Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Kenny]

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


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.

I have answered that multiple times...

What is obvious is that no matter what one answers it will never be enough for you. Some people call it bias, others call it unbelief, and still others would qualify it as flat-earth thinking.

But you are free to live without prayer. I choose to reap the benefits of prayer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

My thoughts are determined by chemical reactions within my brain in response to internal and external stimuli.
This exists regardless of whether or not there is a god or "blind causation" as you put it.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Again, I don't believe in deities at all. You can invent all sorts of special properties if you want, but that doesn't mean they actually happen in something that exists.

Having urges doesn't mean there is a 'perfection' that satisfies all of them.

 

[Kenny]

But, we still make sure that the cancer treatment works better than doing nothing. .

EXACTLY! And prayer is also better than doing nothing

We have an agreement!!

WOOHOO!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have answered that multiple times...

Yes, I know you have. And it has generated more questions which I have been asking you.

What is obvious is that no matter what one answers it will never be enough for you. Some people call it bias, others call it unbelief, and still others would qualify it as flat-earth thinking.

What should be obvious is that I'm looking for an answer that actually makes some sense.

"Enough" for me, would be some sort of demonstration of the veracity of your claims. That would be enough.
I want to believe in as many true things as possible while not believing in as many false things as possible. I go where the evidence leads. And the evidence thus far leads to prayer working at the rate of chance, which is to say, it doesn't work.

But you are free to live without prayer. I choose to reap the benefits of prayer.

What benefits? That it works at the rate of chance? Big whoop.

 

[SkepticThinker]

EXACTLY! And prayer is also better than doing nothing

We have an agreement!!

WOOHOO!

Is it? When did someone demonstrate that?

I mean, we know that if someone knows they are being prayed for, they actually do worse, so ... perhaps prayer is worse than doing nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

EXACTLY! And prayer is also better than doing nothing

We have an agreement!!

WOOHOO!

Except that according to the double blind study, prayer is NOT better than nothing. if the person being prayed for is aware of the prayer, then it is actually worse *according to the study*.

Now, if you claim that the study was not done appropriately, design a study that meets your criteria and we can do another test of *that* proposal. But until that is done, you cannot claim that prayer actually works better than chance.

 

[Kenny]

Is it? When did someone demonstrate that?

I mean, we know that if someone knows they are being prayed for, they actually do worse, so ... perhaps prayer is worse than doing nothing.

You just contradicted yourself. Some people do worse with radiation.

Which proves the reality that you really aren't seeking answers.

Point, set, match.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Having urges doesn't mean there is a 'perfection' that satisfies all of them.

Then why would your evolution create them? They would be useless in a survival of the fittest world, in fact they would be detrimental.

 

[Polymath257]

You just contradicted yourself. Some people do worse with radiation.

Which proves the reality that you really aren't seeking answers.

Point, set, match.

Once again, *according to the double blind study*, people who are aware that they are being prayed for have statistically worse outcomes than those who are not aware. Otherwise, their outcomes are no different than chance.

In the case of radiation, there are more people, statistically, that do better than what chance would predict and fewer people that do worse.

 

[Polymath257]

Then why would your evolution create them? They would be useless in a survival of the fittest world, in fact they would be detrimental.

On the contrary, having urges like hunger, thirst, sexual desire, etc, do contribute to survival in quite drastic ways.

Having a desire for comfort, for relaxation, and such also contributes to overall health and thereby survival.

Which common desires are you claiming would be detrimental to survival?

 

[Wildswanderer]

On the contrary, having urges like hunger, thirst, sexual desire, etc, do contribute to survival in quite drastic ways.

Having a desire for comfort, for relaxation, and such also contributes to overall health and thereby survival.

Which common desires are you claiming would be detrimental to survival?

The longer for Transcendence was what we were talking about. Not physical longings.

 

[Wildswanderer]

My thoughts are determined by chemical reactions within my brain in response to internal and external stimuli.
This exists regardless of whether or not there is a god or "blind causation" as you put it.

No it doesn't. If there's more than the physical mind then there's room for self actualization. Otherwise you are just a meat robot.

 

[Kenny]

Once again, *according to the double blind study*, people who are aware that they are being prayed for have statistically worse outcomes than those who are not aware. Otherwise, their outcomes are no different than chance.

In the case of radiation, there are more people, statistically, that do better than what chance would predict and fewer people that do worse.

And yet there are other studies that say otherwise.

Could there be variables that are not addressed in the studies?

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

Objective reasoning can't exist in a godless universe. And many atheists recognize that. You are just a meat robot in a universe created by chance.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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?

The supernatural obviously... Have you been paying attention at all?

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

Not if reason is unreliable... maybe you only think there's a dog there... maybe your mind created an image of a dog.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You just contradicted yourself. Some people do worse with radiation.

Which proves the reality that you really aren't seeking answers.

Point, set, match.

No I haven't. You just completely ignored what I wrote in my last post about testing the efficacy of cancer treatments. If they worked at the rate of chance, as prayer appears to do, they would be deemed ineffective. You have to follow along.

What a clever way to avoid answering yet another question. Kudos.

 

[Kenny]

No I haven't. You just completely ignored what I wrote in my last post about testing the efficacy of cancer treatments. If they worked at the rate of chance, as prayer appears to do, they would be deemed ineffective. You have to follow along.

What a clever way to avoid answering yet another question. Kudos.

#428

ignoring what you wrote is not erased with "No I haven't".

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

If there's more than the physical mind then there's room for self actualization. Otherwise you are just a meat robot.

That doesn't make any sense. And that's a big IF. As far as we can tell, minds are products of brains.

I am a lump of meat with a brain that creates thoughts and responds to stimuli. There's plenty of room there for self-actualization.