Just out of curiosity, what is the proper way to pray and get results that are verifiable?
I’m not sure how to go about designing a thorough study in this matter, but having a study in which a multitude of entire towns pray together for a single cause in their respective communities seems like a decent way to start. Of course, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here saying that plenty of people would dismiss the results of the study no matter what it stated, and regardless of the number of times the conclusion was reached in separate studies.
Of course, I can’t answer that. Naturally, causality in a case like this is difficult to determine by independent study. The only way to really study it effectively seems to be to have thousands of subjects, divided into large groups, and have each group pray in a different way. You’d also have to subdivide these groups by other factors like “selfish prayer vs. humanitarian prayer” and so on… obviously, not an easy or lightweight study to conduct. It would probably take many, many years, and cost a ton of money. But it’s theoretically do-able. And though it might not PROVE anything, it might point us in a direction, and that’s worth something.
But lest anyone misunderstand me: I am not saying everyone who made a negative statement about prayer is wrong. I’m simply saying that their statements are based on a lack of information. I am also not saying that having more information would necessarily reverse their opinions, although that possibility certainly exists. Again, I’m simply stating that we have to keep open minds until we have more data to look at-- and by that, I mean information from a reasonably sized independent scientific study with a statistically large number of test subjects.
I’m no statistician, but this ain’t no GD either, so I’ll continue. Of course people would dismiss it - how in the Great Green Arkleseizure is that even remotely empirical? Truth is, there is simply no way to test prayer, just like there is no way to test for higher powers. You can not measure, scientifically, how much someone prays - it simply is not something tangible. Believing it works requires faith.
I have a better idea. Instead of simply dismissing a study the results of which don’t happen to fit in with your particular mindset because the organization that did it has a “vested interest” why don’t you provide a cite for a study that refutes mine.
Sit cross-legged, then start bouncing on your knees. Eventually you will fly. Get enough people doing this at the same time and you will solve all the problems in the world.
Prayer, including its underlying belief in god, is just as silly as yogic flying. A bit easier on the knees, but stilll silly.
Quite simply, the burned of proof is on the person who is pitching the belief, not on the person refusing to be sucked in by hogwash.
I don’t know if the plan this town has is a good one. But what could it hurt?
Also, it’s not exactly a new idea. Every 12 step meeting ends with a prayer. And it seems the foundation for 12 step programs are a belief in a higher power.
And why haven’t I been spammed to death by people who can sell me the method?
These people are truly insane if they think sitting around and chanting to icons is going to do diddle squat in the war against drugs.
That there is a discussion on this thread giving an iota of credence to this lunacy is somewhat mind-boggling.
What’s next?
Plan B: Import Voodoo dolls from Haiti.
Plan C: Hire a few pagans to put a hex on the dealers.
Plan D: Get that rainmaker from the next county to make it rain on dealer’s stash.
Plan E: Build a wheelchair at ramp at City Hall so we can get both Siegfried AND Roy to make them disappear.
First things first. Scientific studies can be repeated by different people in different places at different times. Can you find a second study that backups up the claim?
Second, when you make the extraordinary claim that prayer works, the onus is on you to support your position. It isn’t up to anybody to refute a case that hasn’t been fully made.
I did provide a cite, admittedly a brief one, but it is pretty compelling, if not conclusive. The rules of debate now require my opponent to provide a cite refuting mine, not just dismiss it by saying “your cite is biased, gimme another.”
Also, studies on things of this nature are usually done by people who are believers trying to prove their case, or people who are disbelievers trying to debunk. Third party independent studies are very difficult to find. Also, I think a big part of the problem here isn’t lack of scientific evidence as my total lack of search-engine skills. I was only able to find the one study after doing quite a bit of slogging. I had this weird idea that typing “studies on the effects of meditation on the community” would bring up websites with links to studies on the effects of meditation on the community. I’m getting a lot of things with the word “studies”, the word “effects”, the word “meditation” and the word “community”, but next to nothing, pro or con, with the actual information I’m looking for.
And I’m using Google.
One of these days, I’m going to humble myself and start a thread asking how to type a term into a search engine and actually find the information I’m looking for, and not just a bunch of stuff that has a couple of the words from my search term that is at best tangentally related, at worst totally unrelated, to what I’m looking for. I’m getting tired of having to drop out of debates not because there is no evidence proving my case, but simply because I don’t know how to get the Internet to vomit forth the information I need.
It doesn’t work that way, my little chatterbox! Oh my, no!
You’re the one making the extraordinary claim.
Therefore, you’re the one who has to offer convincing proofs.
And that wasn’t it, my little Slobbovian Yodeler. Oh my, no!
Actually, there’s a new book out called The Science of the Craft by William H. Keith which goes into the relationship between ritual/prayer and quantum physics. It’s worth reading, but I do have a couple of caveats. First, Bill, the author, is a good friend of mine, so I’m not entirely unbiased. Second, for those of you to whom it matters, the book is written from a Wiccan perspective.
As for the OP, what I should have written is, “What Lord Ashtar said!” Instead, I’ll just say St. James said in best in James 2:14-17, 26:
Better yet, as Frank Loesser put it, *Praise the Lord, and Pass the Ammunition! *
CJ
You say it like you know for sure. What’s YOUR proof?
Also, I take issue with your comparison of prayer to that extremely loaded list of “wacky” rituals. You’re trying to dismiss prayer by comparing it to irrelevant things. Bad form. The tell-tale sign of someone trying to make an easy declaration without any evidence.
And prayer is different from voodoo how?
I think its only fair to place all supernatural claims on the same footing. Psychics, crystals, voodoo, ghosts, prayer – all of them require the existence of some extraordinary mechanism that runs counter to our best knowledge of how the universe actually works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If prayer is actually as powerful as many religious types claim it is, coming up with proof of its efficacy should be easy. I mean, we can detect nutrinos, which are so tenuous that most of them pass through the entire Earth unimpeded, but we can’t detect a force that supposed affects the day-to-day lives of every person on the planet? :rolleyes:
Yes, the burden of proof is on whoever is trying to pitch the idea. And you’re pitching the idea that it’s hogwash. So where is your proof? Anyway, from the looks of your strong language, no proof would be adequate to you in showing the [possible] effectiveness of prayer. So it’s sort of a moot point.
I don’t get it; I thought surely by now one of the naysayers would have just come out and admitted that their opinions are based on gut feelings and judgements based on their personal beliefs rather than any hard scientific evidence. Come on, surely one person is man (or woman) enough to admit this. At the very least, explain why I’m wrong in making that statement.
Regardless, admitting this does not disallow you from clinging to these beliefs-- and that’s what it is, a belief, just like belief in prayer. There’s nothing wrong with having unsubstantiated beliefs. Everyone has them, and often they can be very beneficial. There are many examples of this. But they can also be dangerous if you are deliberately dismissive of information that goes contrary to your pre-existing beliefs, or if you arrogantly convince yourself that you already know all the information when in fact, you really don’t.
What’s more, some people, in fact many thousands of people, have those practices as their personal religion. It is condescending, ignorant, and insulting to call them “wacky rituals.”
**Cagey Drifter - **
Sorry, but the burden of proof is not on us, the nay-sayers. I am, or atleast strive to be, a scientest. Until the time that you provide a compelling and proper scientific study of this “phenomenon” I will continue to refute it on the grounds of mysticism. Prayer is not a science and is not a proven healing mechanism. Prayer is faith-based medicine, at this point in time, untill proven otherwise.
My opinion (I guess I have the “gravitas” to admit) is solely based on the fact that I give no credibility until an empirical testing strategy has been employed. Just like I can refute ghosts, aliens, and creationism based on the fact that they are not scientifically tested, I can do the same for prayer.
If you want to use prayer in your own life to solve your problems, that is your life - nothing I can, and refuse to, judge on. Your choices are yours, and I accept that. However, if a community uses prayer as a mechanism for a deterent of crime, I can take offense to it because it is no longer someone’s personal “wacky ritual.” At that point in time my life is affected and I would rather have tested, proven methods of intervention to be employed.
Oh, and sorry to the OP - I just realized I extended a slight-derailment of the IMHO thread. My attempts to make my posts pretain definitely didn’t keep it within bounds of IMHO. This topic would probably be done best in GD.
Once again, truly sorry.
Uh-uh. First off, it’s a well-known maxim in science, that nothing can truly be proven, you can only find that a preponderance of evidence makes it highly likely that a given proposition/theory is true.
Also, the study I cited is pretty compelling, IMHO. I provided a cite (the only one my limited search-engine skills could turn up, would somebody please explain to me how to get information on the 'net that is more than just tangentally related to the subject I’m typing into the search box.) You can’t just say , “nuh-uh, your source is biased.” If you have evidence that the methodology of the study is flawed, present it here. If you have a cite to another study that refutes the one I cited, provide a link.
I didn’t mean “wacky” in a condescending sense. I meant that he’s deliberately trying to pose loaded concepts in a manner that makes them sound crazy and primative irrespective of their histories.