Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

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".

I would not believe the claim no, until the money was in my account, as I don't accept claims on faith in the way you are describing. Thought to be fair the claim is not that extraordinary, and we have ample evidence that refunds occur all the time, so a doubly absurd comparison.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

The principles of faith are a subjective belief, as is the belief in the efficacy of prayer. The research is objective evidence that prayers had no discernible effect. I get this is something you will never accept no matter how much evidence stacks up against it, but try to address the claims in their proper context.

As for your quote, I prefer this:

"The rain fell alike upon the just and upon the unjust, and for nothing was there a why and a wherefore.“ — W. Somerset Maugham, Of Human Bondage

Now that really is an outstanding book.

 

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
Firstly, that makes no sense as an argument.
"I have done x, therefore everyone who claims to have done x must be telling the truth". Come on. Really>

1. How do you know you were not delusional?
2. How do I know that you are not lying?

Lol, the same questions apply to your beliefs.... you have no argument.

Evasion, the fact you dodged those questions suggests you have no cogent argument, and yes those would apply to all beliefs unsupported by any objective evidence, but all you did here was try to shift the goal posts away from your claim.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Evasion, the fact you dodged those questions suggests you have no cogent argument, and yes those would apply to all beliefs unsupported by any objective evidence, but all you did here was try to shift the goal posts away from your claim.

There's no such thing as objective evidence for your experiences... they all rest on your perception of reality. What you use to prove God isn't real, is also based on what your mind perceives as real. It's still subjective.

 

[Sheldon]

Because the world obviously didn't happen by accident and I find God the best explanation...

Why would you think the earth happened by accident? It's a false dichotomy to assume the choice is between your straw man (accident) and a deity from an archaic superstition using magic. Not only is a deity using magic not the best explanation, it isn't any kind of explanation, as it has no explanatory powers whatsoever, it has at its core unevidenced appeals to mystery and magic.

That's a reason to initially believe,

No it isn't, it is an irrational (by definition) false dichotomy fallacy, since science can explain how the earth formed, we don't need your straw man of accident.

but once you experience God personally you don't have to question which God is real.

Same claim all the adherents of all the other deities make, which suggests you really do have to question this.

 

[Sheldon]

I can't prove a lot of things that are real. Neither can you. You can say you love someone but you can't prove it because it's not measurable with instruments. Does that make it less real?

Love is a word we use to describe a complex range of emotions, and it means different things to different people in different contexts. It is not objectively real, but the effects are and can absolutely be measured, with instruments, hormone levels, brain scans, heart rate and BP, etc etc,. that's before we start to look at the way people behave as a result.

Now imagine we replaced the word love with god, as many theists often do of course, food for thought.

 

[Sheldon]

There's no such thing as objective evidence for your experiences... they all rest on your perception of reality.

Of course there is, you just have a very poor grasp of what objective evidence is.

What you use to prove God isn't real, is also based on what your mind perceives as real. It's still subjective.

I have not tried to disprove, nor do I need to disprove any deity, no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. Humans clearly have a propensity for creating imaginary deities as well. Something is not subjective just because you perceive it, this is just your failure to understand the difference between unevidenced subjective belief, and beliefs that are supported by objective evidence, and methods like science for example that strive to remove subjective bias as much as possible, this actually does explain a lot though.

And you still dodged KWED's questions, do you think we won't notice this? Labelling all beliefs a delusion is not argument that validates yours. This is just another false dichotomy fallacy. Our sense can easily be fooled, our brains store false memories, our memories embellish events, and sound research has demonstrated that under group peer pressure we often modify facts we know to be true to align them with the group's perception. This is why we need objective methods like science and Logic, to help us try and remove as much bias as possible from our reasoning. You are simply indulging yours, and dismissing objective facts where they don't mesh with those beliefs.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Labelling all beliefs a delusion

I didn't. Sigh. Pay attention for once.

 

[Sheldon]

I didn't. Sigh. Pay attention for once.

I never said you said it, you need to learn to read. I was highlighting the implication of your claim that no objective evidence exists, and reality is a matter of perception.

Your evasion is becoming ever more desperate.

 

[Polymath257]

If you start claiming all our human experience is questionable you have to apply the same standard to your experiences.

Yes, absolutely. That is why skepticism and questioning is encouraged. That is why independent confirmation is required. That is why repeatability is required. That is why exploration of alternatives and testing them is required.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

So the point is not the truth, but rather what gives you comfort?

If what you want is the truth, then yes, skepticism and doubt are key tools.

If what you want is comforting platitudes and self-dishonesty, then faith seems to be the way to go.

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.

Instincts and intuitions are often, even usually, wrong. Always be skeptical and question every conclusion.

 

[Kenny]

Erm, from your posts.

If that is not what you meant, then why does god keep ignoring all those prayers for children dying in agony, but answering whatever it is that you pray for (still keeping quiet about that, I see).

quote please

 

[Sheldon]

quote please

"Once, during Prohibition, I was forced to live for days on nothing but food and water."

W. C. Fields

 

[Kenny]

No we don't.

1. You have signed a legally binding contract that guarantees it.
2. You have the experience of being paid all the previous months.

But you are right in that many suppliers will demand payment up from from a new customer.

In that case, I would reserve judgement until the money had cleared in my account.
You do realise that "the cheque's in the post" is a euphemism for "I'm not paying you"?

Erm, that is just a story, a myth. A tale of magic with no supporting evidence.
You need to use an example of a real event.
Also, eugh! Jesus is god and can do any magic, so why the need to rub dirt and spit into the man's eyes when he could just say "be healed!"? Although, the basis of the myth could be healers using poultices on people's eyes to treat things like conjunctivitis or blepharitis, which is not at all extraordinary.
So a good example of how a natural explanation makes more sense than the magical one.

OK... we have established that you simply don't believe... sooo...

back to the OP.

If they are going to do the test on the efficacy of Christian prayers, they must follow the guidelines of the same... which they did not.

So the double-blind test is incorrect.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, absolutely. That is why skepticism and questioning is encouraged. That is why independent confirmation is required. That is why repeatability is required. That is why exploration of alternatives and testing them is required.

Again, the only way we interpret evidence is through our perceptions.
In a godless universe our perceptions are no more reliable than the way an ant percieves the world. Only if there is objective truth can anything be said to be reliable.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If what you want is the truth, then yes, skepticism and doubt are key tools

So we should doubt all studies that claim to be true also.

 

[Kenny]

What are the "laws of faith"?

1) You must believe that you receive when you prayer (Mark 11:23)
2) You must forgive when you prayer (Mark 11:24) because faith works through love Gal. 5:6
3) You must pray according to scriptural promises 1 John 5:14-16
4) You must have faith Heb 11:6

you could start there but there are others too.

 

[Kenny]

Not without a contract I wouldn't, now that contract would be objective evidence right? The kind you don't have..

No...

A business can go bankrupt. You assume they are solvent but you don't know their bank balance.

No different when we bought airline tickets from Eastern airline to Honduras and while we were down there the closed their door and left us stranded. We bought it in faith... but in this case it was just words.

 

[Kenny]

"Once, during Prohibition, I was forced to live for days on nothing but food and water."

W. C. Fields

LOL... ok... not my post. But that is a good one!

 

[Polymath257]

So we should doubt all studies that claim to be true also.

Yes, absolutely. Doubt. Bring up objections to their methods of data collection, or their interpretation, and then give *testable* alternatives. Challenge their assumptions, check to see if they designed their experiments correctly, do the experiment yourself to see if you get the same result, etc.

Doubt is a virtue.

It doesn't mean all conclusions are false. But it does mean you should check all conclusions and data to be sure.