Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

If there is objective truth in the universe then I can believe the evidence of my senses and perception.

Nope, you still don't understand apparently. Your senses can be deceived, so blindly trusting them doesn't always mean what they perceive is real. Magic shows, not real, miracles, not real, anything testable and validated by sufficient objective evidence, real. That's why planes generally arrive safely at their destination, unless people believe in superstitions, and think a deity wants them to intervene of course.

 

[Sheldon]

Lol, I spend more time observing nature than about 90 percent of the population. And what it shows me is a creator.

Nope that's what you perceive, as has been explained perceptions are not always trustworthy, and your subjective bias and inability to offer any objective evidence for your claim, or testable hypothesis, suggests this perception is not an objectively verifiable one.

 

[Sheldon]

Hidden in there, is the ludicrous claim/assumption that if there is no god, there is no objective truth.

That is so ridiculous, I don't even know how to respond to such drivel.

In truth, objective facts exist regardless of gods existing or not.

I have noticed some apologists try to portray objective facts as absolutes, rather than simply ideas that are supported by overwhelming objective evidence. It may be because they are dimly aware that there is no objective evidence for any deity, and thus seek to validate that belief by denying the existence of it.

It is an objective fact that world is not flat, but even this need not rationally be an absolute, as some people are fond of claiming we might be living in a very cleverly designed simulation. However whilst the objective evidence that the world is not flat is overwhelming, there is absolutely none for the idea we live in a simulation, hence I have no choice but to believe the former, and disbelieve the latter.

 

[Sheldon]

Then other contracts kick in, like insurance or travel industry bond schemes. You buy the insurance because you don't have absolute faith in the outcome. The government makes the travel company pay into the scheme because it does not have absolute faith the company will always be able to fulfil its obligations.

The simple fact is that we generally do not simply accept things on faith the way you claim. Obviously with religion it is easier because there is no personal risk or loss (unless you are one of those mugs who who is persuaded to give all their money to a "church")

Exactly, if faith was really efficacious, then people who used it would never visit a doctor, unless they know that testable empirical medical evidence is a better bet.

We could easily test which is more efficacious as well, everyone with faith refuse all medical treatment based on anything but faith, anyone without it can use empirically testable objective medical evidence, and we will see how this affects the results.

 

[PruePhillip]

Indeed/ Science deals with the material world, religion deals with an imaginary one.

Do you think all philosophers are religious?

So, you are claiming that we have conclusive evidence of some types of religion, but not others, but this doesn't mean that they aren't all real.
Hmm, perhaps it's you who doesn't understand the application of the analogy.

Amazing what 'imagination' did for people in Jesus' day. So many who laid down their lives, gave up everything to go out as itinerate preachers for the entirety of their lives, and often, to die for their belief.
And amazing too the imagination of people who spoke of this Messiah centuries or millenium before - even to stating the nation of Israel would end when He comes.

I don't know if many philosophers were religion. But you can call a person's world view a philosophy too.

 

[PruePhillip]

So now you are defining what all other religions are and how their followers behave.
Would you accept the follower of another religion making the sane assertions about you?

If you call yourself a 'Christian' who 'follows Jesus' then you must subscribe to a set of values preached and lived by Jesus.
You could say, as one woman told me, she was a 'Christian but not a goody two shoes one.' But that sets up a contradiction, commonly known as hypocrisy.

 

[PruePhillip]

So, either natural, material explanations for what was thought to be supernatural, or more unevidenced claims of the supernatural. Apart from the swan analogy, which makes no sense in this context. We had evidence for white swans. We then had evidence for black swans. Also, under proper scientific thought, no one would have said that back swans cannot exist. It is the theist who makes absolute claims on the basis of no evidence.

The fact that you don't realise that you are arguing against your own position shows just why you believe the way you do - through a lack of critical thinking.

I am sure many said 'We don't know if there's black swans as we haven't seen all swans.'
This funny story is actually quite instructive, because it's how careful some people are trained to see things

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are riding a train through Scotland.
The engineer looks out the window, sees a black sheep, and exclaims, "Hey! They've got black sheep in Scotland!"
The physicist looks out the window and corrects the engineer, "Strictly speaking, all we know is that there's at least one black sheep in Scotland."
The mathematician looks out the window and corrects the physicist, " Strictly speaking, all we know is that is that at least one side of one sheep is black in Scotland."

The problem lies with three groups
1 - those who accept a bias and hide it behind science speak or appeal to authority
2 - those smitten by the power of science and authority
3 - those who accept the changing culture of opinion without question.

So some scientist says, 'There's no evidence of the bible's King David'
And other scientists or science speaking people who are atheists will say, 'There's no King David, and I speak with some authority.'
And students in theology absorb this doubt and pass it on later to their parisheners and the general community.

but in the end, someone found the 'House of David' but the damage is done - the bible is seen as myth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am sure many said 'We don't know if there's black swans as we haven't seen all swans.'
This funny story is actually quite instructive, because it's how careful some people are trained to see things

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are riding a train through Scotland.
The engineer looks out the window, sees a black sheep, and exclaims, "Hey! They've got black sheep in Scotland!"
The physicist looks out the window and corrects the engineer, "Strictly speaking, all we know is that there's at least one black sheep in Scotland."
The mathematician looks out the window and corrects the physicist, " Strictly speaking, all we know is that is that at least one side of one sheep is black in Scotland."

The problem lies with three groups
1 - those who accept a bias and hide it behind science speak or appeal to authority
2 - those smitten by the power of science and authority
3 - those who accept the changing culture of opinion without question.

So some scientist says, 'There's no evidence of the bible's King David'
And other scientists or science speaking people who are atheists will say, 'There's no King David, and I speak with some authority.'
And students in theology absorb this doubt and pass it on later to their parisheners and the general community.

but in the end, someone found the 'House of David' but the damage is done - the bible is seen as myth.

So there is a King David, therefore there is a God. That is an invalid deduction.
What is a fact of this everyday world, is this. If in effect what you do, is subjective, you can get away with claiming it is objective. But that is not unique to religion. But to learn how that applies to all cases and not just those you don't like, takes some training.

 

[PruePhillip]

So there is a King David, therefore there is a God. That is an invalid deduction.
What is a fact of this everyday world, is this. If in effect what you do, is subjective, you can get away with claiming it is objective. But that is not unique to religion. But to learn how that applies to all cases and not just those you don't like, takes some training.

Quote, 'So there is a King David, therefore there is a God. That is an invalid deduction'
That's true, but it's not MY deduction.
I use the David story to show how people misused science to promote a particular world view.

Having said that, no doubt you are familiar with the 'God of the gaps' argument. The error in the argument is that the bible had much to say about the physical universe, only that God used it on occasion for effect.
But I have another saying, 'Skeptics of the gaps.' The recent publications on the Jordan Valley airburst in the iron age, and the finding of early Hebrew texts from Joshua's age, demonstrates that what skeptics say about the historicity of the bible is changing. The space for historical skepticism is shrinking. The last major event yet to be confirmed is Moses and the Exodus.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Quote, 'So there is a King David, therefore there is a God. That is an invalid deduction'
That's true, but it's not MY deduction.
I use the David story to show how people misused science to promote a particular world view.

Having said that, no doubt you are familiar with the 'God of the gaps' argument. The error in the argument is that the bible had much to say about the physical universe, only that God used it on occasion for effect.
But I have another saying, 'Skeptics of the gaps.' The recent publications on the Jordan Valley airburst in the iron age, and the finding of early Hebrew texts from Joshua's age, demonstrates that what skeptics say about the historicity of the bible is changing. The space for historical skepticism is shrinking. The last major event yet to be confirmed is Moses and the Exodus.

Yes and so what. I am a skeptic, but not a scientific skeptic nor a philosophical naturalist. I am all for removing all bias, when possible and be honest about when we can't.
You are not fighting skeptics as such, you are fighting in the end functional philosophical naturalists, moral rationalists, rationalist in general and scientific skeptics, who claim objective knowledge, where it is not a case. I get that, but stop treating them like they are all skeptics and theirs is the only form of skepticism.

There is more off course and I admit I have over reduced somewhat, but in the end there is no single universal form of skepticism.

 

[Kenny]

Who's version of the "christian guidelines"? Yours?

Also, may I remind you that you have also said in this very thread that God doesn't necessarily care about those "guidelines" as you have gone on record that he'll answer a muslim's prayers as well.

Certainly not your.

And, no. What I said isn't what you think I said.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes and so what. I am a skeptic, but not a scientific skeptic nor a philosophical naturalist. I am all for removing all bias, when possible and be honest about when we can't.
You are not fighting skeptics as such, you are fighting in the end functional philosophical naturalists, moral rationalists, rationalist in general and scientific skeptics, who claim objective knowledge, where it is not a case. I get that, but stop treating them like they are all skeptics and theirs is the only form of skepticism.

There is more off course and I admit I have over reduced somewhat, but in the end there is no single universal form of skepticism.

Sure, I accept that. I was asked once to write a paper for the Skeptic Society, and some of these skeptics were close friends of mine. I tend to be a skeptical about things too - in the past, even the biblical account in Genesis. I have changed my mind on that one, too.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Certainly not your.

And, no. What I said isn't what you think I said.

That I leave to God, if She exists. Not you nor me. You are one of those humans regardless of actual beliefs, who think, that how they cope, is the only way to cope. That makes you potentially dangerous to other humans and again that has not to do with you being religious as you are.
I have spotted that in some non-religious people too, so it is not unique to religion. And no, I don't consider you wrong or any of that. You just haven't learned the difference between individual, social and objective in some cases. But again, that is not unique to you. We are biased at times, including you and I.

 

[Polymath257]

Hogwash. You have just convinced yourself you aren't making decisions that's you actually are making.

This was said in regards to beliefs and whether or not we choose to believe.

I have been trained in mathematics and physics. In math, we *prove* every statement we make (other than what we label as conjectures). In other words, from the basic assumptions and rules of logic, we proceed to demonstrate every fact of mathematics.

So, when someone offers a proof of a result, we look it over and determine whether they used correct logic or not. if they did, then the result is proved and we believe it. If not, the result is not proved and we do not (yet) believe it.

Whether or not logic was correctly applied is similar in many ways to determining whether a move in chess is correct or not. There are certain rules and we determine if those rules were followed or not. it is not a matter of choice.

So, no, in math we do NOT choose to believe or not. The statement is either proved or not. We believe when it has been proved.

Physics is a bit more complicated because it deals with the 'real world'. That ultimately means that all beliefs are held provisionally. But that doesn't mean they are all equal. We observe a phenomenon. We then try to form a hypothesis about that phenomenon. That hypothesis needs to be testable (if it turns out to be false, there should be some observation that will show it is false) and be able to make predictions about future observations.

We then go out and actually do the observations. If what we see contradicts the hypothesis, we either change it or abandon it. if it agrees with the hypothesis, we have more confidence in that hypothesis. But we try again to prove that hypothesis *wrong* by a new observation.

After many cycles from many different people, we have a great amount of confidence that the hypothesis works. But there is 8always* the possibility that a new observation will go the other way and we will have to modify or abandon that hypothesis.

And yet, even if a new observation shows the hypothesis wrong, it can *still* be good enough to allow us to design computers or send a probe to Mars. it may have passed 10,000 tests and failed one. But it was good for those 10,000 tests and any *new* hypothesis has to ALSO match those 10,000 tests 8and* match the new observation.

And that means that any modifications are going to be very minor in those things where the old hypothesis worked. Computers won't suddenly stop working.

But, the point is that it is NOT a matter of choice whether to believe or not. Either the available evidence matches the hypothesis and it has passed enough tests to provisionally adopt it as our working hypothesis (i.e, we believe it) or the hypothesis is failed or incomplete and we either disbelieve it (when it failed) or withhold judgement (when it hasn't passed enough tests yet).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Choice isn't always a snap decision. Life changing choices are often made gradually, a series of small choices leading to big ones... that's often how people gain or lose faith in God.

I don't think I suggested that choice is always a snap decision. But how does this answer my question, exactly?

Faith is actually the only pathway to Truth, which is why a non believer can never get there without jumping off his perch of skepticism.

Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. Otherwise, they'd just present the evidence. Anything can be believed on faith, and therefore, it's not a pathway to truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can't speak for other former Christians, but it was a hard lesson for me to learn as an ex-Christian that I don't need to follow God and be a Christian to make the right choices in my life or to be a kind and compassionate person. I had to deprogram myself from the Christian indoctrination I had been subjected to during my life before I could finally accept the fact that I don't need God in my life to be a good person. I used to believe I needed God in my life to make me a good person, but I no longer believe that. It took me a long time to free myself from the Christian indoctrination I had been subjected to in my life, and it was difficult for me to break free of it.

It was such a relief for me after I finally let go of the fearmongering of Christianity: the fear of God, the shame of disobeying God, the constant worry that I'd lose my salvation if I sinned against God and then died, and the persistent fear of going to hell even though I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior (Matt. 7:21-23). Personally, I think that these fundamental fearmongering beliefs of Christianity are very detrimental to people. It certainly was to me. The only regret I have regarding my decision to renounce my faith in God is that I should have done it years ago rather than continue to hold on to the false hope that God is a loving and merciful heavenly father who loves me and cares about me. I could have saved myself years of anxiety and depression if I had been able to realize that my belief and hope in God was the root cause of my anxiety and depression in the first place. But since I've forsaken my Christian faith and let go of my false hope in God, my life is so much better now and so is my mental health. My personal exodus of breaking free from my devout faith and belief in God is the reason why I like this Penn Jillette quote so much. It's a reminder that I don't need God in my life.

Thank you for sharing this with me. My journey was pretty similar.

 

[ppp]

As to whether someone is 'capable of knowing that god exists' - well you don't know. All you can is, 'I don't know if someone is capable of knowing if god exists.'

Nah. I can say a lot more than that. I can say that your claim is not credible. That you are unable to provide a rational basis for your claim.. That you engage in special pleading fallacy. That you engage in false analogies (e.g. god vs white swan fallacy). That you are solipsistic (personal proof). That you are quite literally using the same arguments that people use for astrology, homeopathy, all the religious beliefs that contradict your own, and lucky socks.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The difference is that he can actually provide rational answers to those questions.

Not that I've seen.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Time to wheel out the old diagram again...

Both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists don't make any sense.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You keep making this claim, yet there are many millions of people who live in a completely godless world and who accept that we have no "greater purpose". Most of these people not only have a completely reasonable and rational idea of "right and wrong", but it is often far "better" than those held by religionists.

So, instead of repeating the same debunked claim, try addressing the actual issue.
People can have excellent moral values without god or purpose. How do you explain that?

That's easy. They are all made in God's image.