Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

why do you assume there is a why?

There's a why for everything in the universe.

All you have done is repeat the claim, now why do you assume there is a why?

 

[Stonetree]

A well known double blind study on post heart op patient recovery, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer actually demonstrated precisely the opposite to be true. There was no discernible effect on those prayed for, except the group told they were being prayed for, who actually fared worse.

You are offering evidence that prayer has an effect. The effect is negative ,it seems.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but what is the reason for all this being here in the first place?
1 - a creator
2 - a magician

3 - a false dichotomy

 

[Stonetree]

Your first solution was the prayer, itself. It gave you a focused course of action in the face of confusion, stagnation, and despair. Your second solution was the hope that a resolution is at least possible (via a lotto ticket). Your third solution was the realization that there may not be any quick easy solutions, for you (as the lotto ticket didn't win). ALL of these solutions are helping you to finally resolve your money problems. And they all started with your engaging in the act of prayer.

An honest, insightful man would be grateful for this kind of help. A foolish, selfish man would be angry because he didn't win the lotto.

Isn't buying a lotto ticket similar to a prayer. One feels the possibility of improving one's situation. Prayer can help one's frame of mind even if there is no One listening at the other end of a prayer.

 

[PruePhillip]

3 - a false dichotomy

True, there's THREE options which come to mind

There's a god who created the universe,
there's magic where the universe just happens,
there's this idea the universe was here forever and that 'explains' it

 

[PureX]

There is no reason at all to think that it was effective. Your failure now is one of confirmation bias. It is why claims like this need to be tested. Somewhere someone is going to win almost any lotto sometime. Many people will have "prayed" to win. That one person that prayed won is not evidence.

Of course it is. Every fact related to the question is evidence. And the facts are obvious. Had Bob not prayed, he would not have bought the ticket. Had he not bought the ticket, he could not have won the lottery. These are not "confirmation bias". They are simple, strait forward facts showing the cause and effect of Bob's experience.

 

[PureX]

Nobody is demanding that. They are merely stating that his thinking is flawed and his conclusion unsound (irrational)

And yet no one, here, has explained how so. The facts are obvious, and show a direct and active line of cause and effect leading from Bob praying to Bob winning the lotto. So far, every objection I've seen has been based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Bob did not pray to win the lotto. Bob did not assume that the lotto drawing was magically influenced by his prayer. YOU ALL made those silly assumptions. Bob simply found the willingness to buy the ticket by praying, and the ticket happened to win. So from Bob's perspective, had he not prayed, he would not have ended up winning the lotto. What part of this are you finding so difficult to grasp?

I don't think anybody is disagreeing that prayer works if all you mean by that is that prayer is a comforting placebo and has no effect on external reality.

Why do you keep insisting on belittling the positive effects of prayer? It can do far more than be a "comforting placebo that has no effect on external reality." First of all, reality s not "external". It's "internal" as well. Secondly, what we think and feel "internally" has a huge effect on how we act "externally". And thirdly, comfort is a real and valuable thing. It is a real and valuable effect in it's own right. So pretty much every aspect of your minimizing statement is wildly false and deliberately misleading. Doesn't this bother you?

That's the "materialist" position. As I've said, you've removed all of the magic from the claims for prayer, so there is nothing for the empiricist to object to until there are faith-based claims added in about deities and movjng mountains or whatever.

And yet, without the "magic", prayer is still highly effective in a positive way. Which is what this thread was intending to deny.

Your whole argument depends on the irrational assumption that prayer is a "magical" solution. Without that built in presumption of irrationality, you have no argument. So some fools pretending to be "scientists" studied the irrationality of prayer as a "magical" phenomena and discovered that it's not a magical phenomena. (What a waste of time and money.) And now YOU ALL are concluding from that idiocy that prayer has no value whatever. Because that's the biased conclusion you wanted to arrive at all along. So all the study really did was feed the bias and stupidity of people who hate all things "religious". When in fact prayer is a useful, helpful, and effective course of action for a great many people when it's engaged in appropriately, regardless of any religion.

 

[PureX]

Isn't buying a lotto ticket similar to a prayer. One feels the possibility of improving one's situation. Prayer can help one's frame of mind even if there is no One listening at the other end of a prayer.

Yes, it can. Which is mostly why people engage in it. For those who think prayer provides "magical" solutions to their problems, they will very likely be disabused of that idea, quickly. Because it's not. Yet we can use prayer to control our thinking and our emotions very effectively. And in doing that, we can then act far more positively and effectively in the world. And that very often does provide us with effective solutions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it is. Every fact related to the question is evidence. And the facts are obvious. Had Bob not prayed, he would not have bought the ticket. Had he not bought the ticket, he could not have won the lottery. These are not "confirmation bias". They are simple, strait forward facts showing the cause and effect of Bob's experience.

Nope. He still might have bought the ticket on a whim. But you don't get it. It was buying the ticket that made his action irrational.

 

[Sheldon]

Isn't buying a lotto ticket similar to a prayer. One feels the possibility of improving one's situation. Prayer can help one's frame of mind even if there is no One listening at the other end of a prayer.

Well you seem to be describing a placebo, rather than efficacious prayer, and of course we have overhwelming evidence that people win lotteries, we have only unevidenced subjective anecdotal claims for prayers being answered.

Whenever these claims are scrutinised, just as they have been here, the arguments and claims are exposed as irrational by using for example the quite often used post hos ergo propter hoc fallacy, and usually pretty obvious selection bias. For example if what you pray for happens it's proof of the efficacy of prayer, if nothing happens it is never evidence the other way.

The answer is a test designed to remove subjective bias, but people are emotioanlly invested in their beliefs and don't want to accept the results when they show the prayers didn't have any discernible effect, so they make the kind of excuses that we see here. Even falsely accusing the testers and those who accept the objective results of such research of bias.

I have seen this reaction to a public profession of atheism many time over the years of course. The assumption is that i want to be an atheist so ignore the "evidence" rather than accept that I see no objective evidence, and thus I have no choice but to be an atheist. Religions have these kinds of irrational defence mechanisms built into them quite often, hardly an accident obviously.

"The fool hath said in his heart there is no god"

As if that assertion is a valid notion, and not just an obvious piece of biased rhetoric. Also my atheism is a lack of belief in any deity or deities, and not a claim or belief itself. Another concept many theists struggle with.

 

[Sheldon]

True, there's THREE options which come to mind

There's a god who created the universe,
there's magic where the universe just happens,
there's this idea the universe was here forever and that 'explains' it

Nope, still a false dichotomy. I have linked an explanation of the fallacy for you. You are using straw man assumptions alongside an unevidenced belief you favour, that is why this is a false dichotomy. I understand, over the years I have come to realise how terrified many theists are of the phrase "I don't know". They also don't seem to understand what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is, where they irrationally imply a belief is valid because it cannot be disproved.

 

[PureX]

Nope. He still might have bought the ticket on a whim. But you don't get it.

Anything "might have" happened. The world could have ended resolving Bob's problems that way. I don't see how you think what didn't happen matters at all.

It was buying the ticket that made his action irrational.

Please explain how.

 

[Sheldon]

Of course it is. Every fact related to the question is evidence.

Evidence often does not support a conclusion, and the your conclusion used a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, something you have been very careful to completely ignore, what inference is inevitable drawn from such evasion do you imagine?

And the facts are obvious. Had Bob not prayed, he would not have bought the ticket.

First this was your hypothetical scenario, so calling this hypothetical assumption a fact is just hilarious bias, secondly the assumptions in your scenario indicate correlation, not causation, the more you ignore or deny this, the more obviously biased you appear.

Had he not bought the ticket, he could not have won the lottery.

A rather meaningless tautology, and it takes a nanosecond of objective reasoning to reanalyse people buy tickets, win the lottery, having wished for it, without ever praying or even believing in a deity, thus we know a negative result to your claim is possible, but we have no such objective evidence for your positive claim or assumption.

These are not "confirmation bias".

Well then address all the explanations above of why they are with something beyond these endless subjective repetitions of your claim, while ignoring the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy you used in your original hypothetical.

They are simple, strait forward facts showing the cause and effect of Bob's experience.

Nope, you are using fallacious reasoning, as has been explained, and you have failed to acknowledge let alone address.

 

[PruePhillip]

Nope, still a false dichotomy. I have linked an explanation of the fallacy for you. You are using straw man assumptions alongside an unevidenced belief you favour, that is why this is a false dichotomy. I understand, over the years I have come to realise how terrified many theists are of the phrase "I don't know". They also don't seem to understand what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is, where they irrationally imply a belief is valid because it cannot be disproved.

So...
1 - physics is a part of the universe, the natural world.
2 - When there was no universe there was no physics.
3 - So the universe came to be, without physics.

This is either magic, god or something we don't know.
Now if we don't know then we ought to say, 'We don't know.'

As it is people pretend they 'know' because they don't understand science. Even lots of scientists don't know science.
Like when people say, 'There is no reason for us being here.'
... that should be, 'I don't know why I am here.'

 

[Sheldon]

Yet we can use prayer to control our thinking and our emotions very effectively. And in doing that, we can then act far more positively and effectively in the world. And that very often does provide us with effective solutions.

Well firstly this contains a rather large assumption, one could as easily cite the horrendous instances where devout parents have prayed for their children, and refused medical care, with catastrophic consequences. You will note this fact, can be supported by objective evidence, whereas as your assumption is purely hypothetical. Even in your scenario your assumption simply isn't supported, unless you think buying a lottery ticket is as you claim an "effective solution" to money problems? How many people with money problems would find this act an effective solution to such problems do you imagine?

 

[Sheldon]

So...
1 - physics is a part of the universe, the natural world.
2 - When there was no universe there was no physics.
3 - So the universe came to be, without physics.

Nope, these are still unevidenced assumptions. Do you imagine you know what existed prior to Planck time, when the entire scientific world does not? How did you come by this information exactly?

 

[Sheldon]

This is either magic, god or something we don't know.
Now if we don't know then we ought to say, 'We don't know.'

Hallelujah, now that you have finally grasped this, say you don't know, and stop creating false dichotomy fallacies based on pure assumption.

As it is people pretend they 'know' because they don't understand science.

I know, you have done this relentlessly, why you're telling me isn't clear though.

Even lots of scientists don't know science.

Creationists usually. The word scientist is never more maligned than in creationist propaganda in my experience.

Like when people say, 'There is no reason for us being here.' - that should be, 'I don't know why I am here.'

Again you seem to be telling me what I not only already know, but have stated many times, on here. You are the one who keeps making assumptions about there being an overarching reason for our existence, not me. There is no evidence that there is any such reason, and since we evolved like all other living things, and we are a very recent addition, evolving just 200k years ago, this does not support this assumption.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You lost me on the up-pointing somewhere.

Like I said, don't worry about it. With each exchange of posts to one another we get further from my goal, which was to discuss the two points made to you in a post some four or five posts ago. So have you never noticed that the up-pointing arrows in the quote section take you back to the post from which it arose? You should notice "PruePhillip said: ↑" before your words. Click the arrow, then click the arrow from your quote of me to get to the post preceding that one, and continue until you get to the post Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really? | Page 101 | Religious Forums

But you needn't bother addressing those points this time either. I think that if you knew what I was looking for, which I explained at Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really? , I'd have had it by now. With all due respect, you simply never respond to a post responsively, that is, address its content in the manner we discussed. When a claim or conclusion is made, you are expected to indicate that you agree, or if not, why you think the comment is wrong, not just THAT you think it's wrong. I can't get you to do that however clearly I make the request, so I am not asking you to do more of the same.

Please notice that this comment addresses yours responsively. What's an up-pointing arrow? I told you clearly what it is. If you still don't know, we simply don't have enough in common to have a discussion that goes anywhere.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

no one, here, has explained how so.

That was in response to, "They are merely stating that his thinking is flawed and his conclusion unsound (irrational)." Several of us have explained how. What do you think those words could possibly mean, that his conclusion was irrational? Apparently not the same as what I and others here mean by unsound and irrational if this is a stumbling block. It's clearly irrational to those familiar with the logical fallacies and what the implications of their appearance in an argument are. If it's not clear to you, all I can say is what I told the gentleman above: we don't have enough common basis in understanding to have this discussion. It's not just that you and I disagree. We disagree at such a fundamental level that there is little chance of reaching a resolution together.

The facts are obvious, and show a direct and active line of cause and effect leading from Bob praying to Bob winning the lotto.

I guess that this is the problem: You have the same irrational, unsound understanding. If you think you are describing a chain of cause and effect between prayer and winning, you're making the same error as Bob and as the person who thinks breaking a mirror causes bad luck.

I suspect also that you have switched from talking about prayer as cause and subsequent good fortune its effect to subsequent good feeling as the effect. If the latter, I have seen no disagreement with that, certainly not from me. What people are disagreeing with and calling irrational are Bob's thoughts about what transpired, not yours.

from Bob's perspective, had he not prayed, he would not have ended up winning the lotto. What part of this are you finding so difficult to grasp?

The part where you can't find a logical fallacy there. @Sheldon named it for you: p.h.e.p.h. Do you know what that stands for and means?

Why do you keep insisting on belittling the positive effects of prayer?

I don't. I described it dispassionately and as clinically and as accurately as I could: placebo effect, or a psychological intervention. That is precisely what you are describing, and what I agree is the case. And I am not demeaning that. I just don't find it particularly interesting or much of an insight. It's what we do with children when we comfort them with false beliefs that produce a desired beneficial effect.

It can do far more than be a "comforting placebo that has no effect on external reality." First of all, reality s not "external". It's "internal" as well.

Exactly. Prayer affects inner reality, but has no direct effect on the natural world outside of the mind.

Your whole argument depends on the irrational assumption that prayer is a "magical" solution.

No, my argument assumes that prayer isn't magical, just like yours.

now YOU ALL are concluding from that idiocy that prayer has no value whatever.

No, that's your straw man. I haven't seen anybody posting here calling comforting placebo worthless. You might not have noticed that they really aren't posting much about the efficacy of prayer as much as the irrational nature of Bob's superstitious belief.

So pretty much every aspect of your minimizing statement is wildly false and deliberately misleading.

You haven't made that case. What you've done is generate a straw man. Perhaps you haven't noticed that I'm not disagreeing with you about what prayer is and does. In the meantime, you're jousting with your straw man depiction of my argument. Throw in some emotional anti-science rhetoric about scientists being fools and wasting time and money, and your selective ignoring of points made to you, such as you not representing the claims or expectations for prayer properly. They actually are praying for a healing in any case in which prayer is associated with illness as I demonstrated, a direct refutation of your claims about what is expected from prayer and what was tested for in the STEP study.

That's a pretty salient refutation of your claims about prayer and believers, but just disregarded, which is reasonable, since my counter-claim is correct, meaning irrefutable. If it weren't you'd have rebutted it, wouldn't you? You'd have shown why I was wrong about what such people actually want, and why those prayers for healing are actually what you claim they want - comfort. But you didn't because you can't because you are incorrect as has been demonstrated. I consider the matter resolved, although I'm sure it had no impact on your thinking.

all the study really did was feed the bias and stupidity of people who hate all things "religious".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anything "might have" happened. The world could have ended resolving Bob's problems that way. I don't see how you think what didn't happen matters at all.

Okay, so it appears something is blocking your ability to understand rather simple ideas.

Please explain how.

Because your version would be at best one cherry picked example in the real world. For every "Bob" that wins there would be a thousand "Bob"s that lost in the real world. And thousands of others just in it for fun. People in need to foolishly buy lottery tickets and pray to win. They can't a ll win. Very often it won't even be a person that prayed that won, just someone playing for fun. IF a person winning the lottery that prayed is evidence for a God or prayer the thousands of people that lost are evidence against the efficacy of prayer. By using your argument you refute yourself.

I am far more generous than you. I won't say that your argument refutes prayer, which it does when we use the reasoning that you used. Remember, no cherry picking. I merely state that that shows an irrational act.