Then surely it has sweet f.a. to do with God and to do with the process itself, and is thus no proof of God. Further such an event should be repeatable - at least when repeated on a large enough scale... and this just hasn't been borne out whenever it has been tested with suitable rigour.
Unfortunately, such events often are not repeatable, and the process of subjecting them to scientific rigour may destroy the effect you are looking for. This is what I believe is the case for the 2006 Benson study on intersessionary prayer. It had to be double blind, by strangers, who were given a name only, and were praying for the purposes of a medical trial (not out of compassion). It is perhaps unsurprising it showed no effect. (See my post to you and Spidergoat above).
Sources please? Surely you don't expect such a casually thrown claim to go unchallenged??
The review is on the web at:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/132/11/903.pdf
John A. Astin, PhD; Elaine Harkness, BSc; and Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:903-910.
I quote:
Data Synthesis: A total of 23 trials involving 2774 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Heterogeneity of the studies precluded a formal meta-analysis. Of the trials, 5 examined prayer as the distant healing
intervention, 11 assessed noncontact Therapeutic Touch, and 7 examined other forms of distant healing. Of the 23 studies, 13 (57%) yielded statistically significant treatment effects, 9 showed no effect over control interventions, and 1 showed a negative effect.
The rational conclusion (even just using Occam's Razor) is that it IS simple - and is a case of "prayer doesn't work".
Only if you enjoy jumping to unsupported conclusions. A good scientist will conclude that it shows that there was no effect under the conditions of the trial. Those conditions necessarily involved strangers, given a name only, with no personal involvement and no motive other than the research. These are highly unnatural conditions.
The quote is laughable and adds nothing to the debate other than someone else's unsubstantiated opinion.
My point (and Blakes) is that we have very limited perception, and most often the results of prayer are an expansion of our perception.
Define "perceptual changes". If it occurs in the brain and if it affects matter then it IS open to scientific analysis.
Appreciation, wonder, peace of mind, acceptance, lowered anxiety etc. Some very good work has been done by researchers like Harold Koenig, David Myers and others demonstrating the effects of prayer on increasing happiness, lowering anxiety etc. So, would you accept that as evidence?
So it is... what exactly? Something that counters the laws of physics, of chemistry and biology?
No, something that is unique to every situation and therefore unpredictable. Science cannot handle unique complex events which lack predictable patterns and laws.
Another excuse for interpreting a coincidence as the work of some God? Even the most unpredictable thing we know of... radioactive decay of a single atom... is testable. Not on an individual basis, but get a sample together and you WILL get repeatable results. How big does the sample have to be to test "prayer"? Or every time the results fail to prove that prayer works will you claim it is not a big enough sample?
The decay of an atom is really not so unpredictable. You know what will result. You know the half life of the isotope. It is just the time for an individual atom to decay that is unpredictable.
A far better example is the weather - that is quite complex and chaotic. However, the weather is way more predictable compared to the factors involved in any real-life event. That is where prayer is practiced, and why it is not subject to laboratory methods.
Yep - and so far it manages to explain things without the need for a randomly influential "prayer" particle.
One thing the studies have shown is we know almost nothing about its modus operandi.
Yep - it's called COINCIDENCE.
You are obviously a man of deep conviction in the power of coincidence. Many of the 'coincidences' I have experienced are just too coincidental for that explanation to be convincing. So, I prefer to remain open minded.
Unfortunately some people dress it up as something more than it is; paint a nice picture with it and end up believing it to be more than it is because the picture is so much more warm and friendly and welcoming than the bare wall of Truth. I'm guessing you forget all the times there is no coincidence?
That's the usual atheists response. It's possible, however, I don't think so.
If you pray hard, and toss a coin and it lands on the side you prayed for, would you see this as evidence of "prayer"?
No.
Or perhaps winning the lottery?
No. Though I might pray about what to do with it... and would expect an inspired answer.
One man's successful prayer is another man seeing the laws of probability obeyed.
No. One man's successful prayer is another man's need to explain it away as coincidence.
