Theism vs. Atheism - Experience or Interpretation?

[Raithere]

Diogenes' Dog:

Time to put this to rest; we've been spending far too much time analyzing a specific study. My point is rather simple:

There is no compelling evidence that prayer or DH has any substantial effect and there is quite a bit of controversy regarding many of the studies that show any significant effect at all, particularly the larger studies that returned positive results (e.g. Byrd, Harris).

Prayer, DH and other such paranormal remedies are intimately tied with particular world-views and beliefs whose justification becomes the real pursuit of these studies. There is no other rational explanation for the continuing interest... if instead of prayer or DH we were talking about a new drug it would have been abandoned long ago in favor of more fruitful pursuits. No one would be wasting money for medical research on a drug that maybe sometimes might just work but in a completely unreliable and unpredictable manner.

And although we've discussed it, I'll strengthen my position to state that being unable to define a mechanism of action in such studies is fatal. Take a commentary on the Harris study as an example:

Harris and coauthors1 arranged for prayers to be said for patients in the cardiac care unit who had even medical record numbers; they found borderline significant advantages for this group in one measure of patient scores. Unfortunately, they failed to realize that investigators of seemingly paranormal effects must consider a much wider range of possibilities than those that occur in ordinary scientific work.

It is true, as they say, that intercessory prayer has been common for millennia. But it is equally true that mystic powers have been attached to numbers from time immemorial,2 and the specific distinction of even and odd has been considered significant in cultures ranging from China to ancient Greece.3 Thus, the assignment of even numbers is just as likely an explanation of the data as the prayers.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org

But even so, as it pertains to pure research I'm not against studying prayer or any other hypothesis. One should always remain open minded to new results but taking into account the results thus far from such studies their flaws and the related criticisms I have no misgivings regarding my initial statement.

~Raithere

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Time to put this to rest; we've been spending far too much time analyzing a specific study.

LOL, I agree - it is and we have Raithere!

My point is rather simple: There is no compelling evidence that prayer or DH has any substantial effect and there is quite a bit of controversy regarding many of the studies that show any significant effect at all, particularly the larger studies that returned positive results (e.g. Byrd, Harris).

In the meta-review paper I quoted 56% of studies show a significant correlation – that is positive evidence! I think that there was always going to be controversy, given the historical antagonism between science and religion. Studies making claims for the effectiveness of prayer are going to come under intense scrutiny because of the challenging nature of those claims. There will always be room for criticism and counter-claim with any research, until there is a sufficient mass of evidence – especially when there are vested interests e.g. previous research on smoking and lung cancer or current research on health effects of living under transmission lines!

Prayer, DH and other such paranormal remedies are intimately tied with particular world-views and beliefs whose justification becomes the real pursuit of these studies. There is no other rational explanation for the continuing interest... if instead of prayer or DH we were talking about a new drug it would have been abandoned long ago in favor of more fruitful pursuits. No one would be wasting money for medical research on a drug that maybe sometimes might just work but in a completely unreliable and unpredictable manner.

I agree, though there are ramifications of even a small effect way beyond the health field. Many people pray for World Peace, relief of 3rd World Poverty and control of Global Warming? Does it help? - Perhaps we should find out...

Many theists argue that the primary purpose of praying is to build an internal relationship with the divine – not to lobby for things you want. However, people of all religions still do pray for things they want. I'm sure many atheists hope that such research will discredit the claims of religion and thereby promote their own view.

More importantly, there are a set of questions about the claims of religions that may be testable scientifically e.g.

1) Does religion make people happier?
2) Does religion correlate with ‘virtue’?
3) Does religion correlate with improved mental or physical health?
4) Does religion help reduce trauma under adverse circumstances?
5) Is intercessory prayer capable of healing?

There seem to be a lot of books coming out by prominent atheists asserting that science has already ‘disproved’ religion. I believe this is a triumph of hope over experience and has not been demonstrated. However we may all be surprised by research findings on the above questions. That is why they are more interesting than just another drug trial.

And although we've discussed it, I'll strengthen my position to state that being unable to define a mechanism of action in such studies is fatal.

It certainly makes research far more difficult, and open to debate! However, we once did not know the mechanism of action for the use of quinine against malaria, or citrus fruit against scurvy, or boiling water against cholera or Viagra in facilitating erections! We still don’t know the mechanism for ECT in relieving depression. We discovered their effectiveness empirically. It should not be a necessity to know the mechanism of action to see if something works.

But even so, as it pertains to pure research I'm not against studying prayer or any other hypothesis. One should always remain open minded to new results but taking into account the results thus far from such studies their flaws and the related criticisms I have no misgivings regarding my initial statement.

The ongoing score is 5 to 4 (~56%) - yet the game is done and the losing team won!??

I think perhaps we must agree to differ! Perhaps (to invoke the title of this thread) it all comes down to interpretation

 

[lixluke]

Funny, up to now, I've never seen anyone actually miss their own point.

I'm glad you have finally noticed yourself.

We all know Jesus created the universe, so why are we in denial?
Are we afraid of His retribution?

The atheist religion is under the false belief that they are under no obligation to prove that there is no God. How convenient. What must it be like for atheists to carry such a burden of fanaticism indeed.

 

[KennyJC]

The atheist religion is under the false belief that they are under no obligation to prove that there is no God. How convenient. What must it be like for atheists to carry such a burden of fanaticism indeed.

What drivel... I don't have to prove Astrology is false simply because I don't believe it is true. I don't have to prove the absense of the Loch Ness monster either.

Now tell me why I should believe in something that effectively does not exist.

 

[lightgigantic]

What drivel... I don't have to prove Astrology is false simply because I don't believe it is true. I don't have to prove the absense of the Loch Ness monster either.

Now tell me why I should believe in something that effectively does not exist.

You should be able to say at least why you don't think those things exist - unless you find it more convenient to bypass the entire process of thinking - which is usually the dynamic that fanaticism operates on ....

 

[KennyJC]

You should be able to say at least why you don't think those things exist - unless you find it more convenient to bypass the entire process of thinking - which is usually the dynamic that fanaticism operates on ....

It is remarkably easy for me to state why I don't believe in those things LG. God effectively does not exist, so that one is easy. Astrology: The position of stars and planets when we are born has bugger all to do with my future human affairs. The Loch Ness monster: Although this has brought a great deal of tourism to my country, the only things that exist to prove it's existence are one or two acknowledged fake images as well as a few dodgy eye witness accounts. And let me tell you something about eye witness testimony: a group of tourists were at the edge of Loch Ness, and a team raised a pole above the water about 200 yards from the tourists. The tourists then got excited and then the pole disappeared below the water. They were asked to draw what they seen, and what do you know, but the pole suddenly gained a head, eyes, a mouth and an arched neck.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

It is remarkably easy for me to state why I don't believe in those things LG. God effectively does not exist, so that one is easy. Astrology: The position of stars and planets when we are born has bugger all to do with my future human affairs. The Loch Ness monster: Although this has brought a great deal of tourism to my country, the only things that exist to prove it's existence are one or two acknowledged fake images as well as a few dodgy eye witness accounts. And let me tell you something about eye witness testimony: a group of tourists were at the edge of Loch Ness, and a team raised a pole above the water about 200 yards from the tourists. The tourists then got excited and then the pole disappeared below the water. They were asked to draw what they seen, and what do you know, but the pole suddenly gained a head, eyes, a mouth and an arched neck.

I agree with you about Nessie - I think the Plesiosaur or whatever it was supposed to be had long died out by the time the glaciers melted over Loch Ness. Besides - they have scanned the loch and found nothing.

Interesting that you don't justify your non-belief in God though!

Cool skill has yet to prove the Flying Spagetti Monster does not exist.

This is an error atheists often make! God is not another being like the FSM, or Loch Ness Monster. God IS being itself i.e. the belief that intelligence is written into the fabric of the universe itself - into it's laws and principles. As products of that universe our intelligence is a pale reflection of that which we see all around us.

 

[KennyJC]

Interesting that you don't justify your non-belief in God though!

God effectively does not exist, so that one is easy.

I think that is justification enough. I'm not really in the business of believing others because they say so. They must come forward with rational evidence to hold merit. Generally speaking, religion is a requirement for the stupid, the needy, and the emotionally insecure. It serves no practical purpose in terms of explaining anything.

 

[(Q)]

This is an error atheists often make! God is not another being like the FSM, or Loch Ness Monster. God IS being itself i.e. the belief that intelligence is written into the fabric of the universe itself - into it's laws and principles. As products of that universe our intelligence is a pale reflection of that which we see all around us.

The real error, of course, is when theists attempt to describe, distinguish and even compare things that have never been shown to exist. Their intelligence is pale belief.

 

[lightgigantic]

It is remarkably easy for me to state why I don't believe in those things LG. God effectively does not exist, so that one is easy. Astrology: The position of stars and planets when we are born has bugger all to do with my future human affairs. The Loch Ness monster: Although this has brought a great deal of tourism to my country, the only things that exist to prove it's existence are one or two acknowledged fake images as well as a few dodgy eye witness accounts. And let me tell you something about eye witness testimony: a group of tourists were at the edge of Loch Ness, and a team raised a pole above the water about 200 yards from the tourists. The tourists then got excited and then the pole disappeared below the water. They were asked to draw what they seen, and what do you know, but the pole suddenly gained a head, eyes, a mouth and an arched neck.

You talk about the loch ness monster and astrology but not god - interesting

 

[KennyJC]

You talk about the loch ness monster and astrology but not god - interesting

How more blunt can I be by saying God effectively does not exist? Do you even understand what that means?

25% of Americans believe in witches, 50% in ghosts, 50% in the devil, 50% believe that the Book of Genesis is literally true, 69% believe in angels, 87% believe Jesus was raised from the dead, and 96% believe in a god or a universal spirit.

The only mystery is how the demand for irrational beliefs evolved and why it evolved. But to be honest, that doesn't matter because at the end of the day, you and most other humans believe strongly in things that can not be shown to exist. God is just one of those things.

 

[baumgarten]

How more blunt can I be by saying God effectively does not exist? Do you even understand what that means?

25% of Americans believe in witches, 50% in ghosts, 50% in the devil, 50% believe that the Book of Genesis is literally true, 69% believe in angels, 87% believe Jesus was raised from the dead, and 96% believe in a god or a universal spirit.

The only mystery is how the demand for irrational beliefs evolved and why it evolved. But to be honest, that doesn't matter because at the end of the day, you and most other humans believe strongly in things that can not be shown to exist. God is just one of those things.

Another one of those things is other people, or any kind of external reality for that matter. You cannot prove, rationally speaking, that anything exists other than yourself. (I invite you to try it for yourself if you doubt this.) As such, your belief that you are breathing real air, typing on a real keyboard, and posting your message to be read by real people is a quite irrational belief. You do not question your senses so that you can function from day to day, but for all you really know, your whole life could be a hallucination. That's the philosophical premise of the Matrix and Plato's allegory of the cave, and it is illustrative of the rationalistic viewpoint - that reason is the only reliable path to truth, and the senses cannot be trusted.

Now, imagine an early human species that did not trust its senses before looking to the throne of reason for a positive judgment. Is that really a predator running toward me across the savannah? By the time early man has settled on an answer, he is inside a happy stomach. So you can see where an intimate relationship with one's senses can be beneficial, even if it means the mistaking of a hallucination for something real from time to time.

That said, I've never met a man in his right mind who claimed to have seen the face of God Himself. He is in fact supposed to be invisible, or so I'm told, so then how could the supposition of his existence be the result of a trick of the senses? I suspect that long ago the idea of a god was born from a wholly different premise than the apparent sight of one. However, I have little to go on regarding what exactly that premise was.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

The real error, of course, is when theists attempt to describe, distinguish and even compare things that have never been shown to exist. Their intelligence is pale belief.

Ahhh! We are back on old familiar ground. How reassuring!

Very few things can be "shown to exist" Q. You can only experience them for yourself, and compare others descriptions of their experiences. Having done that, you can then apply reason to make sense of your collective experiences. This is not error, but empiricism!

How more blunt can I be by saying God effectively does not exist? Do you even understand what that means?

So, your argument is: You believe God effectively doesn't exist because (you believe) God effectively doesn't exist.

The only mystery is how the demand for irrational beliefs evolved and why it evolved. But to be honest, that doesn't matter because at the end of the day, you and most other humans believe strongly in things that can not be shown to exist. God is just one of those things.

If you are deaf, I cannot 'show you' the pleasure of music. If you are blind, I cannot 'show you' the delight of colour. You must experience them yourself to know them. God is just one of those things.

 

[KennyJC]

Very few things can be "shown to exist" Q. You can only experience them for yourself, and compare others descriptions of their experiences. Having done that, you can then apply reason to make sense of your collective experiences. This is not error, but empiricism!

Here you go with this 'experience' word again.

So what you are saying is that because a belief in God is popular, God exists? Well in that case Elvis is probably still alive (depending on how popular the notion is of course).

So, your argument is: You believe God effectively doesn't exist because (you believe) God effectively doesn't exist.

Belief doesn't come into it.

If you are deaf, I cannot 'show you' the pleasure of music. If you are blind, I cannot 'show you' the delight of colour. You must experience them yourself to know them. God is just one of those things.

What you are describing is an emotion. Call it the creator of the universe if you want to.

 

[(Q)]

Ahhh! We are back on old familiar ground. How reassuring!

Very few things can be "shown to exist" Q. You can only experience them for yourself, and compare others descriptions of their experiences. Having done that, you can then apply reason to make sense of your collective experiences. This is not error, but empiricism!

Sorry, I don't speak bollockese. Try to respond without the baffling bs.

 

[baumgarten]

Sorry, I don't speak bollockese. Try to respond without the baffling bs.

No, what DD just described is actually empiricism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

 

[(Q)]

No, what DD just described is actually empiricism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

Sheesh, baum, you know damn well the definition of empiricism isn't the issue here. DD would have us believe his gods can be related to it, that his "experiences" can be qualified under empiricism. Utter bullocks.

 

[baumgarten]

Sheesh, baum, you know damn well the definition of empiricism isn't the issue here. DD would have us believe his gods can be related to it, that his "experiences" can be qualified under empiricism. Utter bullocks.

Mmm, it can, but only within a very restricted set of definitions. He can only describe God as an incorrigible truth - he can only speak for himself when he says he perceives God. Under a reformed epistemological view (post-classical foundationalism), then, he might be considered justified in his belief. And then the justification of belief is a separate issue from the truth of the matter, which simply isn't adequately covered by a field of study concerned only with the nature of knowledge, not truth.

 

[(Q)]

And that brings us full circle with the FSM and his god, yet DD insists he knows them both.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Here you go with this 'experience' word again.

So what you are saying is that because a belief in God is popular, God exists? Well in that case Elvis is probably still alive (depending on how popular the notion is of course).

Not quite what I'm arguing... common acceptance doesn't make something true! I'm saying that many people describe profound beneficial changes in their life as a result of conversion to e.g. christianity. There are books full of them! This is evidence that some effect is taking place. It may be 'just psychology', or it may be because they are invoking something that actually exists. Moreover, the two are not mutually exclusive!

I'm leaving aside the much rarer kinds of 'direct experience' people have, but which are also well documented.

Belief doesn't come into it.

Does that mean you KNOW??!
Knowledge is justified, true, belief. As far as I can see you have given no justification, we don't know if it's true - so it is really just your belief that God does not effectively exist. You wouldn't be mistaking your beliefs for knowledge by any chance!?

What you are describing is an emotion. Call it the creator of the universe if you want to.

Colour isn't an emotion, neither is music - but a blind man cannot experience the first nor a deaf man the second. I'm saying that science by it's nature is deaf and blind to God. To experience God requires a suspension of disbelief, and Kierkegaard's famous 'leap of faith'.

Sheesh, baum, you know damn well the definition of empiricism isn't the issue here. DD would have us believe his gods can be related to it, that his "experiences" can be qualified under empiricism. Utter bullocks.

Don't just take my word for it, lots of people's experiences have been documented. It doesn't qualify as objective evidence, but it is evidence and it is empirical!