Who won the Collins-Dawkins Debate?

I read this and thought, "We're definitely meaning two different things by 'life of faith.'"However, the answer to this question is that there's a lot of "lives of faith" that don't produce any results and ought to be abandoned. Here's where we must have different definitions of what it means to live by faith. No, I don't think this follows. It seems obvious to me, but since the answer to that question would likely lead to more discussion where we talk past each other, this can wait until it ever comes up again. (I have no way of knowing how much at fault you or I are for that, but I don't mind assuming it's my communication that's the problem. I can't think of how to make it better, though.) I guess it depends on your definition of signs, but I don't think I'm looking for the signs you're talking about. I am looking for indications that the faith I'm following is not false, because if it is, I'd like to abandon it for another or become an agnostic. I've abandoned three already as either ineffective and powerless (two) or not true/beneficial (one). This one works.Thus my problem when someone says, well, if there's no scientific studies that apply, then there's no real world evidence for God.Somehow, I think we mean something different by "real world evidence for God." I mean what I just said in the paragraph before last.Abraham had a visitation from God, multiple ones in fact. While you are correct that "He accepted God's inherent goodness on faith," he did not originally believe based on nothing. He believed based on an appearance by this God. (I don't think Abraham was a monotheist.) Ok, good. I thought you were saying something different than this, and I really couldn't understand why. If that's what I was saying, you're right. When I said you have no way of knowing that, I thought you were saying, "There's enough evidence to know evidence for God doesn't exist and won't be found." I neither blame your skepticism, nor do I ask you not to have it.I don't believe God's trying to provide proof of miracles in order to convince people, not even me. I do believe, however, that there ought to be some sort of results that indicate one's not wasting his time in the religion he's in. Ok, I misunderstood you. I'm glad. Sorry for picking on the Episcopalians. The churches in that prayers study concerning heart disease mentioned the churches involved. If they weren't Episcopalians, they were from a similar church. Most of my post reflected the thought that "you have made assertions about the nature of the evidence, that it really doesn't exist; that there could be no series of events so unlikely that it would be reasonable for a person to adjust his life and thinking on the basis of those events."I think you implied in your post that you don't think this. You quoted that statement of mine and said, "No, I didn't," but that "No, I didn't" may have only applied to suggesting my stories didn't happen.**************Can I add one more thing to try to make where I'm coming from clearer? I'm not personally offended by having my faith attacked on a reasonable basis. I doesn't always feel good, but I have a desire to be living out at least what appears most true to me. Thus, Rrhain always irritated the snot out of me for most of his statements, but point 1, point 2, point 3 arguments based on suffering in the world and the existence of a loving God are valid. Brian occasionally leaves off his historical arguments for jabs (ok, maybe he does this regularly) and I argue with him, but I followed up on his comments on the Exodus (certainly didn't happen in the numbers written about in Scripture), the conflating of two flood stories, and the evidence for the writing of most of the Law and history of Israel in the 7th or 8th century BC, and he's right. Iceage's question about God restoring limbs is a somewhat direct attack on my faith, but since his point is valid, it doesn't offend me in the least. (Actually, since it's also obvious, I've also thought about it.)That's all to say I don't think I'd react to an attack on my faith. Saying I'm deluded three times rather than once and the contexts in which you said it made me think it might be an insult as much as a statement, but otherwise I've taken nothing personally in this thread.

That last post was mainly on what we're actually saying to each other, which has seemed pretty important to this thread. This one's on the actual argument, much shorter: This is most definitely where we disagree. You've not convinced me of this at all. I'm not looking for conclusive evidence for my faith, but I am looking for some evidence. You say I can have no confidence in my experiences proving anything, and I say the results provide some confidence, enough to proceed further.We've probably both stated our cases pretty thoroughly, and your conclusion is that I'm deluded. "Here is a clear case of subjective belief influencing objective judgement."Does that sum it up pretty well?

I didn't say any of this. I said their test didn't apply to my experience. It doesn't. I already know many people, including the very people they tested, rarely get their prayers answered. That's one of the reasons I left their religion.If I wanted to say "they might be doing it wrong," that would be easy, too. Percy directed me to two studies. One found no effect from prayer, but the extract specifically says, "Data in this review are too inconclusive to guide those wishing to uphold or refute the effect of intercessory prayer on health care outcomes." The other did find an association and said, "Remote, intercessory prayer was associated with lower CCU course scores. This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care."So really, at least in those studies, they did come to an answer that doesn't fit my personal experience. My personal experience is that when I was in those churches, our prayers pretty much weren't answered. Maybe they were answered better than I thought! This is a saying or something. Centuries of science don't prove that prayer isn't answered. You couldn't even get a consensus among scientists on this. A lot of scientists pray, you know, and think prayer is answered.At least one study suggests prayer helped, which Percy referenced for you in post 173. Other studies show that religious people commit less suicide and have less neuroses than non-religious people, that they show less aggressive behavior and less substance use. Even their 1st degree relatives commit less suicide.So, centuries of science prove you wrong!The study I referenced is here. I left things out (like religious people, actually members of Non-Lutheran/non-Catholic Christian denominations in Europe, though having less neuroses actually have more psychoses) and skewed things a bit on purpose, because if I wanted to just generalize from science and say what's so, I could, too. That's all you're doing here. That's your conclusion. It doesn't appear science has drawn that conclusion yet.

In general, you're suggesting that it's all chance. There's always that possibility. There's always the possibility I'm misinterpreting the data and, in addition, that the data is all in and of itself useless, because I'm a lone observer. There's always the possibility that all religious experiences are fabricated by the brain.I give you all that without argument. How can I argue with that?But there's always the possibility that it's not. If it's all chance, and I end up on the good tip of the bell curve (I know there's no actual end point), then what's happening will look real likely to me. Of course, if it's not all chance, then I'll definitely end up on that end of the bell curve, because the bell curve is measuring chance, and it's not chance.If I have no way of knowing whether it's chance, and it might be both, I'm sure going to assign more likelihood to it not being chance if everyone who follows certain principles and rules ends up on the right hand side of the curve, and especially if we're way over on the tiny tip of the right side of the curve.In fact, if the bell curve of answered prayer and other unique spiritual experiences is one bell curve apart from a way of faith, but it's a completely different bell curve using only the people from that faith, then something's different, though it's up for discussion about what is different.I really don't understand why everyone is having a problem with that reasoning. It's not vanity. It's simply mandatory if you are a seeker of "the way," and that's true whether or not there is such a way. You try something, and it either works or it doesn't. Crashfrog says he became an atheist after being a Christian and seeing it not work, so such "evidence" mattered to him, too. I tried other Christian paths after being a Christian and seeing it not work. What else should I have done? Given up? And if I found a path that did work, why should I pretend that the old one worked or that the current one doesn't? I don't claim that I have it right and everyone else is wrong. I claim that the old way I tried is unsuccessful for the vast majority of people who try it. I claim that the current way is successful for the vast majority of people who try it, and from my study of history, a lot of other people have tried it and found it that successful.Even more so, the way I'm saying is imperfect claims the same source of authority I do (sort of), Jesus Christ. However, they don't really practice his teachings or even try to, so I'm not stunned when they don't get the results.You can call me vain for stating what I consider to be obvious, but I'm not talking about little differences of doctrine. I'm talking about a big picture of what Christ taught that's really pretty plain to anyone who looks into it. Most people in most churches aren't really interested in it. Gandhi, on the other hand, a Hindu, was quite interested in it, and he did walk in those principles and found a lot of success, too. Mother Theresa, with whose theology I have numerous problems, walked in Christ's teachings in the most admirable way (like Gandhi, far better than I do), and so she displayed power that looks pretty impressive to me, but I'm sure still looks like chance to you.I'm just saying there's a way that works and a way that doesn't. I don't know how that makes me vain. I certainly don't think I'm the only one walking in it, but I am willing to tell you that the churches I used to be a part of not only aren't walking in it, but they're not even really interested in it.

Ok, I read it. I do not understand the reasoning, and I don't understand how he can give it. What mistake? Alternative medicine is wrong? In some sort of general way this is probably true, but what in the world does that mean? Every herbal and alternative treatment is proven unreliable? That's not even true.Here's what the NIH says about the studies on acupuncture, for example:

quote:

---

According to the NIH Consensus Statement on Acupuncture, there have been many studies on acupuncture's potential usefulness, but results have been mixed because of complexities with study design and size, as well as difficulties with choosing and using placebos or sham acupuncture. However, promising results have emerged, showing efficacy of acupuncture, for example, in adult postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting and in postoperative dental pain. There are other situations--such as addiction, stroke rehabilitation, headache, menstrual cramps, tennis elbow, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain, osteoarthritis, low-back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and asthma--in which acupuncture may be useful as an adjunct treatment or an acceptable alternative or be included in a comprehensive management program. An NCCAM-funded study recently showed that acupuncture provides pain relief, improves function for people with osteoarthritis of the knee, and serves as an effective complement to standard care.7 Further research is likely to uncover additional areas where acupuncture interventions will be useful.

---

Many, many herbal treatments are not useful. The fact is, personal experience and anecdote are entirely sufficient to find that out. "If you don't treat a cold, you'll be sick for an entire week. Take herbs, and it will only last seven days." We pretty much all know that's true without a double blind study.On the other hand, it took double blind studies to convince many people that vitamin C at the outset of a cold won't reduce the severity of it.People act like cultures have been using all these herbs that get pushed by herbalists for thousands of years and believe they're successful. That is what the herbalists say, but I see no indication it's true for most of their wares. Those things are not backed up by long experience in culture, but just by the sales pitch of the herbalist.I've been prone to strep throat every year. Someone told me garlic works as an antibiotic. I tried it, it worked, every bit as well as what the doctors prescribe. (My strep has grown to scarlet fever and severe ear infections left untreated; it's an issue for me.) I do it every time now, and it's worked four times in a row. Much cheaper, and likely less dangerous, than prescribed antibiotics.Now what if a double blind study comes along and shows garlic has no antibiotic properties? That's real likely, as I have a sample size of four, which, for proving that garlic is an antibiotic, is nothing at all. However, in my situation, it's a large enough sample size to be pretty confident it will work next time, even if it's only the placebo effect. And if it is the placebo effect, what does that matter? I still ought to take it, as it's inexpensive, safe, and works without me having to take time off work to go to the doctor.So what does it mean that double blind studies are everything? They helped that guy stop being a snake oil salesman. Great. In the meantime, they proved that the personal experience and anecdote that created the acupuncture field were accurate. They've also proven that the use of limes for crossing the ocean, an idea found by personal experience and anecdote, was a great idea.In fact, am I missing something, or didn't Darwin provide a basis for this whole debate board without the benefit of double-blind studies, by observing and recording? (I know he did studies, and I loved the way he grew a forest with a fence!)

Here's one more thing this guy said: No, it would not be a correct inference to say that fruits and vegetable prevent cancer. It would, however, be a correct inference to say that people who eat fruits and vegetables have less cancer. We also know that people who eat their veggies like mom said also exercise more and take a multivitamin and live longer. So the conclusion is, if you want to live healthier and longer, you ought to do what they do.He agrees with this. He says: Right, and that's why responsible nutritionists draw the right conclusions from the right studies, not the wrong conclusion. Sure, there's "doctors" who draw the wrong conclusion, but the real nutritionists are not drawing the wrong conclusion, and they're learning real and useful things from the nurse's study. It turned out to be bad advice. Should I therefore conclude that without double blind studies we should never make recommendations and that the recommendations based on studies that don't show causation are guaranteed to be incorrect 100% of the time?Of course not. How many times has something like this happened? Was there a 95% chance this recommendation was going to be right? 20%? Was the risk of heart disease worth taking the chance?You can't just pick one piece of advice, point out it was wrong, and imply that all advice given off observational studies is dangerous. It's not true.He finishes with a section called:

quote:

---

Double-Blind Studies, and Nothing but Double-Blind Studies

---

Personally, my guess would be that the way he became a snake oil salesman in the first place, who needed to be delivered from that way of life by double blind studies, is because of the very kind of reasoning he uses in this article that has turned him from a practitioner of alternative medicine to someone pushing "Double-Blind Studies, and Nothing but Double-Blind Studies." He's just extreme.

I already know that if you have to choose between personal experience and the result of a published double blind study. That's never been at issue. I would never have disagreed with that, even before this whole thread started. They showed us we were wrong in that instance. They didn't show, imply, or even address whether there was a chance the estrogen recommendation was likely to be correct.Based on the other info, it might have been entirely reasonable for the estrogen recommendation to be made. Maybe the other info (observational studies and reasoning, according to your article) allow us an 80% likelihood that the estrogen recommendation was correct.Right now, in hindsight, there is zero chance. The question is not "what do you do after you've done double blind studies and answered your question beyond a reasonable doubt"? The question is, "What do you do before you have your question answered, when all you've got is whatever small or large amount of info you have?" I do grasp that, and if you had pointed me to an article that said that, you'd have gotten a different response. The guy who wrote that article you referred to said it repeatedly.

I don't understand the reason for this question. Of course the point of living a life of faith is to get results. That includes finding favor with God. Maybe that's all it includes, but I don't know how you define "favor with God."Christianity assumes that much of what God commands is against our human nature. Thus there are commands to "deny yourself." Everyone knows that denying yourself is not easy, thus the effectiveness of a diet depends mostly on the willpower of the dieter, and some people can quit smoking and others seem unable to, etc., etc., etc.Thus, at the very heart of New Testament Christianity is the teaching that Christ's Spirit provides power to live in a new way. Thus the reason for "ye must be born again."Results means that that's really happening. Paul once said, "I am confident that he who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus." In the churches I used to attend, no one could be confident of that. Most people grew cold and bored or quit. Results means being in a life of faith where one can be confident, like Paul was, that people who begin this life grow in it.Jesus said, "If you remain in me, and my words remains in you, you shall ask what you will and it shall be granted you." So results means getting your prayers answered.I would include all that as obtaining favor with God. It seems to me that's the purpose of a life of faith in God. If I choose a life of faith, and most people's prayers are ignored, and people have no strength or willpower to continue, then I figure we're doing something wrong or this is all imaginary.That was happening, so I opted for we're doing something wrong, and I kept looking for a way that worked. I found it. This one works.Is there something strange about that? It seems the only wise way of faith there is to me.

I don't think that's true. This is what I was saying. I have no problems with this. In fact, I've stated this repeatedly myself as a disagreement with "bias makes every conclusion invalid and all evidence worthless." Well, that's your assessment of it. I'm not asking you to assess my stories differently than this.I have been saying all along that IT'S POSSIBLE that evidence could exist on an individual basis, though purely from experience, that would make it reasonable for a person to believe or continue believing in God. I gave examples of what such experiences might be. I never suggested those examples were enough to conclude anything. I have no desire to try to describe the last 23 years, the things that have happened, and have everyone assess it.But I have been arguing that after enough unlikely events, it becomes reasonable to think that those events are not chance, even if that judgment can't be conclusive.And I don't think you've said anything to disagree with that. In fact, I don't know why, granting the nutrition studies as an example, that you don't agree with me.Example: Kader directed me to an article on alternative medicine. He points out that even if an herb has a 1 in 10,000 chance of working, it might work on me when I use it, and boom, I'm a believer, but my belief is wrong. True enough.However, I don't live alone. I live on 100 acres with 250 people of whom I know every first name and am friends with all of the adults. If we try an herb 300 times, and it works 250 times, I would know about it. And I would know that herb has a much better than 1 in 10,000 chance of working. My conclusion would be valid, and have almost zero chance of being wrong.Now, on the other side, I could not know there's an 83.33% chance of it working. I couldn't even know there was a 50% chance of it working. But I could confidently assert that this herb works far more than .01 percent of the time.I don't know it's not dangerous. I don't know that it's good to take. All I can know is it works pretty often. (Statistics would probably tell me that my range of error is small enough to justify believing it would work at least 50% of the time.)I know I just gave another example and another set of reasoning. I don't believe I'm arguing anything different than this line of reasoning, though, and I believe this line of reasoning is valid and reliable.You don't have to believe the evidence that there's divine intervention in our life is that great. I'm just asking you to admit that if we offered up 300 prayers for something that had a 1% chance of happening, and it happened 250 of those 300 times, that we would be justified in concluding that our prayer is related to those results, and that it would be reasonable not to dismiss prayer.Nutritional scientists argue that such observation does not prove causation. True enough. It does however, establish relationship.

I have learned to live with uncertainty.My point, crash, is that the choice must be made. Sometimes, there's two paths in the road. The choice for which path is not always 50/50. You chose one of those paths. You chose to abandon the faith you were in? Did you just choose the path you liked best? I doubt it. You chose to give up the path you were on, because there was no evidence for that path.I did, too. I gave up the same one you did, if I read your posts right. I just tried another one, besides unbelief. I did indeed jump to the conclusion I thought most worth trying, "There's another path that no one I know has tried. I have to try it before I give up."That path is successful, based on the same sort of observations that made me think the other wasn't successful. I don't think abandoning that path for one of unbelief (and thus a completely different lifestyle) is a 50/50 shot and a decision to be made on the basis of which I prefer. I think it's a decision to be made on the basis of what looks most true to me, and the very same things that made me and you think that other path look not true have made me think this path looks true.That's all I'm saying. Maybe everyone knows that's what I'm saying. It doesn't seem like it, though, so I'm answering your post and possibly beating a dead horse.

Schraf, I did define what I meant by favor with God/results, in post 218. What you were agreeing to is most of what I was asking anyone to agree to. I most certainly am including the times that prayer doesn't work or things happen that go against what I believe.What I grant you, and have granted from the beginning, is that I have not computed the statistical odds, kept track of every instance of prayer (and Percy scoffed and said it would be a waste of time when I suggested it).In fact, I... On the other hand, I haven't tried to. This is why I kept repeating things. I'm a real one step at a time person. I think through things step by step, not all in one general thing.Here's how I see the questions:1. Is there "data in any form that can allow someone to make a rational determination of the efficacy of prayer"?This has been discussed from the beginning, and everyone's answer was yes (an answer I did not expect based on comments I've read).2. What constitutes that sort of data?We've been arguing about this back and forth in a manner that frustrated me a lot. I gave examples, they were replied to as though I was offering proof, and really I was asking (and wanting to argue about) what constitutes valid data.I heard "only double blind studies." I disagreed with that, and at this point I feel like it's been admitted that it's not "only double blind studies," but I also feel like that point of view is still being argued.3. Specifically, could there be (totally hypothetical, is it possible sort of question) a series of events after prayer so unlikely as to establish that prayer was related to it?You said "I agree wholeheartedly" to this. I've mostly been asking just this question, because I felt like it would be a waste of time to discuss whether such evidence existed if it wasn't even agreed that there could be such evidence. You said, "I agree wholeheartedly," but as far as I know, Percy has never agreed to this.4. Do I have any data that meets the criteria that you agreed wholeheartedly to?I've never even addressed this question, because there's never been enough agreement to address it. Everyone's heard me like I've been addressing this question the whole time, which is why I kept repeating myself.I think I do have data enough to justify choosing a path, but I can't back that up. You all have given valid reasons why even if I really did have 300 events with a 1% likelihood of happening, and they happened 250 times of those 300 in response to prayer, you couldn't trust my data, because of problems of bias.I just think it would be stupid for me to see the pattern I see and ignore it.Is that 1,2,3,4 any clearer, or was that a complete waste of everyone's time? Why are you saying this? Are you saying it's unavoidable that I'm so biased I would never be able to notice how often prayer doesn't work? Or are you saying I'm purposely ignoring the times prayer doesn't work. The latter isn't true.

You're right in that I don't think such an exercise would be pointless. And why should I? You've asserted that it's pointless, but the only reason you've given me as to why is because only double blind studies are the only useful data there is, an argument I do not think you have come close to backing up.In the end, the idea of keeping track, in order to see all the negative occurrences I was missing due to human bias, was suggested to me by those who disagreed with me. So it's them you're disagreeing with, anyway. Here's what I heard on double-blind studies, from both you and Kader:Conversation:Percy: Only double blind studies are valid
TL: What about this or that observational study, can't you draw this conclusion from those?
Percy: yes
TL: Well, then it's not only double blind studies that are valid
Percy: Yeah, but your data is worthless
TL: Why?
Percy: Because only double blind studies are valid.If that's not the conversation we had--more than once, maybe you can tell me what was, because I sure can't get anything out of that one.

No, it wouldn't. Why do you accuse me of such things? You can accuse me of being subject to unavoidable human bias. You can accuse me of deluding myself by picking all the "positive instances" in my experiences and thus misreading reality. However, you can't accurately accuse me of becoming convinced of anything because some one in a thousand occurrence happened one time.I am a numbers fanatic. I love numbers. While I didn't finish college, statistics was going to be my major. I got a perfect score on both the ACT and SAT math exams. I like to play dice baseball games. Thus, I am well aware of the kind of incredible deviations from the norm that can happen with the roll of a dice or the toss of a coin, even over a baseball season of 600 trips to the plate. I am aware that if you have a thousand acquaintances over twenty years, it's pretty likely that several of them will have correctly predicted boy or girl when a baby is born five times or more and some of those will think they have psychic powers to do so.I think my experiences are far more unlikely than 10 coin tosses in a row. You can doubt my assessment of that "likelihood," and even make fun of it if you want, but if you think I'm the kind of person who gets convinced of something as major as the life I choose to live over some minor coincidence that happened, you're very mistaken. You can pile on all you want, but I wish it were actually about something I think or said.Weren't you the one who asked why God doesn't restore limbs? It was a valid point against what I was saying, but I'm saying nothing that ten coin tosses in a row applies to.

I was assuming that probably there wasn't, but no, I definitely didn't "realize" there wasn't. I really didn't know. And you don't have to, I'm not going to extend our debate. However, thank you for answering, because I wasn't just jerking your chain about what I heard you saying. There was specific answers I was looking for (because I was indeed asking questions as well as arguing), and I wasn't getting them. It was VERY frustrating.This was much better.

Very good questions: True, but not just one. Of something that could happen to anyone. True enough. That story wouldn't prove anything, even to me, unless it happened every day for a year.Other things don't have to happen every day for a year for me to start thinking there's a trend that tells me something. I do know one of the arguments being validly argued is that my anecdotes are statistically invalid no matter how many of them there are. I don't think that's true, but that's all been argued already.I would agree her experiences are just as valid as mine. I would attribute some validity to her "healing" experiences if the stories seemed unlikely/amazing enough and there were enough of them. If I never bought lottery tickets, and I felt like God told me to go buy a lottery ticket today, and I won the lottery, I would immediately attribute that success to God. If I decided on my own to go buy lottery tickets and I won the first day or the 500th day, I'd attribute it to chance.If some guy won $10,000 against 100,000 to 1 odds in the lottery, I'd consider him lucky. If he won $10,000 ten times in a year against those odds, I'd ask him to buy my lottery tickets, too. I realize the implications. Nope, won't cop out at all. Troubling question you asked. Troubled me before you asked it.Obviously, it hasn't troubled me enough to make me forsake the way I'm on, because maybe the problem's me (or us), and not that it doesn't or can't happen. I was a charismatic. I did the name it, claim it thing ("I'm healed no matter how my back looks") after a car accident. I ignored the pain, the swelling, and the doctors' advice. It worked out pretty well, despite the stupidity involved, and I made a very rapid recovery from pretty serious back trauma, but there was no divine intervention.Later, I did the name it, claim it thing praying that my next military assignment would be warmer than the panhandle of Florida. I got Alaska. What a horror, but it turned out to be a great assignment, anyway.That wasn't why I left the charismatic movement. I could have attributed the Alaska assignment to the will of God for me (in fact, I do). I left the charismatic movement, because most of their healing stories were just like my back "healing" story. Lots of claiming, lots of faith, very little results of any substance. {...conducting serious grilling session with myself to try very hard to answer honestly what really moves me to say "wow, this was not chance"}This is a silly way of putting it, because life is not like this, but something to the effect of 1 in 100 five times in a row, but if and only if every time was preceded by some sort of foreknowledge that the event was going to happen.That would convince me, and what's that, 1 in 10 billion chance? Maybe three times would, if I knew in advance each time that it would happen, and that's only 1 in a million.I guess my answer to that is that I attribute a lot to "God told me" and then it happened, if that happens consistently (most of the time), and it's not just stuff that's likely to happen anyway.You can answer that how you wish, but let me save you one argument, in case you think I'm ignoring it.Percy, you, Schraf, etc. would say that my judgment of what's 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, unlikely, likely, almost impossible, how unlikely, etc. is all statistically invalid, pure conjecture and meaningless; it's completely invalid, not only influenced by bias, but also subject to judgment that cannot be reliable.Maybe you're right.Sure keeps working, though .