar. In that study, the prayers were provided by religious organizations which enjoyed respect and good reputation in their respective religious communities and which had been providing such services for many years, probably decades, perhaps longer. Unless one imagines these organizations to be ignorant, incompetent, insincere, or frauds, their activities cannot simply be dismissed as “’something’ that ’someone’ called prayer”. They are responsible practitioners of intercessory prayer.
They claim to be able, through prayer, to improve the recovery of medical patients. It is a reasonable first inquiry to examine, without attempting to record their every word and deed, whether their service, as it is normally practiced, produces the promised results. This was one study of a few intercessory prayer services, not a definitive proof that prayer can or can not influence healing.
—————
You propose an analogy of “a ’scientific’ test to see ‘if listening to motivational speeches improves the grades’ of students in high school“. Such a study would not use just “ANYTHING that anyone decided to say to the students as qualifying as ‘motivational speech’”. It would need a program developed and conducted by education and psychology professionals applying their knowledge and skill to the goal of motivating high school students. This could be a program already in place in some school system or a program designed for the experiment and used in a real school system as part of the study. This would be one study of one motivational program, not a definitive proof that motivation of high school students is or is not possible.
The question of whether the students’ grades improved would be a matter either of comparing their performance before and after the motivational sessions or of comparing their performance with the performance other similar students who did not attend the sessions. Determining the presence or lack of improvement does not require a detailed analysis of the motivational program’s curriculum.
If someone later wants to learn something from the success or failure of the program, then it would be useful for that person to know the details of the content and probably a lot of other information, but that is an entirely different kind of study.
January 26, 2010 at 10:30 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“If someone later wants to learn something from the success or failure of the program, then it would be useful for that person to know the details of the content and probably a lot of other information”
Exactly.
And that’s what we don’t have in any of the so-called ‘scientific studies’ of prayer.
Nobody knows the content of what was prayed or in what manner.
It seems we may at last be at a point of agreement.
January 29, 2010 at 12:54 am
No. I expressly said that documenting the details of a tested program for the use of someone interested in learning something from the program’s operation is an activity different and separate from the testing, despite the fact that it could be useful for that other purpose. You quoted part of a sentence, removing that express statement from the end, and are trying to to use that to claim some kind of agreement on the main discussion. The readers can see what you did: the misquote is right next to the original.
Knowledge increases incrementally. Early experiments in a field do not give detailed technical descriptions of the experimental subjects because there is not enough knowledge of the field to do so.
When William Gilbert made a careful study of electricity and magnetism in 1600, distinguishing the lodestone effect from static electricity produced by rubbing amber, he did not give a complete chemical analysis of either the amber or the lodestone, nor a detailed description of their force fields.
Benjamin Franklin did not describe the physics and chemistry of clouds in 1752 when he showed that lightning is the same phenomenon as the “electric fluid” derived from amber.
Luigi Galvani did not give a thorough description of the nerve cells in frog legs in 1791 when he showed that they twitch when electricity is applied to them.
These were, nonetheless, all scientifically valid. Each demonstrated a physical phenomenon. And in each case, later studies returned to these matters and learned more as the general knowledge of chemistry and electromagnetism advanced.
That is what will happen if any prayers are ever found to produce a physical effect: it will be seen that there is a phenomenon to study and researchers will repeat these early experiments with attention to different details, knowing more specifically what to examine in light of later discoveries.
January 29, 2010 at 8:29 am |
Verbifex wrote:
“Determining the presence or lack of improvement does not require a detailed analysis of the motivational program’s curriculum.”
This is the quote you thought I should have included.
What you don’t seem to understand is that in the prayer study as well as in the school study, what is purported to be examined and established is not just ‘results’, but causality.
The motivational program may show great results in improving grades. But what if, on examination of the speeches, we find that the speakers actually preached a Bible sermon? Would that establish the premise that ‘motivational speeches help improve grades’ ?
Does it not matter what is or is not defined as a ‘motivational speech’?
Alternately, what if we find that the speaker issued physical threats to those who don’t improve their grades?
Would we simply redefine threats as ‘motivational speech’ and move on?
The definition and content of what is being examined is key.
But you want to ‘scientifically’ ignore it.
As I said, you’ve apparently got a low threshold for what you consider ‘scientific’.
Not much more to be said about it if you don’t get it by now.
January 30, 2010 at 2:17 am |
Certainly, result is different from causality. Certainly, in the long run, understanding causality is the goal. But this subject is much too big for any definitive conclusions to be reached from a few experiments. It is way too soon to expect detailed information about causality. Causality can not be studied until it is known that something (a result) has been caused.
You keep saying that I have low expectations or a low threshold for scientific studies. But the experiments we have been discussing were not meant to provide definitive information about how prayer works. They are scientific investigations of a very specific and limited scope. They are just the beginning — the very basic minimal beginning of a process that will be very long if prayer is found capable of physical effects. Their only purpose is to find a starting point, if there is one.
I am not proposing that nobody should ever study the features, characteristics, and content of prayer that produces natural world effects, or the actions of the persons who perform those prayers, or anything else that might inform about their causality. I have said several times that I expect this kind of intense study to ensue if ever some kind of prayer is shown to have physical effects.
But scientific study is a long, slow process and this field (Proseychimetry) is still in its First Phase: finding out whether there is a real phenomenon to study. The present goal is to find whether any kind of prayer can produce any results at all. Without that knowledge, there is no reason to study any prayer in depth because until some kind of causation is known to exist, prayer will remain just folklore. So the present preliminary studies look only for the bare fact of causality and do not attempt any investigation into its form and dynamics.
Once physical results have been shown from some prayer, then the real work can start: to determine the details of the causation. In the Second Phase it will be important to study every form of prayer in depth, not just those that produce physical results, but also those that try to do so but do not succeed; the ability to compare and contrast will help in the next phase. The Third Phase is making and testing hypotheses about which features, characteristics, actions, etc. of prayer are actually important for causality.
The in-depth study is too important to be attempted in the First Phase. At that stage, nobody knows enough about the subject to know what to observe and record, how to categorize the data, etc. Once a real phenomenon has been shown, there will be interest in real understanding and in developing a full theoretical and practical knowledge of prayer dynamics. But this is not a quick process and it is likely to be iterative; usually the early hypotheses and formulations in a field are found after study to be inadequate, and new observations are needed, and some topics may be revisited several times.
So my point has never been that the detailed descriptions of prayer you want are not important and necessary, but that they would be premature in these early studies. They would be counterproductive and a waste of time because when the real study begins (after the existence of some kind of causality has been shown) these organizations and prayer practices would have to be studied all over again in more depth and detail than can ever be in the scope of a preliminary study.
Some atheists give these early studies too much credit, thinking that they disprove the power of prayer when they are only the first bits of rigorous negative evidence. You are expecting too much of them, thinking that they ought to provide definitive information about the substance of prayer causality or reasons for its absence rather than just a test of its existence.
May 30, 2010 at 2:53 am |
Hey very nice site! you have some awesome material on your website.
I found this recently in a search
Get $500 In Grocery Coupons! — tinyurl.com/2fgxul4