Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

They were looking for the wrong outcomes.

No they weren't, that's just your subjective opinion, which differs from that of many other theistic claims about the efficacy of intercessory prayer.

 

[Sheldon]

What about people giving testimony concerning interior things, rather than exterior things? If I perceive that I “feel sick,” it’s probably the case that I do, in fact, feel sick. I don’t need someone else to do a double blind study in order to determine that I feel sick. Or better. Or happy.

Feel sick is pretty vague, so yes some objective scrutiny by a medical professional would determine if it's a touch of food poisoning or a burst appendix. Praying for it to go away, and then it goes away, tells us nothing, since we don't know it wouldn't have gone away on its on.

 

[Sheldon]

What physical evidence would you suggest to be a reliable marker of an interior shift?

It's your claim something is happening, its for you to accurately explain what that is, and demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for it.

 

[Sheldon]

The Incomprehensible realm (IR)
From it came our natural world.

So it's not incomprehensible then? Only you claimed it was? which is it?

There's certain logical statements you can make: I would assume this IR would not have properties identical to our natural world, otherwise why would our universe need to be created?

Since when are bare unevidenced assumptions logical?

That things in our world have a beginning and end does not mean things in the IR need be the same, hence the 'argument' about if God created this world, who created God.
Methinks we all fail in thinking about this IR.

I don't waste much time contemplating pink invisible unicorns either, and for the same reason. However you have again made a string of assertions, about something you not only have not demonstrated any objective evidence for, but stated plainly was incomprehensible?

Maybe a dictionary will help here, as I sense you're not grasping the contradiction:

incomprehensible
adjective

1. not able to be understood; not intelligible.

 

[Sheldon]

This stuff about 'endorsing' slavery is called PRESENTISM, comparing the past to the present. I imagine that people back then, seeing a world where half the kids come from broken homes, the proliferation of drugs, mass shootings, transgender politics, atomic warfare and the things listed in my profile - would condemn our age as we condemn theirs.

You can't claim biblical narratives are the perfect morals of a perfect deity, then flip flop, and say "well things were different back then", it's so obviously contradictory I am amazed it even needs to be pointed out. Yes slavery was considered moral back then, and isn't now, so explain why human morals are now better than the deity that endorsed it back then in the bible? Or are you suggesting we have it wrong now, and that buying and owning human beings is ok as described in Exodus 21, and please don't try pretending it was indentured servitude, as it certainly was not, and I consider that to be immoral as well.

 

[Sheldon]

How do you MEASURE that?

We could measure life expectancy and quality of life against a median metric, and compare theocracies against liberal secular democracies.

The world gets 'better' due to science and technology, ie cheap food, vaccines, electricity, Internet etc..

In direct proportion to diminishing superstition.

But at the same time this tech is erroding social fabrics and traditional values.

Traditional biblical values like slavery, sex trafficking female prisoners, ethnic cleansing, and stoning children you mean? Why is that a bad thing?

Change is inevitable, best to just accept this, and morality is subjective, so just because things were different once upon a time, is no defence for clinging to traditional mores, like slavery or bear baiting, or dog fighting, and of course I could go on and on, but I'm sure you see the point, change is not necessarily bad, unless your a conservative who views all change with horror. We should rather measure the effects of change and whether it increases the general well being, and reduces or helps prevent unnecessary suffering.

 

[PruePhillip]

We could measure life expectancy and quality of life against a median metric, and compare theocracies against liberal secular democracies.



In direct proportion to diminishing superstition.



Traditional biblical values like slavery, sex trafficking female prisoners, ethnic cleansing, and stoning children you mean? Why is that a bad thing?

Change is inevitable, best to just accept this, and morality is subjective, so just because things were different once upon a time, is no defence for clinging to traditional mores, like slavery or bear baiting, or dog fighting, and of course I could go on and on, but I'm sure you see the point, change is not necessarily bad, unless your a conservative who views all change with horror. We should rather measure the effects of change and whether it increases the general well being, and reduces or helps prevent unnecessary suffering.

The metric of social capital, moral foundations, intact family life, number of children, number of old people not shoved into old age homes and forgotten, amount of drugs in our sewrage system, political cohesion with centrist governments, number of police and security personnel per head of population, crime rates, gun deaths etc.. Have you heard of the gender identity for children who think they are animals and demand not transexual toilet rights but litter trays in the class room? Our institutions are helpless to this thing now. The people who had slaves for 100,000 years must be rolling in their graves laughing at us.

 

[PruePhillip]

You can't claim biblical narratives are the perfect morals of a perfect deity, then flip flop, and say "well things were different back then", it's so obviously contradictory I am amazed it even needs to be pointed out. Yes slavery was considered moral back then, and isn't now, so explain why human morals are now better than the deity that endorsed it back then in the bible? Or are you suggesting we have it wrong now, and that buying and owning human beings is ok as described in Exodus 21, and please don't try pretending it was indentured servitude, as it certainly was not, and I consider that to be immoral as well.

I have read there are more slaves today than at any time in the past.
The bible didn't invent slavery - slavery was simply a part of the world, like warfare, monarchies, harems, human sacrifice etc.. The message of the bible was about YOU, the individual. Do YOU abuse your slave? Are YOU committing adultery? Do you want to kill your neighbor for his land?

 

[PruePhillip]

Well, we could compare life in secular, liberal democracies to life in theocracies and highly religious societies, and measure things like health, welfare, security, life expectancy, happiness, etc.
Oh wait. We already do that, and the secular liberal democracies usually come out higher.

True.
And people in these theocratic style cultures want to emmigrate to Western societies, and bring their culture and religion with them.
Get enough of them, ie Islam in Europe, and you overthrow the host nation.
So secular Western societies are the go-to places for immigrants, with immigrants wanting to have it both ways.

I read the percentage of Americans who have had mental issues in their life times is 51%. In Mexico it's half that. Why? Because America has suffered social and moral breakdowns. An article last week mentioned the huge number of guns in the Phillipines, but few mass killings. Why? Because The Phillipines has good social cohesion and this thing called 'shame' which is missing in the West - shame you bring to your name and your family.

 

[Sheldon]

The metric of social capital, moral foundations, intact family life, number of children, number of old people not shoved into old age homes and forgotten, amount of drugs in our sewrage system, political cohesion with centrist governments, number of police and security personnel per head of population, crime rates, gun deaths etc..

Your point?

Have you heard of the gender identity for children who think they are animals and demand not transexual toilet rights but litter trays in the class room?

Nope, can't say I have, though again your point isnt clear?

Our institutions are helpless to this thing now. The people who had slaves for 100,000 years must be rolling in their graves laughing at us.

No idea what this means sorry, helpless to do what, in regards to what exactly, and this has what to do with my post?

 

[PruePhillip]

Not an unreasonable idea. Why should humans be allowed to force animals to carry us about on their backs for fun?
There is a reason that training a horse to take a rider is called "breaking".

Have you not notice how over the space of only a few decades, civilised society's approach to the treatment of animals has fundamentally changed. It probably won't be too long until eating meat is looked at in a similar way to wearing fur.

That argument only works if you don't regard the Bible, Quran, etc are valid and appropriate handbooks for life today. If you claim that there is an objective, universal, divinely revealed morality, then you cannot say "but things were different then".

True on the various account IMO.
But don't blame the bible for 'endorsing' animal abuse because Mary and Joseph might have used to donkey.
There is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH in scripture, it's best presented in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5,6,7. Love God, love your brother, be kind, forgive, don't be greedy, show fidelity to your partner, don't worry about everything, what you have done to others will be done to you etc..

 

[Sheldon]

I have read there are more slaves today than at any time in the past.

That is correct, though obviously there are substantial more people as well. Slavery is an appalling breach of human rights, maybe if a deity in the bible had emphatically denounced it, instead of enthusiastically endorsing it?

 

[PruePhillip]

That is correct, though obviously there are substantial more people as well. Slavery is an appalling breach of human rights, maybe if a deity in the bible had emphatically denounced it, instead of enthusiastically endorsing it?

They did, right there in the Gospels.
Better still, the Gospels didn't particularly CARE for denouncing slavery, monarchs, warring states, secret police, cutting down forests, empires, colonialism, sexism, illiteracy and a vast host of other social ills - it called for people to come out from these societies and be perfect before God.

 

[Polymath257]

What physical evidence would you suggest to be a reliable marker of an interior shift?

Subsequent behavior.

 

[Sheldon]

They did, right there in the Gospels.

I am not aware of a specific condemnation, could you offer a citation please. If it is as you say, it's largely undone by the very specific enforcement of slavery in Exodus 21.

Better still, the Gospels didn't particularly CARE for denouncing slavery,

So it doesn't then, a rather odd and immediate contradiction, and this is better that an emphatic denouncement of slavery how exactly?

 

[Polymath257]

Or self-actualization ..,

No, belief *before* achieving a goal is not self-actualization.

Planning to achieve the goal is self-actualization.

Plans are not beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

There is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH in scripture, it's best presented in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5,6,7. Love God, love your brother, be kind, forgive, don't be greedy, show fidelity to your partner, don't worry about everything, what you have done to others will be done to you etc..

That's just a platitude, and not a universal truth, and some of it is unevidenced subjective belief. The last part sounds like Karma, a vile notion in my opinion, as it seeks to blame victims who suffer in this life, with the vile and idiotic notion they did something wrong in a previous one.

 

[Sheldon]

The message of the bible was about YOU, the individual. Do YOU abuse your slave? Are YOU committing adultery? Do you want to kill your neighbor for his land?

Then maybe it shouldn't have depicted a deity endorsing and encouraging all those behaviours relentlessly.

 

[Polymath257]

But since faith/claims are properly about our interior life and how we perceive the world and our place in it, what engine shall we use to determine the veracity of the observations?

Well, for the person involved, it is direct observation.

For others, we generally believe that the *experience* was as reported, even if the *interpretation* may be wrong.

So, I can believe you had a feeling of tingling on your head as you felt great joy. That this was God touching you is a different thing.

If we really get to the place that we don't feel we can trust someone about their reports of inner experiences, we can use lie detectors or even brain scans.

 

[Sheldon]

And people in these theocratic style cultures want to emmigrate to Western societies, and bring their culture and religion with them.
Get enough of them, ie Islam in Europe, and you overthrow the host nation.
So secular Western societies are the go-to places for immigrants, with immigrants wanting to have it both ways.

This is a very tired old canard, not much evidence to support this prejudice. In the modern era cultures that have been evolving separately for millennia are staring to mix as global travel became easier, there will inevitably be some friction. Most immigrants come to western democracies for a variety of reasons, but high on the list for many is the chance to live in a free society. Extreme views are pretty rare thankfully.