"Evidence and Faith"

riveRraT wrote: Wow, where to start in jumping into this thread?First, kudos to you for wanting to help your church and the future of humanity. I’ve pointed out many times to ardent Chriationists that of all the people, things and institutions hurt by creationism, none is hurt more than Christianity.I’ve put together a rough outline of some of the ways creationism (note that the term “creation science” makes as much sense as “astrology science”, so I tend to use the term “creationism”) hurts Christianity. You may like to use it as a starting point, seeing which points you feel competent to discuss, and asking about any others as you choose. See especially #5b, perhaps.***********************************
Some of the Ways Creationism Hurts Christianity1. Creationism/Intelligent Design Ridicules God by
a. making God into a tinkerer (and a poor one at that)
i. Bad designs - Human eye, dodo wings, sea turtle eggs, giraffe neck, horse fingers dev.
ii. Most of our DNA is useless, like a book with hundreds of pages of “sdrvsdrvsdrvsdrv”.
b. Making God evil- most species are parasites, wasp/spider, behavior alterers, matriphages, etc.
c. Making God deceptive - “the evidence for evolution was placed there by God to test our faith” -would a good God trick someone, then torture them for it? Created with “appearance of age.”
2. Creationism Ridicules the Bible by making Genesis literal
a. talking snakes - compare with flood or tower of Babel
b. incorrect order, water < land, birds < land mamls, trees < sea creatures, reads like myth
c. auditorium worldview (we live under a bowl or firmament)- are ark, Babel, real?
d. “nave observer” approach destroys reliability of Bible, such as Jesus’ miracles
e. Or, encourages Christians to make up unbiblical information and put it in the Bible
3. Makes Christians seem primitive and superstitious (anti-science)
a. Creation Moments type broadcasts regularly incorrect (deceptive?)
b. "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - Robert Cardinal Bellarmine - -Trial of Galileo in 1615
c. Harmful to American competitiveness - not just biology, but physics, astronomy, archeology
i. Hottest area now is biotech (genetics, healthcare, biomimicry) - based on evolution
4. Causes Christians to lie (and therefore over time implying that Christianity causes lying)
a. Behe, Meyer, Hovind, Gish and others lying repeatedly, Dover testimony perjury
b. Encourages Christians to (unknowingly?) spread lies - see nearly any creo website for numerous examples of well disproven falsehoods
i. Lady Hope, claims that Arch. is a fake, that C14 can’t be used, moon dust, common deception using quote mining (such as Darwin eye quote), Paluxy track hoax, Plesiosaur caught by trawler, etc.
5. Effectiveness
a. Does it cause millions of people to leave Christianity? (% Atheists have doubled since 1980)
b. Creationist are often inside Christianity, thus more effective than Dawkins, Harris - who are often just offensive. But creationists can much more easily get themselves listened to by other Christians, who soon find out about what creationism really is, and then sometimes leave Christianity due to the “Christian” behavior they saw.
***************************************************Let’s try to address some other questions raised on this thread: OK, first, as others have pointed out, creationism is an irrefutable hypothesis - that means, a meaningless statement that says nothing about the real world. For example - let’s say that I claimed that the evil wizard of oz on the distant planet X controls all our weather. No matter what weather we get, I can say “see, that’s what he wanted to happen”. Similarly for any conceivable piece of evidence, a creationist can say “that’s the way God created it”. Irrefutable hypotheses purchase their invulnerability by saying absolutely nothing about the real world. If they did, then that would be a testable point, and thus make them refutable. A refutable hypothesis would be, say, “the world began less than 10,000 years ago with today’s animals in their present form”.Because creationism (the claim that God created the world) is an irrefutable hypothesis, there is practically no evidence that COULD prove it. For instance, imagine any possible evidence, for instance, finding that rabbit fossils appearing suddenly in the geologic strata before any other vertebrates. This would suggest that they didn’t evolve from earlier forms, but wouldn’t be evidence that God created them, since they could have spontaneously created themselves, or been beamed in from another dimension, or what have you. So no, there hasn’t been any evidence supporting creationism, nor will there ever be.OK, so what can we do with evidence? We can test real, and testable, hypotheses. For instance, the hypothesis that life developed from earlier forms. Because no practical evidence can support an irrefutable hypothesis like creationism, creationists normally spend their time attacking what they see as rival hypotheses, such as evolution. The hypothesis of evolution has been tested literally millions of times by many different fields of science (such as anatomy, geology, genetics, pathology, neurology, chemistry and others) using many different methods. In practically all cases, the results have been consistent with our current understanding of evolution (not always our past understanding, because our understanding of evolution has evolved a bit itself). We have a stronger set of data confirming evolution than we do that the earth orbits the sun, or that the civil war occurred. So, even if we give up on evidence in favor of creationism, and instead look for evidence against evolution, we don’t have it - instead we have literally mountains of data confirming evolution, despite the fact that hypotheses based on evolution could very well be shown to be incorrect - that’s just not what the data says. The most common creationist tactic is perhaps to take evidence that confirms evolution and then use a variety of pseudoscientific techniques to discredit that evidence. For instance arguing that ontology doesn’t show evolutionary vestiges because Haeckel forged some drawings. Not only is this fallacious because the ontological evidence still stands despite Haeckel, but even if the ontological evidence did refute evolution, that in itself wouldn’t be evidence in support of creationism, unless an hypothesis were made which was actually supported by the evidence.In a similar vein, we could look for evidence supporting real (refutable) hypotheses that are consistent with creationism and not consistent with evolution. For instance, the hypothesis that “the earth is less than 10,000 years old”, or that “aquatic species are able to breathe water” (which is suggested by the idea that a designer designed them). In cases such as these, one can come up with a list of ways to test them - varves or dendrochronology, for instance, for the 10,000 year hypothesis, or simply looking at the breathing mechanisms of all aquatic species for the second hypothesis.It’s not hard to come up with a bunch of similar, real, testable, hypotheses - as well as ways to test them. In all of those cases that I’m aware of, the hypotheses consistent with creationism are not supported by the evidence, unless they are also consistent with evolution. For instance (see the previous two hypotheses), there are many ways that the earth has been shown to be older than 10,000 years, and many aquatic species can’t breathe water - often resulting in their death. Here is a thread having some: http://EvC Forum: REAL Flood Geology -->EvC Forum: REAL Flood GeologyYou might like to start a thread asking for other real hypotheses that are consistent with creationism if you want more - many people here are scientists, and coming up with hypotheses is often part of our jobs.Those would all be opportunities to actually see if the evidence supports them, but like I said, it doesn’t except for when the hypothesis is also equally consistent with evolution. Perhaps this would be what creation science should be - making refutable hypotheses consistent with creationism, and then testing them - NOT to prove creationism, but rather to see if the hypothesis is supported by the evidence, being willing to junk the hypothesis if it is not supported. I think this is a very important point. It’s hard to predict the future, but in the past, views that were inconsistent with the real world eventually were recognized as such, even if that process took a long time and much gnashing of teeth. I think of the Copernican revolution, the idea of a spherical earth, Newtonian physics, the efficacy of idolatry to cure a head cold, the idea that women became pregnant at random (without sperm), and on and on. As such, it seems likely to me that creationism will lose favor. If Christianity has by then tied itself tightly to it, creationism could hurt Christianity a lot. Or on the other hand, if people like you help get the church past the charlatanry and deception required to sustain creationism (and gems-in-the-lawn, and orbs, and snakehandling, and poison drinking, and . .), then maybe Christianity will survive as a healthy spiritual path.I’ll be out for the weekend. All the best--EquinoxPS. As far as where to start with your pastor, perhaps one good way to start would be to slowly and clearly go through case after case after case of clear and undeniable creationist deception to reveal how utterly immoral they often are. Maybe the Darwin eye quote mine, the Paluxy hoax, the Lady Hope story, the moon dust, the japanese plesiosaur, the deception used to say that the flagellum can't evolve, etc. There are many more to list, so I'd focus on the ones I was most comfortable with.There are plenty of places to start with your pastor, maybe the idea that evolution shows how wonderful God's creation is (that it can change freely), or how supported evolution is. I'm suggesting the above method (exposing the deceptions), but you may know a better way.Edited by Equinox, : Added PS

One minor point to add to the discussion of the 500:I agree that we have nothing but hearsay on this one, (Paul wrote what he heard, even if it was original to Paul's letter - our earliest manuscript of 1 cor 15 is from around 200, leaving around 150 years for some scribe to write that in, or embellish 5 to 50 to 500 or whatnot).In addition to the hearsay issue, the number itself sounds like hearsay. I doubt the crowd was exactly 500, but the writer, even if he had a first or secondhand account (no reason to think he did), didn't bother to find out actually how many?Just some thoughts. Have a fun day-

I must say, after reading the last page of posts on this thread, that we should give credit where credit is due. Rr is being extremely courageous, honest, hardworking, and is a shining star of rationality where he is - in a position none of us have. Even if someone doesn’t exactly match up with each of us in every way, we should focus a bit more on the positive, on the areas of agreement among friends. Helping push back the tide of orbs/gems/water crystals, etc is often a thankless job, it’s silly for us to castigate an ally in that. Plenty of people have pointed out that we have as much evidence for miraculous water crystals as for miraculous water walking, but we don’t have to dwell on that point exclusively - that’s not what this thread is for.Rr asked for help with a very logical and clear question (evidence for creationism, etc.), which I hope we did a decent job of answering. Regardless of religion one way or the other, I think as a society and a community we could remember the old saying “because nice matters.”. It does, today as much as ever.Plus, Rr is right that some things are more clearly hoaxes than others, and even if that wasn't the case, it helps everyone for us to at least expose the hoaxes we agree on, then worry about others.Rr wrote: Rr, good luck in your efforts.Take care all--EquinoxP. S. Oh, about the water boy - yep, that's a hoax. It's nice art, but it is art, not science. Notice that his degree is not a real degree. He's just a person who has some nice art. See Masaru Emoto - Wikipedia Edited by Equinox, : added water boy part

rR wrote: I’ve followed the discussion between you and Percy on this, and I have to apply the same standard to any claim.First, we must remember that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, and if that positive claim isn’t supported by evidence, then the negative view is the default.In other words, we don’t “prove” a negative claim, such as “Emoto’s water doesn’t work”. That’s a negative claim. Instead, we try to prove a positive claim such as “Emotos water does indeed work”. If we don’t have proof of that, after trying to prove it, then we keep the default position, which is that Emoto’s water doesn’t work.Now, apply this to Emoto’s water. Attempt to replicate it have failed. So we drop back to the default that his water doesn’t work, and he is a sham or (as rR pointed out) honestly fooled himself (quite common because it is more effective and thus has been selected for - there’s an evolutionary reason we can easily fool ourselves).In Emoto’s case, the praying at the water is subjective, (even writing the word on paper attached to the jar is subjective, since we can’t see the heart of the person doing the writing, and maybe they are writing “love” while thinking “I gotta pay that bill on the way home”). Then we measure an observable, objective fact - does the water crystallize differently?The objective data has failed to back up the claim that thinking/praying/writing the thought onto the water affects the crystallization. Hence, Emoto’s claim is rejected by us rational people.Now compare prayer for healing. The prayer is subjective - it’s possible that the person doing the praying is actually thinking “I gotta pay that bill on the way home”, or that God intentionally ignores prayers that are part of a scientific study (regardless of what the prayer knows), or whatever.Then we measure an observable, objective fact - do the prayed for people do better than the non-prayed for people?The objective data has failed to back up the claim that thinking/praying/writing for better health helps at all. A few early and small studies showed data one way or the other (no effect, a benefit, a harm), as expected for small studies. Later, larger studies consistently found no effect. In fact, last year a review of past studies was done, and after tossing out data tainted by method errors or even outright fraud, then pooling the data, no effect of prayer was found. Also last year, the largest single study to date was done, again no effect was found (see link below). Hence, the claim that prayer does anything is rejected by us rational people.Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer - The New York TimesrR wrote: As I’ve tried to illustrate above, they are not different. In all cases they start with the subjective, and when tested objectively, fail to provide evidence. For orbs, they start with a subjective feeling of a presence or something, and then the photo shows an orb, which is objectively shown to be nothing.In fact, of all three of them, the prayer/healing thing has been examined by far the most, and has by far the most evidence showing no effect. That of course says little about whether or not God exists, but shows that one should not reject the hoaxes of orbs and snowflakes without rejecting the hoax of “I’ll pray for you to get better”. None of them need to be intentional frauds, they can all be self-delusions as rR points out here: However, all that being said, it’s important for us to recognize two things:1. The fact that prayer doesn’t heal people doesn’t say there isn’t a God any more than the fact that the Bible is wrong about the sun revolving about the earth proves there is no God. Plenty of religious thoughts are wrong, a modern Christian can drop those without dropping faith in God. The idea that prayers heal people is just as human in origin as the Bible is human in origin, and as such neither negates the idea of a God. Just ask Jar.2. Even if rR is going to dogmatically hang onto the idea that prayers can heal people despite the evidence, his rationality wrt orbs and snowflakes is still a good thing. If he helps correct his pastor about creationism and gems while remaining a staunch prayerist, well, that’s better than many, and still a good thing. As I pointed out before, rR is doing a lot of good things, and deserves credit for that.May the stars light your path-Equinox

rR wrote: No, they do much more than that. Not surveys, but studies. Surveys (which record what people say or think) are not useful. A study is an experiment, where actual people (hundreds in each study) with health problems are divided into groups, some are prayed for and some are not prayed for, and the results are observed. Well controlled and designed study after study has shown clearly that prayer simply cannot be used to reliably promote healing. The results of those studies can be taken to mean that there is no God, or that God doesn’t answer prayers, or that God doesn’t answer prayers if they are part of a study, or that the prayers were insincere (they were church members doing prayers for the sick as they normally do), or whatever you like, but the empirical data that the prayer didn’t help is as testable as the phony orb photos are testable. And that agrees with studies too, which have shown that people who think they are doing something useful, even if it is carrying a rabbit’s foot, will often heal better. So prayer by the sick person can indeed help him or her, regardless of whether or not prayer by others helps. Here is a link about it:Subject-expectancy effect - Wikipedia
Regardless of the source, it's real, and it's good for rR, so by all means continue. I'm not trying to change your behavior, just pointing out that something with an unknown origin can still have a positive effect on you.Plus, as you point out, many people report beneficial mental health effects from various kinds of praying to whatever God or meditating. We even do this at our Unitarian church, where many of us are atheists. How is that different from “subjective” good luck charms or magnet-therapy bracelets, or “negative field repelling amulets”?“buy this, and then see what happens. Use it consistently, and then see what happens. You don't need a study to reveal those things to you.”These kinds of swindles are accompanied by testimonial after testimonial of people saying they have personally benefited. These are typical:Using Magnets For Health
http://www.bodyelectriccustomers.com/emf.shtml
http://www.magnetictherapysales.com/...endants_clearwave.htmPeople making money by selling the “power of prayer” aren’t usually as blatant. They usually sell power of prayer or other motivational books, and of course churches make literally billions of $$ a year from believers of the power of prayer. Anyone looking at this can clearly see that the money made nationally from power of prayer type of beliefs is thousands of times more than all the magnet, qlink, negative field, and such profits put together. As you pointed out, they don’t need to be deceptive to do this, they may really think this is all real, even the Qlink necklace salesman. There is a whole continuum from blatant and deceptive snake oil salesmen to honest people recommending meditation to a friend. At the friend end, it can be all good, since we both agree that there are real benefits for many people of self prayer/meditation/etc. Christian bookstores with power of prayer sections fall on that continuum somewhere, depending on the store. Absolutely valid point. I’m not, and I hope I haven’t ever been, recommending that you bring up the prayer issue at your church. Any gain (such as debunking orbs) is at least something. I often chide our local skeptics that they debunk and talk about things like Qlink or astrology, while ignoring the much, much bigger scams of Christianity, maybe because it’s much safer in our community to do so. Are they cowards? At the same time, for those within Christianity, it’s safer and perhaps more effective to focus on the Emoto type of stuff, because as you point out, to do otherwise is suicide to your arguments. I still fail to see the distinction in cases of healing (not mental health). In all cases, a subjective first step is there (I prayed, or I felt an orb presence, or an angel came to me in a dream), and then that is followed by a testable, objective step (people are healed, here is the orb photo, here is the gem). In all those cases, the first step is untestable, and the second step has been demonstrated repeatedly to be wrong. Sure, in a single case - that’s what large studies are for. The same could be said for taking a medication - did the penicillin really make me better, or did I just get better? Large studies in both cases clarify that the penicillin has a real effect, the prayer does not.It sounds like you have the information you need to talk at your church. The info on prayer isn't relevant because we agree that it's best just to not go there. We could have a separate thread on the power of prayer, but it sounds like we've already covered all of that, so that's probably not needed.Have a fun day-Equinox

rR wrote: I agree. The results clearly show that prayer is ineffective for healing, but what people infer from that finding is indeed subjective, and open to multiple interpretations, which is fine. We do. They sorta do. Would people contribute money to your church if they thought that prayer didn’t have any effect beyond the person praying? I’m not sure. Something being “for sale” is a sliding scale, from the open “for sale by owner” extreme on one end to the “supporting an institution with anonymous donations of time and service” on the other. Not all for sale scenarios are bad, but the idea of a sale does fit in there in some ways. I had never heard of them, but I googled it and found their site. OUCH. Scary stuff, both the prophets and the profits are scary. I’m sure that at least some of the promoters of that site really believe that stuff, but I’m also pretty sure that some people are indeed getting rich off from it (and that many probably fit into both groups). What to others here think? here’s the site:The Elijah List - Prophetic Words, News, and PropheciesHave a fun weekend everyone!-Equinox

rR wrote: No, as I’ve said over and over, that’s the conclusion of multiple studies, including comprehensive reviews of all studies to date where the data is pooled. Even individual studies often have hundreds of subjects. If a drug was found to be effective based on hundreds of people in a study, it would sound pretty silly to say “that result was only for “that particuylar study only, for those people”.Or, for example, does your dog have lungs? Have you cut him open to check? Of course you haven’t. It’s been tested time and again, and many dogs have been found to have lungs. Just because we haven’t cut open all the dogs in the world to check if they all have lungs doesn’t mean that we can’t say they all probably have lungs based on those that have been tested. Just as it’s reasonable for you to suppose that your dog probably has lungs without cutting him open, it’s reasonable to suppose that the thousands of cases showing that prayer doesn’t change medical outcomes show that prayer is simply ineffective for changing medical outcomes. Your statement above is like if I said “dogs have lungs”, and you said “For that particuylar study only, for those dogs getting cut open, and those people checking their lungs”.In countless areas of your life, rR, you accept the results of studies and logic (for instance, home cleaner toxicity, medical treatments, orbs, car safety devices, nutrition information, and on and on), yet in this one area (and probably a couple well-picked other areas), logic and data go out the window.I’m mentioning all this to point out the inconsistency, which makes you look either nave or deluded (and if you are arguing Christianity to a non-Christian, that begins to effect how Christianity looks too). As you and I have discussed and agreed on, this is not to convince you to take the prayer issue up at your church. It’s not a blatant quid pro quo. The members are encouraged to give because they are persuaded to continue to believe that a “prayer answering” god is accessible though involvement in your church. Thus the church helps maintain the belief, which in turn keeps the money coming in to the church. An indirect sale of prayer like this is more highly evolved, and persists much better than blatant dollar for prayer schemes because indirect methods like this are selected for when people learn to distrust the dollar for prayer schemes. As we’ve said in this and other cases, that doesn’t mean the people doing it aren’t sincere believers - it’s just that the sincerity is irrelevant as to whether the method is selected for or not. This is a time tested and well established scam method. First of all, it relies on the quite reliable human tendency of confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when a prediction or test is made, and the person monitoring the results has a hope, belief, or even small bias one way or the other. The person will then remember confirming results more than disconfirming results, and over time will believe that the data shows the belief was strongly confirmed. This strengthens the bias, leading to even stronger confirmation bias and an even stronger belief, and the loop feeds on itself. Here is more detail than you probably want (Confirmation bias - Wikipedia), since you probably immediately recognize this same feature in people you know who believe in astrology, are partisan republicans/democrats, believe in crystal healing, or whatever.Secondly, in your pastor’s case, it’s even better due to how your pastor has this set up. Let’s say he says that to 30 people, who then tithe to test this. Just due to random chance, half of them will experience better fortune, half worse fortune (you know how life is - things are happening all the time, if one is looking for things to happen). Then he’s got the half that experience the gain, the worse off half leave, to be replaced by new potential converts - say, 20 of them. Of the new 20, just due to random chance, half of them will experience better fortune, half worse fortune. Then he’s got the half (10) who experienced the gain, plus the 15 from before, the worse off half leave, to be replaced by new potential converts - say, 25 of them this time. You can see how this goes, with people joining and leaving, but all the time at least some of them are tithing and indeed getting “god’s blessings”. Throw in the healthy confirmation bias that humans (including myself) have, and it’s easy to get a sustained group rolling along, which also helps bring people in and keep them (by providing witnessing). Then, even if a member experiences financial loss, then confirmation bias can attribute this to “not looking at a long enough time frame”, or “that sinful thing I did”, or “my tithe was late”, or conveniently forget it, or whatever. The same is true of me since I ran over a raccoon in 1992. I don’t attribute my having money to running over the raccoon, confirmation bias notwithstanding. Nor do I profit by getting 10% of the squashed raccoon’s money. Someone is making money over this tithing business, and I bet it isn’t you.Plus - notice that this is quite a bit of money. 10% of the average income in the US (50,000/yr) is $5,000 a year, or over $400 a month - about what a rent or mortage is for many. For that much money, one could get see over 700 movies a year, buy more than one printer for your computer every week, or get a new jet ski every year. Plus, that's computed before taxes and paid from after tax money, so you'd have to make over $7000 a year more just to make up for it. Even for a family of 4 in poverty, it is the same as 50 boxes of macroni and cheese every week. Sadly, tithing is actually more prevalent amount poorer families, as is buying lottery tickets, gambling, etc. Confirmation bias is to prophecy as cells are to our bodies. The very fact that you mention that you’ve “seen some prophecies come true” shows that. What of the ones that didn’t come true? Oh, that must have been just a person’s prophecy, not really from the holy spirit. So if a prophecy comes true, it’s from the holy spirit, if not, it isn’t. With that rule in place, it’s unavoidable to conclude that the holy spirit gives true prophecy - though I could make up that same rule for Zeus’s prophecies, with equal success.If the Elijah list (The Elijah List - Prophetic Words, News, and Prophecies) doesn’t set off your scam-detector, then your scam-detector is broken (perhaps selectively broken). A Christian spirituality need not rely on pseudoscience and confirmation bias. You can be Christian without all that, just as you are showing by opposing the orbs.Sorry it took so long to reply - I can’t believe that deck took so much time and stain!All the best-EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : added more math.

rR wrote: The placebo effect is the well known effect of experiencing a positive effect because your expectation of a positive effect affects your mental state, improving your outlook, and helping you heal. There is nothing mysterious about it. It’s (partly) because of the placebo effect that we do double-blind experiments, which eliminate that as a cause (along with confirmation bias, which is also a strong effect). Here is some info on what a double blind study is:
Blinded experiment - WikipediaBecause we do double blind experiments, the placebo effect is controlled for. The prayer studies (at least the ones that showed no effect) were double blind, so, no placebo effect. As we’ve discussed before, there has been a placebo effect with prayer - in other words, someone who prays for himself or thinks someone is praying for him (whether someone actually is or not) will on average often show benefits to health. In that way, prayer is as powerful as any other placebo.The prayer data supports the placebo effect, which, as we’ve discussed before, we agree can help the person praying for himself. I’ve never contested that - I’ve just pointed out that it’s nothing any more supernatural than giving yourself a peptalk. As we’ve discussed at length, the prayer itself is subjective, but you are claiming that there are objective results (healing, etc). Whether or not I think a dog has lungs is subjective, if there are actual lungs in the dog, is not. Objective effects of prayer like healing can be examined just as objectively as the effect of any other medical treatment, such as taking a pill, undergoing hypnotherapy, counseling, or radiation therapy. We went over this back in post #163. When the “healing effect of prayer” claims say that someone can pray for someone else and it will help them heal faster, they are saying something testable, which has been tested, and repeatedly shown to be false. On the other hand, prayers for yourself change your mental state, and this does have a real effect. As Deng Ming Dao said “let us listen to our own prayers, it is we who will make them real”. That’s why I don’t disagree with what you wrote here: That should do it for the prayer, but just to cover another base, I’ll answer this, thought you probably already know the response. We don’t. What we know from the data is that a certain percentage of people get well after being sick, and that this percentage is not increased if they are all prayed for, nor are there any measurable medical or other benefits from being prayed for unless you know about it. Nearly all of those are good and real benefits that I agree with (after I adjust the words as you mentioned). We are a social species that needs contact and a community. That’s why I’m active at my UU church, and why atheists (or anyone) without a community suffers both mentally and physically.As you’ve noticed and spoken on before we even talked about it, some things, like pseudoscience, orbs, creationism, gems, etc, aren’t needed for those benefits above and may actually hurt those above points. I think we still agree on that. I agree those are real benefits. I think you get the church business because you are involved at the church, whether you pray or not. Your own prayer helps keep you mentally connected to the church, which effects your actions and hence the results. I don’t deny that. I am, actually familiar with all that, having been president of our UU church. It does add up, but do remember to take into your calculations how much that tithe really is. If there are just 90 people in your church (that’s a small church), then that’s, say, 50 households. 50 households X 50K average US income, X 0.1 (tithe) = a quarter million a year (250,000). When I helped run our church of 140 members, we needed a budget of 130,000 a year. So it seems to me that if people really are tithing, then there’s a lot of surplus that has to be going somewhere. I think what you are saying is that on average people aren’t tithing (?). I don’t think they need to tithe fully 10% to support the church, and more importantly, I think the pastor should say “pay 5% because we need to support our community together” - which is true. Instead he says “pay 10% because you’ll get mystical benefits” - which sounds indistinguishable from Emoto to me, except of course that Emoto asks for a lot less money.I don’t know the financial details of your church, and I believe you that there are expenses. My point is twofold. 1. that 10% is probably more than your church needs, if people did pay it, and 2. that framing it as a mystical benefit is misleading at best and much like other scams.Lastly, in my UU church, our budget (income) exactly matched our expenses, and any surplus (or deficit) went toward next year’s budget. I would have been amazed to see a 20% surplus, and enraged to see it disappear. You mentioned 80% goes toward the church - do you know where that other 20% (which is quite a bit of money) go? All understood. I watch out for it too, and I’m sure it fools me from time to time. Have a great memorial day . .Equinox

rR wrote: Well, the person praying is praying that God will heal the person. The *researchers* were testing if prayer works, so they asked prayers who often pray for people to add another name to their list and pray for that person. This was most often done through churches, where the prayers were people who regularly pray for people on the church’s prayer list - the name of the people in the study - who had various sicknesses - were added to the prayer lists in many cases. The prayers prayed for them just as they always do, this wasn't like unpracticed prayers just went through the prayer motions and called it prayer. So a Christian can’t pray for a non-Christian to get healthier? Or they can, but their prayers have less power if they do? I’ve never heard that at church. Could you please humor me and repeat my description of how a process that has a subjective beginning and an objective end can be examined? I mean, we both agree that prayer has the subjective beginning, just as, say, psychotherapy or counseling do. Then, all three of them claim to have an objective result - healing, better mental health, etc. The subjective part cannot be tested, the objective part can be tested. Taking a pill is different in that both the beginning and the end parts are objective - unless you are doing a double blind experiment, where half of the people are getting sugar pills without medicine - then, just as in the prayer for healing process, the first part is subjective (they know they took a pill, but don’t know the details of that pill).Do we both agree that medical outcomes - whether they come after pills, psychotherapy, peptalks, prayer, acupuncture, irradiation, or whatever, can be objectively tested? If so, then the subjective nature of the treatment doesn’t matter.Maybe we’ll just have to drop this point. That’s OK, we did have a good discussion on several other topics, and even on this one we got in some good communication here and there. I agree (though of course I read the sentence as follows: ) Thanks (yep, I got in for one more day before the weekend). I have enjoyed it as well, and wanted to thank you for starting it. Take care-Equinox (Jon)

OK, let’s review here. First, I interpreted your first statement above to be saying that healing by prayer may use the power of the Christian faith of the sick Christian (who is the target of the healing prayer). If so, then if the person who is sick isn’t Christian (and hence can’t have Christian faith), then that sick person cannot be healed. (unless you are going to say that any faith - such as that in a non-Christian religion- will work, in which case I’ll question why you’d think such an anti-biblical thing.)It was a logical conclusion from your “healing relies on the faith of the believer, not the person praying” statement that led me to conclude that you don’t think non-Christians can be healed if someone else prays for them to be healed. I seem to be having a difficult time getting a straight answer about any aspect of the prayer-healing issue. Earlier you had mentioned that it is “possible” that the healing was dependant on the faith of the target. Did you mean you think it *is* dependant on that? If so, then my "non-Christian" case is the result. If not, then what did you mean?Or was “possible” just put in because you are wiggling the proposed phenomena around so as to accommodate the evidence that shows that praying for someone doesn’t help them get better? Now we have, in addition, it being “possible” that God will not heal them (if they aren’t Christian). How is that different from if they are Christian, since I think we both agree that they may or may not be healed even if they are Christian? Then, on top of that, a big wiggle statement: “it’s all up to God”.I’m having a hard time distinguishing your description above from “sometimes people get better, and sometimes they don’t, and in all cases I just claim that God is directing it according to his inscrutable plan.” If that’s indeed what you are saying, then how is it different from someone else saying: Or Allah, or Vishnu, or the FSM, or indeed from: I’m trying to get a clear and unambiguous statement about prayer and healing. We both already agree that a person can pray for themselves, and this often gives them more confidence, and hence better healing. At the same time, the effect of people praying for named sick people to get better has been shown over and over to be zero. Those are definitive statements.I mean, if there is no definitive statement you think is accurate, that’s OK - it just sounded like you were claiming that prayer has an effect.Sorry if this sounded aggressive, I’m just trying to sort out the claim, so we can look at it in light of evidence.Have a fun day-Equinox

rR wrote: You know, in discussion with a friend one time, he mentioned that only Christians are kind or good people. All non-Christians are selfish and mean, and only appear kind or good for the moment. He continued that a seemingly good non-Christian only appears good because they are pretending to be kind or good to trick people so they can get some reward, or to make themselves look good. I was a little shocked by this kind of blatant bigotry, and restrained myself to simply, nicely, asking why he thought that.He replied that all goodness comes from God (the Christian God), and that God will only dispense true goodness to a believer, one who is connected to God (it's abundantly clear from bible, espeically the OT, that God does not consider other religions to be acceptable). Otherwise God would be allowing God's true goodness to show in another religion, which would be helping another religion, and Jesus himself said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Hence, if he sees someone appearing good who isn't a Christian, he knows it's just a sham, while if he sees someone appearing good who is a Christian, that could be authenical, godly goodness.Now, I hope we agree that my friend's view of goodness is deplorable religious bigotry. Further, consider someone saying this to you, rR: Doesn't that feel a little hostile to you? That's why your statement above reads like religious bigotry, and the fact that many religions foster this kind of thinking is probably (IMO) part of the reason why religions lead to such strife. Then isn't it possible that the healings could mean something other than the confirmation of specifically Christianity that you've interpreted them to mea? Perhaps there is a universal God who isn't Christian and answers healing prayers from all religions, if they are sincere, who is not the God of the Bible? Perhaps there is no God, and people simply sometimes get better? Perhaps the simply act of praying helps a person heal themselves? Perhaps the God heals people if those people have read the book of Job and the Song of Songs, but doesn't care about the other books in the Bible? Perhaps.....The possibilities are endless, especially if you haven't figured out the "rules", or even more so, if there are no rules. So I guess I'm wondering how or why you, in your own mind, use the healings to shore up Christian beleif, if you don't see rules? I mean, how is it that you use the healings as evidence of God or Christianity, yet in the same breath say that healings are not an allowed way to test God or Christianity?Have a fun day-Equinox (Jon)
Edited by Equinox, : small fix

Jar, you and I just discussed this question (the purpose for Jesus' miracles according to the stories) on another thread I'm pretty sure. (the synoptics portray it as you say, John portrays the opposite, where Jesus does indeed do miracles for conversion purposes).Based on that discussion, do you think we should avoid saying Jesus' miracles are for either purpose? I mean, if we want to get into a discussion about which source (synoptics vs John) is more reliable, we can, but that quickly leads to a conclusion that brings the existence of the miracles themselves into question, and I'm not sure we want to go there here and now. Have a fun day-Equinox

In some books/authors in the Bible, the faith is it (such as Paul), in others, it’s all or mostly action (James, Mt 25). You can make a strong case for just action based on parts like Mt 25, or make a strong case for faith alone (as the protestant reformers did in the reformation), based mostly on Paul’s letters (not the forgeries, the 7 real ones). You guys are running around in circles because you are trying to get a coherent message out of the Bible.Trying to cram the books of the Bible together only leads to confusion and dissention, or at best a convoluted soteriology.Besides, putting Matthew and Paul in a cagefight to see who’ll win is off the topic of this thread anyway, right?Enjoy this day-EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : fixed boxesEdited by Equinox, : No reason given.

NJ wrote: Any of those would be good to look at, but are much too large and off topic for this thread. I’ll comment on them, especially because it is logical problems like these (before I had even really studied the Bible much), that resulted in my leaving Christianity. Reading the Bible clinched it only after that. I don’t think that makes sense. First of all , the no God=no moral law doesn’t follow, as Ringo pointed out. Evolution predicts a strong moral faculty, hence the whole field of evolutionary psychology (read Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia).There are plenty of other problems too, like God’s clearly and repeatedly immoral behavior in the Bible, and many others. A related question is whether good is an objective reality, or just simply defined as “what God wants”. If you take the former, then you have to conclude that God is not all good, and that a person with moral integrity must speak up against the immoral God of the Bible. If you take the latter, then saying “God is Good” ceases to have any meaning, since it is simply saying “God does what God does”. Well, we don’t necessarily struggle with them - I find the answers given by a Naturalistic worldview to be clear, demonstrable, and beneficial. Let’s compare:Naturalistic worldview:Origin - we evolved from a continually creative universe. We are the descendents of thousands of beings that survived against all odds, who succeeded in life and in love. These links of love bond us to the ancient supernovae that forged the atoms in our bodies. What other origin could possibly be more rich?Meaning - The evolution of the universe has continually given rise to greater and more complex systems. We stand at the dawn of a new day - the first time we know of that the universe evolved the ability to plan it’s own future. Your children and mine for generations to come over thousands of years will live the consequences tomorrow of the decisions we make today. What other worldview could possibly give life more meaning?Morality - We carry the brains of our Pleistocene ancestors, filled with both good drives (altruism, parental love, etc.) and bad drives (envy, lust, greed, etc.). All had a clear benefit to the reproductive success of our ancestors, hence their presence within us today. Understanding these drives openly is the most effective way of using them all for the good. Evolutionary psychology is the owner’s manual to our brains. We can now use this understanding to control our basic drives to benefit the world of tomorrow - for all our children over the coming millennia, as well as all life on earth. If we don’t accept this moral charge, no one will, since there is no God to fix things. It’s up to us.Destiny - The fruit of the universe has been continually greater every time a new system arises - such as the first heavy atoms, cells, metazoans, eyes, vertebrates, humans, tribes, cities, and nations. We can help drag the dream of the future into existence, and our atoms will continue cycling through our children and the world of tomorrow.Now, compare with the Biblical literalist (not including the moderate Christian) responses:Origin - we were made as playthings by a genocidal, petty, narcissistic despot who lumped dirt into a design that is clearly incompetent in many ways.Meaning - With an omnipotent God in charge of everything, we must focus on worship and obeisance, since the world isn’t in our hands anyway. We can’t be sure of what he wants, since the thousands of Christian groups often get different conclusions from the same unreliable and self-contradictory text that this God apparently gave us thousands of years ago. However, we get to spend eternity in Heaven watching some of our friends and loved ones get tortured eternally in Hell if we can get into heaven. This all gives my life meaning.Morality - Well, what to make of that? We can follow some of the OT laws, but not others, since the ten commandments are fashionable but the “thigh rot test” isn’t. Or we can go around and around trying to get a clear morality out a book that has been used to justify slavery, mass murder, infanticide, subjugation of women, gay-bashing, war and worse for centuries. The fact that Christians can’t agree on what the Bible says is moral and what isn’t makes this tricky too, as does the fact that God orders genocide, demands human sacrifice, kills millions of innocent people himself, tortures more people than he “saves”, and praises a murdering, wife-stealing despot as “most blessed”. Go figure.Destiny - Let’s see, if I go to Hell (regardless of whether that is based on faith or works), I’ll be tortured for eternity. On the other hand, If I go to Heaven, I get to be happy while knowing that millions of people, including some of my friends and relatives, are tortured for eternity, and I also get to spend eternity worship and bowing before someone who killed all the firstborn sons in an entire nation, just because he wanted to make a political point. I guess that destiny makes me happy.
****************************************Back to morality: Um, no, since that killing obviously and clear violates our evolved morality in many ways, such as hurting our family, violating expectations and promises, etc.On the other hand, if I were Christian, wouldn’t killing them tonight be the ultimate good I could do? Killing them would guarantee that they’d go to heaven, especially the children who are too young to have lost their faith. If I don’t kill them now, they could eventually lose their faith in Jesus and go to hell and be tortured forever, so I better do it tonight. Of course I’d go to Hell for it, so doing it would be the ultimate selfless, loving act a father could do. In fact, Christians have realized this at times, and done exactly this (most recently was Andrea Yates, but by no means the first). Now let’s see, I’ll need to stop by the hardware store . . ..Many of these topics deserve a whole thread. In fact, these are all pretty well worn topics which probably have already been discussed. Take care-EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : added spaces, fixed typo.

OK, well, I can't argue with that. Good luck!I do have to say though, I wonder what a cage fight between Paul and (whoever wrote) Matthew would look like.......Equinox