Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

BTW, praying for others has no proven effect scientifically unless they know that others are indeed praying for them. Thus, we need to tell them we are praying for them.

A well known double blind study on post heart op patient recovery, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer actually demonstrated precisely the opposite to be true. There was no discernible effect on those prayed for, except the group told they were being prayed for, who actually fared worse.

 

[Sheldon]

If you want to read testimonials of people who were healed, simply type " testimonies of children healed" into a search engine.

It's your claim, so it's for you to demonstrate some objective evidence to support it. Anecdotal testimonies are meaningless, you can get those for mermaids, if you don't believe me Google it.

 

[Sheldon]

I have no doubt that many or most studies are slanted deliberately.

Well creationists often do this of course, but in science such bias would be quickly exposed during any peer review, and the reputation of the researchers would suffer, perhaps irretrievably. Creationist don't care of course, so they can do it with impunity and science doesn't care about claims for magic.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Handy to line up handwaving excuse in advance, when the evidence inevitably doesn't go your way. The irony of course if it did, we all know theists would leap on it as proof for a deity. I have yet to see any argument for intercessory prayer that didn't involve such obvious selection bias. It appears to work, it's evidence, it doesn't work - it's not evidence and can be waved away, the way you did with the double blind clinical trials conducted on post op heart patient recovery.

I'm afraid the bias is too obvious too ignore,

Well, it is obvious why it doesn't work for you

Did you want to address anything in my post, or just offer another non-sequitur? Here's a clue, the trails had nothing whatsoever to do with disbelief.

 

[PruePhillip]

So we agree that any positive claims about the supernatural are flawed by definition. You have no way of knowing if your god even exists, let alone whether it answers your prayers.

How does one do this, when it is impossible to know anything about things of the spirit with any certainty?

No, not 'flawed' but a better definition by Gould, 'Non overlapping magisteria'
Science and religion operate on different realms.
Science can answer some of the what and how
and religion answers the why.
Science can 'explain' that the universe expanded from an initial starting point or singularity
but not how this initial state came from nothing, or why it did what it did.

Religion has its own science - the science of the personal as it stresses the individual.

 

[PruePhillip]

Anything with measurable physical effects is "amenable to the scientific method."

You could even say that one day we will identify and measure personal relationships.
But not with God's spirit. That's the inner and personal experience - not a group or collective proof.

 

[PruePhillip]

So....

set yourself up for confirmation bias. How about 'disprove to yourself'?

Remember the Carthagian general Hannibal? The claim is that he took an army over the Alps and invaded
Rome. Complete with elephants. An analogy would be like Australians paddling to USA and occupying it for
12 years.
Two authors wrote of Hannibal. Neither saw anything of what they wrote. Years later. Livy and Polybius.
Did it happen? Well if this story was in the bible you would say it didn't happen unless there is outside
corroborating evidence. Did Hannibal's men ride on giant scorpions? Was Hannibal's nemesis Scipio
a son of the gods? Yes, the story is utterly fake - at least by the standards skeptics set for the bible's
stories, despite their truth slowly emerging (Google 'archaelogy sodom 2022')
Someone remarked on this bias by saying, 'The bible is guilty until proven innocent.' Confirmation bias
works both ways.

 

[Kenny]

Did you want to address anything in my post, or just offer another non-sequitur? Here's a clue, the trails had nothing whatsoever to do with disbelief.

nice side-step.

Did you want to have a conversation about the OP or are you up to changing the subject again.

 

[Kenny]

So the starving children and the parents of the children dying in agony are "asking amiss", merely to satisfy lusts are they, while you ask properly and are favoured by god?
This kind of distasteful hubris seems all too common amongst religionists.

No... He said, "for I was hungry, and ye gave me to eat" - He put the sole responsibility on you.

Asking "amiss" is when you are asking God to do something when He gave the responsibility to you and me.

 

[Kenny]

The OP is about the efficacy of prayer. It is even in the title.
Therefore, such points about the efficacy of prayer are on-topic.
However, I understand why you are reluctant to address them.

moving goal post.

 

[Kenny]

Oh dear.

Santa is not real. As you pointed out, it is actually the parents (natural process) but the child thinks it's magic (god).
So to apply the analogy to prayer, you think it's god but it is actually natural processes.

You have actually argues against your own position!

Ummm... no, I answered in kind with your statement.

 

[Kenny]

I do pray for others more than I pray for myself, but I'm not sure that our prayers are more for God's purpose than for ours?

BTW, praying for others has no proven effect scientifically unless they know that others are indeed praying for them. Thus, we need to tell them we are praying for them.

I would agree on various points. Yes, it would be important to know that we are praying for them. I have asked some people if they wanted me to pray for them and they said emphatically "no".

But let me break this up a little.

I think prayer is for God's purpose. It is found in the "Let your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven"- thus His purpose. But not at the exclusion of ourselves IMV, but more for others.

I believe that God always wanted to use us as vessels in covenant.

Have you seen the movie "Faith like potatoes?"

 

[Polymath257]

Remember the Carthagian general Hannibal? The claim is that he took an army over the Alps and invaded
Rome. Complete with elephants. An analogy would be like Australians paddling to USA and occupying it for
12 years.
Two authors wrote of Hannibal. Neither saw anything of what they wrote. Years later. Livy and Polybius.
Did it happen? Well if this story was in the bible you would say it didn't happen unless there is outside
corroborating evidence. Did Hannibal's men ride on giant scorpions? Was Hannibal's nemesis Scipio
a son of the gods? Yes, the story is utterly fake - at least by the standards skeptics set for the bible's
stories, despite their truth slowly emerging (Google 'archaelogy sodom 2022')
Someone remarked on this bias by saying, 'The bible is guilty until proven innocent.' Confirmation bias
works both ways.

We have archeological evidence of Hannibal's path through the Alps as well as evidence of a large number of animals leaving their excrement along the path. At this point, it is not conclusive that there were elephants, but at least we know that Hannibal had access to elephants and was a real person because of a variety of sources and archeological evidence.

So, it is at least plausible and corresponds with the evidence we have that Hannibal brought elephants with him in a crossing of the Alps. Nothing magical was involved. We also have evidence from the battle of amZa and coins depicting Hannibal and elephants from the correct time period.

So, yes, collaborating evidence.

I have no idea why you would consider it analogous to Australians 'paddling' to the US and taking it over. We know that Rome and Carthage had been at war, we know of both Hannibal and his father (Barca), we have multiple written and archeological sources to back up many of the details. And the distance between Carthaginian territory (both in modern Spain and in modern Sicily) and Rome was not all that far.

Now, do we believe that the God pan jumped up and lead Julius Caesar a cross the Rubicon as was reported in Seutonius? No. Did Caesar cross a river called the Rubicon? Very likely. Which river was it? We don't know.

As for Sodom, it is at least possible a small comet or meteor is the basis of the legend. The case is far from conclusive, but it is at least an interesting proposal.

 

[PruePhillip]

We have archeological evidence of Hannibal's path through the Alps as well as evidence of a large number of animals leaving their excrement along the path. At this point, it is not conclusive that there were elephants, but at least we know that Hannibal had access to elephants and was a real person because of a variety of sources and archeological evidence.

So, it is at least plausible and corresponds with the evidence we have that Hannibal brought elephants with him in a crossing of the Alps. Nothing magical was involved. We also have evidence from the battle of Cana and coins depicting Hannibal and elephants from the correct time period.

So, yes, collaborating evidence.

I have no idea why you would consider it analogous to Australians 'paddling' to the US and taking it over. We know that Rome and Carthage had been at war, we know of both Hannibal and his father (Barca), we have multiple written and archeological sources to back up many of the details. And the distance between Carthaginian territory (both in modern Spain and in modern Sicily) and Rome was not all that far.

Now, do we believe that the God pan jumped up and lead Julius Caesar a cross the Rubicon as was reported in Seutonius? No. Did Caesar cross a river called the Rubicon? Very likely. Which river was it? We don't know.

As for Sodom, it is at least possible a small comet or meteor is the basis of the legend. The case is far from conclusive, but it is at least an interesting proposal.

It's the REACTION to the research in the Jordan Valley that interested me. One guy told me not to trust the research because it was church
funded. True. But then should we trust the biblical skeptics either? I told that the story of the Jewish people, beginning with Abraham's father,
are more or less historical. And why shouldn't they be? Similar stories around found amongst many nations, including the Exodus account of
the Jews leaving Egypt during the Bronze Age Collapse.

 

[F1fan]

A well known double blind study on post heart op patient recovery, and the efficacy of intercessory prayer actually demonstrated precisely the opposite to be true. There was no discernible effect on those prayed for, except the group told they were being prayed for, who actually fared worse.

I remember reading that study. I found the results fascinating.
i wondered what it was about knowing you were being prayed for that negatively affected recovery.

 

[Polymath257]

It's the REACTION to the research in the Jordan Valley that interested me. One guy told me not to trust the research because it was church
funded. True. But then should we trust the biblical skeptics either? I told that the story of the Jewish people, beginning with Abraham's father,
are more or less historical. And why shouldn't they be? Similar stories around found amongst many nations, including the Exodus account of
the Jews leaving Egypt during the Bronze Age Collapse.

I find the comet/meteor proposal interesting. It could well be the source of the legend. From what I read, there seems to be some serious questions concerning the physical evidence and that will have to work its way through to see what shakes out.

From what I have read, the Biblical story from about the time of the Monarchy is close to historical, although before that it is increasingly suspect. it is clear the Exodus didn't happen as written. It is also clear the 'invasion' of Canaan didn't happen as written (since the Israelites were in the region already, but lived at the upper elevations). It is also clear from the archeology that the Canaanites were not eliminated and that there was considerable interaction for centuries.

Yes, many societies have origin myths that don't quite correspond to reality. I don't think anyone believes Romulus and Remus were suckled by a she-wolf before they founded Rome. The whole story is myth.

 

[Polymath257]

I remember reading that study. I found the results fascinating.
i wondered what it was about knowing you were being prayed for that negatively affected recovery.

The speculation was that it related to the negative psychological effect of finding out you were in bad enough shape to require prayer.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And how many prayers were said where no healing was done? How many healings were there with no prayers?

And, ultimately, are the chances of healing any different between those with prayer involved and those without?

My bet would be that there is no difference: that it is ALL 'just chance'.

But it isn't an easy thing to test. How do you account for different severities of illness? Different access to medical care? Different nutrition?

And how do you get enough cases so that a statistically significant result will be obtained?

A better question: Why are you so hell- bent on not believing people's testimonies?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well creationists often do this of course, but in science such bias would be quickly exposed during any peer review, and the reputation of the researchers would suffer, perhaps irretrievably. Creationist don't care of course, so they can do it with impunity and science doesn't care about claims for magic.

So you believe that the people you disagree with slant tests but not the ones you agree with?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Anecdotal testimonies are meaningless,

Then it's impossible to prove anything, because you have to ask people questions... which is anecdotal evidence.