Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Muffled]

That's just hand waving.

"Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.

And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.

It is the most scientifically rigorous investigation of whether prayer can heal illness, the study, begun almost a decade ago and involving more than 1,800 patients...."

I believe that is a question of unreasonable expectations. Whatever gave the scientists the idea that prayer was going to change things just because they wanted to test it?

 

[Muffled]

My Muslim friend claims, like you, that prayer is amazingly effective.

Should we take him seriously? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

I would suppose he has testimonies but as with any testimony, it depends on the credibility of the testifier.

I can testify to somewhat amazing answers to prayer.

 

[viole]

I would suppose he has testimonies but as with any testimony, it depends on the credibility of the testifier.

I can testify to somewhat amazing answers to prayer.

Yes, my Muslim friend, too. Not to speak of my Hindu friends. And they all swear on the credibility of the testifier.

Now what?

ciao

- viole

 

[Muffled]

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."

I believe it is possible but I also have seen incredible claims about the Qu'ran being miraculous.

 

[viole]

I believe it is possible but I also have seen incredible claims about the Qu'ran being miraculous.

They tell me they saw incredible claims about the Bible being miraculous.

now what?

ciao

- viole

 

[F1fan]

It's a bit like science, or democracy --- there are many imitations. It's up to you to figure out which is which.

Are you confessing that you don't trust science or democracy?

For religion it's designed like this.
But saying everything is fake because some or many are fake isn't good logic.

Yet in religion, how much is factual? Very little if any of it.

But I notice you offer no answer to my question, why did God inspire so many to write false narratives?

 

[Wildswanderer]

1. Most people reject your version of god, so presumably you accept that your god is not real?
2. Most people believe in gods because they have been Brough ups to believe in them. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of religionists follow the faith of their family/community.

Most religions have some truth to them... just because they don't get it completely right doesn't change my point at all. We are spiritual beings and always have been.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What inventions and practical discoveries have been arrived at through faith?

All of them have been gifts from God, who gave us the intellectual capability to make practical discoveries.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I didn't say they can't be trusted.

That's exactly what you claimed.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Indeed.
However, I am not making any claims about having met a god. But if I claimed that the ghost of Christopher Hitchens was telling me what to write, you would rightly be sceptical.

You don't want to understand that your beliefs are more irrational than religious beliefs. You speak of spiritual experiences as out of the ordinary, but they aren't, they are the majority. What is out of the ordinary is to believe that you are just the result of blind chance. Your beliefs have always been a small minority so you have to make a lot of noise, I guess.

 

[F1fan]

I believe that is a question of unreasonable expectations. Whatever gave the scientists the idea that prayer was going to change things just because they wanted to test it?

It was all the true believers who insist prayer works. We observe that prayer doesn’t work, so it was something we could test. The religious claims are wrong.

 

[KWED]

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 according to this analogy, the hospital refuses to provided cancer treatment to most cancer sufferers, despite having the capacity to treat everyone - which would be appealing behaviour and morally indefensible.

(The argument isn't that people should stop praying, it is that god ignores the prayers of most people, which is undeniable)

 

[KWED]

That was a BIIIIIG stretch.
I think this isn't a "defending God" OP since it is about a poorly created Double-Blind test on prayer.
But you can look at it however you want

You certainly seem confused about the issue. You say that god answers our prayers, but also that it is our responsibility to sort stuff out.
When we face a problem, how do we know whether it falls within god's sphere of responsibility or ours? Something like babies born with cancer would seem like a god problem but you claimed it is the is not.

As you claim to have had prayers answered, why not tell us what they were so we can have hard examples of what god considers important enough to intervene in? (Although I can't for the life of me think of anything more important or more suits for divine intervention that babies born will agonising, fatal conditions. Hopefully you will enlighten me...)

 

[KWED]

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

Well, he should have made his existence something verifiable, because rational people don't believe in magic on faith alone.

 

[KWED]

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

Because we can repeatably and independently test the conclusions of reason.
You really seem to be struggling with this concept - although you are happy to benefit from its results.

Why do you think reason isn't reliable?

 

[KWED]

We can, as much as we can know anything about reality.

Really? You think the existence of god is as well demonstrated as the existence of fish?

We can't know reason is even reasonable in a godless universe....

Yes we can - by its verifiable results.

where we are just meat machines.

Sentient meat machines, yes. That is what we are. (I was going to say "intelligent" but evidence suggests otherwise )

 

[KWED]

Look around you. Man longs for a perfect, peaceful existence

What is a "perfect existence"?

but always fails to obtain it.

Speak for yourself!
However, the imperfection of the universe and life is evidence against a god capable of creating a perfect universe and life, not for it.

Either the longing should not exist,

Why not? Why would a desire for a better life only make sense if there is a god?

or perfection is possible only when we reach paradise.

It clearly isn't "perfection" if the majority of humans are denied entry for nothing more than requiring evidence for extraordinary claims, or being born into a particular family/community. Sounds like the work of a deranged sociopath.

 

[KWED]

Then you haven't found God. You think he's so limited he can't give each person what they need?

So why doesn't he? Why does he ignore the heartfelt prayers of devout parents with a child dying in agony, but answers the trivial prayers of comfortable people in the developed world? Presumably god doesn't think those parents need their child, but some businessman needs a pay rise.

 

[KWED]

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.

Whuh?
You'll need to explain why that would be the case.

 

[KWED]

II choose to reap the benefits of prayer.

And yet you repeatedly refuse to provide examples of the prayers you have had granted by god.
What are you so afraid of?