Justification for Theistic Beliefs

Great Debates
61

Sigh.

That’s a very narrow definition. We cannot “reproduce” how planets form, yet we can observe it at various stages and theorize the process. Is astronomy a science?

And so, as James Randi might say, if there are no and can be no reproducible results or no detectable effect beyone statistical happenstance, then the process being tested does not exist.

As Voyager mentions, citing that prayer works but cannot be tested or proven is no different than a dowser or psychic saying his powers won’t work while being observed.

Not unwilling, simply unable to bring oneself to believe in something that can’t be seen, recorded or detected, and for which one has zero evidence that it or he ever existed in the first place, other than an old book that we ourselves wrote.

I don’t even need “scientific proof”- I’ll settle for scientifically plausible or even theoretically possible. (As I recall, we haven’t actually detected a neutrino yet, although by analysis, a particle of that size and mass and energy must exist, just as the Periodic Table can’t skip an electron shell.)

I don’t believe in God for the same reason I don’t believe in dryads, Anubis, Apollo, Thor or an Invisible Pink Unicorn: there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that any of them exist or ever DID exist.

Science, by definition, is the search for the truth- the actual whys and wherefores an event or process takes place. A “scientific truth” transcends religion and ideology and politics. A Truth is the same for a Russian Orthodox as it is for a Reformed Jew. It is the same for a black minister as it is for an asian progammer.

A religious truth, on the other hand, is only “truth” to those that believe that religion, and thus not a truth at all. The ‘Truth’ to a Christian is often a blasphemy to a Muslim- so it isn’t truth, it’s mere ideology… opinion, if you will.

Very much so. Now we’re getting somewhere.

So, as some examples using your definition, which is truth and which is untruth:

“The earth is 6,000 years old, give or take.”

“The earth is 4.5 billion years old, give or take.”

Which is a more accurate description of reality?

62

Speaking for myself only, a better way of wording it would be that I do not blindly accept claims of anything for which there is no objective evidence.

63

I would note at this point that JThunder has chosen the agnostic’s argument from ignorance rather than the scientist’s argument from disproof.
If I said that all X shares characteristic Y, and X exists out of the realm of mathematical abstraction, there may be X that != Y. But until someone waves it in my face…

64

They are typically considered “science” in a broad sense; however, if we’re going to be strict, then they are not, insofar as they do not apply the scientific method. Please note that Doc Nickel specifically cited the scientific method as the necessary technique by which prayer should be evaluated.

Again, only in a broad sense. It does no good to insist that prayer MUST be evaluated using the scientific method, yet forcefully defend much looser standards when it comes to other “scientific” tenets.

Only insofar as neither is scientifically testable. They may both share this quality, but that does not render both phenomena equally valid (or invalid).

You’re presenting a false dilemma. God’s postulated refusal to cooperate does not automatically mean that he is being shy. In fact, if Christianity is to be believed, God does not honor disingenuous prayers made without faith, which would certainly explain his refusal to cooperate with such experiments.

I think it’s clear by now that false dilemmas about in the criticisms which the so-called “skeptics” are bandying about in this thread.

65

Actually, I find it decidedly inconvenient.

Of course I know it. Let me say it again. There is no possible way to test the existence of any god. This, however, doesn’t mean that one or more don’t exist.

Let’s test to see whether or not I feel happier on Fridays than on any other day of the week! Although it might be true, there is no way to test it, for the very same reasons that you give concerning the “kitchen table” experiment. The only person who could collect entirely accurate data would be biased.

First off, I never “retreat” to faith. It is the bedrock of my life, and I could never consider it secondary.

Also, the “blue laws” argument. You miss a critical distinction. Religions don’t cause “Blue Laws” to be passed. Adherents to a religion do so, sometimes misrepresenting what the religion is all about.

On your last paragraph, of course the world would be a better place. It would be better if everyone did things that were good. Unfortunately, at least I believe so, humans aren’t perfect. We make mistakes. We go to war. We lie, cheat, and steal. Everyone is fallible, including religious and nonreligious alike. Whenever anyone Christian stands up and says that they’re somehow “better” than anyone else, you can take my word for it that they’re lying.

Well, then, Voyager. My “kitchen table” experiment and my “laundry list” could count as scientific? Tell that to blowero.

So, all else aside, just what would count as “evidence” of the usefullness of prayer? Rigorous scientific testing per the scientific method? Empirical evidence? “Gut feeling”? What?

I think that the author would concur that prayer falls into this catergory.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

66

blowero, this is what WinAce claimed. This is what I disagree with.

I completely agree with the preposition that there is no “objective” evidence for the effectiveness of prayer. There is no possible way for it to exist. Unfortunately, that isn’t what we’re debating here.

Oh, Doc Nickel, the earth is roughly 4.5 Billion years old, give or take. What does this have to do with anything?

67

“Shawshank Redemption”, right? Great movie.

And let me ask you again, when WinAce makes the claim that there is no objective evidence to support the effectiveness of prayer, how is it that you are disagreeing with him? You continue to post subjective arguments, then when I point out your lack of objectivity, you say “I knew that”.

68

That’s an important point. There seems to be a common misconception that we must either know EVERYTHING about a phenomemon, or there is NO evidence at all. But it doesn’t work like that - it’s not all or nothing. We don’t absolutely prove anything with science, we merely obtain more and more evidence until the likelihood of something being true is high. So if we don’t understand the exact mechanism by which consciousness exists, we certainly have evidence of its existence, and we have evidence that it comes from the brain. A similar issue came up in Lekatt’s recent “near death experience” thread. Lekatt claims that consciousness originates from outside of the brain. His reasoning seems to be that since we can’t prove to his satisfaction that it comes from the brain, that his guess is as good as anyone else’s. But of course this ignores a large body of evidence that clearly demonstrates how changes in the brain affect the consciousness, as well as brain-mapping experiments which clearly link particular physical regions of the brain to specific sensations.

A good analogy might be the phemomenon of gravity. We do not necessarily need to understand the EXACT mechanism by which two objects are attracted to each other in order to know that they are. We know that objects that have mass are attracted to each other, and we can observe this scientifically. Just because we don’t understand EVERYTHING about it does not negate the entire concept.

69

No, you still aren’t getting the point. Your “kitchen table” experiment is biased because it lacks controls. Perhaps the most important aspect of the scientific method is to REMOVE THE RESEARCHER’S PERSONAL BIAS FROM THE EXPERIMENT. You cannot do this if you are both the subject and the researcher. That is why the standard of a double-blind study was developed. You keep saying you understand this, but you continue to post as if you do not understand.

Properly controlled study:

 Have subjects pray for an event that is outside of subjects physical control.  Group A - prays to God.  Group B - prays to kitchen table.  Group C (control group) - no prayer.  Researcher observes outcome of event, both when prayed for and when not prayed for.  In both cases, researcher is not told whether the event he is observing was in the "prayed for" group or the "not prayed for" group.  Statistical outcome of event for each group is compared, and results are adjusted for statistical error.

Poorly controlled study:

 Researcher uses self as subject.  He prays for a subjective event that is unverifiable, open to interpretation and likely to be biased by the researcher's own religious beliefs, like "I won't be tired", or "I will be happy".  Researcher/subject asks himself if the prayer was effective.

Your experiment is not biased because it is irreproducable; in fact, it WOULD be reproducable. But it doesn’t matter how many times you do the experiment; the results will be biased every time. It is biased because it is not properly controlled.

70

Aye. Shawshank Redemption. Bloody good movie.

blowero, I’m sorry if I haven’t made myself clear. I use subjective arguments to show how futile the search for a good test is. I’m not actually proposing these as viable scientific proofs, or anything. I know that prayer cannot be proven to be effective, just as prayer cannot be proven to be ineffective.

WinAce and I agree with each other on this much. There is no way to prove whether or not prayer to one deity is more effective than prayer to a non-deity, or another deity for that matter.

What I find false is his blanket statement that it doesn’t matter who you pray to, the prayers will get answered the same. This hypothesis is completely untestable, and cannot possibly hold up to the rigors of the scientific method. I cannot possibly be asked to prove the qualities of something that transcends science using the scientific method. That would be like asking me to exclusively use mathematics to show whether or not the English language is used in the United States.

Knowledge can be gained by other means than the scientific method, y’all.

Man, Shawshank Redemption was a good movie. I’ll have to watch that one again.

71

Couldn’t one do a blanket study of the things most commonly prayed for, and cross-index whether or not people who have them pray more often than those who don’t?

72

Since we all more or less agree that prayer and any effects it may or may not have, is an untestable quantity, how do you know his statement is false?

73

Not exactly. I fear you missed his point. What he said was Prayers will get “answered” exactly the same way regardless who you pray to–God, Vishnu or a kitchen table. Notice “answered” was in quotes, meaning prayers DON’T actually GET answered. WinAce’s point seemed quite clear to me: He was saying that people who pray only have a subjective impression of the prayer being answered, but no objective evidence - hence the quote marks. So you are arguing against a straw man.

And the hypothesis that God answers prayers is quite testable. I already posted just one example of an experiment that could be done. Of course, that type of experiment isn’t likely to convince a religious person, as they will most likely merely say: “Well, prayer doesn’t work that way”.

If, as I believe you have admitted, there is no objective way to discern the effects of prayer, how can you consider your belief to be reliable?

I’m not sure if that’s true or not, but I will say this:

Objective knowledge cannot be gained by subjective means.

74

I don’t know his/her statement is false. But, by the same token, WinAce cannot know if his/her statement is true. It is simply something that cannot be known.

If his contention is the positive assertion that all prayers don’t actually get answered, than proof needs to be presented that either there is no God, or that a god wouldn’t/couldn’t answer prayers. There is no way to scientifically prove this.

By the same token, it would be impossible for me to prove, scientifically, that God answers prayers. To do so would be folly.

To sum up, my contention with WinAce is thus:

  • You cannot possibly prove your assertion.

It is not:

  • Your statement is false.

I really hate to sound like a stereotypical “touchy-feely” Christian, but I consider my belief to be reliable on faith. That, and personal experience.

On the whole, though, I think that blowero and I agree on most of the particulars of the debate. As far as I can tell, the only real argument is about what exactly WinAce said.

WinAce, care to rejoin the debate and shed some light on this subject? :slight_smile:

75

While perhaps the best study one could muster, even this isn’t very good, because the “cause” is hidden from the experimenters! That is, no one but the praying people know if they REALLY prayed, if they prayed the same way, etc. Or even if the control group had really NOT prayed. There is simply no way to nail down whether the cause is ultimately present in the way the statistics pretend to represent its presence, abscence, or object.

I would imagine, for instance, that the God prayers would be far more sincere than the talbe prayers: that alone is a difference enough to ruin the experiment insofar as its purpose is to show that praying TO GOD is especially effective (though it might still show all prayer to be effective).

76

Minor quip:

There’s no reason the prayers must be personally subjective. Just have the different groups recite/speak prayers aloud.

77

With all due respect, your position above says more about your knowledge of science than it does about the scientific nature of these fields.

**

Research in both cosmology and evolution of course does use the scientific method - which does not mean you run an experiment in the Lab. A famous study compared the healing of the crowned heads of Europe, who got prayed for more than others, with that of common folk. They found no difference (or that the crowned heads actually recovered less well.) Such a study, though it no doubt has its problems, is scientific, as are the various studies done on the predictive power of astrology.

**

I rather think the prayers in these studies are made with faith - they do not involve atheists praying, but believers praying. It seems that you are saying that God is refusing to provide any evidence that many modern people believe in for his existence - then sentencing these nonbelievers to hell. Nice God - but we knew that.

78

By irreproducible, I meant that the event was irreproducible, not the observations. The Big Bang happened once, but the cosmic background radiation is there for all to see. If the Flood had happened, there would be plenty of solid evidence for it.

There are well known statistical methods for evaluating the results of experiments such as a prayer experiment. All of them carefully measure the probability that the results are due to chance. These experiments are harder to do right than simple physics experiments, but they are done all the time (by psychologists, for example) and are certainly scientific. We might be able to construct an experiment in which you prayed to a kitchen table you did not see. Someone, unknown to the person recording your reactions, could swap in something else, and we could determine whether you actually felt good only when the table was there, or if the table made no difference.

Remember N rays? This was claimed to have some effect by a French researcher. During a demonstration, a visitor swiped the piece of equipment supposedly generating the rays, and the
experimenter never noticed.

Prayer can be tested scientifically - which is why the position of so many theists is that God won’t cooperate, explaining the negative results away in advance. Whether or not you believe this, you must admit it can’t be counted as evidence for a god.

79

I suppose that the people praying could be observed secretly to see if they did or did not pray. As for your second point, it depends on what the hypothesis is. If the hypothesis is that praying is effective, not matter to what, then you may be right. If it is that praying to God is effective, then the results would be biased for the hypothesis. A negative result would be more damning, a positive result might require another experiment to rule out just prayer. But, that is how science works - the first experiment is almost never the final one!

80

Sigh. Look, we may quibble about whether cosmology and other fields qualify as true “science,” but the point remains – they do not all use the scientific method, which is the technique that Doc Nickel insists should be applied to prayer.

It is only scientific in a loose sense, and does not qualify as the scientific method. Besides, as I am repeatedly forced to emphasize, Doc Nickel’s criterion is that the scientific method must be used to discern the truth – in this case, the efficacy of prayer.

This is a clear example of the double standard that I’m complaining about. Some of the atheists here are quick to insist that prayer must be tested using the scientific method. Yet when questions of cosmology and other such fields come up… Well, by gum, how dare one complain that these don’t apply the scientific method! Moreover, if the theist points out that history and politics don’t use the scientific method either… well, let’s accuse them of saying that historians and politicians are relying on nothing but superstition!

Good grief. Good bloody grief.

Pardon me, but your statement contains a tremendous leap of logic. I said that God might not choose to cooperate with experiments designed to test the effects of prayer. Obviously, this is NOT the same as saying that he “[refuses] to provide any evidence that modern people believe in for his existence.”

How much straw do you want in that man which you’re creating?