Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Kenny]

Not at all.
Ironically, it is you who keeps trying to move the goal posts. Unfortunately, the shots keep going in.

LOL... I call that someone shooting with a shotgun hoping to hit something... but the dove keeps flying.

 

[Kenny]

You do know that it's a film "based on a true story", not a documentary?

yes... great movie! I didn't say it was a documentary.

 

[DNB]

That is a GREAT quote!!! I know that the scripture gives more parameters than just a carte blanche statement - but there is so much life in this verse and so much truth.

To many people leave a prayer session saying "I hope it worked" and "I'm still in pain, it must not have worked" and nullify the prayer.

Yes, faith, even though it shouldn't be, is a very subjective term in regard to those who claim to have it. So, when they say I prayed, or that i was devout but was not answered, raises the question to the degree of humility and faith of the requester.

 

[DNB]

How is this not a perfect example of confirmation bias?

Believe you have received it before actually receiving it? That is called self delusion.

It's called acting upon one's faith. What's the point of having faith if it gives you no confidence or comfort - that's called skepticism and doubt?
Faith is wisdom, and one's perception and understanding raises the conviction of his faith. Thus, trusting one's instincts and insights, necessitates the increase of one's expectations.

 

[KWED]

No I rarely believe anything you say for example.

Even the stuff that is demonstrably true?
So, if you are such a sceptic, why do you simply accept the extraordinary claims of your religion? Why do you simply dismiss perfectly reasonable, rational, natural explanations?

 

[KWED]

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

The mythical characters in the Bible are fictional, although they may have been based on real people. Same applies to many tales from ancient history. Presumably you hold this very position about Muhammad?

 

[KWED]

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 -

You seem confused.
No one is claiming that the OT was written written by one person, as a complete book, at a certain time. It is a collection of myths, legends, quasi-historical memories, cultural expectations, of various people over time.

The Quran contains records of actual, real-world events and people. Do you claim that all the magic in it is therefore also true?

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.

1. Written records existed in the Middle East for millennia before the OT was written. So people in the 5th century BC did have knowledge of events from the 10th century BC and earlier, from existing texts.
2. Oral traditions existed long before writing was commonplace, and long afterwards. Are you seriously claiming that cultural histories cannot be transmitted orally?

 

[KWED]

yes... great movie! I didn't say it was a documentary.

Then why cite it in a discussion about the efficacy of prayer if you know it's fiction? You must keep on topic, remember.

 

[KWED]

It's called acting upon one's faith. What's the point of having faith if it gives you no confidence or comfort - that's called skepticism and doubt?
Faith is wisdom, and one's perception and understanding raises the conviction of his faith. Thus, trusting one's instincts and insights, necessitates the increase of one's expectations.

So you accept that it is question begging and subject to confirmation bias, and therefore any such anecdotes are meaningless as evidence for the efficacy of prayer.

 

[Kenny]

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...

Where did you get that? You have quite an imagination.

 

[Kenny]

The issue at hand is the parameters of which they "make the test". Whether you agree or not with how one is suppose to pray, the spiritual laws that are necessary to implement, is not really the issue although don't mind addressing it.

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:

There is a difference between "excuses" and wrong implementation. I find it confusing that you would think that taking Tylenol for thirst would be classified as "an excuse" instead of the wrong ingredient to satisfy the thirst which would be water or that you would even find that "confusing".

So, yes, the spiritual laws for prayer are specific.

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):

Yes, He is particular. To exaggerate for example sake, it would be like saying "God should heal a headache when you are praying to finances"

You may find it "petty" but there are laws. There are laws of physics, Do you find laws of physics "petty" when you are trying to use it in science? Is the law of gravity "petty" when you want to fly an airplane?

Regardless, IF they are going to do a "prayer test" but they are going to ignore the context of what prayer is about, it isn't petty, it is wrong application of the laws of prayer.

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".

I find this a little odd since you took a general statement and globally applied it.

Can we stick with the OP instead of evading what this is about?

 

[Kenny]

How is this not a perfect example of confirmation bias?

Believe you have received it before actually receiving it? That is called self delusion.

Not really. We use it in varying fashions even in our every day life.

You believe you will receive a check for 40 hours of work before you actually receive it. Otherwise you wouldn't work the 40 hours first.

Or when you hear the person on the phone say, "I will refund your money and the check will arrive in 2 weeks", in essence you do believe you have it before you received it as you tell your spouse, "They are refunding the money".

So, in some sense, we implement it in varying degrees.

Let's look at that with an example and what it would mean if you didn't believe you have received it:

John 9:6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, 7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

If this man didn't believe, would he have gone to the pool to wash? Would he even had let Jesus put clay of spittle on his eyes?

Logic would say, "probably not". IMO

 

[Kenny]

Then why cite it in a discussion about the efficacy of prayer if you know it's fiction? You must keep on topic, remember.

This was a personal message between me and my friend Metis which we do often.

It isn't fiction, it is a movie based on true events. Certainly there are some literary liberties in making a movie. Pearl Harbor movie is based on true events... we don't say "it is fiction" when we watch it.

But, of course, you knew that so back at ya

 

[joelr]

Yes we should... as I said above: "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."

My Muslim and Hindu friends both said the same except it was really Allah/Krishna who is most mercyful and hearing the Christian prayer.

 

[PruePhillip]

You seem confused.
No one is claiming that the OT was written written by one person, as a complete book, at a certain time. It is a collection of myths, legends, quasi-historical memories, cultural expectations, of various people over time.

The Quran contains records of actual, real-world events and people. Do you claim that all the magic in it is therefore also true?

1. Written records existed in the Middle East for millennia before the OT was written. So people in the 5th century BC did have knowledge of events from the 10th century BC and earlier, from existing texts.
2. Oral traditions existed long before writing was commonplace, and long afterwards. Are you seriously claiming that cultural histories cannot be transmitted orally?

The claim (now slowly faltering) is that the OT was concocted in Persian or Greek times. The fact that so many names, places,
customs and the like were not known in these latter times demonstrates one of two things:
1 - the OT was written as it happened
2 - the OT was compiled from existing documents

both statements are the same. As for the 'magic' or miracles - yes I do. But my argument is about the historical aspects that we
can verify. Until recently people didn't believe King David existed - now we know he did. You can dismiss his claims of relationship
with God, but you can't dismiss that he existed.

 

[PruePhillip]

The mythical characters in the Bible are fictional, although they may have been based on real people. Same applies to many tales from ancient history. Presumably you hold this very position about Muhammad?

Now again on this forum - do you believe the Carthagian General Hannibal existed? He was recorded by two Roman writers
with a somewhat wooly outlook on things, so to speak. If the accounts of the Patriarchs is not true because we have no evidence
for these itinerate Hebrews, then was Socrates a real person? Let's be honest.

ps Abraham was a witness to the destruction of the Jordan plain ca 1650 BC. We now have the evidence for that destruction.
So the historic background to these men is slowly coming to light.

 

[PruePhillip]

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

And yet Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were wandering Hebrews in Canaan Late Bronze Age - and someone on this forum
just said they were mythic.

 

[joelr]

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)

As my signature say, I offer a Christian perspective. 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, here goes. What were the parameters that were set? Is just having people pray for someone, enough for a comprehensive study?

Let me share some positions--since the question I would have is "who did they select to pray?".

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."

This is just three of possibilities so my question is:

Are the parameter of the study taking into account prayer principles? Or just saying "Would you pray for these people" without asking how they are going to pray, what do they believe, what prayer are they going to use et al.

Please stay of topic if you want to discuss this.

Three mainstream religious sites prayed daily for patients assigned to receive prayer.
A 2001 study by Meisenhelder and Chandler analyzed data obtained from 1,421 Presbyterian pastors

However, your points about praying properly are debunked by the statement that your God answers prayer for other religions who cannot possibly have the same knowledge about proper prayer. You say God answers prayer - "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."
And then say:
"Is just having people pray for someone, enough"
"they won't be heard by God."
"would make the test invalid."
"he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief"

What? Maybe you can figure out this illlogical mess of apologetics?



All types of prayer were used:

1. Do the quantitative aspects of prayer influence outcomes? Quantity refers to the number of prayers, the frequency of the prayers and the duration of the prayers.
2. Do the qualitative aspects of prayer influence outcomes? Quality refers to the category to which the prayer belongs in the religion of the person who is praying; the fervency with which the petition is expressed; whether the prayer is expressed in thoughts, speech or song; the addition of vows and sacrifices, etc.
3. Does the practical content of the prayer or the actual petition matter? That is, are some petitions more or less likely to receive a favorable response, depending on how reasonable they are?
4. Are outcomes more likely to be favorable if the persons praying have greater belief that the outcome will be favorable, or greater faith or conviction in the deity at whom the prayer is directed?
5. Are outcomes more likely to be favorable if a larger number of people pray or if a team approach is adopted as opposed to an individual approach?
6. Might outcomes depend on the personal characteristics of the persons who pray; that is, their age, sex, income, religious denomination, position in the religious hierarchy, experience with and skills at praying and so on?
7. Might outcomes depend on the moral and social characteristics of the persons who pray; that is, their integrity, kindness, altruism, willingness to forgive, generosity, religiosity and so on?
8. Might outcomes depend on the personal, moral and social characteristics of the persons in whose favor the prayer is offered, or of the general worthiness of the cause?
9. Would the outcomes depend on the entity at whom the prayers are directed?
10. What is the nature and magnitude of response that would be considered as a favorable outcome?

1. If the number, duration and frequency of prayer are important or if the number of persons praying is important, does God, like a businessman, market boons based on the currency value of the prayers? Or, will God pay attention only if those who pray are sufficiently bothersome?
2. If the type of prayer is important, is God a bureaucrat who is more likely to consider petitions that appear in the prescribed forms?
3. If the addition of vows and sacrifices is important, is God somebody who can be flattered or bribed into granting a boon?
4. If the level of fervency or intensity is important, does God distinguish between “please”, “pretty please” and “pretty please with ribbons on it”?
5. If the practical content of and petitions in the prayer are important, how does God make decisions about what is and what is not a reasonable request?
6. If the faith or conviction of the persons who pray is important, does God value the beliefs of the petitioners more than the merits of the petitions?
7. If the personal characteristics and qualities of the persons who pray (or the persons who are being prayed for) are important, are some people more equal before God than other people? Religions portray God as being compassionate; what sort of compassion is displayed by the selective favoring of an experimental over a control group?
8. If the entity to which the prayer is directed is important, do different Gods have different portfolios? Are some Gods more approachable? Do some Gods ignore some prayers? If the religious affiliation of the person who prays is important, what becomes of the other religions of the world and those who follow such religions; will their prayers remain unanswered?
9. If the magnitude of response to the petitions is total, then all prayers should result in miraculous or near-miraculous benefits. This, clearly, almost never happens. Thus, does God work on percentages; that is, if the petition is for an elephant, does he sanction a mouse? Or, are his responses only subtle ones? If so, how does he choose on the outcome measure to improve?

 

[PruePhillip]

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

Yes, his opponent Scipio was the son of the gods, the Hannibal's Numidian cavalry rode giant scorpions into battle.
I hold that the whole story is mythic in nature - therefore did not happen.

 

[Kenny]

Three mainstream religious sites prayed daily for patients assigned to receive prayer.
A 2001 study by Meisenhelder and Chandler analyzed data obtained from 1,421 Presbyterian pastors

However, your points about praying properly are debunked by the statement that your God answers prayer for other religions who cannot possibly have the same knowledge about proper prayer. You say God answers prayer - "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."

No, it isn't debunked. Do the laws and principles of faith change? No. If the principles of faith doesn't change, and God doesn't change then as it is written about Jesus saying, "God rains on the just and the unjust".

Which of the deluge of questions and points do you really want to ask about?