How to test prayer?

[articulett]

But what is more likely-- a god who for some reason doesn't want his subjects to know that prayer works... but still wants to be praised and worshipped believed in and prayed to (despite being invisible, undetectable, multiply interpreted, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.)

Or that people are fooling themselves about gods like they have been doing for eons.

Besides, a god would know how it would all work out and what exactly it would take for his creations to believe in him... he could even ensure that they did if it was so damn important.

I don't know, Bri... your excuses sound like all excuses. I mean, how do you know the hijackers aren't having sex in heaven? How do you know Scientology engrams aren't real? How do you know god doesn't prefer to be called Allah or Zeus? How do you know that Jesus existed? How do you know that all the people who say that god speaks to them or that they are god aren't really god?...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Not all are rigorous studies that would prove conclusively the efficacy of prayer. If God didn't want us to know for certain that prayer works, couldn't he ensure that we wouldn't know?

-Bri

I suppose it depends on which religion is under discussion.

For one, at least, it appears that prayer should work invariably (subject, of course, to the necessary ad hoc explanations):

"Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."

 

[six7s]

As lots of people conclude from their own personal experience that prayer either does or does not work, you could argue that virtually all prayer is subject to poorly designed studies.

Not all are rigorous studies that would prove conclusively the efficacy of prayer

Hardly surprising! Any attempt to devise, run and monitor a 'conclusive' test for the efficacy of any 'woo-based product' is by definition, a complicated task...

Of course, not all woos are equal... e.g. homoeopathy; where the practitioners and their potions (or at least the solvents) do actually exist...

But prayer???

How on earth do you test (prove) conclusively for prayer? It ASSUMES the existence of at least one god... for which there is NO EVIDENCE of whatsoever

If God didn't want us to know for certain that prayer works, couldn't he ensure that we wouldn't know?

Unless, of course, you know something we don't...

If so, please DO tell

Otherwise, I suggest that 'rigorous studies' on pink elephants, leprechauns, gods, fairies, liberal conservatives, unicorns, etc are postponed indefinitely...

In the meantime, a quick look outside at the 'real world' will reveal that there are opportunities to study other issues that are not only suited to a 'rigorous' approach but also rather more pressing

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not all are rigorous studies that would prove conclusively the efficacy of prayer. If God didn't want us to know for certain that prayer works, couldn't he ensure that we wouldn't know?

-Bri

Then why promote a religion claiming those who believe are rewarded, prayers are answered, and so on? And how did this nonsense of "faith without evidence" even come to be anyway? Where in the Bible does it say God wants people to believe in the absence of evidence as if that is some key element?

The Bible says nothing about the virtues of believing against evidence. Faith yes, but faith against evidence? That only comes about in discussions of God testing people like "kill your son". Such a test is a completely different concept than belief against evidence since in the former case, God speaks directly to the would be murderer. That is a test of loyalty, not a test of belief without evidence.

The claim faith without evidence is some Biblical instruction is simple rationalization for why the evidence, when looked for, isn't there.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But what is more likely-- a god who for some reason doesn't want his subjects to know that prayer works... but still wants to be praised and worshipped believed in and prayed to (despite being invisible, undetectable, multiply interpreted, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) ..

Your list is growing.

 

[Roboramma]

Something I've never understood. Why do Christians pray for improved health. If I truly believed in an eternity of joy and happiness with a new body in a place called Heaven, I'd be very excited about the possibility of dying.

Eighty years in this body is incredibly insignificant to eternity in the afterlife.

Maybe they just aren't entirely certain that they're correct?

When I get in to a car I believe that I won't get in to an accident - otherwise I wouldn't get in the car - but I'm not certain, so I put on my seatbelt.

Similarly the religious may believe in an afterlife, but not being certain of it, make the most of the life that they have here which they can be certain exists.

 

[Roboramma]

From Wikipedia:



Of course, it is possible that prayer only works when it isn't being studied.

-Bri

I agree. It's interesting, though, that this tells us a few things about God, if it exists.

For instance, this means that it cares (for whatever reason) more about not being proved than about helping the people who pray to it. Because if prayer works at times when we're not looking, then when we are looking God fails to answer prayers that it would otherwise have answered. Sometimes, even, when both the person praying and the person prayed for are ignorant of the fact that someone is looking - ie not culpable.

Which suggest that if this god exists it subscribes to some sort of utilitarian ethics - though that may be an warrented conclusion. AT the least we can conclude that god is willing to refuse to help someone for reasons that have nothing to do with that person - presumably for some greater purpose (whether an ethical or selfish pupose or something else is up for grabs).

Now, maybe this is all meaningless, but I think it's worth going through the implications of these things, especially for the religious, because sometimes the jusitification applied to a result or observation may clash with their idea of god. At that point I'd suggest they should either drop the justification or change their idea of god.

None of this was dirrected at you bri - just some thoughts solicited by your comment.

 

[Bri]

I don't know, Bri... your excuses sound like all excuses.

It's not my excuse.

I suppose it depends on which religion is under discussion.

It would probably depend on the precise claim regarding prayer that is under discussion.

Hardly surprising! Any attempt to devise, run and monitor a 'conclusive' test for the efficacy of any 'woo-based product' is by definition, a complicated task...

I would imagine it would depend on what the claim is, specifically.

Then why promote a religion claiming those who believe are rewarded, prayers are answered, and so on? And how did this nonsense of "faith without evidence" even come to be anyway? Where in the Bible does it say God wants people to believe in the absence of evidence as if that is some key element?

I was just pointing out that it is possible that prayers are answered, but not when it's being observed. Depending on the precise claim, it might be impossible to disprove. As for belief without conclusive evidence, I imagine that most people do that on occasion -- we generally call those beliefs "opinions." As for the rest, you're asking the wrong person since I don't promote a religion.

For instance, this means that it cares (for whatever reason) more about not being proved than about helping the people who pray to it.

It's possible that if we knew for certain that God exists, our freedom to make certain choices would be restricted. Perhaps that freedom is more important to God than always answering prayers.

None of this was dirrected at you bri - just some thoughts solicited by your comment.

Understood, and thank you for clarifying!

-Bri

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My comments weren't directed at you either. They were directed at anyone rationalizing why God of the Bible would be "invisible, undetectable, multiply interpreted, omniscient, and omnibenevolent" when that isn't what the Bible says. But more importantly, it was directed at people who repeat said rationalization. I ask them to point to the location in the Bible God instructs them to believe beyond evidence as an official request.

Your follow up statement, however, "It's possible that if we knew for certain that God exists, our freedom to make certain choices would be restricted. Perhaps that freedom is more important to God than always answering prayers", is a continuation of the same line of rationalizing about the obvious mythological status of Biblical writings. Obvious that is, to all but the indoctrinated.

 

[Southwind17]

Is anybody aware of even the simplest study being undertaken whereby people who regularly pray have been surveyed and asked to report on how many of their prayers have been answered, or does the fact that that relies on responders' complete honesty mean that nobody has considered it worthwhile? Surely there are numerous prayers out there who pray for tangible outcomes of events with low probability of chance occurrence on a regular basis, or are 'faithful' prayers, by definition, only those who pray in such a way that it cannot be obvious, even to them, that it doesn't work?!

 

[articulett]

Is anybody aware of even the simplest study being undertaken whereby people who regularly pray have been surveyed and asked to report on how many of their prayers have been answered, or does the fact that that relies on responders' complete honesty mean that nobody has considered it worthwhile? Surely there are numerous prayers out there who pray for tangible outcomes of events with low probability of chance occurrence on a regular basis, or are 'faithful' prayers, by definition, only those who pray in such a way that it cannot be obvious, even to them, that it doesn't work?!

Too much confirmation bias and memory is a funny thing... plus people are much more likely to remember the hits. I think you'd have a hard time finding people who concede that their prayers are seldom answered. (They tell themselves that god answered their prayers--the answer was "no"-- he works in mysterious ways, you know.)

 

[Roboramma]

It's possible that if we knew for certain that God exists, our freedom to make certain choices would be restricted. Perhaps that freedom is more important to God than always answering prayers.

Oh, absolutely. I just think it's meaningful and maybe important to realise that the response - "Prayers are only answered when you're not looking" - implies or requires some explanation like the one you give. I certainly don't think there aren't any.

I'm even sure there are other options as well. But for a religious person who believes in prayer, it's worth pointing out that their belief requies an answer like this. And if it were me, I would ask myself if my concept of god is consistent with any such answers.

Of course, for many it's entirely possible that it is. I don't think this is a huge thing to be said against god - it could still be omnibenevolent for instance. But it does constrain our ideas of god in some way. And I think that's interesting. When I still accepted a sort of nebulous idea of god, I started to ask myself, "What is 'god'? What are it's qualities?" And these sorts of issues could take a religous person in the direction of answering those sorts of questions. Or at least limiting them. If I still had religious ideas, I'd be very interested in that sort of thing.

Of course like many non-religious people, many religious people just don't care enough about such questions to ask them. And I can't say I blame them - there's more to life than philosophy after all.

Understood, and thank you for clarifying!

 

[Roboramma]

Is anybody aware of even the simplest study being undertaken whereby people who regularly pray have been surveyed and asked to report on how many of their prayers have been answered, or does the fact that that relies on responders' complete honesty mean that nobody has considered it worthwhile?

I have to agree with articulet about this one: how do you make sure that they recorded the misses as well as the hits? Maybe yesterday Jim prayed for his brother's illness to get better, and today it's the same. Will he even remember that prayer tomorrow?

Moreover, how do you asses probability? If Jim's brother did get better is that a hit? Don't most illnesses improve on their own? Wouldn't we need to compare Jim and enough people like him to others, like Jane, who don't pray for their brothers and see if Jim's group's brothers improved more, on average, than Jane's?

In other words, we might be able to add up all the hits, but we don't know what they mean. For that we need context - and that context is something people can't give us accurately enough on their own.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is anybody aware of even the simplest study being undertaken whereby people who regularly pray have been surveyed and asked to report on how many of their prayers have been answered, or does the fact that that relies on responders' complete honesty mean that nobody has considered it worthwhile? Surely there are numerous prayers out there who pray for tangible outcomes of events with low probability of chance occurrence on a regular basis, or are 'faithful' prayers, by definition, only those who pray in such a way that it cannot be obvious, even to them, that it doesn't work?!

Adding to Robo's comments, I think this is how superstitious beliefs are formed and reinforced as well.

 

[Bri]

I'm even sure there are other options as well. But for a religious person who believes in prayer, it's worth pointing out that their belief requies an answer like this. And if it were me, I would ask myself if my concept of god is consistent with any such answers.

Of course, for many it's entirely possible that it is. I don't think this is a huge thing to be said against god - it could still be omnibenevolent for instance.

The concept of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being isn't incoherent as far as I can tell. I'm sure that as you add more attributes it is possible to end up with something that's not coherent, of course. But questions about the efficacy of prayer and the Problem of Evil certainly do affect which ideas about God are coherent and which are not, and one cannot seriously think about God without considering those questions.

But it does constrain our ideas of god in some way. And I think that's interesting. When I still accepted a sort of nebulous idea of god, I started to ask myself, "What is 'god'? What are it's qualities?" And these sorts of issues could take a religous person in the direction of answering those sorts of questions. Or at least limiting them. If I still had religious ideas, I'd be very interested in that sort of thing.

Many theologians have been and are interested in answering those questions. One interesting take on it is the idea of Via Negativa (Negative Theology), which attempts to describe God by negation, to speak of God only in terms of what may not be said about God.

Of course like many non-religious people, many religious people just don't care enough about such questions to ask them. And I can't say I blame them - there's more to life than philosophy after all.

I think I'm with you on this one -- religious people probably should consider these questions more closely. I don't think that there are always clear answers, nor do those answers necessarily lead to atheism. But they are certainly worth considering.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

My comments weren't directed at you either. They were directed at anyone rationalizing why God of the Bible would be "invisible, undetectable, multiply interpreted, omniscient, and omnibenevolent" when that isn't what the Bible says.

I didn't take your comments personally.

Your statement "that isn't what the Bible says" assumes that the Bible can only be interpreted in one way. Realize that even among those who take the Bible literally, there is plenty of variation possible in both translation and interpretation.

But more importantly, it was directed at people who repeat said rationalization. I ask them to point to the location in the Bible God instructs them to believe beyond evidence as an official request.

Is that true? Belief based on faith (believe without proof) seems to be a fairly significant part of some religions, particularly Christianity. I'm sure Christians have some scripture to back that up.

Your follow up statement, however, "It's possible that if we knew for certain that God exists, our freedom to make certain choices would be restricted. Perhaps that freedom is more important to God than always answering prayers", is a continuation of the same line of rationalizing about the obvious mythological status of Biblical writings. Obvious that is, to all but the indoctrinated.

I think my point was that it is possible to have a coherent conception of a "perfect" God that fits with reality. Of course, there's little (if any) evidence that such a being exists, but then again there are also reasons that such a being might not want us to know of its existence.

-Bri

 

[ChristineR]

An omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being is a pretty incoherent concept.

For example, can God make a stone so large he cannot lift it? The usual answer to that one is that it's a logical contradiction. God can make a stone of any size, but he will always be able to lift it.

But once you start getting into it the logical contradictions overtake the very idea of it. For example, can God change his mind? Everyone else can change their minds, it's easy. But if God is omniscient, then God will know what he's going to do in advance--so in what sense has he changed his mind?

If God is omnibenevolent, why is there evil? Well, free will. The good of free will outweighs the bad of evil. Really? Can that be proved? Does it even sound reasonable? Couldn't God get rid of a great deal of the world's evil (what is sometimes called natural evil) without interfering with free will at all?

And it goes on and on. Has any one come up with a set of rules for deciding what an omnipotent being actually can and cannot do? I'd like to know which rule says that someone sinless must die if someone sins, for example. I'm not omnipotent, and I have no problem not killing sinners.

The only reason people take omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence seriously at all is that they are incoherent concepts and you can refine them until you get the answer you were looking for in the first place.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Could we construct a prayer-proof "Faraday Cage?"

Sure we can. Step 1: Propose a mechanism by which prayer works.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Realize that even among those who take the Bible literally, there is plenty of variation possible in both translation and interpretation.

There is? Do these folks have some special definition of literal?

~~ Paul

 

[H3LL]

I think praying is misunderstood.

Emo Philips seems to have got it right:

When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

Should be fun to test.