quote:For example, I believe that one of the key ways God answers prayers is by giving people hope and joy.
I don't want to get too narrow of a focus here, but aren't things like priesthood blessings more specific than that? While I have no problem with the "God answers prayers in undetectable ways," isn't the whole argument behind things like priesthood blessings, garments, and -- to switch religions -- those little notes written on scraps of paper and wrapped around candles that they are intended to address specific issues?
-------
quote:We can measure the effects the love has on your behavior, but that is not the same as measuring the love itself.
I'm not entirely sure that "love" as a THING exists. It's a construct, but I think it's an assembled construct that we refer to as something real for the sake of convenience. (But, like I've said in another thread, I'm not entirely sure that human sentience isn't a convenient fiction, either.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The first question to ask is whether we can even agree on terms, in order to have a meaningful discussion. I do not intend to proceed by systematically shooting down an infinite sequence of gods. I am merely trying to see if we can agree on what 'scientific' and 'testable' mean.
I think that we agree fairly well on what scientific and testable mean. What we disagree on is whether there are things which have an observable influence on people which are not scientific and testable. I posit for you that beauty is one such thing.
If you go to any extensive discourse on philosophy, you will find a wide acceptance of the idea that the scientific process is only one of many ways of gaining knowledge.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing about Vegas and the majority of folks who go there:
They all win! Everybody wins! It's incredible! It is the most manifest non-zero-sum game cultural phenomenon I've ever witnessed. And, nevermind the shows!
posted
We recognize that beauty is a sliding value, of course. We can then test for what things appeal to which people in which quantities, and thus identify both components and overall attributes which represent "beauty" for any given category.
This isn't merely conjecture; there are ongoing studies on this very topic right now, evaluating things like our biological assessment of "cuteness" and our attraction to scenic vistas.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If natural processes can be used by God to accomplish a purpose which is inherently unknowable to us without revelation, then revelation will be needed to study the cause of such events.
Very well; revelation is certainly a measurable effect on the world. We can decide that from some particular point onwards, we will be recording all the revelations people say that they have. I trust you'll concede that at least some of them will be fakes? Then we can see whether there is any correlation between the religion people say these revelations support, and their happiness, the truth of their revelations (for those cases that have a particular, testable outcome, like 'the end of the world will be in 2009'), and their agreement with other revelations of the same religion.
Incidentally, in a different thread, you said you would pray for mph's baby. Do you believe this will have a beneficial effect on the outcome? If so, then again, this is a measurable effect.
As for love, why, there certainly exists an emergent state of sufficiently complex neural networks, resulting in a particular set of behaviours that we identify as 'love'. I don't see where this is in the least unscientific.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Dag has invoked Sywak's Second Rule of Theological Debate:
quote:RULE 2: Never actually define what it is you mean by "God" or "Heaven," etc. If you define it, then it can be refuted. After all, you've already established that He exists (see RULE 1). Also, if challenged, you can always say, "That's not what I meant," or "I never said that He could do that..."
You are caught in the outer circuit of a large, infinite loop.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Incidentally, in a different thread, you said you would pray for mph's baby. Do you believe this will have a beneficial effect on the outcome? If so, then again, this is a measurable effect.
How is this measurable? It's too small a sample for your weak statisitcal methods to work.
quote:Then we can see whether there is any correlation between the religion people say these revelations support, and their happiness, the truth of their revelations (for those cases that have a particular, testable outcome, like 'the end of the world will be in 2009'), and their agreement with other revelations of the same religion.
Only if one makes at least one shallow assumption: that revelation leads to measurable happiness.
Boothby,
I asked KoM for a very specific thing to back up a claim he made: an experiment that would test whether a Creator exists. It seems to me he is the one avoiding coming to a conclusion here.
Also, it seems to me that Sywak's Second Rule is really just a whining defense of the common practice of Making up Stupid Strawgods.
See "Why Does God Hate Amputees" for the perfect example.
Anyway, this is supposed to be a scientific discussion, not a theological one. My entire contention is that theology and science are separate - something the strawgod brigade is usually happy to insist on in other contexts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: See "Why Does God Hate Amputees" for the perfect example.
Actually, I don't see a problem with this example. It tells us that, for whatever reason, any God that presently exists does not see fit to restore lost limbs. No matter what.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they limited it to that conclusion, it would be fine. But they don't - they are a classic example of setting up a strawgod and then "proving" their strawgod doesn't exist as "proof" of atheism.
Edit: The title makes that obvious.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with their "strawgod," Dag, is that I think it's far more popular in American society than your very narrowly-defined God. So while it might not be an effective argument against your God, which has been carefully delimited so as to be impervious to any application of observational logic, it's an effective argument against the God most Americans believe in.
While any "universal" argument against God is fairly impossible given the wide variety of individual gods worshipped in this country, arguments that apply broadly to a wide swath of gods should not be rejected merely because they do not apply to, say, Vishnu.
posted
Who, exactly, believes in the god who will make a series of coin flips result in all heads? Or thinks that because God doesn't perform a miracle for someone He hates them?
No one believes in any god KoM has described in his proposed experiments.
quote:So while it might not be an effective argument against your God, which has been carefully delimited so as to be impervious to any application of observational logic
It's more accurate to say that both you and KoM carefully delimit observational logic so as to make it inapplicable to my God.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think there are many people who believe that prayer will beneficially affect the health of the one prayed for; you, apparently, among them. I have yet to see you explain why, if the effect exists, it could not be studied. I would note that the effect must be a fairly subtle one; if it were on the order of, say, 50% increase in survival rates, we would not be having this discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are all objection to the experimental method. I do not deny that it is a difficult experiment to run; but I also do not see that any of these are in principle un-overcomable. Indeed, even without running the experiment we can set an upper bound : It is clear that not all prayers are answered (in this case meaning 'by the healing of the one prayed for'); I think you'll agree that the number is not even close to 10%.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who, exactly, believes in the god who will make a series of coin flips result in all heads? Or thinks that because God doesn't perform a miracle for someone He hates them?
Let's tone down the rhetoric. I think MANY people believe in a God who affects sporting events and gambling results, as well as a God who responds to requests for health and well-being because He loves His people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could you please explain how science would fail to either detect, or put an upper bound on, the effect of prayer on the health of one prayed for? I don't care about other kinds of answer at the moment. I'll investigate them later. Can we please just stick to one thing at a time?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't heard how you would detect such an effect. I gave 6 specific things and all you did was assure me you could account for them. I have yet to hear how.
In fact prayer is so ubiquitous that you can't even determine a "natural" baseline to see if prayer is having an effect.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Because you can't determined who is prayed for.
But I can determine how much each person is prayed for, on top of whatever the baseline is.
quote:2. You can't differentiate between "acceptable" prayers (whatever that means for whatever religion is involved) and "unacceptable" prayers.
I don't need to; of all prayers, some particular percentage is acceptable. Therefore, 100 prayers will have twice the number of acceptable prayers that 50 do.
quote:3. You can't differentiate between effects of prayer and effects of other things.
I most assuredly can. This is like saying of a new drug "you can't distinguish between the effects of this and of other things". If it's true, we may as well give up on all scientific studies right away.
quote:4. The beneficial effect of prayer covers too wide a range of possibilities to be reliably categorized.
I don't care, I'm only interested in one particular effect.
quote:5. You can't measure sincerity of prayers.
Same as objection 2.
quote:6. You can't know if someone was or wasn't prayed for - i.e., you can't determine for patient X if anyone prayed for patient X.
Same as objection 1.
I only count four, and they are all rather easily dealt with.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't need to; of all prayers, some particular percentage is acceptable. Therefore, 100 prayers will have twice the number of acceptable prayers that 50 do.
You have no basis for saying this at all. Unless you differentiate by every possible denomination, sect, and religion you will not be able to determine this.
quote:I most assuredly can. This is like saying of a new drug "you can't distinguish between the effects of this and of other things". If it's true, we may as well give up on all scientific studies right away.
There's a reason we don't approve drugs based on survey data. We know which patients received a drug, how much, and when.
You can't do the prayer study double-blind.
quote:But I can determine how much each person is prayed for, on top of whatever the baseline is.
Unless you have some reason to believe that you can determine who knows a given person, the profile of people likely to pray for them, and the amount of prayers a given person (whose acquaintences will be different mixture of religions, etc.) you can't possibly come up with a meaningful way to measure this.
Look up "wiring codes," powerlines, and childhood leukemia some time to see why this is futile.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I declare myself dictator of the world. I require anyone who is going to pray to fill out a form, in triplicate, specifying the words and recipient of the prayer. I have a secret thought police watching everyone to make sure there are no unreported prayers. I require, by law, that everyone whose mouth is not otherwise occupied say 'om-om-om' at all times, in order to ensure that there can be no internal, secret prayers except the approved ones.
quote:You have no basis for saying this at all. Unless you differentiate by every possible denomination, sect, and religion you will not be able to determine this.
Yes, well? Why shouldn't I?
quote:There's a reason we don't approve drugs based on survey data. We know which patients received a drug, how much, and when.
Well, prayer is already on the market, and completely unregulated. I'm just studying the effects; I don't have to get FDA approval.
Look, do you disagree that if 10% of all prayers for recovery were granted, we would know about it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
You don't need to know the mechanism of prayer, since, for instance, we're not entirely sure about the mechanism of gravitational attraction.
And, Dag, re. "Sywak's Second Rule," it's actually a plea to BYPASS strawman arguments.
I say, "Cold Fusion works"
You say, "What do you mean 'Cold Fusion'?"
I say, "Cold Fusion is..." and I defne it fully. Then we see if it works, or if it doesn't.
What we seem to be discussing here is:
Millions of people say, "God exists,"
I say, "What do you mean, 'God'?"
You say, "There he goes again, trying to play tricks!"
Substitute "Prayer" for "God," and you get the rest of the thread. But for every definition and refutation that KoM or TD, or anyone else put forth, you (or otheres) immediately say, "But that's not the God we're talking about!"
All Im asking is for you to tell us just what IS the God (or prayer response) you're talking about?
No straw men involved.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:All Im asking is for you to tell us just what IS the God (or prayer response) you're talking about?
I'm not capable of completely answering that question - certainly not within the storage capacity of UBB.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unlike Boothbyte, though, I'll settle for an answer to this question : If all prayers for the health of another were answered (by which I still mean, 'the pray-ee recovers fully), would we know about it? That's yes or no; I'm sure UBB can manage that much.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Short answer definition: God is the ground of being – the beingness without which even the property of existence would not exist.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, that sentence makes just as much sense with 'my consciousness', 'the Internet' or 'the Invisible Pink Unicorn' substituted for 'God'. It doesn't say anything.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm pretty sure I remember existence before the Internet, and before your consciousness. Mine, no, so everything could be an artifact of my own consciousness (or illusion of consciousness) but I don't believe that it is.
If you choose to argue that God is an invisible pink unicorn, that would be a discussion about the nature of God, not the definition of God, but you could make that argument within this definition.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Short answer definition: God is the ground of being – the beingness without which even the property of existence would not exist.
I'd be willing to accept this, Dana, if people did not also make other ancillary arguments about the nature of that God which, by their nature, should be falsifiable.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So? Some of the claims probably are falsifiable, although designing an experiment to test them would be complicated.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'd argue that it's pretty relevant, since very few religions have as their solitary doctrine the existence of a God that underpins the universe.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honey, I'm not the guy trying to measure God.
In KoM's defense, I think he's trying to measure the effects of God, which certainly should be measurable if they exist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honey, I'm not the guy trying to measure God.
In KoM's defense, I think he's trying to measure the effects of God, which certainly should be measurable if they exist.
Well, so far we have the known universe...
What I am trying to say is that you can't reduce God or God's effects and still have it be a meaningful conversation. Once you do that, you are talking about something else entirely. By limiting the conversation to what appears to be supernatural, you are excluding natural phenonema which also has its source in God. Again this reduces God to some kind of wish granting genii. (I keep typing "wich" instead of "wish" - must be lunch time. I could use a "wich" granting genii who specializes in cheese steaks.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:By limiting the conversation to what appears to be supernatural, you are excluding natural phenonema which also has its source in God.
Which is why we're limiting the conversation to wishful prayer, which arises when people are dissatisfied with natural phenomena and would like it to change.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're going to try to compare the predictions of certain stripes of theism with the predictions of a non-theistic "control," then there isn't much point in attempting to compare phenomnea for which the predictions are the same.
Saying that we can't talk about god without talking about the entire universe and everything in and beyond it is saying that we can't have this discussion. You and others have essentially said that the universe could not and would not exist in the absence of god; not only do I disagree simply by virtue of being an atheist, I disagree with your statement that this assertion implies that natural phenomena cannot be discussed without reference to the divine.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw's God, then, does not answer prayers. Nor does it love us. Nor did it send its only begotten son to die for our sins, etc., etc.
It's just your basic, creating entity. Nothing more. Roughly equivalent to "the Big Bang" (or, at least, the theory of the Big Bang).
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If you're going to try to compare the predictions of certain stripes of theism with the predictions of a non-theistic "control," then there isn't much point in attempting to compare phenomnea for which the predictions are the same.
Saying that we can't talk about god without talking about the entire universe and everything in and beyond it is saying that we can't have this discussion. You and others have essentially said that the universe could not and would not exist in the absence of god; not only do I disagree simply by virtue of being an atheist, I disagree with your statement that this assertion implies that natural phenomena cannot be discussed without reference to the divine.
I am saying that you can't reduce God to something that can be scientifically proved. Or proved at all. Not sure where I said that you can't talk about natural phenomena without talking about God. I was trying to say that you can't discount natural phenomena when talking about God. Perhaps I did that badly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: dkw's God, then, does not answer prayers. Nor does it love us. Nor did it send its only begotten son to die for our sins, etc., etc.
It's just your basic, creating entity. Nothing more. Roughly equivalent to "the Big Bang" (or, at least, the theory of the Big Bang).
Not to speak for dkw, but, huh?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw defined her god as "God is the ground of being – the beingness without which even the property of existence would not exist". If that's all it does, then indeed, you could substitute 'the Big Bang' for 'God' and make just as much sense. If this is the complete definition, then it is an utterly un-interesting and frankly rather boring god she worships.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am saying that you can't reduce God to something that can be scientifically proved. Or proved at all. Not sure where I said that you can't talk about natural phenomena without talking about God. I was trying to say that you can't discount natural phenomena when talking about God. Perhaps I did that badly.
I'm trying to say that this isn't a reduction. When we are looking to contrast two predictions, we compare where they differ, not where they're the same. Theism and atheism both postulate an observed universe of some sort, that goes without saying since we can both see it. Saying "but the whole universe is a result of god" isn't useful in this context because there's no way to contrast that prediction with the prediction of a theory that does not include god. This is particularly true since generally speaking theories that do not include god also do not exclude god.
If someone is looking for measurable effects exclusive to the divine, it makes perfect sense to refrain from considering those things (i.e. natural phenomena) that are the same regardless of whether or not their cause is divine.
In other words, I think KoM and Tom are only concerning themselves with varieties of theism that make predictions that are distinguishable from non-theistic theories via some sort of empirical test.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: dkw defined her god as "God is the ground of being – the beingness without which even the property of existence would not exist". If that's all it does , then indeed, you could substitute 'the Big Bang' for 'God' and make just as much sense. If this is the complete definition then it is an utterly un-interesting and frankly rather boring god she worships.
Two very big ifs. Neither of which I understood from what she said. And I would disagree if she had. Also you are making the assumption that creation was a one time event rather than an ongoing process.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am saying that you can't reduce God to something that can be scientifically proved. Or proved at all. Not sure where I said that you can't talk about natural phenomena without talking about God. I was trying to say that you can't discount natural phenomena when talking about God. Perhaps I did that badly.
I'm trying to say that this isn't a reduction. When we are looking to contrast two predictions, we compare where they differ, not where they're the same. Theism and atheism both postulate an observed universe of some sort, that goes without saying since we can both see it. Saying "but the whole universe is a result of god" isn't useful in this context because there's no way to contrast that prediction with the prediction of a theory that does not include god. This is particularly true since generally speaking theories that do not include god also do not exclude god.
If someone is looking for measurable effects exclusive to the divine, it makes perfect sense to refrain from considering those things (i.e. natural phenomena) that are the same regardless of whether or not their cause is divine.
In other words, I think KoM and Tom are only concerning themselves with varieties of theism that make predictions that are distinguishable from non-theistic theories via some sort of empirical test.
So who are they talking to? I don't think I know any of those theists. I'm certainly not one of them. I guess I'll just leave you guys to it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: In other words, I think KoM and Tom are only concerning themselves with varieties of theism that make predictions that are distinguishable from non-theistic theories via some sort of empirical test.
So who are they talking to? I don't think I know any of those theists. I'm certainly not one of them. I guess I'll just leave you guys to it.
Really? I know a few personally, and am aware of a much greater number. The "intelligent design" movement is one example, but there are many others.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
