As you may have realized from the discussion between @TagliatelliMonster and myself, my argument is that prayer works because it is (can be) equivalent to meditation. When you take away the equivalence, you take away the explanation for the effect. I'd even go so far as stating that prayer that isn't equivalent to meditation is totally ineffective.
To say "prayer works" because it achieves the effect of meditation is to misunderstand what the purpose of prayer is and what is is meant to achieve.
If prayer does not achieve what it is intended to then you can't say it's effective as prayer. Therefore, it doesn't "work".
When you start off the premise of the thread as "prayer works", you're implying that prayer achieves what it is by definition designed to achieve.
Prayer doesn't actually work if all it does is achieve meditation. By definition it has failed to work for what it was intended to - it was intended to work as prayer.
In a Biblical sense, prayer is suppose to cause change to happen. Change in the substance of reality. Change in people. Change in circumstances. Change in spiritual dynamics. Change in just about anything you could imagine you'd want to be changed.
If prayer cannot bring change then you can't by definition say it has worked.
A failed prayer that achieves meditation is still a failed prayer.
Saying it works as meditation is not the same as saying it works as prayer.
In which case, you should stop calling it prayer, because it's not achieving prayer. It's just meditation by other means.
I know from experience that prayer does work at actually bringing about change.
That's why I know there is meaning and significance to prayer's unique definition.
You are not doing a service to reason or advancing the understanding prayer by confusing the issue with meditation.
We see that in studies about intercessory prayer, no effect there.
What studies? Can you provide links to these claimed studies of intercessory prayer?
How does one study intercessory prayer exactly?
Since I know from experience that it does work, I'd like to know how exactly they think they can measure this comprehensively enough to think they are within bounds to declare it doesn't work.
So, if you insist on a difference what is your explanation and what is your evidence?
You did not clarify what you are referring to.
Insist on a difference between what?
An explanation for what?
Evidence for what?
Last edited: