Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[KWED]

I did address it... let me reiterate it when Jesus said:

"35 For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat;"

To ask wrong is to ask for something that God gave you the responsibility for.

We know that we have the capacity to feed the world (throwing so much away). If we are not feeding the world, it is man's fault and not God's.

So, look in the mirror and ask yourself, "What am I doing to feed the hungry? - God, please help me with compassion and capacity". I'm sure He will hear your prayer as you go do something.

So when a child is born with an agonising, fatal congenital condition, or develops cancer, the parents shouldn't be praying to god for help because it is their responsibility?

Yet another example of the distasteful worldview of some religionists.

And you still haven't given us any examples of your prayers that god has answered, whilst he ignored those for the children dying in agony. Come on. Why so reluctant? What did you ask for that was sooo important? Do tell...

 

[KWED]

I wouldn't go that far, but I can't go beyond this because how am I supposed to know all about this? I wasn't at the BB because I was born a few years later.

Spinoza's god was not "a god" in any accepted use of the word. Basically it was nature. "certainly not an individual entity or creator"

 

[Sheldon]

Remember the Carthagian general Hannibal? The claim is that he took an army over the Alps and invaded
Rome. Complete with elephants. An analogy would be like Australians paddling to USA and occupying it for
12 years.
Two authors wrote of Hannibal. Neither saw anything of what they wrote. Years later. Livy and Polybius.
Did it happen? Well if this story was in the bible you would say it didn't happen unless there is outside
corroborating evidence. Did Hannibal's men ride on giant scorpions? Was Hannibal's nemesis Scipio
a son of the gods? Yes, the story is utterly fake - at least by the standards skeptics set for the bible's
stories, despite their truth slowly emerging (Google 'archaelogy sodom 2022')
Someone remarked on this bias by saying, 'The bible is guilty until proven innocent.' Confirmation bias
works both ways.

I'm pretty sure no one has tried to claim Hannibal used inexplicable unevidenced magic.

 

[Sheldon]

nice side-step.

How can I sidestep an irrelevant non sequitur? You did what you always do, ignore anything and everything you don't like, which is fine, but while pretending to respond, which is not. Again if you have anything that remotely addresses my post, by all means offer it, as your response didn't address a single word of it.

 

[Sheldon]

The OP is about the efficacy of prayer. It is even in the title.

moving goal post.

What? He was spot on, here is your thread title, thus any post about the efficacy of prayer is salient. "Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?"

 

[Sheldon]

I remember reading that study. I found the results fascinating.
i wondered what it was about knowing you were being prayed for that negatively affected recovery.

Well they could only speculate that the knowledge hampered recovery, by adding a stress, presumably some of those told wanted the prayers to work, others might have been stressed to learn they were being prayed for at all. In post heart op recovery this is a plausible rationale, though it's not conclusive. What was conclusive is that beyond the anomaly of that group, the prayers had no discernible effect.

 

[Sheldon]

A better question: Why are you so hell- bent on not believing people's testimonies?

Because testimony here is just another word for unevidenced anecdote. So the same reason I don't believe aliens stalk lonely cowboys in the wilds of Montana, beaming them aboard their spacecraft for a quick probing. Or the testimonies of people who claim to have seen mermaids.

 

[Sheldon]

Well creationists often do this of course, but in science such bias would be quickly exposed during any peer review, and the reputation of the researchers would suffer, perhaps irretrievably. Creationist don't care of course, so they can do it with impunity and science doesn't care about claims for magic.

So you believe that the people you disagree with slant tests but not the ones you agree with?

Nope, but then you know that is not remotely what I said, as does everyone else as my post is right there above. I know creationist make up propaganda lies, as there is objective evidence, there's a even a theme park where they indoctrinate children, into believing the lie that humans lived alongside dinosaurs like Triceratops, and Diplodocus.

 

[Sheldon]

It's your claim, so it's for you to demonstrate some objective evidence to support it. Anecdotal testimonies are meaningless, you can get those for mermaids, if you don't believe me Google it.

Then it's impossible to prove anything, because you have to ask people questions... which is anecdotal evidence.

Read the rest of my post see, the part you edited out, and maybe you will be able to understand where you are going wrong. Though I suspect you already do.

 

[Sheldon]

if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Yet it failed when tested, and the only "evidence" anyone can offer is faith, and unevidenced subjective claims, using mainly post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies and selection bias.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you believe everything everyone says on the internet?

No I rarely believe anything you say for example.

 

[Sheldon]

F1fan said: ↑
Creationists don't do science. They create and present fraud to Christian's who don't know any better. There is no dispute in this.

You just proved me right.

He stated an objective fact that contradicted your misrepresentation of my post, which you disingenuously tried to portray as bias.

 

[Sheldon]

The studies all rely on person's testimonies so by your logic they would be no more accurate.

I can't tell if you're being ironic or not?

 

[Sheldon]

That's why physical evidence is a good idea.

Like objectively measuring the recovery of post heart op patients against a median recovery rate, and recording the results, some of whom were prayed for and some not, and neither tester nor tested being aware of which were which, and one [art of the group being prayed for, being told they were being prayed for, and another not. It's as far from anecdotal testimony as one can imagine.

 

[Polymath257]

Then it's impossible to prove anything, because you have to ask people questions... which is anecdotal evidence.

It is clear that you don't grasp what it means to be evidence, what it means to be anecdotal, and how to create a survey that is protected against bias (not perfectly, but more than what would happen without being intent to be unbiased).

People's testimony is *one* type of evidence. But it is quite far from being the only type of evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm pretty sure no one has tried to claim Hannibal used inexplicable unevidenced magic.

I would not be at all surprised if both Hannibal and Scipio performed multiple sacrifices and appeals to their Gods for success in battle.

So your statement isn't *quite* true.

Nobody claims their appeals to magic actually worked, though.

 

[Bathos Logos]

I have encountered various quote that the scientific test on prayer showed no change.

My response has always been "I don't think the parameters were set correctly". I can use the analogy that if the blind test for quenching thirst taking a Tylenol, we would say it didn't work but the parameters are wrong. (Exaggeration done to emphasize that parameters are important)

So, with regard to your choice of analogy, if we were testing to see whether or not prayer increased healing or resulted in greater numbers of successful outcomes in hospitals, then your employed analogy seems to be equating this to trying to use Tylenol to quench thirst, as in, it is obvious that it isn't going to work in that capacity. So, is this you saying that prayer will simply not work to increase healing or better medical outcomes because it is not the right tool for the job in the first place? (Just as Tylenol is not the right tool for the job of quenching thirst). This is what you mean by "parameters were not set correctly"?

I found this confusing, because then you go on to make excuses for why the prayer being employed in the study may not have been "the right kind". That is, this part from your post:

1) Jesus is quoted as saying from Mattew 6:7 AMPCAnd when you pray, do not heap up phrases (multiply words, repeating the same ones over and over) as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking.

Are there people who call prayer "repeating words over and over"? The answer is yes. Heartfelt I am sure yet Jesus very clearly says they won't be heard by God. If they are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

2) James said, in James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."

if people are praying but praying thinking that God will hear them and then wondering if God will hear them, scripturally God can't get the answer to the person. If these people are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

3) The people who you want to pray for don't believe, they can actually stop God from moving. In Matthew 13 Jesus had the capacity to move, wanted to move but then couldn't as he said, "58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

Is God really this particular? Seems petty, in my estimation, and as you, yourself even stated (in reference, coincidentally enough, to another concern that God's choice of which calls to answer and which not to may be of the petty variety):

I also personally believe that God does answer prayer outside of my faith in as much as His mercy is everlasting and it is His goodness (in answered prayers) that draws people to Him.

So, He is willing to answer the prayers of those who are praying to the wrong deity altogether (i.e. not Him), but He gets hung up on these other "rules" as you have layed them out, right? Like, they can't repeat themselves (I mean, sure, it's annoying, but not everyone can be as eloquent as Jesus, right?), they need to not question whether or not their prayer is going to be answered but instead be confident that their God will provide (do you more readily grant your children's requests of any nature when they are assuming you will answer in their favor?), and they have to be praying for believers (believers in anything? I mean... you said it works for other faiths too! I found this confusing) because (and I thought this part particularly genius - blaming it all on the nonbeliever themselves) nonbelievers can actively stop prayer in its tracks by simply not believing. It's hard not to read that as God not being powerful enough to overcome nonbelief. I mean, who would have thought I had the power to stifle a god, right? It's been in me all along according to you. This is very interesting news.

This all seems very, very evasive to me. Like just making excuses for why the results came out the way they did. But again - your analogy isn't like this. The analogy you gave clearly posits something that isn't even going to work for the intended malady at all. Makes me think at least your subconscious understands how this actually "works".

 

[F1fan]

Well they could only speculate that the knowledge hampered recovery, by adding a stress, presumably some of those told wanted the prayers to work, others might have been stressed to learn they were being prayed for at all. In post heart op recovery this is a plausible rationale, though it's not conclusive. What was conclusive is that beyond the anomaly of that group, the prayers had no discernible effect.

My thought was that the patients might not be taking care of themselves in recovery since "God was helping". One thing I learned in health psychology was how having a positive attitude helps the immune system. A person needs to have a type of self-efficacy and cooperation with nursing to recover, and I have to wonder if the patients are suspending their own efficacy and in a way surrendering to God, as theists say happens in faith. So instead of having g hope for recovery there could be a type of resignation that "It's God's will" and out of my hands.

Totally interesting phenomenon.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm pretty sure no one has tried to claim Hannibal used inexplicable unevidenced magic.

But people will tell you the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are fictional.

 

[PruePhillip]

No it wouldn't!
A better analogy would be a small island in the northern Atlantic conquering and ruling one third of the globe for over a century with little more than wooden boats and primitive firearms.
I know. Utterly ridiculous. Could never happen.

You are missing a fundamental point here.
Even if there was literally zero evidence for Hannibal using war elephants in Europe, we know elephants exist and they were used in battles by various people, including Carthage.
We know elephants can travel long distances and survive harsh conditions. The claim is not one that relies entirely on believing stuff on faith alone.
The stories of magic in the Bible not only have zero evidence, but the very existence of magic has never been demonstrated.

Basically, you are saying that if we believe in war elephants we must believe in magic.

You are also ignoring the fact that there was a history of war elephants being used against Rome, in Italy. The Romans captured some of the ones Pyrrhus invaded Rome with, many years before Hannibal invaded.

Sure, and now we have evidence for the destruction of the Jordan plain ca 1650 BC. The one mentioned in Genesis.
And we have evidence for the mass migration and destruction of empires in the days of Moses, mentioned in Exodus.
Basically, the historical claims, and cultural background to Genesis, from Abraham onwards (start of the Hebrew bible)
pans out. The theory this book was written in Babylonian or Greek times doesn't wash - Jews of this latter date had no
knowledge of the practices and history of a time 1,000 years earlier - unless they worked from existing texts.