Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Wildswanderer]

You beat me to it. I wanted to say something similar about how people can be suckered into believing anything, as some Christians genuinely believed Jim Jones and David Koresh. Also, some people can be extreme in their religious views and are willing to die for what they believe in. I don't know if you read my other post (click here), but I provided some examples demonstrating how the Bible and the stories of Jesus were more likely plagiarized from pagan religions that predate both the Bible and Christianity. Personally, I think my other post also shows that the early Christians were duped into believing the stories of Jesus told by the apostles and other people who believed in him. As I said, if you read, "Parallels between Christianity and ancient Pagan religions," you'll see what I mean.

Again, one more time: what was the motivation for creating a belief that would get you shunned or killed? Enough with the diverting.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Oh people are willing to be martyrs for all sorts of ideas. Surely you don't think people are rational all the time. Do you think Mormons are rational in their religious beliefs? If your view is correct then Joseph Smith is legitimate, and you should look to follow Mormonism. Or do you think he created the visions and beliefs himself, and somehow was able to attract followers? Look at how many Mormons there are today, do they have the truth? Where did Joseph Smith get his truth from except God, right?

If you reject that Smith's revelation is true then you acknowledge a religion can be invented by human imagination, and that means that Christianity could be invented via human invention and creativity. Just look at all the variations of Christianity these days, are they all divine and equal from God's guidance? Or are humans making their own adjustments and changes to suit an audience?

You reject science, and that did not come from your academic education, it came from a negative influence by your choice of Christianity.

Well said, F1fan. Christianity is so deeply divided that it cannot be trusted to teach us anything about the Bible or about any significant spiritual issues. For instance, Roman Catholics are convinced that their interpretation of the Bible is correct, while Orthodox Christians are convinced that their interpretation of the Bible is correct. And then there's a wide variety of Protestant Christians and their diverse versions of biblical interpretation concerning dogma, doctrine, church rituals, salvation, eternal life, baptism, speaking in tongues, the end times, and female pastors. And the list goes on. If you ask a diverse group of Christians the same theological question, you'll get different answers to the question, and they'll all use the Bible to justify their answer, despite the fact that their answers are different.

 

[F1fan]

Again, one more time: what was the motivation for creating a belief that would get you shunned or killed? Enough with the diverting.

How would they know they would be shunned or killed until AFTER they were already a set of believers? Jesus was ignored along with other preachers until he gathered enough followers that the Romans considered him a threat to local order.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The 'argument' of 'who then created God' cannot be valid.

Except it is. You haven't refuted the claim that if a deity can exist uncreated and with no beginning, then so can a universe or a multiverse.

You have zero comprehension of a realm without time or space or physics or numbers. You can't challenge the nature of such a realm - no maths can describe it, no human conciousness can grasp it.

Really? You've described the nonexistent perfectly. I'm familiar with that. Nonexistence is easy to grasp. And mathematically, it can be represented by the number zero.

The critical thinker rejects the supernaturalist's claim that his proposed realm is off limits to rational inquiry. It's not. If one makes unreasonable or incoherent arguments, they can be called that and have their defects elucidated.

And here's that special pleading again - separate rules for you and me. Right before telling me what I cannot grasp much less describe or critique, you tell us all about this place. Look at how much description you gave it. Somehow you claim to know that this realm has no space, time, or numbers, but then attempt to guard your concept from rational inquiry exactly the way the same people rattle off whatever they want to claim that scripture says and then defend that from rebuttal by claiming that only people like themselves can understand and interpret scripture. Critical thinkers reject those claims as well.

I hold that from this realm our universe was created.

Yes, I know, but what others believe is of little value to empiricists, just what they know and can demonstrate. Thus, we don't care what Einstein believed about gods, or even about physics in areas where he was just guessing (cosmological constant, unseen variables). The answer to him is the same as the one to you: show me the money or not be believed. Nor do we care what Newton thought about alchemy, just the work he did that was demonstrably correct. That's the nature of skepticism and empiricism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And you get to decide what experience is correctly understood?

Yes. We all do, but not equally well.

My criteria are empiric. An idea is correct when it accurately predicts outcomes. Astronomy is a correct understanding of the stars. Astrology is not. How do I know? One reliably predicts eclipses accurately, the other fails at predicting life arcs and people's characters. That makes the former correct and the latter incorrect.

And you get to decide what critical thinking is?

Yes again, as do you, although your definition might not be the same as mine. Once again, my definition will be empirical. Critical thinking is the application of reason to generate correct (sound) conclusions, correct still meaning demonstrably correct. It's the only method we have for elucidating implicit truth from evidence, and we can demonstrate when we have done that successfully.

I've decided that learning critical thought was the most valuable aspect of a university education. It allows one to avoid indoctrination by training him to doubt unevidenced claims and only believe sound conclusions rigorously generated by that method of deciding truth. It's how I know how to recognize and disregard the hucksters and charlatans peddling political and scientific misinformation. It's why I live outside of theism.

They weren't persecuted.

You had asked, "The earliest church was heavily persecuted. What is the motivation for creating a belief that can get you killed or shunned?"

Anybody starting a cult expects to be or claims to be persecuted, but they do it anyway, including the early Christians. Jones and Koresh both expressed feelings of persecution, and taught their followers the same, but started and grew their cults anyway. It's why Jones left California for Guyana. It's why Koresh stockpiled arms. This argument frequently proffered by Christians that their religion must be based on actual witnessed events including a resurrection based in the idea that people wouldn't die or willfully endure persecution for such false beliefs ignores the thousands of examples from history where people did just that. Being a Scientologist get you shunned, but they don't care.

Look at what the anti-vaxxers endured for their false belief, including losing their jobs and being excluded from a large part of public life. Ask them if they felt persecuted. What was the motive for them creating and spreading the belief that the vaccine was more dangerous than the virus? People make these kinds of errors commonly and often die or otherwise suffer for them including being marginalized and demonized by society. It does demonstrate a commitment to the belief, but not that the belief is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They were literally thrown to lions, burned alive and crucified, just to name a few.

That was for a rather limited time period. And later than you probably believe. The claims of early Christian martyrs is extremely inflated. Do you understand what the difference is between victims of persecution and martyrs?

 

[Wildswanderer]

How would they know they would be shunned or killed until AFTER they were already a set of believers? Jesus was ignored along with other preachers until he gathered enough followers that the Romans considered him a threat to local order.

Lol, yes so the fact that they crucified him should not have given his followers any clue what would happen to them?
Most of the disciples were martyrs.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Once again, my definition will be empirical. Critical thinking is the application of reason to generate correct (sound) conclusions, correct still meaning demonstrably correct

That can mean anything you want it to mean.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Look at what the anti-vaxxers endured for their false belief, including losing their jobs and being excluded from a large part of public life.

False belief? They were right.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That was for a rather limited time period. And later than you probably believe. The claims of early Christian martyrs is extremely inflated. Do you understand what the difference is between victims of persecution and martyrs?

Yes because being killed, which started with the disciples and continued until Constantine, was just persecution?

Those who first persecuted the Church were not Romans, but the Jews. Some of the deaths of early Christian leaders were directly the result of the Jews. Among them was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was burned at the stake, then stabbed to death.
Later it was all the Roman emperors from
Nero to Diocletian & Galerius.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes because being killed, which started with the disciples and continued until Constantine, was just persecution?

Those who first persecuted the Church were not Romans, but the Jews. Some of the deaths of early Christian leaders were directly the result of the Jews. Among them was Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who was burned at the stake, then stabbed to death.
Later it was all the Roman emperors from
Nero to Diocletian & Galerius.

Your history appears to be a bit off. It was not all Roman emperors. It was an on again off again persecution of varying degrees:

And two of the disciples were persecuted. We are unsure of the rest.
Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia

And Polycarp was a martyr. But it seems that you still do not understand the difference between someone that is a martyr and someone that was persecuted.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Critical thinking is the application of reason to generate correct (sound) conclusions, correct still meaning demonstrably correct. It's the only method we have for elucidating implicit truth from evidence, and we can demonstrate when we have done that successfully.

That can mean anything you want it to mean.

OK, thanks. How about it meaning what I just wrote?

One of the insights I've gleaned in the last couple of years is how few people know what critical thinking is. I used to think that the ones who ignored it didn't respect it or felt like it was over their heads, but now I see that they mostly don't know what it is or what it can do. That's the basis of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which is not the false belief that one has elevated himself to the level of the cognoscenti, but rather, they are unaware that there is a higher understanding and that there are people who can actually derive correct conclusions and know that they are correct. The D-K crowd are simply unaware that other people don't think like them.

They assume that everybody is just guessing like they are, and that their opinions come from the same kind of thinking as theirs, meaning that they are no more valuable or likely to be correct than their own. It's not that they see themselves as up there. They aren't aware that there is an up there. It's why there are people who don't recognize expertise, and can't tell who to trust or believe. It's why the antivaxxers trust Tucker Carlson more than Dr. Fauci, and why when one gives such people a scientific explanation, they often say, "Well, that's just your opinion." That comment caught my eye. Why would one say that unless they were unaware that one can beliefs that are factual and know that they are correct?

Your comment suggests that to me. You seem to imply that critical thinking is anything the critical thinker wants it to be. It's not, just as adding is not whatever the adder wants it to be.

Look at what the anti-vaxxers endured for their false belief, including losing their jobs and being excluded from a large part of public life. Ask them if they felt persecuted. What was the motive for them creating and spreading the belief that the vaccine was more dangerous than the virus?

False belief? They were right.

Here's a place where critical thinking would help you. They were wrong then and they still are, although the relative risk of being unvaccinated has fallen as the world has begun developing a higher level of immunity due to so many others being vaccinated or relatively recently infected - people who are much less likely to be vectors (infected and contagious) at any given time, including themselves if previously infected not too long ago.

And yes, it is possible to know what I just wrote for a fact, and that those who disagree are incorrect. It's actually quite easy. Only a few numbers and principles are needed.

I've already been called arrogant for holding that position a few times here on RF, pronouncing an idea of theirs wrong after hearing, "That's just your opinion." You might feel the same, especially if you are unfamiliar with interpreting data or doing risk-benefit assessment properly, which I alluded to indirectly when noting that the risk of a lethal Covid infection is falling for everybody, even the unvaccinated.

I'd be interested in your explanation for why you feel that the anti-vaxxers were correct. What do you see as the risks and benefits of vaccination that causes you to conclude that the former is greater? Are you considering all of the risks of infection? Are you aware that this virus infects multiple tissues and organs, and seems to linger in some or all infected people? Are you aware of the long-term risk of a virus making a home in your body? Hepatitis viruses can lead to liver cancer. HPV causes cervical cancer years after infection. Chicken-pox virus (VZV) never leaves, often reactivating as shingles. What can we expect in 20 years in people that were previously infected with this virus, especially those who survived a few cases of Covid unvaccinated and who saw the highest viral loads.

Even the asymptomatic are paying a price:

LUNG
New study into long-term impacts of lung damage after COVID-19 – UKRI
Study examines the effect of long COVID on lung health (medicalnewstoday.com)

KIDNEY
Kidney Damage Another Consequence of 'Long COVID' (webmd.com)
Long-term effects of Covid-19 on the kidney | QJM: An International Journal of Medicine | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

HEART
The COVID Heart—One Year After SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Patients Have an Array of Increased Cardiovascular Risks | Cardiology | JAMA | JAMA Network
COVID-19 (coronavirus): Long-term effects - Mayo Clinic

BRAIN
Severe COVID-19 can trigger drop in IQ similar to aging 20 years, study shows - UPI.com
Study Finds COVID-19 May Lower Intelligence (webmd.com)

As you can see, this is a nuanced calculation that need to compare the short-term and long-term risks of infection versus vaccine. I can also tell you that you are mistaken.

 

[Wildswanderer]

As you can see, this is a nuanced calculation that need to compare the short-term and long-term risks of infection versus vaccine. I can also tell you that you are mistaken.

What you are missing is the data on how many people suffer from serious side effects or deaths from the vaccines... and you will never have that information because it will never be released, most likely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you are missing is the data on how many people suffer from serious side effects or deaths from the vaccines... and you will never have that information because it will never be released, most likely.

Sorry, but conspiracy theories require evidence to be taken seriously.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Your comment suggests that to me. You seem to imply that critical thinking is anything the critical thinker wants it to be. It's not, just as adding is not whatever the adder wants it to be.

Critical thinking is nothing more than breaking things into small pieces and then putting them back together again.

I wasn't good at understanding geometry, for example, when my teacher taught it .. but another student broke it down in simple terms and I could then grasp it.
But for many things in life you can only go so far with that. Not everything is math. You never have all the information about history for another example, or all information about reality. In many areas we only see a small part of the elephant, so there's always room for opinion even if you are critically thinking.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Sorry, but conspiracy theories require evidence to be taken seriously.

Just labeling something a conspiracy theory is an easy, lazy way to dismiss it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Critical thinking is nothing more than breaking things into small pieces and then putting them back together again.

I wasn't good at understanding geometry, for example, when my teacher taught it .. but another student broke it down in simple terms and I could then grasp it.
But for many things in life you can only go so far with that. Not everything is math. You never have all the information about history for another example, or all information about reality. In many areas we only see a small part of the elephant, so there's always room for opinion even if you are critically thinking.

Not really. Critical thinking results when one can honestly ask oneself "What would I be likely to observe if I was wrong in my beliefs?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

WE

Just labeling something a conspiracy theory is an easy, lazy way to dismiss it.

Sorry, but no. What you proposed was pure conspiracy theory. You are now trying to shift the burden of proof for your bogus claim. That tells us that you know that it is false.

For example, deaths are easy to track and a spike in the death rate cannot be covered up. That is why we are very sure that the deaths from Covid19 are much higher than reported. Early on when the disease first hit deaths of the elderly was so high that many were not diagnosed. But we are still very sure that their cause of death was Covid19 since other explanations do not explain the sudden increase in death rates. The same appears to be the case in many underdeveloped countries that did not report high death rates due to Covid19. They still had unexplained deaths that are which indicates that they are the result of the virus:

Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

We do not see a similar correspondence to vaccine rates. You should not only ask yourself "What would we see if I was wrong". You should also ask yourself "What we see if I was right". You might be able to support your claims if you used some critical thinking.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not really. Critical thinking results when one can honestly ask oneself "What would I be likely to observe if I was wrong in my beliefs?"

We do that all the time as theists. We break our beliefs down to their components and examine them in light of what we see around us. Then we decide if we are in error on some point.
For example if I was in a church that emphasized God's control over his allowing freedom of choice I would have to examine where the boundaries of these ideas match and where they don't and what my belief system says about each and also what I observe in the world around me to know where I stand on the issue. We break ideas down to better understand them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We do that all the time as theists. We break our beliefs down to their components and examine them in light of what we see around us. Then we decide if we are in error on some point.
For example if I was in a church that emphasized God's control over his allowing freedom of choice I would have to examine where the boundaries of these ideas match and where they don't and what my belief system says about each and also what I observe in the world around me to know where I stand on the issue. We break ideas down to better understand them.

I doubt if you do it properly.