Prayer does not heal the sick, study finds

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
yup, but hes so charitable, he allows people who mock him to live. People so ignorant of the religions they criticize, they cant tell Lot from Job.

I do not criticize religions. I dismiss religion.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Right, Job, that's it! My bad... that I really shoulda known.

But you're right, LotM. I have made up my mind, just as you've made up yours.

-Arrian

If I go so far as to mock a specific work, whether its the bible, the koran, Nietsche, Marx or whomever Id at least try to be careful and get things straight when mocking them.


However I do not generally mock such works. I take seriously even works I disagree with.

My mind is certainly not made up, ive recently been struggling with different approaches to Judaism some of which are more, and some of which are less traditionally theistic.

However I try to speak with respect of others own approaches to dealing with fundamental matters. I find mocking fundamentalism, or liberal religion, or irreligion to be helpful. It certainly doesnt lead me to take your arguments seriously - if you want to use Job as a prooftext against theism, with me, youd have to know and be able to answer a range of Jewish responses to Job, and what Job says to us. Instead I see somethign shallow from someone who knows the book of job so poorly he cant even remember what its called. I might as well take seriously a critique of Marx from someone who thinks Lenin wrote "Das Kapital" , or a critique of Darwin from someone who thinks Darwin studied the Canary Islands.

Feh.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's the funny thing. By any stretch of the imagination, this is not a controlled study. First of all, you have to make sure that all the other 'outside factors' are controlled, so that something does not enter the experiment. The question here, is how would you conduct such a study when you are examining prayer and God?

How for example, do you know that there are not other people out there praying for these people? How do you measure prayer in any empirical fashion? Is one 'hail mary' equivalent to an our father, or are they better or worse, or more effective?

As everyone knows, petionary prayers have to be accompanied by charitable donations or they dont count Clearly the conditions were not correctly specificed, apparently due to lack of proper a priori theorizing.

At least somebody got paid for doing the study, though. G-d is kind to fools.

[Arrian]

I think it was abundantly clear I wasn't making a serious attempt at a critique of theism, as you put it. It was a pot-shot, no more. Had I intended it to be more, I'd have refreshed my memory some (which would've caught the Job/Lot mistake) and softened the tone.

As for your open-mindedness... it's about the same as my own. I note that you "ive recently been struggling with different approaches to Judaism some of which are more, and some of which are less traditionally theistic." Ok, and I continually struggle with atheism vs. agnosticism. That doesn't mean I'm open to, say, Judaism. Your struggle with various interpretations of Judaism doesn't mean you're open to atheism (which, of course, entails a rejection of Judaism and any other religion).

Meh.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

BTW, has anyone proven that giving flowers helps sick people to heal? Or saying "I hope so and so feels better" Would you stop doing it on that account?

[Arrian]

Do we expect the giving flowers or saying "I hope so and so feels better" to actually have a tangible effect on their health?

-Arrian

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Arrian
Do we expect the giving flowers or saying "I hope so and so feels better" to actually have a tangible effect on their health?

-Arrian

There is a religion that says specifically that. And i am certain that LOTM knows which one. After all, he can't criticize it without knowing it, right?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
I think it was abundantly clear I wasn't making a serious attempt at a critique of theism, as you put it. It was a pot-shot, no more. Had I intended it to be more, I'd have refreshed my memory some (which would've caught the Job/Lot mistake) and softened the tone.

As for your open-mindedness... it's about the same as my own. I note that you "ive recently been struggling with different approaches to Judaism some of which are more, and some of which are less traditionally theistic." Ok, and I continually struggle with atheism vs. agnosticism. That doesn't mean I'm open to, say, Judaism. Your struggle with various interpretations of Judaism doesn't mean you're open to atheism (which, of course, entails a rejection of Judaism and any other religion).

Meh.

-Arrian

How do you know that? Are you familiar with humanist judaism? With Reconstructionism, which rejects a supernatural G-d, but keeps (some) G-d language? What if I, as some Jews do, decided I dont believe in a deity, but wanted to continue to say the Hebrew prayers as an ethnic-national tradition?

I guess its back to the old civilizational question. The institutional and behavioral things that YOU call "religion" arent mapped for me to a specific set of dogmas. They play a larger role, personal, societal, cultural, while requiring SOME interpretation in terms of belief system.

And in regard to the very things you are pointing out, like the book of Job, and the invasion of Canaan. Im quite open to the possibilty that your view of their meaning is correct. That the book of Joshua is a white wash for an ordinary late bronze genocide, or, more likely, just a myth by a people confused about their origins. And that the book of Job is a failure as a theodicy. But you dont seem open to the possibility that there is something precious to be learned from the book of Job, or that the story of the conquest of Canaan does have something to teach us. I see a closemindedness here toward the Taanach, thats in some ways reminiscent of those who see it as the literal revealed Truth.

[Arrian]

Ah, but he's not criticizing it, so the analogy fails.

-Arrian

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's the funny thing. By any stretch of the imagination, this is not a controlled study. First of all, you have to make sure that all the other 'outside factors' are controlled, so that something does not enter the experiment. The question here, is how would you conduct such a study when you are examining prayer and God?

How for example, do you know that there are not other people out there praying for these people? How do you measure prayer in any empirical fashion? Is one 'hail mary' equivalent to an our father, or are they better or worse, or more effective?

This is a very sharp observation.


I suggest that in future prints of said study, the editors will add that the study shows that prayers by the inner circle of your loved ones do not help.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Do we expect the giving flowers or saying "I hope so and so feels better" to actually have a tangible effect on their health?

-Arrian

I havent formularted a hypothesis one way or the other. My point is its obvious one doesnt do these things only, or even primiarly with such an expectation.

Every shabbat we say a prayer for healing at my shul, and name, aloud, the people we are praying for. I doubt many of us expect a "magical" effect - thats not why we do it.

[Stuie]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I'm sure Arrian has captured my thoughts on the subject.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


yup, but hes so charitable, he allows people who mock him to live. People so ignorant of the religions they criticize, they cant tell Lot from Job.

Jon, why bother? These peoples minds and hearts are closed. Its their loss, not ours.

Oh, now here we go, sanctimony...accept it, your faith was caught with its pants down

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Every shabbat we say a prayer for healing at my shul, and name, aloud, the people we are praying for. I doubt many of us expect a "magical" effect - thats not why we do it.

Why, then?

[Arrian]

How do you know that? Are you familiar with humanist judaism? With Reconstructionism, which rejects a supernatural G-d, but keeps (some) G-d language? What if I, as some Jews do, decided I dont believe in a deity, but wanted to continue to say the Hebrew prayers as an ethnic-national tradition?

Ah, "culturally Jewish" is how I've always termed that. I have a couple of friends who fall into that category. Humanist Judaism is a better term.

But what you said was "ive recently been struggling with different approaches to Judaism some of which are more, and some of which are less traditionally theistic." Less traditionally theistic didn't sound like "atheistic." In any event, perhaps I was mistaken.

But you dont seem open to the possibility that there is something precious to be learned from the book of Job, or that the story of the conquest of Canaan does have something to teach us.

And here is where you are mistaken. As someone who loves History, I see value in those stories. They tell us things... just not divine things. I had the luxury of attending an excellent college course in my freshman year that approached the Old Testament, not as a religious text, but as a quasi-historical, cultural text. Great class

-Arrian

edit: I do like the Canaan bit better than the story of Job, though. Probably because that falls more into the "historical" category, whereas Job falls into the "cultural" category.