Who won the Collins-Dawkins Debate?

You personally? No, of course not. I was commenting on Charles Harper's question, and then commenting generally on the process of logic used by "you religious guys and gals," as I referred to you collectively.But you do, of course, indirectly reach the conclusion that there's a rational basis for the existence of God because you believe you have a rational basis for concluding that prayer works, and you believe that it is God answering the prayers, and that he therefore exists. On any rational level? No. For someone from the 15th century completely ignorant of all we know today about the way the world really works then perhaps it is "enough evidence to at least allow the possibility." But for someone who I presume gave at least a cursory glance at the prayer study links I provided? For someone living in a scientific age who is presumably aware of the difficulties of teasing out the way the world really works? No. You've improved your position by clarifying that you were not advocating ignoring negative evidence. When I thought you were saying that I likened such thinking to that of some of the most backward cultures across all time. Now you're merely arguing for a conclusion based upon non-random and tiny sample sizes and influenced by confirmation bias, just like the Aztecs. Like I said, for someone from a non-scientific culture or someone from 500 years ago, sure, he's not being irrational, he's just doing the best he can with what he knows. But for someone today? No.Let me try putting this in another context. Let's say everyday I role a pair of dice to test the theory that if they come up boxcars then it will rain or snow. Over the course of a year let's say that boxcars come up 11 times, and that 2 of those 11 times it rained. I conclude from this that there's possibly something to my theory. Is the absurdity of such approaches becoming apparent yet?You indicated that my next point wasn't clear. The full quote of what you said appeared at the top of my message, and I only quoted the tail end when I picked up the point again, but let me explain it all again anyway. Yes, we're talking about your nephew, of course. You now ask: Yes, of course, because if you're thinking that 1 success measured against 50 failures is not as persuasive as 10 successes measured against 500 failures (same ratio of 1 out of 50), then what conclusion can there be other than that you must be ignoring or in some way discounting the failures.This is why we keep mentioning confirmation bias. It almost seems like you keep reexpressing your answers, while we keep telling you that the confirmation bias is still there. There's no evidence for the effect you're looking for, for enumerable reasons, but scientifically because there's no known mechanism by which the cause could produce the effect, and because the relationship between prayer and health outcomes has already been studied and been found largely absent.Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever. Raising issues like this just makes more and more clear how wrong you are to believe you have any rational basis for concluding that prayer works, or even might work. You have no rational basis for this belief. You have two choices. You can believe it on faith, which is fine, or you can believe you have material evidence for what you believe, which is profoundly mistaken. Here you once again repeat your claim, in even less uncertain terms than before. Why don't you describe the kind of prayers you're talking about? Are they perhaps of the type, "Please let my wife's visit to her parents go safely," and then when she returns safely you believe your prayers were answered rather than floating off unheard into the ether? I won't pursue this at this time because every time I think I've seen the height of religious irrationality you respond with, "No, no, that's not what I was saying," so I'll hold off.But whatever you really meant, clearly you believe you have a rational basis for believing that prayer works, or that it might work. You don't. All you have is anecdotal evidence, tiny sample size, confirmation bias, and an inclination toward supernatural explanations. That's a sure formula for error.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

quote:

---

I think that sufficient repeated failure would convince me that prayer doesn't work, which is why I don't try emptying hospital wards and nursing homes with my incredible faith.

---

See, this is your bias showing again.If you think that prayer works, why wouldn't you try emptying hospital wards and nursing homes?Look, you've likely made scores of prayers that failed, and you've discounted them or simply forgotten those "misses". That is a form of confimation bias.It surely looks as though, even if all of those failures were painstakingly recorded somehow and you saw the enormous list, you would still just point to your several spectaular-looking sucesses.It appears to me that you are taking great pains to shield yourself from any possible negative evidence.

Percy said I keep saying "no, no, no, that's not what I was saying," which is true, because I keep having to answer things I didn't say.So let me answer your post first, because it was right on. I obviously don't think it would work. I'm not, but... Ok, this to me is what we're really arguing. Am I ignoring countless "misses" because of confirmation bias? I blot them out, ignore them, don't look at them, whatever.I'm sure that must happen some. I don't believe it happens so much that I'm just deluded.You, of course, think it's all the result of confirmation bias. Good enough. I've already discussed this with you, and I know you think that. I'm not trying to talk you out of believing that, and I haven't been trying to talk you out of believing that. I don't think it would be an enormous list. You, of course, think that's confirmation bias, and I can't and don't expect you to think something different. I, on the other hand, since it's my life, have to consider whether maybe you're right. I really don't know what else to do except to think, "You know, tl, you're just like everyone else, and you may be fooling yourself," and then pay a lot of attention.I do that. Choosing not to believe is as much of a choice as choosing to believe. I can't do neither, because for me belief has a huge effect on lifestyle and choices, so both of them are a choice. Given my experiences, belief is the choices I make. I've been an unbeliever, you know. I've been an atheist, though for a very short time a long time ago. I've been a heretic. I've been kicked out of churches. I've been called a danger to those around me. It's not like deciding this all isn't true is not an option for me. It is an option. I don't think it's the wise one.

The absurdity of such approaches has always been clear to me. However, if it rained 9 of 11 times. I'd say, "Well, isn't that interesting." However, even if I were in East Tennessee, where it rains less, there's an awful good chance it could rain 9 out of eleven days, and dice and weather ought to have nothing in common, so I'd ignore it, too. If it happened 90 out of 100 times and I didn't live in Seattle, I'd begin to wonder what was going on.I took statistics. Some things are reasonable to conclude, and others aren't. They're the same ratio, but depending on what you're testing, the two could be hugely different results. If something is a one in a million chance, and it happens one time in 50, that could be luck. If it happens ten times in 500, then your one in a million odds are almost certainly wrong. Man, I got your wrankle up with that one. Listen, I have never argued that anyone ought to be converted or join Rose Creek Village based on my anecdotes. Thus, I am not arguing that my anecdotes are proof of anything or are a test for God. I simply said I don't agree with the people who said our faith was based on nothing, ignoring all evidence. No, it's not. There are real reasons we believe, and part of that is because our faith is effective and brings results.I can't help it if it follow from what I've been taught, long before anyone brought up scientific tests of prayer, that God won't be put to the test like that. That may sound like a copout to you, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it, because I didn't make that up. Prayers of the type you mention can only produce negative results (as far as determining whether prayer is answered). If I pray for someone to have a safe trip, and they do, it's so likely to have happened, anyway, that such a result would have no more effect on me than it would on you.I'm talking about praying for people to be released from the military early when they think it's impossible. I'm talking about someone trying to sell their house for six months, and praying "if you'll sell my house, God, I'll quit my job." Then, one day, that person told me, "You know, God told me a while back that if I quit my job he'd sell my house. I guess I ought to obey him."He quit his job. An hour later, before he even got home, a man drove into his yard and offered to buy his house, then did.That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Yes, that's an anecdote. No, I don't think it's proof of anything by itself. I am not suggesting that after 40 such stories, you ought to fall on your knees and repent.However, I am suggesting that after 40 such stories, I disagree completely with the statement that if Frances Collins thinks God isn't subject to scientific scrutiny that he therefore has pretty much nothing on which to base his faith.Which is all, in the end, I have ever been saying in this thread.I'm not stupid, Percy. If I pray for 76 colds and 7 of them get better, I assume that my prayers had no effect whatsoever. In fact, not only would I assume that, I really do assume that. I treat colds with chicken soup, rest, and, if the person has to work or do something, with standard cold remedies that help relieve symptoms. That's because, I assume that my prayer for the cold is probably going to go unanswered. God's obviously not interested in supernaturally healing most colds, at least not for me and my household.But I'm not talking about colds. I'm talking about having my back to the wall financially and asking for money so my business won't shut down and having it appear from some unusual place. I'm talking about feeling like God told me to move when I had no money, living in a tent, and having to ask God every day for food to eat.And I don't ignore negative stuff. I was in a religion that described all sorts of things God would do through faith. God didn't do them. God didn't supply when I needed to pay my electric bill, like they told me he would. God didn't heal people the way they told me he would. So I quit their religion, because it didn't work.This one, however, works pretty awesome.

Yes, precisely! Yes, exactly!We know it isn't a question of understanding or intelligence. It's a question of why you ignore these abilities when you think about your religion but claim to be using them anyway. For instance, when did you apply any of the above approaches that you just described with regard to your nephew? Your friend with the house? Your friend from the military? Your business troubles? These effects are obvious to no one but yourselves. And they are effects that require explanations for why they aren't detectable by anyone else, thereby causing you to have to offer lame excuses like this: Well, of course it's a cop out if you're justifying your conclusion by saying, "That's just what I was taught, not nothing I can do about that." I earlier quoted you describing some of the elements of proper analysis, and here is yet another example of you finding reasons to not apply them. You obviously know what rational thinking is, you just refuse to apply it to your religion and then you claim your conclusions are rational anyway.I of course have no problem with anything you care to believe. I only have a problem with your claims that your religious beliefs have material real-world evidence supporting them.--Percy

Can you tell me why you think I'm not applying the same reasoning? As far as I can tell, I am. In every instance. Why do you think I haven't? That's the part I don't understand.

It's very simple;Do you have to answer for why you believe in prayer, because a few people have argued that prayer doesn't
seem to work and you're biased.?My answer; No.They count the negatives, we count the positives. All people are biased, including atheists.It's not that I disagree with any scientific findings, it's that I don't think they tell us anything about our own unique personal beliefs and prayers.All I ask is that you think about what I'm saying. You like the winning side, well, I'm afraid I'm the winning side, so listen up;1. We have 50 cars.
2. The full population of cars is a thousand.Your car wasn't entered for the test. 50 cars were antered for the test. Oh, they're all different cars, and the same in other ways,(watch the undistributed middle). Now, the examiners want to test how good these cars are, how reliable.They test 50, then they do the same experiment, sampling another 50 in another population.Right. Now - all cars tested are basically rubbish and are unreliable, according to chance.My question - Does this mean your car is unreliable? (shraff's position)
Another question - Does this mean every car on the planet is unreliable. (shraff's position)Now - I'm really going to twist the Sherlock-screws home;Now let's pretend that me and you have these cars and TO US, they're the most reliable cars on the road. But we hand them in for testing and they conclude that our cars are unreliable. What then? Do we ditch our cars because another person believes the test is more important? I think not, for what fool would ditch his car because of that?Checkmate.You have no reason to answer to these people any longer.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

You can't even see what's under your own nose. Dawkins named his latest book, The God Delusion, well.About my example with the dice, you gave this analysis which indicates why you can't just take the dice correlation with rain at face value: Concerning your nephew, did you ask yourself the appropriate equivalent questions so as to determine if meaningful conclusions could be reached in the absence of certain information, such as the frequency of spontaneous recovery from such infections, or the degree of differential outcomes of prayer versus no prayer? Did you ask the appropriate equivalent questions about your friend's house sale, your other friend's exit from the military, and your business troubles?The answer is obviously no, because if you had you would have instead just commented that it would be interesting to have the information necessary to determining if these events were particularly significant.There's another common element in all your stories: drama. You and your friends certainly seem to find yourselves in a lot of desperate fixes from which you're suddenly extricated at the last minute by divine intervention. Perhaps people in your neck of the woods just lead more exciting lives than the rest of us. Or perhaps you just know how to tell a good story.The fact of the matter is that all religions throughout the world have adherents just like you in terms of justifying their beliefs on the basis of what they see as miraculous events, such as prayers being answered and so forth. You can't all be right that these events justify your beliefs, for many of the beliefs are contradictory.The most interesting thing about religious flim-flammery is that the rubes and marks present themselves willingly to be scammed. You look at a Leroy Jenkins and probably think, "No way I'd be taken in by that," and you're probably right. But though not by Leroy Jenkins, you *have* been taken in. Some people just have a need to believe, and almost all people have a need to justify what they believe. From the outside looking in it is obvious that religious beliefs can only be accepted out of faith, for only the religious themselves can detect the evidence they cite for holding their beliefs. But things that actually happen in the real world are apparent to everyone. It's one of the definitions of objectivity.--Percy

We're not asking why Truthlover believes in prayer, and Truthlover isn't trying to explain why he believes in prayer. We're asking Truthlover why he thinks he has objective evidence from the material world of the power of prayer. Truthlover is attempting to answer. I wish you wouldn't waste people's time with obviously false statements. As has been stated over and over and over again in this thread, by at least me and Schraf but probably by others, too, ignoring evidence is anti-scientific. All evidence must be considered. This includes negative evidence, positive evidence, neutral evidence - all evidence! If we've been clear on anything we've been clear on that. No argument there.Two things about your car example. First, I think it is poorly conceived and constructed, and I think Schraf's actual position would be that nothing could be concluded from such a study as you describe it. Second, no one is trying to tell you to ditch prayer. We're just telling you that your belief that you have objective evidence supporting the power of prayer is incorrect.--Percy

Of course I did. Since they never really knew what kind of infection it was, nor why it was resistant to their treatment, I don't have any way of knowing the likelihood of spontaneous recovery. Making the assumption that it happens and is likely to happen, all I've really got to go on is the timing. It didn't happen for a year and a half, so there's a certain amount of unlikelihood (if that's a word) that it would happen right when we prayed. I figure surely I can have 100 to 1 odds against it, and probably more, but 100 to 1 is safe. 1%, not that unlikely. If it's the only thing that ever happens, utterly meaningless, and much more likely to be the result of chance than divine intervention. My friend's house sale, again I'm pretty confident that was highly unlikely. He tells me God told him to quit his job and he'd sell his house, and the buyer shows up within one hour of his quitting his job. Very unlikely, but again, not nearly impossible by itself.My friend's exit from the military. I have no idea how unlikely that is. Maybe with the effort he put into it, pretty likely, although he told me it doesn't happen. Really doesn't help make a case at all, because there's too much likelihood that it could have happened, anyway.Business troubles is pretty general. I have very specific prayers for very specific needs that I'm remembering. Likelihood of the provision arriving in answer to prayer on the day I need it. That has to be judged in every case, but that's a lot easier to judge than any of the above, and the odds of those things occurring would be not too hard to fix within a reasonable error range.Pretty loose? Of course. Convincing as a study? I doubt it, because for one, no one could be expected even to believe the stories, much less even talk about my assessments of them. I'm just stupidly, blindly, living in a dream world hoping something is true? Hardly.I have to address one more thing: Well, as far as business troubles, I think those are pretty typical, especially when you take on helping people the way we do so that there's a drain on our finances that most fledgling businesses don't have to face.But on some of the other issues, yes, we create some pretty exciting circumstances for ourselves, depending on what you mean by exciting. Most people don't move their family of three small children to a new city with no job and barely enough gas money to get there because "God said so." It was just about the happiest couple months we've ever had, though. I guess I was "homeless," since I was living in a tent, but it didn't feel like it.Most people don't decide that it's time to let God decide where they're going to live over the military and find it important enough to seek God for the right to leave the military before their commitment is up. Most people don't move a church of 17 families from one state to another. Most people worry about their future enough to secure the land that 35 families are living on so that they can't just be evicted, 35 families at once. Happened to us, though.It does create some pretty "exciting" circumstances, and they are unusual. We're not the only ones that face difficult times and people in inner cities live much more "exciting" lives, but we probably have faced more exciting circumstances than the average American. I've heard I tell good stories. Kids, including my own, love to gather and hear them. However, I haven't told you any false ones.Edited by truthlover, : fix codes

Isn't the rational conclusion "insufficient data"? I'm just boggled that you can make up numbers like this and think you're doing anything valid.I asked if you'd submitted any of your "divine intervention" success stories to critical analysis of the sort you subjected the dice example to. Redescribing the stories and adding more detail bears no resemblance to the analytical approach you brought to the dice example. What I am noting is this analytical mode that you easily embrace for most things , but that you then abandon when it comes to your religion. And the kicker is that you can't seem to tell when you're doing it.--Percy

quote:

---

Ok, this to me is what we're really arguing. Am I ignoring countless "misses" because of confirmation bias? I blot them out, ignore them, don't look at them, whatever.

​

I'm sure that must happen some. I don't believe it happens so much that I'm just deluded.

---

LOL!Of course you don't believe that you are deluded. That's the nature of delusion, isn't it? If you knew you had deluded yourself, you wouldn't be deluded anymore.And confimation bias is completely pervasive and insidious and second-nature in the everyday cognition of all of humanity.The ONLY way to counter it in situations like we've been discussing is by the double-blind methods percy and I have been harping on about.

quote:

---

You, of course, think it's all the result of confirmation bias. Good enough. I've already discussed this with you, and I know you think that. I'm not trying to talk you out of believing that, and I haven't been trying to talk you out of believing that.

---

I know you haven't been trying to talk me out of anything.It is as though, however, that percy and I have been pointing out the flaws in your logic and the bias you keep displaying, and you keep restating them in different ways, which we then address a second, and third time, etc.Honestly, it's like you are putting up some kind of barrier to keep yourself from applying what we've been saying to your own situation.

quote:

---

I, on the other hand, since it's my life, have to consider whether maybe you're right. I really don't know what else to do except to think, "You know, tl, you're just like everyone else, and you may be fooling yourself," and then pay a lot of attention.

---

Just "paying attention" isn't enough, tl. Even if you pay attention "a lot".That's the entire point of this discussion between the three of us.If "paying attention a lot" was enough, double blind studies wouldn't have near the clout in, say, medical testing, that they do.That's because we've identified something called "observer" or "experimenter effect", which is when the person making the observation can influence the oucome of a test if they know what the outcome of the experiment is supposed to be.So, "double blind", where neither the thing or person being tested, nor the person administering the test, knows what the result is "supposed" to be, is the best possible test wrt eliminating bias.

Somewhere in this thread someone listed a series of studies concerning the efficacy of prayer in realm of healing.Go read those studies.These studies are carefully designed and they determine outcomes objectively - all outcomes both positive and negative.Science is biased toward the data and facts. Ya I always win chess when I play against my self.Your car example is absurd and sophomoric and you have no understanding of statistics.What are the quantitative measures of unreliability? Those reliability attributes will be represented in the untested population by a definable probability. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

You really need to redesign your car experiment, mike.It won't tell you anything meaningful as it is.In fact, it's completely incomprehensible and there is no possible way that one could come to the conclusions you say I would by folowing your method.

quote:

---

They count the negatives, we count the positives.

---

No mike.You count the positives, and we count the positives, the negatives, and the neutrals.Remember what I wrote way back in message #124 of this thread:

quote:

---

All people are biased, including atheists.

---

Right.Exactly.Everybody is biased.I wonder if there is a method we can use to examine a phenomena with as little influence from bias as possible?Can you think of one, mike?

---

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

Hi Truthlover,In her reply to you Schraf mentioned what she called the observer or experimenter bias effect, and she explained that this effect is why it is necessary that valid studies in some fields (especially medicine) be double-blind. I just wanted to comment briefly on this.The double-blind study approach was not developed in order to make it easier for scientists to render unbiased judgements. They did not reason, "Gee, it is just such a grind making sure that you're unbiased when conducting the experiment and assessing the results, let's just do the studies double-blind and rid ourselves of all the tensions and anxieties of consciously eliminating our biases."That's not why the double-blind study approach was developed.Rather, it was developed because of the demonstrated inability of people to control bias, even when their biases are known to them and they are consciously trying to compensate for them. In other words, people are incapable of removing the influence of their personal opinions and biases.Your claim to be considering the possibility that you may be deluded is just so much meaningless yammering in the face of the well known human inability to control bias.The power of the double-blind study approach is that when conducted properly, it doesn't matter whether the study is carried out by believers or skeptics, the same result will always occur. In other words, if two identical and properly conducted double-blind studies of prayer were carried out, one by your community and another by a group of atheists (which leaves me out), you'd both obtain the same results.That is the power of double-blind studies. When a study is conducted in double-blind fashion, then you can have some confidence that the results are objective and can be trusted. When a double-blind study shows some positive correlation, then you know you have a rational basis for believing the correlation is real.But when all you have is devoutly religious people proclaiming the power of prayer in their lives in materially meaningful ways as demonstrated by their own experiences, then you've got nothing. We understand that you believe that the experiences and testimony of all these people could not possibly add up to nothing, but it does.Maybe putting it in another context will help, so let me explain it like this. The evidence you have for the power of prayer is of the same quality, and in many case of the same type, as that for UFOs, clairvoyance and Bigfoot.Or let me say it yet another way. If belief were not really a matter of faith but of objective reality, then there would be no need for faith and we would all believe the same thing because it's just reality. Well, not everyone would believe the same thing, since even today there are flat-earthers and geocentrists. But the point is that if your beliefs really reflected a tangible reality then at least among rational people there would be no debate, and the world would not be divided into tens of religions and hundreds of sects.--Percy