What do believers think would happen? Believers would probably sweep Matthew 21:22 under the rug and say that since their prayers brought them closer to God, they “worked.” 
You’d be looking for a better survival rate for the believers presumably?
You see it could be argued that the believers have nothing to lose by dying, whereas the unbelievers should be spared so that they have more time to find God…
If prayer does nothing that can be examined or quantified, prayer does nothing substantial.
Are you sure that a scientific definition is appropriate? - We did agree after all that:
So maybe they should also be allowed to define the scope of the defeinition as well, maybe their definitions doesn’t have to be consistent, maybe it can involve any number of apparent contradictions that are to be accepted as ‘myteries’.
Although I’d be the first to admit that this wouldn’t be all that helpful in this discussion, to say that they are allowed to define it, but only in terms defined by someone else, well, is that fair? what about if someone asked you as a scientist, to define say, relativity, but insisted that you define it in religious terms? (I’m assuming that you’d say that’s impossible)
(BTW, I’m just saying this for the sake of argument, not necessarily because I think it’s a defesible viewpoint).
Oh, good grief! So when it really comes down to it, your prayers and faith will do you more harm than good? Well, then, I intend to be a heathen until the end!
Anyway, of course the believers have something to loose. Their lives for starters - that’s kind of important don’t you think? What about their families and loved ones? What about their hopes and dreams for the future? You claim that you could make an argument that the dead believers are better off than the living heathens. Fine, but it would be a pretty stupid one.
Look, if the only thing that matters to you is making it through the pearly gates, wouldn’t somebody be doing you a favor by killing you now. Doesn’t this sound just a wee bit cultish? I’m thinking Jim Jones here.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by bnorton *
Oh, good grief! So when it really comes down to it, your prayers and faith will do you more harm than good? Well, then, I intend to be a heathen until the end!
[/quote}
Calm down! I was merely trying to illustrate that if you found a statistical swing in either direction, it could be interpreted as conclusive by people of either camp.
**I suspect that the families of believers have an easier time dealing with the loss of a loved one, besides, surely you’re not saying you’ve never heard people say that their dead relatives are ‘in a better place’ ? - where have you been?
I’m sure that the believers woud argue that they don’t lose their lives at all, just their physical bodies.
Yes, when you put it like that (which I didn’t), I never said that would be the only thing that matters.
I think most fundamentalists, for example would say that the death of a believer is just a long awaited journey home, a release from this world of pain and suffering, whereas the death of an unbeliever is a tragic loss of a hellbound soul, but let’s argue that one somewhere else, or better still, let’s not.
Wow, I didn’t realize English has been around that long.
Are you trying to redefine yet another term? “Circular” does not mean the same thing as “tautological”. For one thing “circular” applies to arguments and “tautolgical” applies to statements. Neither refers to things, such as God.
pldennison
No.
- Most words that scientists define are words that do not already exist.
- When scientists use “normal” words with “nonnoraml” definitions, they usually do so in a way such that the wordsd cannot be confused with the “normal” meaning. For instance, if you hear the term “charm quark”, is the any confusion in your mind whether “charm” is being used in the scientific or “normal” sense?
- I cannot think of any examples in which scientists use a word that already exists, in the same context as it is usually used, with a completely new definition. In “normal” English, words often have many different senses, and the doubt as to what sense someone is using it can cause great confusion. What scientists do is they take one sense and insist that in science, that’s what it means. In other words, they create their own definitions to promote clarity. The rampant redefinition that is occuring in this thread is not promoting clarity, it’s promoting confusion.
- Most importantly, the religious have already defined these terms. A small subset of the religious is now trying to create their own definition. We’re not asking that they use our definition; we’re asking that they use the definitions that have already been agreed upon by the vast majority of English speakers (most of whom, BTW, are religious).
And David Copperfield made it appear that he had walked through the Great Wall of China. He made it appear that he had made the Statue of Liberty vanish. He made it appear that he could levitate inside a glass box (one of the best illusions I’ve ever seen).
I’m not saying this elderly couple performed some kind of sleight of hand like Copperfield. I’m saying you shouldn’t judge events by their appearance alone.
Allow me to quote Jim Morrison - “You cannot petition the Lord with prayer!”
This thread is really starting to bink my dinky.
No I am not religious. But, as I understand it religions exist to give their followers a set of rules to follow so that they may live their lives in a moral fashion, after which they will be rewarded by some divine occurence. Cool with me. If in the process you feel the need to attempt to “speak” with your loard in an attempt find clarity or strength within yourself, more power to you.
I still don’t understand why we can’t leave it at that, and keep these deities out of our gardens. What the heck does the god of Christianity give a shit about a melon patch for? I’m sorry, the phrase “give your garden over to God in prayer” sounds utterly rediculous to me. I would hope a true believer, if he really insisted on petitioning for something would have loftier goals than a friggin’ canteloupe quota in his back yard.
Gee, would it make you feel better if he posted it in Aramaic or Greek? The quote is there and says what it says, regardless of the language in which it is rendered. Do you think the substance of it will change significantly if it’s posted in another language?
If Jesus made reference to “life” being a certain thing, I’d reckon that’s what Christians believe “life” means. They certainly don’t believe that life ends when a person’s body ceases functioning, and that’s all that Libertarian has been saying in regards to Dawson. He and Edlyn believe that God healed Dawson by releasing his spirit from his malfunctioning body. I’m not sure why some people are so threatened by their believing that, but there you have it.
Gee, thanks for weighing in. I don’t think I’m just going to take your word for it, though.
Really? Can you please back this up? “Most words”? I don’t think so. I mean, it’s not like there aren’t any scientists here at the SDMB.
Besides, every word gets coined at some point. Humans didn’t evolve to find a Language Instruction Book waiting for them. And some of the meanings even change, oddly enough.
Huh. Is science the only discipline that reserves the right to do this? What’s a recorder? Doesn’t it depend on whether you’re asking a stenographer, an audio engineer, or a musician? Which one is the “normal” sense? If I say the word “recorder” to you, is the first thing you think of a reedless wind instrument similar in sound to a flute?
And? Catholics and Protestants believe different things about the Communion ceremony. Mormons believe different things about the relationship between God, Christ and Satan. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe different things about a lot of things. Have we placed a moratorium on subsets of religious people having doctrinal differences, even down to how certain terms are defined? Somebody had better notify the Vatican, if that’s the case.
Yeah, heaven forfend that language ever, you know, change or anything. Frankly, I haven’t seen the religious people differ substantively in this thread as to what “prayer” means; they all appear to agree that it means “petitioning God for His will to be done in their lives.” It’s the nonreligious who want to define prayer as “rubbing the magic lamp” or “wishing on a star,” them complaining that the religious aren’t defining it that way.
Not quite, Phil—I think the complaint is that believers use different definitions of “prayer” indiscriminately. For example, in Mangetout’s illustration of the elderly couple who wanted the birds to stop destroying their fruit crop, “gave the garden to God in prayer,” and found that the birds no longer destroyed their fruit crop, Mangetout specifically described this as an instance where prayer “appears to have worked.” Very clearly, that’s assuming the “rub the magic lamp” definition of “prayer”: “they wanted something, they prayed, and what they wanted came true, so prayer (apparently) works”.
I really don’t mind at all if believers want to define “prayer working” that way; I don’t even mind if they want to define it more flexibly so that sometimes it means “God gave me what I prayed for” and sometimes it means “I was brought closer to God.” I’m just saying that if they expect the “rub the magic lamp” aspect to have any weight in persuading non-believers, they should pay more attention to questions of reproducibility and falsifiability. If they don’t want to make claims of reproducibility and falsifiability for the efficacy of prayer, they should stop hauling out anecdotes like Mangetout’s and expecting us to be impressed.
Please, PLEASE can I use this for my sig line. It’s hilarious!
-L
And anyone who has had their dinky binked will know exactly what I mean.
Be my guest.
I think you’ve misjudged my motives; I don’t expect anyone to be impressed, neither would I be so bold as to claim the the anecdote I related is anything other than I described it:
- I think I’ve been true to the OP question in that respect, that’s all.
Sigh
I also didn’t say that their fruit garden was the only, or even the most important(whatever that means) thing that they ever prayed for.
Mangetout: I think you’ve misjudged my motives; I don’t expect anyone to be impressed, neither would I be so bold as to claim the the anecdote I related is anything other than I described it
I know, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were expecting this sort of thing to be impressive. But I imagine we’ve all encountered some of the many believers who do.
The proof that prayer works is that:
- someone who was tired got home earlier than expected
- birds were persuaded to eat less berries (I’d bet a lot of money that no numerical records were kept of this)
Praying for your dying child was answered by the child physically dying (but since believers live forever, this is not death)
There are very few Christians in the UK. (It might be the State Religion, but they’re not ‘real’ Christians. I suppose I could ask how anyone knows they’re right about religion, whereas others are wrong.)
I find myself skeptical about the above.
Of course not, do you know anyone (who isn’t a commercial farmer) that keep numerical records of their crops? - I don’t.
I don’t think I could have been more explicit in saying that I recognised the anecdotal nature of the example.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Sighing, and telling me you’ll answer my question in another thread if someone happens to start it is just avoiding the subject.
Besides, I don’t think “God” lets babies die, so your example brings about as much to this argument as a one-legged cat brings to a turd burying contest.
I still get back to the purpose of all these religions that we humans have invented for ourselves … live by the codes - get the divine reward you hoped for (you see this does something to alleviate our ignorance of death). That is perfectly ok with me. I just find it utterly presumptuous for someone to ask whatever deity they pray to for “stuff”. “I want something better than what I got, give it to me and I promise to be good.” Ridiculous.
You want to know my religion? Physics - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I extrapolate this metaphysically into a sort of Karma type thing.
Therefore if I want something better, I do something about it, not hope that if I kneel and clasp my hands just the right way, it will fall in my lap.
I think you’re confusing interpretating with rationalizing. But this is what I’ve come to expect from the religious, indeed we’ve seen it several times in this thread already.
I’m not suffering and in pain. I’m enjoying every minute of this life. Too bad about the fundamentalists.
But let me get back to the garden. You say that birds ruined your friends’ garden for an unknown number of years, then 12 years ago they started praying and thay have had good harvests since. It’s unclear whether they just prayed that one year or if they have prayed for their garden each of the past 12 years. Your phrase “prayer appears to have worked consistently” implies that it is an ongoing thing.
Fine. Let’s try this. Have your friend NOT pray next year. Do you think the birds will come back? If they don’t then it would appear that it was coincidence. If they do, then, A-Ha!, you may have the beginnings of a controlled study. All you need to do is… Oh, why am I bothering? Fuck it. Just believe what you want to believe.
Kimstu: The real problem I have is when people redefine words to deliberately obfuscate, mislead or give themselves a way out. Oddly enough it appears to me that this behavior is found most frequently in con artists and the very religious.