Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[F1fan]

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.

Religion offers its versions of why, and there are very many versions, and some contradict. There are no standards to what "why" is objectively. It is quite at the whim of the religion. Take it or leave it.

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.

Actually Lawrence Krauss has videos explaining how something came from other, and from a science process.

As for the why, well, there is no adequate facts for that.

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

I'm not sure what this means, but it's not science.

Why would you claim that religion has its own science?

 

[F1fan]

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

Creationists don't do science. They create and present fraud to Christian's who don't know any better. There is no dispute in this.

 

[DNB]

I have encountered various quote that the scientific test on prayer showed no change.

My response has always been "I don't think the parameters were set correctly". I can use the analogy that if the blind test for quenching thirst taking a Tylenol, we would say it didn't work but the parameters are wrong. (Exaggeration done to emphasize that parameters are important)

As my signature say, I offer a Christian perspective. 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.

So, here goes. What were the parameters that were set? Is just having people pray for someone, enough for a comprehensive study?

Let me share some positions--since the question I would have is "who did they select to pray?".

1) Jesus is quoted as saying from Mattew 6:7 AMPCAnd when you pray, do not heap up phrases (multiply words, repeating the same ones over and over) as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking.

Are there people who call prayer "repeating words over and over"? The answer is yes. Heartfelt I am sure yet Jesus very clearly says they won't be heard by God. If they are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

2) James said, in James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."

if people are praying but praying thinking that God will hear them and then wondering if God will hear them, scripturally God can't get the answer to the person. If these people are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

3) The people who you want to pray for don't believe, they can actually stop God from moving. In Matthew 13 Jesus had the capacity to move, wanted to move but then couldn't as he said, "58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

This is just three of possibilities so my question is:

Are the parameter of the study taking into account prayer principles? Or just saying "Would you pray for these people" without asking how they are going to pray, what do they believe, what prayer are they going to use et al.

Please stay of topic if you want to discuss this.

Hi Ken, great topic, and great quotes. I have no contentions but only agreements, of course, but just wanted to possibly offer you, what I believe to be, a very pertinent pericope to add to your arsenal:

Mark 11:22-25
22 “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. 23 “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Other theists in this thread are arguing that prayer has measurable effects: longer lifespan, improved recovery from disease and surgery, higher happiness scores, etc.

Are you disagreeing with them and siding with the atheists on this issue?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

They could be completely sincere, but they're still just anecdotes. Not compelling evidence of anything.

 

[PruePhillip]

Other theists in this thread are arguing that prayer has measurable effects: longer lifespan, improved recovery from disease and surgery, higher happiness scores, etc.

Are you disagreeing with them and siding with the atheists on this issue?

Within reason, yes. Many people who have loved God have had misserable lives. Says that in the bible often.

 

[PruePhillip]

Religion offers its versions of why, and there are very many versions, and some contradict. There are no standards to what "why" is objectively. It is quite at the whim of the religion. Take it or leave it.


Actually Lawrence Krauss has videos explaining how something came from other, and from a science process.

As for the why, well, there is no adequate facts for that.


I'm not sure what this means, but it's not science.

Why would you claim that religion has its own science?

The 'science' of religion, IMO, is three fold
1 - your personal proving of a matter, of things that concern your private life
2 - the bible historicity (ie findiing many of the kings, cities, empires and events which existed or did happen)
3 - prophecy (ie the prophecy that the Jews would return to Israel a second time, when in fact they were still in
captivity in Babylon. And that the Jews would return from nations that were their 'graves' and they would 'take
back with the sword' their land, rebuild the ruined landscape and dwell in cities without walls. All of which was
openly mocked by atheists as late as the early 1900's, even many Jews.)

 

[Wildswanderer]

Creationists don't do science. They create and present fraud to Christian's who don't know any better. There is no dispute in this.

You just proved me right.

 

[Kenny]

Hi Ken, great topic, and great quotes. I have no contentions but only agreements, of course, but just wanted to possibly offer you, what I believe to be, a very pertinent pericope to add to your arsenal:

Mark 11:22-25
22 “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. 23 “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.

That is a GREAT quote!!! I know that the scripture gives more parameters than just a carte blanche statement - but there is so much life in this verse and so much truth.

To many people leave a prayer session saying "I hope it worked" and "I'm still in pain, it must not have worked" and nullify the prayer.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Because we know that eye witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable. This is true across the board. People seeing car crashes will give wildly inconsistent stories about it. This is an every day occurrence. People misidentify suspects, then get details wrong, they misremember, etc.

They aren't lying, per se. They are saying what they believe to be true. But what they say is wrong and false. So *all* eye witness testimony needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

And that is for something where they don't have an emotional stake in the outcome. Add religious or other emotional bias and eye witness testimonies become just another of a range of possibilities.

For the most part, I believe people have these experiences. I believe they feel awe and a feeling of belonging, or tingling on their heads, or whatever other physical symptoms they report.

What I do not think is true is their *interpretation* of what they experience. And I doubt this because I know from nay other situations that such reports are not reliable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Google makes us all "bubble boys" (as I call it). Democrats, looking up George W. Bush, would get negative remarks about him. Republicans, looking up George W. Bush, would get positive remarks about him. This is because the Google search engine targets interests. So, if you are interested in proving a point (that God exists, for example), Google will show you that you can prove that God exists (or fool someone into believing that it is proof--as you pointed out). We're like some boy in a bubble of his own thoughts, with no outside influences. If he thinks that the earth is flat, he will get nothing but agreement from Google.

I opted out of the Google preference tracking. I want even-handed unbiased information (so that I can bias it, lol).

You might want to give this search engine a go:

DuckDuckGo — Privacy, simplified.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe it is like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (if you look at something, it changes). The idea is that looking at a subatomic particle with light will alter the energy of the particle (the light will change the energy of the particle). So, they started looking at particles by bouncing particles off of particles (even neutrinos--which was done by Aharenov, of the Aharenov-Bohm Effect fame).

One of my best friends (now a professor of physics) made a cabinet to demonstrate bell curves. Ping pong balls were dropped through rows of nails, and they were supposed to always form a bell curve as we watched them through glass. But the lid was warped. So, every time we closed the lid, it altered the statistics. It was very similar to the Uncertainty Principle.

The actual principle states that if you know more about the position, you know less about the momentum (and vice versa).

So, in this case, if you try to measure prayer, and God wants to stay anonymous, God will alter your experiment. On the other hand, if you are not trying to measure prayer, the experiment might work.

I think it's more a case of the classic and typical "heads I win, tails you lose".

Or in other, less generic, words: "if you believe your prayer was answered, then prayer works. and if you believe it wasn't answered, then you prayed wrong"


Aka: counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

 

[metis]

The study cited in the OP showed that the people who knew they were being preyed for had worse outcomes.

Then that would reverse a study that I saw on this maybe two decades ago, which is entirely possible.

 

[metis]

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 have strong doubts the God will change events just because I want Him to. However, I could be wrong-- although that never happens!

Have you seen the movie "Faith like potatoes?"

No, and what is it's general gist and where can I see it?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because we know that eye witness testimonies are notoriously unreliable. This is true across the board. People seeing car crashes will give wildly inconsistent stories about it. This is an every day occurrence. People misidentify suspects, then get details wrong, they misremember, etc.

They aren't lying, per se. They are saying what they believe to be true. But what they say is wrong and false. So *all* eye witness testimony needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

And that is for something where they don't have an emotional stake in the outcome. Add religious or other emotional bias and eye witness testimonies become just another of a range of possibilities.

For the most part, I believe people have these experiences. I believe they feel awe and a feeling of belonging, or tingling on their heads, or whatever other physical symptoms they report.

What I do not think is true is their *interpretation* of what they experience. And I doubt this because I know from nay other situations that such reports are not reliable.

The studies all rely on person's testimonies so by your logic they would be no more accurate.

 

[Polymath257]

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

No, people with a declared conclusion that they must end up with slant tests.

Those that don't study to learn how *not* to slant tests will slant tests.

Those that have a goal of being unbiased are less likely to purposely slant tests.

 

[Polymath257]

The studies all rely on person's testimonies so by your logic they would be no more accurate.

That's why physical evidence is a good idea.

 

[Polymath257]

You just proved me right.

Actually, he was presenting solid facts. The Institute for Creation Research, for example, requires everyone to sign a statement of faith which requires certain conclusions no matter what.

That is built in bias and guarantees that they are not doing real science.

 

[Polymath257]

Hi Ken, great topic, and great quotes. I have no contentions but only agreements, of course, but just wanted to possibly offer you, what I believe to be, a very pertinent pericope to add to your arsenal:

Mark 11:22-25
22 “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. 23 “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.

How is this not a perfect example of confirmation bias?

Believe you have received it before actually receiving it? That is called self delusion.

 

[Kenny]

I have strong doubts the God will change events just because I want Him to. However, I could be wrong-- although that never happens!

LOL... I do believe He does. (I actually believe in some of the stories in the TaNaKh.

I think these accounts can be part of it too:

The Six Day War: Recognizing the Miracle

No, and what is it's general gist and where can I see it?

Faith Like Potatoes - Watch TBN - Trinity Broadcasting Network

If that link doesn't work, I think it is on Amazon Prime too.

True account during a dry season in Australia where all crops were failing and God told a farmer to plant potatoes while everyone said "You are crazy".