What's the Difference?

[mitchellmckain]

With these studies of prayer the thing I find most astonishing is that sometimes they show positive results; a positive result would for me be far more of a challenge than a negative one because it would imply either that God was allowing us to perform experiments on him or that answered prayer is not the work of God.

I would not find it astonishing or challenging, but then I would have little doubt that answered prayer is not exclusively the work of God alone -- not that I would not view any such study with considerable skepticism.

Well, yes, but that adds to the puzzle because if there is a human contribution to prayer it would depend on people being in the right frame of mind and it would not be likely that you would be in the right frame of mind simply by knowing someone had selected people randomly off a list as part of a double blind test.

NO No no. I was NOT talking about a human contribution to prayer, but simply saying that there are likely other reasons why people get what they pray for, other than a supernatural intervention. Or to put it another way, the answers that God give to prayer may not just be yes or no, but may also be something like "lets leave that to the laws of nature which I have set up".

[Lazduc]

There is an article on the ex-christian web site that addresses this particular subject....prayer. I think you may enjoy this point of view. It is as stated part of a chapter in an upcomming book by this person.

http://new.exchristian.net/2012/01/stoo ... jesus.html

I do not remember how to insert a url that easily links this article so I have just copied it and you will have to cut and paste into your browser's address line. Hmmm....I see it did work.

Lazduc

[Moonwood the Hare]

NO No no. I was NOT talking about a human contribution to prayer, but simply saying that there are likely other reasons why people get what they pray for, other than a supernatural intervention. Or to put it another way, the answers that God give to prayer may not just be yes or no, but may also be something like "lets leave that to the laws of nature which I have set up".

So that it would have happened anyway and it was an answer to prayer are not alternatives?

[mitchellmckain]

NO No no. I was NOT talking about a human contribution to prayer, but simply saying that there are likely other reasons why people get what they pray for, other than a supernatural intervention. Or to put it another way, the answers that God give to prayer may not just be yes or no, but may also be something like "lets leave that to the laws of nature which I have set up".

So that it would have happened anyway and it was an answer to prayer are not alternatives?

Well no is an answer isn't it? But I think the main point I was making is that this can explain why there can be positive results in these so called experiments without being forced to conclude that God is being manipulated.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Okay Jim. Let me have a shot. Imagine a miracle has taken place. Not a really wild one like me saying something you understand but a fairly mundane turning of water into wine. This is examined carefully and there seems to be no causal explanation. A Christian says that he believes this was an act of God to demonstrate his power and purpose. A materialist says that he cannot except this it must have been a random quantum event of some kind. From the point of view of physics, from what can be examined both explanations would be describing events that looked the same. But if God really did it as the Christian claims that would be a difference.

This is really the only one of your examples that comes close to being a demonstration of an event that is so inexplicable that it defies rational explanation providing the water turns to wine instantaneously and not via the unremarkable method of water going through the fermentation process of turning into wine.

But the fact is, we see coincidences all the time, including medical ones, though we never seem to see remissions on the order of, "And his entire decapitated head regenerated and he's fine!" Instead, we only consistently see events that have these multiple --and vastly simpler-- explanations, even if they aren't particularly commonplace. What is more likely, that a fish swallowed a coin, or that a Jesus rose from the dead? Just given the the preponderance of both coins and fish, the former is vastly more likely to be the actual explanation, and the former nearly zero in likelihood.

Furthermore, your model does utterly nothing to indicate the author of these events is even "a god" (Yahweh) anyway, as opposed to, let's say, Zeus, or Beelzebub, or Satan, or Gorlac from the Ninth Planet of Devlarian Gamma IV or Randi the Amazing (Magician). There is no explanatory power in even offering the idea that a "god did it"; in fact, it's tantamount to being meaningless. The reason this overt fact doesn't simply jump out at all of us is that we're so used to the assertion that it's a "god thing" -- and "god things classically get exempted from having to support a single whisper of what they claim -- that it's become almost unnoticeable.

Except, of course, it's not.

I am not sure why saying something is a random quantum event is not a rational explanation; if you clarify that it may clarify why you think saying something is an act of god is not a rational explanation. I would agree that the latter has no explanatory power if we are trying to construct a scientific theory and as long as that is all we are ever doing then that is okay. But I'm really intrigued that you come close to saying anything which does not offer a scientific explanation is meaningless. Clearly there is a conceptual difference between saying Yahweh did something and Zeus did it; the concept of the type of divine being and the nature of its divinity are very different.

I have always argued that what you call reasonism is simply a version of British empiricism (and I would also say a not very well thought through version) and this move of claiming that all metaphysical statements were meaningless was one of the final moves made in the British empiricist tradition. The logical positivists argued that a statement was only meaningful if it could be verified and the only claims that could be verified were either tautologous or empirical. So for example they saw all mathematical statements as tautologies 2 was just another way of saying 1+1 and so on. And all scientific claims were seen as empirical claims which could be tested by the senses. There were many problems with this but ultimately what defeated them was not the detail (whether scientific truth claims can all be verified empirically, whether maths is really a set of tautologies) but the problem with the claim that all truth claims must be either empirical or tautologous. The reason for that is that the claim that all truth claims must be either empirical or tautologous is not itself either empirical or tautologous and therefore by its own standards is meaningless.

So I think you need to be very wary when calling statements that cannot be verified meaningless; a little study of history would stop you repeating old mistakes.

[gary_s]

With these studies of prayer the thing I find most astonishing is that sometimes they show positive results; a positive result would for me be far more of a challenge than a negative one because it would imply either that God was allowing us to perform experiments on him or that answered prayer is not the work of God.

You shouldn't be surprised by these results because, as I think I mentioned sometime here, the studies are often set up in a biased way, or they are analyzed in a poor or biased way. The errors are pretty obvious when thoroughly considered by good scientists. I'm sure I mentioned the poor study of acupuncture here, where the conclusions were just obviously flawed and did not follow from the results. In fact, they were just the obvious.

[Moonwood the Hare]

With these studies of prayer the thing I find most astonishing is that sometimes they show positive results; a positive result would for me be far more of a challenge than a negative one because it would imply either that God was allowing us to perform experiments on him or that answered prayer is not the work of God.

You shouldn't be surprised by these results because, as I think I mentioned sometime here, the studies are often set up in a biased way, or they are analyzed in a poor or biased way. The errors are pretty obvious when thoroughly considered by good scientists. I'm sure I mentioned the poor study of acupuncture here, where the conclusions were just obviously flawed and did not follow from the results. In fact, they were just the obvious.

I wouldn't mind seeing the studies on acupuncture. I read that the results showed that it worked but it did not matter whether you put the needles in the so called right places or not. What I can say is that it did nothing for me; though neither did anything else other than not lugging loaded trollies up 1:3 hils.

[gary_s]

Here is a link to the actual study on pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21796340

Here is a link to the criticism of the study: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... tic-waves/

It's interesting what you stated because if you read about acupuncture, it claims that there are very specific points where the needles must be stuck and they must be wiggled or vibrated in a skillful way as well. When scientific studies are conducted, they generally find that placement makes no difference, vibration makes no difference and even penetration of the skin makes no difference beyond placebo. So, if you are interested in getting acupuncture, my recommendation would be to go to a low cost provider who is probably unskilled and possibly untrained because the difference is negligible and it will cost less. Of course you also have to consider the fact that someone may be sticking needles into your skin and the likelihood of infection should enter your mind.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Thanks. It was done on the nhs so no cost to me and almost certainly sterile. I don't think I'd have paid for it but I was ready to try anything and did: Pilates, vitamin tablets, allsorts - pain control is a part of medicine where a lot of guess work is involved and the various doctors didn't agree either. My sister on the other hand had acupuncture and says it works. What you say fits what I had heard and suggests there is something about the technique that works and we do not know what it is. I'd guess with a lot of traditional treatments people kept using them because they worked sometimes. One of my colleagues who is into non western approaches to health and wholeness said my scepticism may have stopped it working, and she may be right. I'm all for more research if there is any chance of uncovering how these things work when they do.

[Keep The Reason]

Here is a link to the actual study on pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21796340

Here is a link to the criticism of the study: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... tic-waves/

It's interesting what you stated because if you read about acupuncture, it claims that there are very specific points where the needles must be stuck and they must be wiggled or vibrated in a skillful way as well. When scientific studies are conducted, they generally find that placement makes no difference, vibration makes no difference and even penetration of the skin makes no difference beyond placebo. So, if you are interested in getting acupuncture, my recommendation would be to go to a low cost provider who is probably unskilled and possibly untrained because the difference is negligible and it will cost less. Of course you also have to consider the fact that someone may be sticking needles into your skin and the likelihood of infection should enter your mind.

I have a friend who does this (no, I don't bleieve it is efficacious) but her needles are always in hermetically sealed packages. Don't let ANYONE stick you from needles that are not so sealed.

[gary_s]

MW, I think it's important to really question what it means for a therapy to work "sometimes" and what does it mean for the therapy to work at all. Patient surveys on pain or discomfort are one thing; surely you can see how difficult it could be to get accurate results there. Unfortunately, there are many medical conditions where pain and discomfort are the primary symptoms, perhaps the only symptoms, so we are relegated to accepting a less than optimal course of treatment there.

[mitchellmckain]

What I think is sad is the way that the placebo effect is equated with no effect. In terms of the hypocratic oath the placebo effect is really the optimal solution because it cannot do any harm. Too much of modern medicine is a race between which will kill you faster the disease or the treatment. I personally have not had a good experience with it. Too many drugs are just too potent and the side effects are worse than what they are supposed to cure.

The problem is that the placebo effect cannot stand up to skepticsm. It requires you to believe. This is one of those cases where belief determines reality and skepticism becomes self-fullfilling.

[gary_s]

What I think is sad is the way that the placebo effect is equated with no effect.

Wait a minute now, Mitch. This is the consensus of the medical establishment. I know that sounds vaguely authoritative, but the bulk of medical studies is the basis for this conclusion. The problem with going against this approach is that if you assume that there is a real therapeutic effect without administering any kind of real treatment, you pull the rug out from under the basis for any treatment. Then any treatment can be acceptable for any condition and there would be no way to determine efficacy.

Here is an article that discusses the issue of placebo: http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html

In terms of the hypocratic oath the placebo effect is really the optimal solution because it cannot do any harm.

It is only the optimal solution if it truly can heal conditions, and I do not see any evidence for that.

Too much of modern medicine is a race between which will kill you faster the disease or the treatment.

No, I definitely do not agree with this; this statement is vastly exaggerated. The vast majority of treatments do not accompany a high risk of death. If they did they likely wouldn't exist. The only treatments that do carry such a high risk are those that treat extremely aggressive diseases, such as cancer, or they are treatments of a last resort in which death is all but assured if nothing is done.

I personally have not had a good experience with it. Too many drugs are just too potent and the side effects are worse than what they are supposed to cure.

Well almost everyone has had "bad" experiences with medical treatment, myself included. But considering the fact that I'm in my 40's and have had treatments for numerous conditions throughout my life, none of which have killed or damaged me, most have helped me, I can only conclude that on the whole, these treatments were a good thing. Without medical treatment, I would have a leg and an arm that wouldn't have healed properly from breaks and one numb hand from nerve compression. I'm probably in the middle of the pack as far as medical intervention is concerned; no major surgeries or treatments, but lots of minor ones. Even a bad experience may not be the fault of the medical treatment itself, but rather a bad decision by a doctor or nurse or perhaps an unexpected complication.

Drugs are generally as potent as they need to be if the doctor administering them is doing his job properly. Lowering the dosage below the effective limit would only ensure that no improvement will occur. Side effects are a reality of medication and this is no different for "natural" versus manufactured pharmaceuticals. Side effects are actually much more easily controlled in manufactured drugs than in natural remedies. But if you say that you aren't willing to accept side effects, then you are really saying you aren't willing to use the drugs.

The problem is that the placebo effect cannot stand up to skepticsm. It requires you to believe. This is one of those cases where belief determines reality and skepticism becomes self-fultilling.

No, the problem with placebo is that as a form of medical treatment it is easily falsified. Are you saying that you must only believe that something works and it should? Imagine what the world would be like if only this were true and anything would be possible if you only have the will power to believe it. There's no reason you have to stop at medical treatment; why not include finances, romance, athletic ability...just about any human endeavor. This is mystical thinking, pseudo-science masquerading as something real. Positive Thinking is the snake oil of the 21st century. And people like Tony Robbins are the hucksters. The only world in which belief determines reality is a world where nothing is falsifiable and we may live in that world, but if we do, then we actually know absolutely nothing about it.

[gary_s]

Has anyone here heard of the film and book, The Secret? This film/book promotes the following mythology:

The tenet of the film and book is that the universe is governed by a natural law called the law of attraction which is said to work by attracting into a person's life the experiences, situations, events, and people that 'match the frequency' of the person's thoughts and feelings. Therefore, positive thinking and feeling positive are claimed to create life-changing results such as increased wealth, health, and happiness.

From Wikipedia. Now there is evidence that suggests that happiness is a leading indicator of success and prosperity, meaning that people perform better at just about everything if they have a good attitude and are enjoying what they do. But the premise of this book goes much farther than that.

[Keep The Reason]

Has anyone here heard of the film and book, The Secret? This film/book promotes the following mythology:

The tenet of the film and book is that the universe is governed by a natural law called the law of attraction which is said to work by attracting into a person's life the experiences, situations, events, and people that 'match the frequency' of the person's thoughts and feelings. Therefore, positive thinking and feeling positive are claimed to create life-changing results such as increased wealth, health, and happiness.

From Wikipedia. Now there is evidence that suggests that happiness is a leading indicator of success and prosperity, meaning that people perform better at just about everything if they have a good attitude and are enjoying what they do. But the premise of this book goes much farther than that.

Yes, I've heard of it. Basically, "If you wish it and want it enough, it will happen." And yes, it's not very surprising that if you want something and desire it, it can promote you to do things to reach that goal, but "The Secret" makes it sound like you can sit in your living room, wish really hard for lots of money, and it will come to you (without the Monkey's Paw corpse knocking on your door). New Agery stuff.