Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[sojourner]

Is God your parent?

Yes.

 

[sojourner]

I will simply say this, prayer has never been objectively demonstrated to regrow a severed limb, an easy task for an omnipotent deity. After all evolution has managed to do this in certain species, so why can't a deity?

That’s not the objective of prayer. This is another straw man. God isn’t a magic genie who grants wishes. That’s also not the point of prayer. Perhaps when you’ve figured out what the spiritually aware know about prayer, you’ll stop posting this nonsense.

 

[Sheldon]

What is “the efficacy of prayer?” Are you saying that prayer should be like a magic wand? If so you’re creating a straw man.

I make no claims for the efficacy of prayer, as I am an atheist, the research measure it's efficacy against the claims of religion.

Prayer can demonstrably help lower stress levels. I’d say that’s pretty damned efficacious for health.

The research was studying intercessory prayer, so the claim for divine intervention. Lots of things can lowers stress levels, so your claim would need proper context, and research designed to isolate any bias, like ignoring other factors. For example meditation can lower stress, now if you meditate on unicorns and it then lowers your stress, this is not evidence that unicorns are real.

 

[Sheldon]

Back off, man.

Seriously? This is a public debate forum, you can't insist or dictate that your ideas, claims or beliefs be ringfenced from comment.

 

[sojourner]

Well I didn't design the study, and it tested recovery across a large test for post heart op patients against a known median recovery rate. The trails were also double blind.

It was testing for the wrong thing.

If you say so, the claims for its efficacy were tested objectively, with a very carefully designed study, and it failed to offer any discernible effect.

See above. This is like testing for why cars don’t fly, then complaining that cars don’t seem to be able to fly.

I don't "misapprehend" anything, that is an unevidenced anecdotal claim, and I am curious why you don't comprehend that? The fact you claim to have witnessed something, and have reached a conclusion about what you saw is not remotely objective evidence. If I claimed I'd seen a mermaid, would you really be obliged to accept that as evidence?

Hmm. Eyewitness accounts are good enough to establish evidence for the courts… And since (as I’ve said before) prayer is a subjective thing, how Inhave been subjectively helped by such prayer is really all that matters.

 

[sojourner]

Seriously? This is a public debate forum, you can't insist or dictate that your ideas, claims or beliefs be ringfenced from comment.

Stay out of it, Skeezix.

 

[sojourner]

I make no claims for the efficacy of prayer, as I am an atheist, the research measure it's efficacy against the claims of religion.

The claims are subjective; people claimed that they were helped. Who’s to say that they weren’t better off in a wholistic way? How do you even measure for subjectivity? That’s why this whole testing thing is a joke.

The research was studying intercessory prayer, so the claim for divine intervention. Lots of things can lowers stress levels, so your claim would need proper context, and research designed to isolate any bias, like ignoring other factors. For example meditation can lower stress, now if you meditate on unicorns and it then lowers your stress, this is not evidence that unicorns are real.

Prayer isn’t really for divine intervention, as in waving a magic wand and regrowing limbs. Again: once you figure that out, you’ll see how meaningless the argument is.

 

[Sheldon]

That’s not the objective of prayer. This is another straw man. God isn’t a magic genie who grants wishes. That’s also not the point of prayer.

I never said it was an objective of prayer, I asked a question based on theistic claims. So no it's not a straw man.

Perhaps when you’ve figured out what the spiritually aware know about prayer, you’ll stop posting this nonsense.

Perhaps if you could post something other than subjective anecdotal nonsense, with a sneering air of misplaced superiority, then I might be convinced you have some knowledge to convey, but you haven't, and so I don't. You're the one making the claims here, it's for you to properly explain your woo woo belief, and demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for it, or at the very least something approaching rational argument.

 

[Sheldon]

Stay out of it, Skeezix.

Don't be silly, perhaps you need a break champ?

 

[blü 2]

You’re, of course, aware that the Greek word astheneo doesn’t necessarily refer to a physical illness? In fact, the context clearly shows it to mean “depressed” or “weak.” And prayer certainly can help alleviate these emotional states.

Yes, its primary meaning is 'weak' but it's also a usual word for 'sick / ill'. The 14 modern translations in parallel in this list all say >sick<, for example, so the original KJV translation has that considerable support.

And politically, that's the promise made to believers. It doesn't work for severe illness and I dare say it doesn't work for clinical depression either, but if you have credible evidence that it reliably treats clinical depression I'd be interested.

 

[sojourner]

For example meditation can lower stress, now if you meditate on unicorns and it then lowers your stress, this is not evidence that unicorns are real.

Meditation IS prayer. And yes, it has been shown that meditation can lower stress. This is evidence that meditation (hence “prayer”) is efficacious in this context. The evidence doesn’t take under consideration the object of the prayer. If meditating on pink unicorns demonstrably helps then it helps! “Efficacy of prayer” isn’t intended to “prove God’s existence.” That (yet again) isn’t what prayer is all about.

 

[sojourner]

Don't be silly, perhaps you need a break champ?

Perhaps you need to Stay. Out. Of. It.


Champ.

 

[Sheldon]

The claims are subjective; people claimed that they were helped. Who’s to say that they weren’t better off in a wholistic way?

No one claimed they were helped in this research, did you even follow the link and read it?

How do you even measure for subjectivity?

The research doesn't measure subjectivity, it is designed to remove bias.

That’s why this whole testing thing is a joke.

What a spectacularly idiotic claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Perhaps you need to Stay. Out. Of. It.


Champ.

This is a public debate forum, so I will post as and when I am minded to, but thanks for your input.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, its primary meaning is 'weak' but it's also a usual word for 'sick / ill'. The 14 modern translations in parallel in this list all say >sick<, for example, so the original KJV translation has that considerable support.

And politically, that's the promise made to believers. It doesn't work for severe illness and I dare say it doesn't work for clinical depression either, but if you have credible evidence that it reliably treats clinical depression I'd be interested.

But in this context that’s not what it means. Weakness or depression IS the “sickness” referred to here.

 

[Sheldon]

Prayer isn’t really for divine intervention,

Tell that to the people who claim it is. I am an atheist.

 

[sojourner]

This is a public debate forum, so I will post as and when I am minded to, but thanks for your input.

Fine. Act 2 years old.

 

[sojourner]

Tell that to the people who claim it is. I am an atheist.

You’re making the argument. You’re using the “data” to support your claim that prayer isn’t efficacious. I’m telling you that you’re missing the target. You’re not even on the playing field.

No one claimed they were helped in this research, did you even follow the link and read it?

Nope. It’s a worthless exercise in research.

The research doesn't measure subjectivity, it is designed to remove bias.

Then it’s the wrong research.

What a spectacularly idiotic claim

What a spectacularly idiotic sentence.

 

[Sheldon]

Meditation IS prayer.

Not necessarily, I meditate, but I don't pray as I am an atheist.

And yes, it has been shown that meditation can lower stress. This is evidence that meditation (hence “prayer”) is efficacious in this context.

That would depend on what you mean by efficacious, and what your claiming is causal, correlation is not causation. Meditation can lower stress, groovy so what, lying in a dark room quietly can lower stress as well.

The evidence doesn’t take under consideration the object of the prayer.

What evidence what prayer? I need some clue what your specifically referring to here.

If meditating on pink unicorns demonstrably helps then it helps!

A rather facile tautology. Helps what and helps how, and what are you claiming is the evidence for a causal link?

“Efficacy of prayer” isn’t intended to “prove God’s existence.” That (yet again) isn’t what prayer is all about.

Again you need to take this up with someone who believes it does this. The research I linked was testing precisely those claims.

 

[Sheldon]

Fine. Act 2 years old.

Oh I think that's pretty ironic don't you, given you're the one telling others when they can and cannot post in a public forum. Again maybe you need to calm down a bit, and get some perspective.