Apparently, this is how some of the skeptics here believe that claims should be defended:
Scenario 1
Theist: “Prayer works.”
Atheist: “What makes you say that? I think it’s just random chance.”
Scenario 2
Atheist: “Prayer doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter if you’re praying to God or to a coffee table. The results are indistinguishable from random chance.”
Theist: “Can you explain the procedure by which you arrived at that conclusion?”
Atheist: “Well then, why don’t YOU prove to me that it DOES work? How about that?”
As I said, it’s a vicious double standard.
Look guys. This is real simple. X is a claim. Not X is a claim. Not X is an exceedingly difficult claim to prove in cases dealing with X being a causality or existence.
If you really want to challenge JThunder’s claims, you should wait until he actually MAKES some. If he asserts X, then you could ask: “Why should I believe X?”
But you can’t present yourself as a skeptic, or avoid the burden of proof, when you are the only one making any claims.
No, it isn’t… simply because it is NOT “everything ever used to support theism.” Rather, it is just one of the arguments used by theists across the world.
Moreover, I don’t think it’s a very good test at all. One could assume that God would have and should have prevented the towers from coming down, but that’s ultimately a shaky assumption. Perhaps God had some ultimate reason for allowing this disaster to happen. For example, do you remember how people flocked to churches in droves, in the days following September 11th? Or how people realized how fragile human existence could be?
Besides, the OP’s claim was that prayer is ineffectual, regardless of which deity you pray to. So even if we grant that your ‘test’ has a modicum of validity (which I don’t think it does), it still doesn’t address the broad claim made in the OP.
Well, the scientific methodology is taken from two sources:
(1) Studies on medical intercessory prayer, which have shown no difference or contradicted other studies; those which have actually shown a statistically insignificant improvement were later called into question on the basis of flawed methodology.
(2) Double-blind tests so simple any person can conduct them; these consist of writing down every prayer and later checking if more are fulfilled than can be expected from random chance alone.
The above two have NEVER failed to establish any empirically verifiable effect of prayer. We move on to other means of deducing if prayers to the Christian God, Vishnu or kitchen tables are equivalent:
We can ask members of each of those religions… not exactly science, but everyone and his brother insists prayers are answered.
Each can point to lots of anecdotal cases of everything from people escaping from harrowing situations, to cancer going into remission, to your boss giving you a raise, after prayer for those things.
The problem is that the ‘unanswered’ cases are never mentioned, and rationalized away with lots of awkward and contrived methods, so at least a large number (and very probably all) of these ‘answered’ cases can be attributed to confirmation bias alone.
So, the effects are equivalent. They might work (extremely doubtful, given the scientific tests mentioned before, and the conceptual difficulties involved) but the more obvious explanation is that they don’t work–equally well, for anyone praying to anything while thinking and hoping it’ll work.
That prayer doesn’t work is untestable–however, it is the overwhelmingly parsimonious conclusion given the data we do have. The only one, furthermore, which doesn’t take an irrational leap of faith to accept
Most of my prayers have been answered in the affirmative.
Here’s a laundry list for 'ya.
-The will to change what I can
-The ability to accept what I can’t
-The capacity to tell the difference
-Love for others
-Hope for the future
-Diligence
-Thirst for knowledge
-Desire to do good
-The ability to forgive
-The means to help others
Should I go on?
Of course, these claims can only be verified by a biased source, so they don’t really count, right Winace?
Prayers will get “answered” exactly the same way regardless who you pray to–God, Vishnu or a kitchen table. (Emphasis added)
JThunder wrote:
That is a much stronger claim than merely saying the results are indistiguishable from random chance. Moreover, even if we grant that distinction, I would still like WinAce to explain the procedure by which he determined this to be true.
Apos wrote:
Not X is an exceedingly difficult claim to prove in cases dealing with X being a causality or existence.
Justhink wrote:
Not to mention that the mechanism in question refers to a being in question. People don’t disagree on the existence of something at all, as the ones who don’t believe in anything, don’t argue the point. There are logical concessions that are made in relation to existence. The logical encryption is immense, when arguing the effects of a property that is dependant on the losing side of an existential problem. I do agree that the case hasn’t been made though.
There could be a God who grants one prayer every million years, so that chance itself would not account for a comprehensive analysis of this possibility. It would be detected eventually, probably not in my lifetime though. You can easily argue the irrationality of a God who requires prayer; but you’re OP wasn’t about the irrationality of a prayer/God system; it is based on a prayer/existential system debate - as Apos mentioned.
WinAce, I suspect that you yourself can see the flaws in your statement regarding the efficacy of prayer.
(1) You claimed that prayer NEVER works, regardless of whom you pray to. The studies you cited demonstrate nothing of the sort.
(2) The study you cited examines an extremely limited subset of prayer. Once again, this falls far short of your grandiose claim that prayer never works.
(3) The study in question assumes that God himself is obligated to play along with that study. There is no reason to believe that he would play along, if the prayers uttered are insincere (e.g. an attempt to test whether he’ll respond – or what’s worse, an attempt to “[rove” his non-existence).
Besides which, as we’ve already discussed, this still falls far, far short of your claim that every single argument uttered in defense of theism is wrong. So far, you have only addressed one of these arguments – inadequately so, IMO.
So please, explain your methodology and results to us. Please provide a complete list of every single argument that mankind has uses in defense of theism. Please describe, in detail, the methodology by which you determined this list to be complete. Next, please describe the methodology by which you tested the validity of each argument, with enough detail for us to determine its rigor and reproduce your results. And finally, please report on the results of each test, with enough precision and detail for us to examine the fine details.
Don’t forget, you made a rather all-encompassing and grandiose claim. It is only fair for us to ask you to explain precisely how you came to that conclusion.
I’m working on it JThunder =) Not sure about WinAce, but I plan to publish this before I die - probably within the next year. Believe it or not, I actually don’t think the task is that difficult; I’d be more daunted by creating a dictionary or even a telephone book.
-You had to pray for these traits? Which presupposes that, had you not prayed for them, you’d be some sort of degenerate street-bum druggie, I assume? Had God not bestowed these gifts on you, you’d be laying in a gutter wrapped around a bottle of Mad Dog?
“Dang it God! I want to be a good person! Why do you keep forcing me into these brothels?”
I don’t think Soup_du_jour was claiming to be scientific in his approach. Not all beliefs have to be scientifically proven, mind you,and many things lie beyond the realm of science.
That is why I didn’t ask WinAce for proof of his various assertions. I merely asked him to explain the methodology by which he arrived at his conclusion, so that we can see if he truly subjected this belief to scrutiny.
Well, darn. I thought that this thread might be interesting. Perhaps if the OP had been posted in IMHO instead…
For the sake of the debate can we just grant the point that few, if any of the OP’s assertions are going to be “proved” to anyone’s satisfaction with cites and studies?
Would anyone care to debate the issues in the OP without just saying “show me the proof first and then I’ll debate the counter position”?
What issues are there to debate? Justifying faith in God by the scientific method is as ridiculous as trying to decide if one should marry a certain person by using the scientific method. Sure, I can look at my husband and know he exists, but I cannot prove by any absolute standard that he really loves me, will always be there for me, and that I will be a happier person for sticking with him. I take it on faith, just like I (personally) take the existence of a higher power on faith.
Science- operates in one sphere of human existance.
Religion/spirituality- operates in a different sphere of human existance.
I can give you several. History is a field of knowledge that is not encompassed by science. Neither are politics, philosophy and current events. For that matter, a priori knowledge, the rules of logic and the validity of sensory perception can not be proven through scientific means. (The scientific method assumes the principles of logic, sensory perception and a priori knowledge to be true, and thus, can not be used to infer their validity.)
Yes, critics of theism sometimes claim that science is the only way to know the truth; however, that statement is immediately self-refuting. If science is the only way to discern the truth, then what scientific method would one use to determine that science is the only way to discern the truth?
I can give you several. History is a field of knowledge that is not encompassed by science. Neither are politics, philosophy and current events. For that matter, a priori knowledge, the rules of logic and the validity of sensory perception can not be proven through scientific means. (The scientific method assumes the principles of logic, sensory perception and a priori knowledge to be true, and thus, can not be used to infer their validity.)
Yes, critics of theism sometimes claim that science is the only way to know the truth; however, that statement is immediately self-refuting. If science is the only way to discern the truth, then what scientific method would one use to determine that science is the only way to discern the truth?
History, however, also has built-in checks and balances that make it at least somewhat scientific. It also returns at least somewhat consistent conclusions most of the time, just like science. It’s also based on empirical data–coins, texts, tablets, carvings, etc.
It would indeed be unreliable if it consisted of nothing except the following scenario, repeated over and over:
50% of the historians uncritically accept the life of George Washington as described in the first book they get their hands on; the original information those were based on is unclear and mostly lost
20% Think there was a different Washington, or many less effective generals instead; this is because other history books claiming THAT (on no better evidence) are more popular in their culture
20% come to their own, different conclusions for various reasons, none of which are convincing to the rest
10% think he didn’t exist at all
As for assuming logic, sensory perception and the rest, well, that’s an assumption required for anything in life, including deriving a belief in God in the first place.
It amuses me when someone resorts to an appeal to the Matrix as his last line of defense.
Those things which claim irrefutability by ‘lying outside the realm of scientific testing’, e.g. ‘this exists, honest, but has no empirically detectable or predictable effects on anything, just like if it didn’t’, can generally be dismissed as ephemeral concepts which exist only in the human mind–such as God
Hmmm… I thought the whole premise of this thread was WinAce’s claim that nothing supporting theism was reliable. The counter-argument to that claim is that something supporting theism is reliable. I guess we have differing opinions about what “reliable” means. I find Soup_du_jour’s “laundry-list” to be unreliable evidence, because it consists entirely of things that are already characteristics of the human psyche, or, if not already there, are easily accomplished simply by changing one’s attitude, and which do not require the existence of any supernatural entities. This is a good example of the “confirmation bias” that WinAce mentioned in the OP. In a nutshell, it is not scientific.
If you reject the scientific approach, and allow for evidence such as “I feel happy, so therefore I know God exists”, and consider such evidence to be reliable, then I guess we have nothing further to say to each other.
-Really. I’ll have to tell all those cultural anthropologists they’re merely dabbling in superstition.
-Politics? No one uses polls, generates voter data for districting or analyzes the results afterward?
So you’re saying there are things that cannot be detected by any means, have no effect on our world, don’t interact with us and doesn’t answer the phone.
So… how do you know they exist?
No, science is an ongoing process with the intent to determine what the “truth” is. It is not a test to prove a given hypothesis- “God exists, now let’s prove that.” It is a millenia-long series of tests- “Why does the Sun travel across the sky like that?”
And thus, science is, for all intents and purposes, self-correcting. When a theory no longer holds up when new data is presented, it is dropped or altered. If that new data fits with a previous theory, the possible validity of that theory is improved.
Which is rather unlike theology, which continues to insist that it’s leader is infallible and unchanging, all while his followers retranslate, reinterpret and yes, change how that leader thinks, acts and leads.
