Prayer does not heal the sick, study finds

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
yup, but hes so charitable, he allows people who mock him to live.

Why would an infinite being care?

You are to an infinite being like an electron in an atom of a cell membrane of a cell in your body to you. Except you still need to increase the ratio by infinity.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Just not that long ago there was a similar study conducted in South Korea. When the results showed that prayers help, many Christians brandished that as evidence of YHWH's existence.

[Later on it was shown that there's a flaw in the method used in the study.]

The moral of the story? Everybody's a sleazy opportunist for his/her "cause." Eh.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Why would an infinite being care?

You are to an infinite being like an electron in an atom of a cell membrane of a cell in your body to you. Except you still need to increase the ratio by infinity.

No parent is happy with an ingrate child. It's not a matter of relative "importance," but of principle.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Gibsie
My overall point is that if God is just and fair, he will provide every one of his children, that we are told he loves, with equal amounts of help. If he aids the healing of one person when he could help others, simply because that person might have had people praying for him, then I'm free to draw whatever conclusion I like about that. And I would say that kind of god is about as nice as an animal rights activist who only campaigns for the rights of cute fluffy animals that everyone loves.

Excellent point Gibsie (except for the idiot bit...)

I have been pondering this prayer issue as well.

If a supreme creator exists, and that he is all merciful as according to Orthodox Christian doctrine, he should provide help for every one of us when it is needed, not when only it is asked for.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
No parent is happy with an ingrate child. It's not a matter of relative "importance," but of principle.

A parent will always forgive such a child and be happy when he or she turns around. A parent will not smit his child dead, as LotM implied.

Though I still hold that our relationship with an infinite supreme creator is not anywhere similar to a parent-child one.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Why would an infinite being care?

You are to an infinite being like an electron in an atom of a cell membrane of a cell in your body to you. Except you still need to increase the ratio by infinity.

How do you know how an infinite being thinks?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Elok


The moral of the story? Everybody's a sleazy opportunist for his/her "cause." Eh.

He didn't say the error was deliberate. Don't let one Korean scientist ruin the reputation of them all.

[Elok]

Huh? No, I meant that people will rush to use a study as "proof" one way or another, depending on their position, and then forget all about it when it doesn't pan out. I'm sure South Korean scientists as a whole are quite reputable.

The problem UR mentioned is in fact one of the tricky points I've been trying to work with. It seems that, at least according to some traditions within my own Orthodoxy, the prayers are not so much for the benefit of the one prayed for as a way of according one's own will to the benevolence of God or some such. I told my priest to be on the lookout for any good books explaining our perspective on prayer. In the meantime, I continue to pray for others, as I don't see how it could hurt.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian

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

-Arrian

your loss

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Elok
but you should learn some of the details before making such absurd blanket statements.

You really have unrealistic expectations of some of the atheists here in the OT, Elok.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Just not that long ago there was a similar study conducted in South Korea. When the results showed that prayers help, many Christians brandished that as evidence of YHWH's existence.

[Later on it was shown that there's a flaw in the method used in the study.]

I am not many Christians UR.

And I am sure that many Christians are disappointed by this. I think that that is because they don't understand Christianity...

I know that if this had had a strong positive correlation, my faith in my beleifs would be rocked, and I might not even stay Christian...

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Bill3000


No. Electricity, regardless if it was believed to be the power of the gods or not, is still a natural phenomenon before people understood it. It does not mean that the gods were in control of electricity.

If it can be observed, directly or not, then it is part of nature. If prayer did actually heal, then it would be part of nature. Otherwise it does not exist. It's simple. Does it exist? Then it is part of nature. End of story. If god existed, on another plane or whatever, no matter what explanation that would be required, then it is part of nature.

I am asking you to have some imagination Bill... Look at RPGs (As a poor example). In most RPG systems, the supernatural (gods/whatever) is very scientific. It follows rules and the like which are very understandable (for a well reasoned system).

As it is then, in those RPG systems, the 'supernatural' is just another branch of the natural world.

Also, your post shows that I have not communicated to you, or that you do not understand. Everthing that you have said (that I am quoting) is directly part of my point, but you seem to understand me not at all.

If god exists, and can be probed and mathematically constrained, then he is part of the natural world. If He can not be probed and mathematically constrained, then He is inherently supernatural. This does not mean that He doesn't exist.

I beleive in a supernatural God (at least to us current humans). You are assuming your argument (which seems to be that existing and being able to be probed/constrained by mathematics are equivilent). This argument fails because electrons and electricity existed 2000 years ago, despite no one being able to probe them, or theorize about them.

Jon Miller

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Elok
And I've said it before, Russell's arguments are deeply flawed. Not jumping to the conclusion that correlation = causation is a pretty obvious principle to follow. Most of the violence was done in the name of religion, therefore it was religion's fault. Never mind the various social, cultural, political and economic problems of the ages in question. Or the fact that history since the Enlightenment is ripe with examples of atrocity in the name of secular ideologies. And, while the misbehavior of the medieval Church (Inquisition, Crusades, et cetera), is clear proof of religion's evil, the inspiring faith of MLK, Liberation Theologians in Latin America, missionaries providing basic supplies and services at considerable personal expense and risk, the Salvation freaking Army, Jonathan Swift, abolitionists and temperance workers, et cetera...well, that's purely coincidental. Not that most of those existed in Russell's time, but we've still got plenty of knuckleheads spreading the tired word.

There's not much of that in Russell's speech.

Do you think that the cruel, malevolent expressions of Christianity are purely coincidental, and that the nice Christians are clear proof of relgion's good?

[Straybow]

If you were paying attention, yes, that is the entire message of Judeo-Christian religion. The people who do right, and do so in the name of God, are proof of God and His goodwill.

The base nature of man always comes through if not checked, and hence many nominally religious institutions and practices are corrupted over time.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Bill3000
So you are saying that praying doesn't work when it's being studied?

How is this any different from the claims by psychics? It's quite simple. No statistically significant difference in the health of people who had not been prayed and those who have. The most logical explanation would be that praying has no effect, not that it isn't working because we are "probing God."

The difference is that psychics are claiming that the power resides within themselves or some impersonal force that multiplies the power within themselves. A test should be able to confirm whether such powers exist.

God, however, is not an impersonal force. Any requests are subject to his will, just as a child's request for money or candy or whatever is subject to the parent's will.

In addition, the difference between effective prayer and typical prayer are not easily testable. Actual communion with God concerning His will in the situation is quite different from people wishing such-and-such would happen and voicing their wishes as "prayer" in hopes that Somebody will do Something.

Originally posted by Elok
But thanks anyway for "winning" the argument by switching definitions. Not that I agree with JM's exact argument (as presented, it feels a tad Pangloss to me), but really...if prayer were scientifically verifiable, ie it elicited a predictable response in multiple observed trials, it would be indicative of an unknown but mindless scientific phenomenon like gravity or magnetism rather than a self-aware being granting petitions.

Precisely. That's why such studies are inherently biased. They do not account for the possibility of prayer being answered in the negative, or of differential effectiveness.

Originally posted by Gibsie
My overall point is that if God is just and fair, he will provide every one of his children, that we are told he loves, with equal amounts of help. If he aids the healing of one person when he could help others, simply because that person might have had people praying for him, then I'm free to draw whatever conclusion I like about that. And I would say that kind of god is about as nice as an animal rights activist who only campaigns for the rights of cute fluffy animals that everyone loves.

Flawed assumptions abound, there. God does not respond to need, else there would be no disease or suffering in the first place. Please do not conflate ontology with phenomenology.