Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If prayers go unanswered....?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 91 of 201 (196660)
04-04-2005 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Monk
04-04-2005 10:56 AM


quote:
But what I can say is that over all those generations right up to the present day, the vast majority of those bright minds were believers who not only had a profound respect for God but also for the majesty of His creations.
Uh, I don't think so.
The "vast majority" of scientists haven't believed in the supernatural for a little while now.
link to source
Last year, the pair announced results of a study which replicated surveys made in 1913 and 1933 by sociologist James H. Leuba that measured attitudes within the scientific community concerning the existence of a deity. Leuba had reported a decline in personal belief among scientists in a "God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" from 27.7% in the 1913 study to only 15% by 1933. "Disbelief" rose from 52.7% to 68%, and "doubt or agnosticism" fell slightly from 20.9% to 17%. The 1998 Larson-Witham study which replicated Leuba's work found "Personal belief" in a deity at only 7%, while "Personal disbelief" had risen to 72.2%, and "Doubt or Agnosticism" to 20.8%.
The survey measured attitudes among members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences. Witham and Larson noted:
"Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0% respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."
So, general disbelief in God among scientists has been at pretty much the same level (with a slight increase) for almost 100 years, and it is nowhere near the "vast majority" that you claim.
Now, of course, many more doctors (who are applied practitioners and do not usually work with theory and the scientific method) probably believe in god, so they would raise the percentage a bit, but not to the "vast majority"-level, I don't think.
Besides, are you now claiming that you really know that any of those people "not only had a profound respect for God but also for the majesty of His creations."?
Unless you can read minds, how can you know this?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-04-2005 10:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Monk, posted 04-04-2005 10:56 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Monk, posted 04-04-2005 12:04 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 92 of 201 (196661)
04-04-2005 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
04-04-2005 10:35 AM


quote:
Thank GOD for giving us the intellect and talents to develop miracle drugs and procedures.
If that's what they said, I wouldn't mind.
But they clearly believe that their prayers have been personally answered and God has miraculously directly intervened in their particular case to save the life of their loved one.
...and oh yeah, the doctors and nurses helped a little bit too.
That's the feeling I get from these people, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
PEOPLE did that work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 04-04-2005 10:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 04-04-2005 12:04 PM nator has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 93 of 201 (196662)
04-04-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Monk
04-04-2005 10:34 AM


But God will not allow himself to be analyzed such that His actions can be predicted with mathematical precision.
Same thing. Statistical methodology allows us to detect non-random influences on outcomes within a certain confidence interval.
The only way to avoid detection by those methods is for God to act pseudorandomly. I thought you had already realized that.
Your analogous story is meaningless, you compare God’s actions to the actions of some guy.
So? Maybe that guy was actually God. It's just an analogy, anyway.
I’ll say it again, God’s influence IS detectable. I never said His influence is always undetectable
Yes, you did say that:
quote:
He chooses not to be quantified objectively by humans, He chooses not to make his presence known in this age in a wholly discernable way.
There's no such thing as "half-detectable." There's no such thing as having a non-random influence, but being able to escape detection. It's all or nothing. The only way that God can escape the detection of his influence is to make sure his influence appears to be as random as the way things would be otherwise.
And why would we believe in such a God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Monk, posted 04-04-2005 10:34 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Monk, posted 04-04-2005 12:48 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 94 of 201 (196668)
04-04-2005 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by nator
04-04-2005 11:27 AM


I wrote:
quote:
But what I can say is that over all those generations right up to the present day, the vast majority of those bright minds were believers who not only had a profound respect for God but also for the majesty of His creations.
schrafinator writes:
Uh, I don't think so.
The "vast majority" of scientists haven't believed in the supernatural for a little while now.
Did I mention scientists? Are scientists the only bright minds in this or past generations who have made medical or technological contributions ?
You narrow the focus of the term bright minds to scientists in order to prove your point without acknowledging that atheist scientists are a minority subset of the broader category of people who are represented by the term bright minds.
And while I do agree that the trend over the last century has been an increase in atheism among scientists, it doesn’t change my original observation that the vast majority of bright minds over the centuries have been people of faith.
schrafinator writes:
Besides, are you now claiming that you really know that any of those people "not only had a profound respect for God but also for the majesty of His creations."?
Unless you can read minds, how can you know this?
No, I can’t read minds as you did in your previous assertion that God was not involved.
Let me remove the adjectives in my previous comment and say that the vast majority of believers respect God and His creations. Wouldn’t that be a fair statement? It may not describe everyone who holds faith in God, but I believe the term vast majority would apply.
My use of the term bright minds includes a group far larger than the subset of atheist scientists, so the vast majority of bright minds throughout history have been believers.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by nator, posted 04-04-2005 11:27 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by nator, posted 04-04-2005 6:07 PM Monk has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 95 of 201 (196669)
04-04-2005 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by nator
04-04-2005 11:31 AM


People are, well, people.
But they clearly believe that their prayers have been personally answered and God has miraculously directly intervened in their particular case to save the life of their loved one.
Okay. Is there a problem with other peoples personal beliefs where they do not impinge on others? If they believe that GOD helped or even was the primary cause of the result, does it have effect beyond their belief system?
...and oh yeah, the doctors and nurses helped a little bit too.
Come on now. I've been in hospital situations and dealt with people in times of personal crisis. That's not a reasonable interpretation of what most folk are saying or believing. You're grabbing sound-bites and inserting your own spin just like O'Reilly.
That's the feeling I get from these people, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
PEOPLE did that work.
That may well be the feeling YOU get, and it may well leave a bad taste in your mouth, but if so, the failing is yours, not theirs. It is your personal feelings that are being ruffled, something totally internal to you and completely under your control. Try looking through their eyes and appreciate that you are seeing people that have come through a crisis, are perhaps not at their most rational, and that are speaking purely from emotion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by nator, posted 04-04-2005 11:31 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 9:38 AM jar has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 96 of 201 (196673)
04-04-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by crashfrog
04-04-2005 11:32 AM


You and I are reading the same words but......
I said:
quote:
I’ll say it again, God’s influence IS detectable. I never said His influence is always undetectable
Your response:
crashfrog writes:
Yes, you did say that:
quote:
He chooses not to be quantified objectively by humans, He chooses not to make his presence known in this age in a wholly discernable way.
Where in this quote did I say His influence is always undetectable where? Read each word, did you find it? Don’t interprete meaning, read..the..words.. it’s not there.
Lets break it down. He chooses not to be quantified objectively by humans. Meaning He will not allow His actions to be predicted through analyzing the positive effects of prayer. Because to do so would prove His existence conclusively, through physical constructs, to the masses.
As I previously mentioned, He takes this approach because of His gift of free will.
He chooses not to make His presence known in this age in a wholly discernable way. The key phrase being "wholly discernable". That does not mean that He does not influence or cause prayers to be answered or become involved with the course of events on Earth.
You wish to objectively prove the existence of God through crude statistical analysis. Surely God would be amused at such feeble attempts to quantify His existence.
crashfrog writes:
There's no such thing as "half-detectable." There's no such thing as having a non-random influence, but being able to escape detection. It's all or nothing.
Who says there is no such thing as half detectable? You? God chooses when, how, and to whom He makes His presence known. The fact that He does not permit measurement of His actions by non believers should not be a surprise.
crashfrog writes:
There's no such thing as having a non-random influence, but being able to escape detection.
Here we come to the core issue. For a non believer, this is true. For a believer, it is false.
Have we become circular?
This message has been edited by Monk, Mon, 04-04-2005 10:51 AM
This message has been edited by Monk, Mon, 04-04-2005 10:57 AM

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2005 11:32 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2005 3:20 PM Monk has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 97 of 201 (196674)
04-04-2005 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by StormWolfx2x
04-04-2005 1:31 AM


It has been mentioned upthread that prayer is much more than asking for something. But, putting that aside, I’ll try to respond.
StormWolfx2x writes:
if god has a plan, then doesn't that make prayer worthless?
what would be the point on praying for an outcome if god had already decided the outcome.
God does have a plan. Nobody knows the fullness of it, but the Bible teaches that He desires all people to come to Him. But He can’t force us to come to Him if He wishes to maintain the gift of free will.
So even though God has a plan for us, if we choose not to accept that plan, then that plan for that individual has not been fulfilled.
Does that imply a change in plans? No, the plan remains the same, but the outcome or the fulfillment of that plan remains in doubt as it pertains to each individual. Just because God knows which action we will take through the exercise of free will does not mean that He forces us to take that action.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by StormWolfx2x, posted 04-04-2005 1:31 AM StormWolfx2x has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 201 (196689)
04-04-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Monk
04-04-2005 12:48 PM


I'm trying to understand, I truly am.
He chooses not to be quantified objectively by humans. Meaning He will not allow His actions to be predicted through analyzing the positive effects of prayer. Because to do so would prove His existence conclusively, through physical constructs, to the masses.
So, what you're saying is, he never answers the prayers of anybody who is keeping track. So how do we know he answers any prayers?
He chooses not to make His presence known in this age in a wholly discernable way. The key phrase being "wholly discernable".
Your key phrase is essentially meaningless.
Who says there is no such thing as half detectable?
Sorry, my bad, I thought we were speaking English, and employing concepts like "reason." "Half-detectable" is not a coherent concept in any workable epistomology. It's meaningless, empty. It's as meaningless as a "colorless green idea."
Here we come to the core issue. For a non believer, this is true. For a believer, it is false.
And that's really the issue, isn't it? For a believer, faith trumps reason, evidence, logic, everything. Everything we might employ to determine the truth about our universe, faith circumvents and says "fuck all that, lets just skip to the end where we draw conclusions." That is, any conclusion you want.
Have we become circular?
You would actually have to be using logic for your logic to be circular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Monk, posted 04-04-2005 12:48 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Monk, posted 04-04-2005 3:51 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 99 of 201 (196694)
04-04-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
04-04-2005 3:20 PM


crashfrog writes:
"fuck all that, lets just skip to the end where we draw conclusions."
You would actually have to be using logic for your logic to be circular.
Ah geez, I was trying to close out my participation in this discussion before it devolved into tripe verbosity.
Oh well, another time.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2005 3:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2005 3:58 PM Monk has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 201 (196695)
04-04-2005 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Monk
04-04-2005 3:51 PM


Sorry. Was I a little too direct for you? I'll remember to couch my arguments in confusing, obfuscating verbiage designed to magnify my intelligence at the expense of clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Monk, posted 04-04-2005 3:51 PM Monk has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 101 of 201 (196709)
04-04-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Monk
04-03-2005 7:32 PM


Re: God in a bottle
It should be no surprise that clinical studies such as these would show no effect of prayer. How could it be otherwise?
It has been otherwise. Clinical studies have been published demonstrating a positive effect of prayer on outcome, when the person whose outcome was in question was aware of the prayer or took part in the prayer.
In order to separate natural from supernatural effects, studies were set up where the patient and medical staff did not know who was being prayed for. In these studies no legitimate significant difference has been found yet.
Where is God in all this? Surely He would be aware that His actions would lead to the formulation of the predictive theorems before He grants the prayer request. Would He do it anyway?
As see, so as soon as a study is put into place to detect God, God will change Himself in order to avoid detection. (Just like the A-Team!)
If God lets people die of disease that He would have otherwise saved, simply to avoid the possibility of registering a statistical anomaly in a small clinical trial, then God is not a very nice guy...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Monk, posted 04-03-2005 7:32 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 11:05 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 102 of 201 (196713)
04-04-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by mike the wiz
04-03-2005 8:54 PM


Re: knowing vs believing
Hey Mike you never answered my post #73, which I think tends to refute the point you continue to make:
The slap analogy is one of thousands of instances which could illustrate my point, which is that we can have knowledge before or without evidence.
If someone slaps me they leave no evidence but I have the knowledge, so my point is still correct.
What if you were hallucinating that you were slapped? Then you would know that you were slapped, even though the truth is that you were not slapped.
Have you ever experienced someone in a hallucinatory state? They have knowledge of things happening, such as being attacked, even though those things never happened.
As I stated before, since my grandfather had a stroke he recounts detailed stories about his life history that never happened.
Get it? Just because you think you have knowledge does not make that knowledge true.
Hopefully you will respond to this point this time since you seem to have dismissed Schraf's other arguments based on this point, which I believe you have quite wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by mike the wiz, posted 04-03-2005 8:54 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 103 of 201 (196716)
04-04-2005 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Monk
04-04-2005 12:04 PM


quote:
Did I mention scientists? Are scientists the only bright minds in this or past generations who have made medical or technological contributions ?
No, of course not.
But the science is where all of it starts.
Even if a doctor or an engineer thinks up something innovative, it still is probably based upon past science.
Scientific findings are what doctors and medical technicians and practitioners of all kinds use to develop cures and treatments.
quote:
You narrow the focus of the term ?bright minds? to scientists in order to prove your point without acknowledging that atheist scientists are a minority subset of the broader category of people who are represented by the term ?bright minds?.
I included doctors in my example.
quote:
And while I do agree that the trend over the last century has been an increase in atheism among scientists, it doesn?t change my original observation that the vast majority of bright minds over the centuries have been people of faith.
Mmmmm, I'd really like to see some data to back that up.
What kind of faith did they have, for example? Were they devout, did they attend worship services, did they consider themselves a particular sect or denomination, or did they just believe in some kind of undefined "higher power" a la Percy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Monk, posted 04-04-2005 12:04 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Monk, posted 04-05-2005 12:56 AM nator has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 104 of 201 (196808)
04-05-2005 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by nator
04-04-2005 6:07 PM


schrafinator writes:
What kind of faith did they have, for example? Were they devout, did they attend worship services, did they consider themselves a particular sect or denomination, or did they just believe in some kind of undefined "higher power" a la Percy?]
Why do you want that information? You don't think the majority of people over the centuries have been people of faith?

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by nator, posted 04-04-2005 6:07 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 9:27 AM Monk has replied

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 105 of 201 (196810)
04-05-2005 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
04-04-2005 3:10 AM


Personally I think the idea of giving credit to God in one breath and asserting that his influence is always undetectable with the next is an insult to the men and women of the human race who are actually working to improve things, and whose actions are very much detectable. Credit where credit is due - to the people whose existence and actions we can observe, not to some do-nothing God.
Well said.
And some of those people pay the ultimate price for their good work. Australian military personnel are currently doing relief operations in Indonesia after the recent earthquake. They were on their way home from doing relief work after the tsunami, when they were called to turn around and go back after last week’s earthquake. Their actions are very detectable, especially by the people they are helping, who are grieving over dead loved ones, whose homes have been destroyed, and who have no food or supplies.
They’re doing a hard and hazardous job a long way from home and family, in order to help others, which is great example of human courage and dedication. God certainly wasn’t anywhere to be seen when 9 of them were killed on the weekend, when their helicopter crashed during a relief op.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2005 3:10 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024