Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Polymath257]

Man's theories will continue to change forever. Only a higher authority can reveal the truth. Humankind is too corrupted to discover the truth on its own.

But we cannot know that we are in contact with a 'higher authority' or that the authority is actually able or willing to give the truth.

The only way we have of finding the truth is through our own investigations. We need to be skeptical, test at every stage and whenever new techniques become available, and always realize that we can be wrong in any detail not tested.

Also, the theories become more accurate over time, especially as new observational techniques are discovered.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Feelings are unreliable. Reason is reliable.

Why would reason be reliable in a world created by blind causation?

 

[Polymath257]

No... God created us to follow him but we rebelled.

That is the claim. But what evidence for this do we have?

 

[Wildswanderer]

But we cannot know that we are in contact with a 'higher authority'

We can, as much as we can know anything about reality. We can't know reason is even reasonable in a godless universe.... where we are just meat machines.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is the claim. But what evidence for this do we have?

Look around you. Man longs for a perfect, peaceful existence but always fails to obtain it. Either the longing should not exist, or perfection is possible only when we reach paradise.

 

[Polymath257]

Why would reason be reliable in a world created by blind causation?

Because logic goes from true statements to true statements. That is the nature of the subject.

Now, logic is hard to learn and to use effectively, but it is possible through training.

And, for those things not directly accessible from logic, we should be skeptical and test to be sure to what extent our ideas are reliable.

Trying to find when ideas go *wrong* is crucial. That is what helps to avoid confirmation bias. Actively try to show an idea is wrong and if you cannot do so after repeated trials in many different ways, you can have some confidence that the idea is reliable, at least in those ways it was tested.

 

[Polymath257]

We can, as much as we can know anything about reality. We can't know reason is even reasonable in a godless universe.... where we are just meat machines.

Why wouldn't it be? And what does a deity have to do with this one way or the other?

 

[SkepticThinker]

#334

I already responded to that. Hence the line of questioning we're currently on now.

As I also have said before.. we don't stop cancer treatments just because it works "some of the times". We utilize it because it DOES work "some of the times!" Let's not throw out the baby with the dirty water - as the saying goes.

Sorry but I fail to see how this addresses the point at hand. Cancer treatments are testable via the scientific method. Their efficacy is demonstrated in the results they produce. That's why we can roughly calculate survival rates for various cancers and various treatments. If they worked only at the rate of chance, they'd be deemed ineffective.

But none of this address the problem with God's refusal to answer the prayers of amputees and parents of starving and/or sick children all across the globe. If you are saying prayer works at the rate of chance, then you are essentially saying they're useless.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because logic goes from true statements to true statements. That is the nature of the subject.

Wow you totally missed the point. If reason is unreliable, there's no " true statements."

 

[Polymath257]

Look around you. Man longs for a perfect, peaceful existence but always fails to obtain it. Either the longing should not exist, or perfection is possible only when we reach paradise.

The longings exist because we always want more than we have. That is biological. And no, perfection isn't possible because each person has a different notion of what would be perfect. We are always discontent, even after we get what we want.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why wouldn't it be? And what does a deity have to do with this one way or the other?

You already know why. You are just avoiding the logical conclusion... Pretty funny for someone who claims to be all about logic.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The longings exist because we always want more than we have. That is biological. And no, perfection isn't possible because each person has a different notion of what would be perfect. We are always discontent, even after we get what we want.

Then you haven't found God. You think he's so limited he can't give each person what they need? Mostly what we think we need isn't right... only God knows what we need.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We can, as much as we can know anything about reality. We can't know reason is even reasonable in a godless universe.... where we are just meat machines.

Why do you think reason can't exist in a godless universe??

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look around you. Man longs for a perfect, peaceful existence but always fails to obtain it. Either the longing should not exist, or perfection is possible only when we reach paradise.

That is evidence that God created and we rebelled against him ... how?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why do you think reason can't exist in a godless universe??

Because your thoughts would be predetermined by blind causation and nothing else. They would be nothing but fizz in a bottle and you would not control them at all.

 

[Polymath257]

We can, as much as we can know anything about reality. We can't know reason is even reasonable in a godless universe.... where we are just meat machines.

That is clearly mistaken. We can know that there is a chair in front of us with *much* more reliability than that we are in contact with a higher authority.

Being meat machines does not negate the validity of reason. In fact, it shows the necessity of skepticism and testing,

 

[Polymath257]

Wow you totally missed the point. If reason is unreliable, there's no " true statements."

Again, clearly false. I can make the true statement that there is a dog in my room. That does not depend on the reliability of reason. But, it can be information that reason works upon to conclude other things.

 

[Polymath257]

Because your thoughts would be predetermined by blind causation and nothing else. They would be nothing but fizz in a bottle and you would not control them at all.

But *you* are also part of that fizz, and to 'control' is part of how that 'blind causation' works.

What does it mean to be subject to 'blind causation' that is any different than ordinary causation? Ans: nothing. And what else would you expect to be operative?

 

[Polymath257]

#334

As I also have said before.. we don't stop cancer treatments just because it works "some of the times". We utilize it because it DOES work "some of the times!" Let's not throw out the baby with the dirty water - as the saying goes.

But, we still make sure that the cancer treatment works better than doing nothing. This is done via controlled, double blind trials of the sort mentioned in the OP. And, for cancer trials, we don't get to make the claim that ' we didn't do them right' unless we then do *another* double blind trial addressing that issue. We simply say that method didn't work.

 

[Polymath257]

You already know why. You are just avoiding the logical conclusion... Pretty funny for someone who claims to be all about logic.

No, I find the whole deity aspect to be completely beside the point of reliability of reason.

And the *unreliability* of faith is easy to establish, so we *know* that reason is superior to faith.