Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[PureX]

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

Yes, and I think perhaps it's your inability to express them.

I have laid out a very simple chain of events that led Bob to a resolution to his problem, within which praying was a crucial element. I have asked several people to explain how this chain of events is inaccurate, or unreasoned, or was not effective, and no one seems to be able to explain this. Instead, they just keep telling me how "irrational" it all is. Which seems pretty irrational to me, because I don't see how rationality is even relevant to praying being effective. I doubt very much that Bob cared that his solution was rational. I think he just cared that it was effective. As would any of us under the circumstances.

And that is what this thread is all about: how effective prayer is. Not how rational it is.

Because your version would be at best one cherry picked example in the real world.

Every example of prayer working for someone is ONE subjective, anecdotal example "in the real world". That doesn't mean that all those examples were not positively effecting each in their own way. In fact, logically, I think we have to acknowledge that prayer IS positively effective even if it's only positively effective for one person.

Consider this: prayer has saved and helped to save many MILLIONS of human lives over the centuries. Literally, saved countless people's lives. It's stopped alcoholics from drinking and drug addicts from using drugs all over the world, every single day. It's stopped food addicts from over-eating. It's stopped mentally ill and emotionally disturbed people from killing themselves and/or others. It's stopped husbands and fathers from abandoning their promises and responsibilities to their families. It's stopped soldiers from committing atrocities during wartime. And on and on and on. And yet this thread is trying to claim that prayer is "ineffective". That is has no effect "in the real world". And why? Just because the people making this claim hate religion and consider it irrational superstition, and therefor despise anything they consider related to religion as "irrational superstition".

Now THAT'S irrational.

For every "Bob" that wins there would be a thousand "Bob"s that lost in the real world.

If they prayed to win the lottery, then they would very likely be disappointed. But that doesn't mean their prayer was ineffective. As hopefully, they will have learned that this is not what prayer is for. That it's not an appropriate use of that activity. And having learned this, they will better apply their prayers in the future, gaining them much better and more positive results.

If I try to drive a screw into a board using a hammer, it would almost certainly not work for me. But that doesn't make my hammer useless. As in fact it's a very useful tool; but I have to learn to apply it to the proper purpose. Prayer is the same way. It's a very useful tool when applied to the proper circumstance. Not everyone understands this, or knows what the proper purpose of prayer, is. So people make mistakes, and some people make false claims, and that's unfortunate. But that doesn't make prayer useless nor ineffective. Nor does it make it "irrational", no matter how many of you say it does, or how many times you keep saying it.

 

[Stonetree]

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.

Thank You for your response...

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.

Thank You for your response..

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and I think perhaps it's your inability to express them.

I have laid out a very simple chain of events that led Bob to a resolution to his problem, within which praying was a crucial element. I have asked several people to explain how this chain of events is inaccurate, or unreasoned, or was not effective, and no one seems to be able to explain this. Instead, they just keep telling me how "irrational" it all is. Which seems pretty irrational to me, because I don't see how rationality is even relevant to praying being effective. I doubt very much that Bob cared that his solution was rational. I think he just cared that it was effective. As would any of us under the circumstances.

And that is what this thread is all about: how effective prayer is. Not how rational it is.
Every example of prayer working for someone is ONE subjective, anecdotal example "in the real world". That doesn't mean that all those examples were not positively effecting each in their own way. In fact, logically, I think we have to acknowledge that prayer IS positively effective even if it's only positively effective for one person.

Consider this: prayer has saved and helped to save many MILLIONS of human lives over the centuries. Literally, saved countless people's lives. It's stopped alcoholics from drinking and drug addicts from using drugs all over the world, every single day. It's stopped food addicts from over-eating. It's stopped mentally ill and emotionally disturbed people from killing themselves and/or others. It's stopped husbands and fathers from abandoning their promises and responsibilities to their families. It's stopped soldiers from committing atrocities during wartime. And on and on and on. And yet this thread is trying to claim that prayer is "ineffective". That is has no effect "in the real world". And why? Just because the people making this claim hate religion and consider it irrational superstition, and therefor despise anything they consider related to religion as "irrational superstition".

Now THAT'S irrational.
If they prayed to win the lottery, then they would very likely be disappointed. But that doesn't mean their prayer was ineffective. As hopefully, they will have learned that this is not what prayer is for. That it's not an appropriate use of that activity. And having learned this, they will better apply their prayers in the future, gaining them much better and more positive results.

If I try to drive a screw into a board using a hammer, it would almost certainly not work for me. But that doesn't make my hammer useless. As in fact it's a very useful tool; but I have to learn to apply it to the proper purpose. Prayer is the same way. It's a very useful tool when applied to the proper circumstance. Not everyone understands this, or knows what the proper purpose of prayer, is. So people make mistakes, and some people make false claims, and that's unfortunate. But that doesn't make prayer useless nor ineffective. Nor does it make it "irrational", no matter how many of you say it does, or how many times you keep saying it.

Sorry but your Bob example is a failure. No amount of tap dancing will fix the elements that various poster have pointed out to you.

 

[PureX]

Sorry but your Bob example is a failure. No amount of tap dancing will fix the elements that various poster have pointed out to you.

Elements that you still are failing to point out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Elements that you still are failing to point out.

Nope. They are there. I am not beating a dead horse. Go back and reread all of the refutations against your bad argument. You can change the topic to something else, but that argument is past the "let's tenderize it" stage to being consumed by flies.

 

[Sheldon]

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

COUGH irrational (post hoc ergo propter hoc) COUGH

COUGH selection bias COUGH

 

[Sheldon]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
Sorry but your Bob example is a failure. No amount of tap dancing will fix the elements that various poster have pointed out to you.

Elements that you still are failing to point out.

Well now that's untrue.

Your Bob hypothetical used a text book post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, you are either ignoring this, or bizarrely can't grasp the simple logical failure of your fictional example.

 

[Sheldon]

Nope. They are there. I am not beating a dead horse. Go back and reread all of the refutations against your bad argument. You can change the topic to something else, but that argument is past the "let's tenderize it" stage to being consumed by flies.

He won't, he either knows his fictional hypothesis was irrational, and doesn't care, or he isn't able to grasp a simple known common logical fallacy like post hoc ergo propter hoc, despite being, in his own words, "much smarter than most people."

 

[Sheldon]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
Okay, so it appears something is blocking your ability to understand rather simple ideas.

Yes, and I think perhaps it's your inability to express them.

Oh I think not:

The post hoc fallacy (formally the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy, which is Latin for 'after this, therefore because of this') is a fallacy that assumes that if event A comes before event B, event A must have been the cause of event B (without any additional evidence of causality).

How simple is that to understand, now what objective evidence or rational explanation can you demonstrate that Bob winning the lottery, was caused, by Bob praying for help with his inability to control his finances?

Do take your time...

 

[Sheldon]

I have laid out a very simple chain of events that led Bob to a resolution to his problem,

A fictional construct, that used a known logical fallacy in informal logic, called a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

seems pretty irrational to me

Ok, can you explain which principle of logic has been violated, by anyone objecting to your use of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in your fictional hypothetical involving Bob's money trouble?

Only your reticence to address this, and your vapid rhetoric accusing others of being irrational, is not at all compelling. It's the old "no I'm not irrational, you are" argument, that some theists try to use, bless em. It's cute when children do it, but less so here, or maybe you're just much smarter than most people? as you claimed here recently...

Now me, well I'm a middling intellect, with a pretty mediocre formal education, but I'm certain if you talk slowly, and use small words, you can explain how your fictional hypothetical about Bob's money worries, was not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and clear this up for everyone.

 

[Sheldon]

prayer has saved and helped to save many MILLIONS of human lives over the centuries. Literally, saved countless people's lives. It's stopped alcoholics from drinking and drug addicts from using drugs all over the world, every single day.

Has it? Or are you just making an unevidenced assumption that because one event followed another the first event was the cause?

That's called something, host poc, no that's not it, erco prob hog, nope...

Oh I got it, it's a post hoc ergo propter goc fallacy, when without any causal evidence, someone (YOU) assumes that a prior event, must have been the cause of a later event, without any evidence of causality.

So be a dear and demonstrate that objective evidence, as all you've offered is the subjective assertion it must have been the cause, and it is "rational" to assume it must have been the cause, and it...well you get the idea.

Off you go, your ball...

 

[Sheldon]

Thank You for your response...

Thank You for your response..

Well you're more than welcome, I find this kind of discourse edifying, what others believe and why, but also what makes ideas and arguments compelling and what does not.

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry but your Bob example is a failure. No amount of tap dancing will fix the elements that various poster have pointed out to you.

Not least because @PureX has pointedly failed to even acknowledge, let alone defend, his use of what appears to be a textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not least because @PureX has pointedly failed to even acknowledge, let alone defend, his use of what appears to be a textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

 

[sojourner]

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.

Music can be a form of prayer. That’s why we sing hymns, hear choirs, and have offertories in worship. Chant is also a legitimate musical form, also used in worship (think Anglican chant, where the same note is repeated over several words). Part of what causes music to make sense to our ears is the repetition of musical phrases. Without such repetition, there are no touchstones within the music to keep our ears oriented.

Another translation reads: “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the gentiles do…” (NRSV). Such repetition isn’t limited to “the Gentiles.” The Psalms also use repetition in their prayer poetry. The operative word in the passage is “empty.” If the content bears repetition, repetition is appropriate. And it is heard. This misuse of biblical text, without either a theological understanding of prayer and music, or a psychological understanding of the efficacy of repetition, is often used to dismiss certain forms of legitimate prayer. This particular point of your argument simply doesn’t wash. Repeated prayer is legitimate prayer, just as repeated lines of rhyme are legitimate poetry, and repeated words legitimate prayer.

 

[PureX]

Nope. They are there. I am not beating a dead horse. Go back and reread all of the refutations against your bad argument. You can change the topic to something else, but that argument is past the "let's tenderize it" stage to being consumed by flies.

And still, yet again, you fail to articulate your objections. Because you can't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And still, yet again, you fail to articulate your objections. Because you can't.

No. Been there done that. Bought the T-shirt. You just would not accept the explanations. Neither mine, nor those of others. It could be cognitive dissonance on your part.

 

[PureX]

No. Been there done that. Bought the T-shirt. You just would not accept the explanations. Neither mine, nor those of others. It could be cognitive dissonance on your part.

So far, the only objections I've seen were based on gross misrepresentations of the scenario. "Bob prayed to win the lotto and won, so he thinks it was magic", etc.,. And once I explained that these were gross misrepresentations, none of you could come up with anything else. And still none of you offer anything else. I feel embarrassed for you, now, because all you have to offer are silly and dishonest quips pretending you "won" an argument you were never even able to pose. Because you just can't admit that you were wrong about the effectiveness of prayer.

I guess all your rational skepticism only applies to the ideas of others, but never to yourselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So far, the only objections I've seen were based on gross misrepresentations of the scenario. "Bob prayed to win the lotto and won, so he thinks it was magic", etc.,. And once I explained that these were gross misrepresentations, none of you could come up with anything else. And still none of you offer anything else. I feel embarrassed for you, now, because all you have to offer are silly and dishonest quips pretending you "won" an argument you were never even able to pose. Because you just can't admit that you were wrong about the effectiveness of prayer.

I guess all your rational skepticism only applies to the ideas of others, but never to yourselves.

You did not "explain". You only claimed. And no one bought it. The claim was so weak that there was no need to come up with something else. And I did not win, you defeated yourself.