I don’t believe in god. However, if I did I’d pray for world peace. I like the idea of a peaceful planet with lots of drugs.
Doesn’t look any dumber than AA’s 12 steps to me…
I am not in AA, so correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they pray for themself to refrain from drinking alcohol, one day at a time. One prayer, one person, one goal.
They are not praying together with any hopes of ending all alchoholism in the community. And if I am wrong, and they actually are praying to end all alchoholism…well, further proof that group prayer on social issues doesn’t work all that well. Or should I say, not at all.
I’m not sure why so many people here are suggesting that prayer is untestable. I just took (and hopefully passed) the AP Statistics test on Wednesday, and the question of how to determine the efficacy of prayer is just a basic experimental design question like those that appear on the test. Depending on the exact claims made for what prayer does, it should be easy to test for statistically significant effects.
For example, a large group of sick people could be randomly divided into two groups, one of which is prayed for while the other is not. Then, each subject is asked to rate the improvement of their condition on a scale of 1-100. Average values for each group are calculated, as are the standard deviations of data for each group. A two sample t-test for means is performed, which will indicate whether or not a statistically significant difference in improvement has occurred. The null hypothesis is that the two population means are equal, that is that prayer has had no effect; and the alternative hypothesis is that the population mean for the prayed-for group exceeds that of the other. This test would show statistically significant improvement even if the difference is very small, so long as the sample size is large enough. This type of experiment is done all the time to test the effectiveness of drugs. One important thing to note here is that at an alpha level of 0.05, significant improvement would be detected in one out of twenty such studies even if there is no actual difference. A study showing a significant difference in improvement would probably be more likely to be reported than one that does not. This is why studies like this should be repeatable.
I can prove scientifically that all the marbles in a bag are blue. I don’t find a preponderance of evidence for it, I prove it.
However, in science we generally don’t have all the marbles, we just have a few of them. As an example, take gravity. Since we have not observed every piece of matter in the universe at every given time, we can only say that in some places and at some times gravity exists.
Induction is when we make a leap and say: in all places and at all times gravity exists. We cannot demonstrate this to be true, but it is of such great practical importance to do so, that we assume it is true until we find any evidence against it (i.e. that in some places and at some times gravity does not exist).
The argument about prayer does not work this way because what is being asserted is that in some places and at some times prayer works. Put another way: What you are trying to do is falsify the hypothesis that in no place and at no time does prayer work. Given appropriate evidence, this can be done in a strictly deductive manner which requires no assumptions and affords no uncertainty.
Granted, in practical terms, obtaining evidence of a causal relationship between prayer and an event would be tricky, given our limited knowledge of causes, and would require a repeatable, controlled experiment such as the one quelquechose has described. If you refuse to submit your hypothesis to such a test, then it fails because it is not falsifiable. In that case it can only be an object of faith, not science, and is, to most of us, useless.
(And quelquechose, I certainly hope you passed the AP Statistics test – if you didn’t, I’m screwed!)
Wow, that was disastrously worded. By “it is of such great practical importance to do so,” I refer to the aforementioned leap-taking, not to the demonstrating.
Google for Chimayo, NM.
Supposedly in the late 80’s they had the highest per-capita rate of heroin addiction in the US.
This is a community of only a few thousand, so it was probably not that many addicts, and NO I don’t know how that was determined.
Anyway, a bunch of the adult addicts got togethor and started a faith-based kidk-the-habit campagn, which has had noticeable success. Note that this is a strongly Catholic community centered around thier church Santuario de Chimayo, which draws Easter-Eay pilgrams from around NM…so their church ties and faith may be a little stronger than many places.
But, as I’ve already pointed out, there’s plenty evidence that prayer doesn’t work. Insurance companies charge smokers higher rates. Why don’t they charge atheists higher rates?
I believe, I believe, I swear!–Pleeeaassee lower my insurance rate
Or, maybe I could get someone to pray my DWI away…
Quoted from Pochacco Forgot the “…”
find a bunch “faithful”
have them pray for heads,
comence the coin flips.
sounds like a pretty easy test for me, and you could win that million bucks while youre at it.
thats “of” faithful :smack:
Your life is affected how? If a bunch of people bowing their heads silently and hoping for good in your community make your sphincters tighten I know a guy who knows a guy who has the cure for you. You’re in luck too, the first one is free. 
I think that the problem doesn’t lie so much in sphincter tightening as it does with prayer being used as a method of controlling and solving a drug problem.