Does prayer work?

[Sententia]

Personally, I think that attributing human actions to God doesn't give enough credit to the humans involved.

It in fact gives *no* credit to the humans and their actions. Someone was watching over me... yeah...

/QFT

 

[lilithu]

Anyone with an ounce of reason will eventually realize that prayer does indeed not work. IMHO.

Translation: people who pray are stupid.

Standard fundie atheist schlock.

 

[Sententia]

Translation: people who pray are stupid.

Standard fundie atheist schlock.

If you were my translator you would be fired. Although I appeciate the misrepresentation of what I said.

 

[lilithu]

If you were my translator you would be fired. Although I appeciate the misrepresentation of what I said.

Yeah, I love it when people claim they've been misrepresented but don't explain how.

We'll leave it up to others to decide how well I translated.

 

[YmirGF]

Prayer: Does it work?

Hmmmm.... That IS a tricky question. You have to appreciate that "god" is NOT involved in the process and that any results are directly proportional to the belief applied. In essence, the general public does not appreciate how powerful their own beliefs are to begin with.

 

[Sententia]

Yeah, I love it when people claim they've been misrepresented but don't explain how.

We'll leave it up to others to decide how well I translated.

Is that like the love when people judge and make snap decisions but don't explain how they got there?

I clearly stated my opinion and never approached debasement to the degree you have assigned.

You have mispresented what I said, without any sort of conscious or basis and then argue that my statement that you misprepresented me was never explained.

If you want me to clarify my ORGINAL statement then perhaps you should just ask instead of misreprenting me and assuming I am attacking the mental faculties of anyone who partakes in prayer.

 

[lilithu]

If you want me to clarify my ORGINAL statement then perhaps you should just ask instead of misreprenting me and assuming I am attacking the mental faculties of anyone who partakes in prayer.

Alright...

Please explain how "Anyone with an ounce of reason will eventually realize that prayer does indeed not work" does not suggest that people who continue to pray are lacking in even an ounce of reason.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It seems pretty clear to me that BalanceFx was using hyperbole. Clearly, prayer does not work, aside from whatever calming / meditative / contemplative effects it has on the individuals practicing it. I think if I am offended by anyone's behavior regarding this issue, it is not the behavior of the fundie atheist but the behavior of the fundie evangelist preying on people (whether they realize it or not) who are chronically ill, or in debt, or in denial of their homosexuality, or stuck in a loveless marriage, by promising them a remedy that doesn't exist.

 

[Sententia]

Alright...

Please explain how "Anyone with an ounce of reason will eventually realize that prayer does indeed not work" does not suggest that people who continue to pray are lacking in even an ounce of reason.

Sprinkles is dead on... But if you really want to seriously discuss this perhaps we should first discuss how you characterize my statement to end in me thinking people who pray to be stupid. Its probably something ridiculous as to what a valid a prayer may be, what the definition of work is or more personally I tickled a nerve.

Prayer is and will always be a powerful worry remover. Many people who have learned to pray with childlike sincerity, literally talking to and communing with their supernatural and spiritual Father have a mental benefit most non believers have to struggle and work to get to.

Its argued as an education shortcut by some and the ends justify the means. There are arguments on both sides of the fence for that particular statement but my position is neither here nor there.

Your argument at the surface seems completely nonsensical. Many people PRAY daily or hourly for world peace and have done so for many years... Argubly the prayer has gone on since the inception of the invention of the term prayer and yet world peace has never happened. Do you think that it will work eventually and we should just have faith? If so then you are arguing that just because a prayer has not as of yet worked then it does not mean that eventually it will work.

Why dont you define my original statement in the vocabulary you use complete with your definitions and timelines and we can explore where you went wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

The biggest problem with your argument, as I see it, is that you obviously don't believe it. You are simply stating the argument as a counter argument to my experiences. There is nothing wrong with your argument other than that you're making it up. If you weren't making it up, it would be different. If you actually believed this argument, I would be forced to think one of the following things. 1. You are crazy. 2. You are lieing. 3. You are deceived. or 4. I am missing part of the picture. It would certainly be perplexing. I am sure that such a situation would never occur however.

davy, that's not something about my argument, it's something about me. Arguments are valid or not independent of the person making them. Because, of course, I can say the same thing about you, can't I? After all, how could a reasonable person like yourself believe anything as silly as Mormonism? You must be putting us on.

If you can't find anything wrong with my argument then you must accept it, you recognize that it is exactly as valid as yours, and you are exactly as wrong as you are right. Or, to put it briefly, the correct answer is # 4. The argument, "The Holy Ghost told me so, so it's true," is no argument at all. You need some other, better reason, to support your assertion. Do you have one? Otherwise, and my point is, your argument is nothing but pure, unadulterated special pleading. You only think it works when you make it, not when I make it. And that's not how arguments work. It's either a good argument or not, regardless of who makes it, don't you agree? So this was my annoying little way to show you that it's not a good argument. Now will you stop making it?

Imagine there was a human colony deep underground. Suppose that the people in this colony lived their entire lives underground. Two people from the surface somehow found their way down to this hypothetical colony. Now let's say that both of these people claimed that there is a brilliant object in the sky that illuminates the earth called the sun. Now suppose that person A said that the sun was golden yellow in color. Person B said that it was purple in color. Who has the better argument? Who would the people believe? Both arguments are equally valid. That doesn't make them both true. How would the perplexed citizens of our hypothetical colony settle the matter? I don't think they could. They might not even believe that the sun exists. They might ask for proof. Neither person could prove either that the sun exists or that it is a certain color. The only way to settle the matter would be to go and take a look for yourself.

Great, I did that, and I learned that you're wrong. Now do you have anything whatsoever that might actually qualify as evidence?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't expect anyone to just swallow the things I am saying hook line and sinker and go, "Oh that makes sense! Well he must be right then!" That would certainly be unwise. My word alone is not enough to make someone change their deeply held religious (or arelegious) beliefs. In fact if no one were to believe me, I would not be suprised. I honestly couldn't blame them. I think I would expect something more along the lines of "Wow! I think that guy actually believes what he is saying." The thing is, I am stating what I know is true, and it goes directly against what many people believe. It goes directly against what many people find to be reasonable. How could I expect everyone to just up and believe me? However, to those who do (if any) find that what I say rosonates in their hearts, or find the thought of God compelling, I say: you don't have to wonder. You don't have to wait until you die to find out. You can seek out God on your own. If I believe in God, it is a stronger belief than the belief that I have in myself. I know he lives. I know we are his children. And I know that he loves us each individually. He is mindful of us. He has sent his prophets in every age of the world to declare his word unto us. And to all who wish to come to him he has said:
"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price."
"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
I bear witness that this is true. The water of life is transforming. Where it touches dry, dead ground, life suddenly springs up. Life becomes more brilliant. Everything makes more sense. And we finally know who we are and why we are here. I love God with my whole heart. I am eternally greatful to him. I only hope that I can live my life so that he will be happy. When I meet him, I want it to be a joyful meeting, and not one of pain and remorse.

Yup, you're right, I don't believe a word of what you're saying. I'm a skeptic. If you want me to believe something, anything, there's one and only one way to do it: evidence. Got any?

btw, I bear witness it's not true. This is getting tedious; would you please stop?

 

[Autodidact]

Let me see if I understand what you're trying to tell me. I should be repectful of other's beliefs and not force my own upon them. Is that correct?

If that is what you want to tell me, I totally agree. I mean no disrespect to anyone when I say that I know God lives. I mean that. I think it is better to be honest and open than to be polite and insincere. Especially on a religious debate thread. I don't think it does anyone any good for us to say "Well, you could be right, you could be right, or I could be right. Who could it be?" I can't pretend to think like that. I can't say "Well, for me it's like this, but for you it's like that and for him it's that way but we'll never really know for sure." If I said that, it would be dishonest, a cover up. I want people to know what I know. I want people to know that I know that God lives. I want people to know that I know that anyone can pray to him and ask for help, direction, or wisdom. Whether people accept that or not, I don't mind. But I can't pretend to be someone I'm not.

Oh, and P.S. I deeply value the opinions and feelings of other people. This is especially true when said opinions are actually honest and sincere. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with me or not, I always appreciate honest thinking.

You're contradicting yourself. We have already demonstrated to you that you don't know any such thing, so please stop saying this. If you are truly respecting that other people are as likely to be right as you, you would say, "I believe that God lives." That would be honest and respectful. As it is, it's not so much that you're disrespectful as fallacious. Everything you say destroys your own argument. Because of course, I can always say, "I know that God doesn't live," with at least as much weight as you. It doesn't get us anywhere. To have a reasonable, interesting discussion, we need evidence and logic. Do you have any?

Remember, it's not about you, it's about your argument.

 

[Autodidact]

Translation: people who pray are stupid.

Standard fundie atheist schlock.

No, quite intelligent people believe things that are not true. To say that something is not true is not at all the same as saying that the people who believe it are stupid. The evidence demonstrates that prayer does not work.* That is simply a factual assertion.

 

[the-flatlander]

Those working in the field consider this to be the definitive study, and until some evidence to the contrary comes along, clearly indicates that prayer is not effective in this way.

I was under the impression the study was inconclusive:

“The researchers acknowledged that it was impossible to make any firm conclusions because of the difficulty of studying something such as prayer.

The study, for example, could not accurately measure factors as fundamental as the "dose" of prayer administered and could not account for the possible effects of family members praying for patients on their own, the researchers noted.

The researchers did find evidence, however, suggesting that those who received both MIT (music, imagery and touch) therapy and the "high-dose" prayer may have been slightly less likely to die in the following six months.

Those findings provide avenues for future research, Krucoff said. I really don't want people to think we're dissing prayer, Krucoff said. This study gives us a sense of where there might be therapeutic benefit that might be worth pursuing in future trials.” -Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A08, Washington Post.

Future trials? There might be therapeutic benefits in praying for the sick? Sounds like Dr. Krucoff is keeping an open mind.

 

[lilithu]

No, quite intelligent people believe things that are not true. To say that something is not true is not at all the same as saying that the people who believe it are stupid. The evidence demonstrates that prayer does not work.* That is simply a factual assertion.

He didn't say that it's untrue that prayer works. He said that anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that it doesn't work. No matter how you try to spin that, it's saying that people who believe in prayer are lacking in even an ounce of sense. In my neck of the woods, that translates as stupid.

(I notice that BX's windy response to me simply reiterates his assertion that prayer does not work, without addressing the fact that he called those who think otherwise stupid.)

As for your "factual assertion," it's an assertion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

lilithu,

BX's comment was clearly hyperbole. I doubt it was meant to literally mean what you're saying any more than it was meant to imply sense can be measured in ounces. The point is that there isn't the slightest reason to believe that closing one's eyes and muttering or thinking to oneself has any effect whatsoever on the course of events in the world. It simply does not make any sense to suggest that it does.

I'd like to know if you disagree with that, and if so, why.

 

[Autodidact]

He didn't say that it's untrue that prayer works. He said that anyone with an ounce of sense would realize that it doesn't work. No matter how you try to spin that, it's saying that people who believe in prayer are lacking in even an ounce of sense. In my neck of the woods, that translates as stupid.

O.K.

(I notice that BX's windy response to me simply reiterates his assertion that prayer does not work, without addressing the fact that he called those who think otherwise stupid.)

As for your "factual assertion," it's an assertion.

An assertion supported by the evidence, however.

 

[lilithu]

I'd like to know if you disagree with that, and if so, why.

I do disagree, and my post in response to the OP should make it obvious why.

To me, prayer is not "asking God for stuff." It is a spiritual practice - an act of humility that transforms oneself, not God (altho since I believe that we are all a part of God, it does that too). To paraphrase my previous post:

When I pray in thanksgiving, I am more grateful.
When I pray in reflection, I am able to see what I could not before.
When I pray on behalf of others, I am more compassionate.
When I pray on behalf of myself, I am more receptive to help and guidance.

Try this Spinks:
Every day, say "thank you" for three things for which you are truly grateful that day. It doesn't matter who you're thanking. The point is to feel the gratitude.

Every day, name ten people who are in need in some way and hold them in your heart. It doesn't matter if you don't believe that "God" will answer. The point is to focus your attention on others.

And no, I'm not suggesting that you personally are ungrateful or self-centered. I am saying that prayer is spiritual practice. When done on a regular basis it changes the person who prays for the better. I know it works because I've experienced its effects.

 

[Autodidact]

Plumbers, what an idea. In any case, yes, every human has limited understanding. We're always going to be limited in something. Actually, I'm fascinated by science, particularly biology.

Then the first thing you need to know is that science is not a subject; it's a method. Scientists in effect agree to accept the outcome of their research, whatever it may be, as long as the scientific method is correctly applied.

Islam encourages seeking knowledge and therefore I embrace scientific endeavors. I just don't think that any reliable conclusions can be made in a field like this.

Why not? If people in fact did recover after being prayed for, wouldn't we be able to observe this?

And even if I were to discard science, I would not be trying to establish that intercessory prayer works, because I have my faith, and that is what's important to me. I don't need some scientific numbers and statements to tell me about prayer's effectiveness.

Oh, I thought you embraced science. But when it gives results that disagree with your prior conceptions (your "faith") then you disregard them? That's not embracing science, it's the opposite. Remember, to do science you have to first agree to accept the outcome, whether it is in accord with your faith or not. So you do not embrace science, you reject it.

I enjoyed the article, but I don't see it as a reliable, definitive conclusion, based on my views about this field of science in general.

Why not? What was wrong with their methodology? That is the only permissible scientific critique. You have to show something wrong with the method; because to do science, you promise to accept the outcome, if the methodology is good.

Well, the way I see it is that if prayer is not effective and does nothing at all whatsoever, then there would be mixed results. There would have to be many more cases of genuine success than what I'm finding.

Sure, people get better a lot after having been prayed for. They just do so at the exact same rate as if not being prayed for.

Something that is purely chance would not always consistently say that the control group always does better. If that's the case, then it isn't just chance, as this suggests there is an intercessory presence.

It doesn't. They both come out the same. That's the result of this (and many other) studies.

Exactly...math is based on pure logic. The numbers do not have the ability to exercise reason...they follow patterns which never change. 1 + 1 will always equal 2. Humans, on the other hand, have individual reasoning and judgment that are influenced by our different perspectives and outlooks. What is logical to one person may be completely erratic and illogical to another.

This is where you go wrong. No matter who adds up 1 + 1, or what their judgment is, if they know how to add, they always get 2. Same with logic. A is never -A, no matter what your bias is. If you get that result, you're just doing it wrong. If A then B, and if B then C, then if A then C, regardless of individual bias.

Yes, the results of these experiments are most definitely against the effectiveness of prayer. Although as I said above, I find it rather interesting that all the results are in the negative. I'm not suggesting that these scientists are cheating, but I'm saying that the lack of successful results even suggests the existence of an intercessory presence.

No, it doesn't. According to you, it's heads you win, tails I lose. If the experiment detects an effect of prayer, then prayer works. If it doesn't, then prayer works. That's not the way science works. When the results come back that the prayer had no effect, it just means that prayer had no effect. Note: this is not one, outlying, biased study. This is a definitive, large, sound study by a religious group. They were hoping and expecting to find the opposite of what they did.

This is an example of the logic situation. You say the inability of people to measure God is the reason why it's wrong to say prayer is effective. However, I find it logical to say that the inability to measure God is why I find it wrong to say that prayer is ineffective.

We're not trying to measure God. God is outside of the scope of science. We're trying to measure the effectiveness of prayer. If it is actually effective, we would observe the effect, right? In what sense can you say that prayer is effective, but we can't observe the effect?

Sure, not all of them are guaranteed to be granted.

No, the exact same number as if you had not prayed at all are pretty well guaranteed to be granted. Prayer, by coincidence, is exactly as effective as not praying. We call that "no effect."

As you have no way to show that it doesn't work.

Why not? Becuase of your preconcieved "faith", bias against results you don't like? That's called dishonesty. If the results had come back the opposite, and the methodology was sound, I would be conceding that prayer works. That's because I'm honest.

I have no doubt that many people are convinced by the results of these studies. I am in no way claiming superiority here for anyone, but for the people with a lot of faith it's going to take more than these studies to convince them.

Oh well I know it. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Aspirin can be measured, most definitely. The elements of aspirin can clearly be defined, due to science's understanding of them and its ability to predict reactions based on that knowledge.

Nope. We have no idea how aspirin works; but we can measure that it does.

Prayer is something entirely different, we can't make a Periodic Table of the Elements of Prayer. There are far too many unknowns in this field.

Like what? Again, if the study indicated that it worked, wouldn't you be citing it as evidence that it did? That's called "cheating."

Living my life this way makes no sense to you, makes perfect sense to me. I used to be an Atheist, I know both sides of the coin here. I became religious, but I'm not stupid enough to stick my hand in fire. There's a difference.

But you said you believe things without evidence. You're the one calling that "stupid," not me.

Sure, my knowledge of God is nothing compared to what many other people have. Science is amazing and continues to provide us with valuable information. Although as I said, I feel that scientific conclusions on prayer just aren't entirely credible.

Why not? If prayer is effective, why can't science detect that effect? Is it an imaginary effect?

Throw science out the window? Of course not, that would be a ridiculously naive thing to do. I'm all for using science to expand ourselves, but making definitive claims about something like prayer, which humans can't even begin to completely understand, is the problem.

You only throw it out the window when you don't like the results.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Try this Spinks:
Every day, say "thank you" for three things for which you are truly grateful that day. It doesn't matter who you're thanking. The point is to feel the gratitude.

Every day, name ten people who are in need in some way and hold them in your heart. It doesn't matter if you don't believe that "God" will answer. The point is to focus your attention on others.

And no, I'm not suggesting that you personally are ungrateful or self-centered. I am saying that prayer is spiritual practice. When done on a regular basis it changes the person who prays for the better. I know it works because I've experienced its effects.

I think what you're suggesting is meditation or reflection, not necessarily prayer. When prayer loses its focus on the divine, I think it loses what makes prayer what it is. If you don't believe you're praying to "God" (or a spirit, or something divine), you're not praying, IMO.