Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Actually I'm alluding to the trials that have been done. One in particular (in Boston from memory) found that people who were told they were prayed for actually did a bit worse than the other subject groups, presumably because when they thought, "I'm being prayed for? Blimey, it must be serious!".

And these tested all religions and beliefs which is what is necessary for your statement? No, so the prejudgement problem exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And these tested all religions and beliefs which is what is necessary for your statement? No, so the prejudgement problem exists.

Nope. This article for example tells us that more recent studies have been across several faiths: https://phys.org/news/2009-06-power-prayer.html

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Nope. This article for example tells us that more recent studies have been across several faiths: https://phys.org/news/2009-06-power-prayer.html

So several equals all? (Which again is the claim of the prejudgement)

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So several equals all? (Which again is the claim of the prejudgement)

No it wasn't. The claim referred to the ten people I'd line up before breakfast. Admittedly I'm not aware of any clinical trials on the effectiveness or otherwise of the rituals of the leprechaunism, but such trials as there are across faiths (the Duke University trial in particular) produce the same results.

Incidentally, do you not think that, if anyone ever had managed to produce positive results, the story would be global news as the entire medical research community went in search of new payer-based cures?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No it wasn't. The claim referred to the ten people I'd line up before breakfast. Admittedly I'm not aware of any clinical trials on the effectiveness or otherwise of the rituals of the leprechaunism, but such trials as there are across faiths (the Duke University trial in particular) produce the same results.

Incidentally, do you not think that, if anyone ever had managed to produce positive results, the story would be global news as the entire medical research community went in search of new payer-based cures?

To quote:

'I could do that yes, perhaps with a double blind trial. And I’d find that the praying had no discernible effect at all on the outcomes that were prayed for.'


And before you go, oh look I said '10', in the sense you use it it's a random ten and needs to cover all, else you are just lying to avoid the laziness of your use of language.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

To quote:

'I could do that yes, perhaps with a double blind trial. And I’d find that the praying had no discernible effect at all on the outcomes that were prayed for.'

To quote (from Spud):

"Using his loaf, I guess. Muslims believe you have to pray facing a certain direction. You could research whether this is effective or not and thus determine whether he should be afforded respect. Ask them to try praying from the heart in some other direction and see if they receive answers."

You seem to have overlooked Spud's reference to Muslim prayer specifically, and that my response of "I could do that, yes" was a reply to his suggestion. That is, my response was even more narrowly defined than the ten faith believers I posited in the first place.

And before you go, oh look I said '10', in the sense you use it it's a random ten and needs to cover all, else you are just lying to avoid the laziness of your use of language.

It was actually fewer than ten as you'd know if you'd read the exchange. You do this a lot I've noticed - you'll find a perfectly usual exchange and then pare down one post again and again looking for ambiguity in meaning, relevant or not. It's a kind of nihilism that adds nothing to the discussion (much as Vlad attempts in his own way) and I don't know why you do it. When I say, "If I drop my car keys they will fall to the ground" the discourse can proceed quite happily on that basis without the strict epistemic challenges of, "but how do you know that?" "Have you tried the keys for every make of car?" and wearily on.

Various trials have been done on all the major religions into the effect of intercessionary prayer and no discernible differences have been found between those prayed for and those not prayed for. For the purpose of this discussion that's more than sufficient to make the point. If though you want to have a discussion about strict epistemology, Russel's chicken etc instead then by all means start a thread on it.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

To quote (from Spud):

"Using his loaf, I guess. Muslims believe you have to pray facing a certain direction. You could research whether this is effective or not and thus determine whether he should be afforded respect. Ask them to try praying from the heart in some other direction and see if they receive answers."

You seem to have overlooked Spud's reference to Muslim prayer specifically, and that my response of "I could do that, yes" was a reply to his suggestion. That is, my response was even more narrowly defined than the ten faith believers I posited in the first place.

It was actually fewer than ten as you'd know if you'd read the exchange. You do this a lot I've noticed - you'll find a perfectly usual exchange and then pare down one post again and again looking for ambiguity in meaning, relevant or not. It's a kind of nihilism that adds nothing to the discussion (much as Vlad attempts in his own way) and I don't know why you do it. When I say, "If I drop my car keys they will fall to the ground" the discourse can proceed quite happily on that basis without the strict epistemic challenges of, "but how do you know that?" "Have you tried the keys for every make of car?" and wearily on.

Various trials have been done on all the major religions into the effect of intercessionary prayer and no discernible differences have been found between those prayed for and those not prayed for. For the purpose of this discussion that's more than sufficient to make the point. If though you want to have a discussion about strict epistemology, Russel's chicken etc instead then by all means start a thread on it.

And again to quote you which you ignored

'I could do that yes, perhaps with a double blind trial. And I’d find that the praying had no discernible effect at all on the outcomes that were prayed for.'

Which is a complete and absolute epistemic claim. You need to be more careful about these.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And again to quote you which you ignored

'I could do that yes, perhaps with a double blind trial. And I’d find that the praying had no discernible effect at all on the outcomes that were prayed for.'

Which is a complete and absolute epistemic claim. You need to be more careful about these.

And again the part you ignored was that Spud invited me to do that specifically with reference to Muslim prayer.

And no I don't need to be more careful because I wasn't claiming a strict epistemic point - rather I was just referencing a commonplace truth in everyday terms, ie that intercessionary prayer demonstrably doesn't work. I'll also be so bold as to say too that if I drop my car keys they'll fall to the ground.

As I don't feel the need to pull you up when you say, "I went to the shops today" with a, "that's a complete and epistemic claim but how do you know that there is an "I"?" etc perhaps you'd extend to me the same courtesy.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

And again the part you ignored was that Spud invited me to do that specifically with reference to Muslim prayer.

And no I don't need to be more careful because I wasn't claiming a strict epistemic point - rather I was just referencing a commonplace truth in everyday terms, ie that intercessionary prayer demonstrably doesn't work. I'll also be so bold as to say too that if I drop my car keys they'll fall to the ground.

As I don't feel the need to pull you up when you say, "I went to the shops today" with a, "that's a complete and epistemic claim but how do you know that there is an "I"?" etc perhaps you'd extend to me the same courtesy.

Since they are not equivalent  statements of the possible outcomes of scientific experiments, then no I wouldn't do that because it would be fundamentally dishonest and a misrepresentation of the impact of the statements.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Since they are not equivalent  statements of the possible outcomes of scientific experiments, then no I wouldn't do that because it would be fundamentally dishonest and a misrepresentation of the impact of the statements.

Then you'd be wrong to do so because, even if though one statement happens to be underpinned by scientific experiment, the results are themselves not strict epistemic claims either. "Prayer doesn't work and the trials show that", "If I drop my keys they'll fall to the ground" and, "I went to the shops today" are all equivalent in that none of them make any claim to being strict epistemic statements. If ever though I do feel the need to make such a statement I'll be sure to flag it as such, as indeed I have in the past whenever discussion of that type have occurred.

[Spud]

Spud, you must know that Muslims believe that praying from the heart is more important than facing Mecca;  some are not able to do that all the time and God accepts all prayers which come from where we are at any given time.

Rules of religion have value for some of us but adhering to the spirit rather than the letter is what matters.

Hi Brownie, I wasn't suggesting facing Mecca without praying from the heart, although the way I wrote it could be taken that way.

The research would specify that praying from the heart would be essential throughout. I'm trying to show BH how we can discern right and wrong aspects of his ten volunteers' faith beliefs.

[Spud]

If you did conduct that experiment  Spud and you found that Muslims praying in accordance with praying towards Mecca actually got positive results.
That would suggest that they are doing something correctly would it not?

Would you then convert to Islam?

Do you mean more positive than when not facing Mecca? If so yes it would be interesting, but what about non-Muslims who get positive results when not facing Mecca? This reminds me of how Arctic foxes are apparently more successful at catching rodents under the snow when facing north!

[Spud]

Spud,

I could do that yes, perhaps with a double blind trial. And I’d find that the praying had no discernible effect at all on the outcomes that were prayed for.

Here’s the thing though: when I tried the same thing with Christian prayers, I’d get exactly the same result – and so would you!

Funny that. So, so far at least, the only method you can suggest to compare one faith belief against another produces precisely the same result in each case – ie, nothing. Which is by the way what you’d expect if all ten of them were just guessing.

Any other suggestions?

You're saying that both Muslims and Christians praying not facing Mecca get no result, is that correct?

I think a better type of study would be where you ask non-Mecca-facing Christians and Mecca-facing Muslims how God answered them when they prayed in the last six months or so. The reason for doing it this way is that it eliminates psychological problems that would affect the results if they were asked to pray some time in the next week. Suppose both groups said they can remember prayers being answered clearly in the last 6 months or so. That would suggest that facing Mecca makes no difference.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

You're saying that both Muslims and Christians praying not facing Mecca get no result, is that correct?

That's what the available evidence tells us, yes. They get no results whichever way they face.

I think a better type of study would be where you ask non-Mecca-facing Christians and Mecca-facing Muslims how God answered them when they prayed in the last six months or so. The reason for doing it this way is that it eliminates psychological problems that would affect the results if they were asked to pray some time in the next week. Suppose both groups said they can remember prayers being answered clearly in the last 6 months or so. That would suggest that facing Mecca makes no difference.

You're not getting it. Christians, Muslims, Leprechaunists, whatever - regardless of which way they face, whether or not they're wearing their lucky pants, or which god they happen to be praying to, the results are the same: there's no difference in outcomes whether prayed for or not. The "which way they're facing" bit just a red herring.

[Sebastian Toe]

Do you mean more positive than when not facing Mecca?

Actually, getting positive results at all!
Do you think that Muslims get their prayers answered positively?

[Spud]

Spud,

That's what the available evidence tells us, yes. They get no results whichever way they face.

You're not getting it. Christians, Muslims, Leprechaunists, whatever - regardless of which way they face, whether or not they're wearing their lucky pants, or which god they happen to be praying to, the results are the same: there's no difference in outcomes whether prayed for or not. The "which way they're facing" bit just a red herring.

I disagree. Whenever I've prayed I've got help or an answer, whichever way I was facing. And most regular worshipers would probably say the same - they wouldn't do it if it didn't help. So from an empirical perspective (a) praying works but (b) it doesn't matter which way you face.

I would conclude that Mecca is not an especially holy place, contrary to what Islam claims.

Generally, facing in a particular direction for prayer is a symbol of religious unity. But the direction faced doesn't affect the outcome.

[Gordon]

So from an empirical perspective (a) praying works but (b) it doesn't matter which way you face.

Really?

This is where you get to back up your empirical claim by setting out the method you used to reach this conclusion.

[torridon]

I disagree. Whenever I've prayed I've got help or an answer, whichever way I was facing. And most regular worshipers would probably say the same - they wouldn't do it if it didn't help. So from an empirical perspective (a) praying works but (b) it doesn't matter which way you face.

If that were true then why isn't prayer available on the NHS ?  Simple answer : it isn't true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I disagree. Whenever I've prayed I've got help or an answer, whichever way I was facing. And most regular worshipers would probably say the same - they wouldn't do it if it didn't help. So from an empirical perspective (a) praying works but (b) it doesn't matter which way you face.

I would conclude that Mecca is not an especially holy place, contrary to what Islam claims.

Generally, facing in a particular direction for prayer is a symbol of religious unity. But the direction faced doesn't affect the outcome.

You’re an awful long way from an empirical anything just now.

If you think that your prayers are answered then it should be a simple matter to set out the method you use to establish that – ie, to eliminate false positives. By what means do you think they are “answered”? How do you address the issue of prayers that aren’t answered (ie, how do you know that the “hits” happen more frequently than they’d happen anyway just by dumb luck)? How do you avoid biases (eg confirmation bias)? How do you account for the person who prays to a different god entirely (and that you think to be false) who also has an apparently positive result? etc

There are several such tests you’d have to be able to address before reaching the conclusion that intercessionary prayer was the most likely explanation. If you did manage to eliminate the alternatives though you’d be the first person ever to do so, so presumably a Nobel (or at least a Templeton) prize would await you.

Good luck with it!

[Udayana]

hmm.. What does it even mean to have a prayer answered? 

Spud set out his method. He prays and his prayers get answered. Of-course he may not always get the answers he wanted or expected but what is that to you? It obviously works within it's own parameters, keeps him happy and confirms his thinking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayana,

hmm.. What does it even mean to have a prayer answered? 

Spud set out his method. He prays and his prayers get answered. Of-course he may not always get the answers he wanted or expected but what is that to you? It obviously works within it's own parameters, keeps him happy and confirms his thinking.

But what method do you think he has to eliminate the risk of false positives such that anyone else might think he’s right about that?

[Udayana]

He knows whether he had an answer or not, how can anyone else know? I suspect he always gets an answer. What is a false positive in that context?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Udayana,

He knows whether he had an answer or not, how can anyone else know? I suspect he always gets an answer. What is a false positive in that context?

But he thinks he has "empirical" evidence for the efficacy of his prayers. How so?

A false positive I guess would be the answer "praying did it" when that requires more assumptions than the alternatives.   

[jeremyp]

Generally, facing in a particular direction for prayer is a symbol of religious unity. But the direction faced doesn't affect the outcome.

Neither does the god you pray to.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, I think once before you and I discussed the 'Life in the Spirit' seminars and I may have told you that I attended them in the mid-to-late 1990s;  I completed the whole course and at the time, Myles Dempsey presided over some of the meetings.

For anyone who hasn't heard of 'Life in the Spirit', here is some information:

http://www.ledburycatholicchurch.org.uk/lifeinthespirit.htm

There are some similarities with Alpha. 

Anyway, that is just for information in case anyone is interested.  I didn't know if the courses were still going but I see they are.  Apparently, Pope Francis is encouraging folk to take part in them.
---

You say that following this you knew God and have been asked if, in fact, you may have been mistaken which does happen with some people. 

I wonder if you can answer that, Alan.

'Life in the Spirit' and the charismatic meetings which followed do keep people on a bit of a high.  I wonder what happens if life takes a different turn and everything falls apart.  I've not talked to anyone about it since taking part myself.

Sorry for this late reply -
My experience with Life in the Spirit was just a stepping stone to opening up my faith.  After the seminars we were encouraged to attend a monthly Charismatic Renewal meeting at Ampleforth Abbey.  Here we met and shared with many other people, getting to see how the Holy Spirit was working wonders in other people's lives, and we had a guest speaker every month giving truly inspiring talks (one of these guest speakers was Delia Smith).  As my wife and I attended these meetings for over 30 years, our faith just grew and grew.  In addition to the Ampleforth meetings, we had several trips to Taize in France to join in the summer meetings with over 2000 young people from around the world, and we attended one of the Taize European meetings in Cologne in 1985 where over 20,000 participants managed to fill all the churches in Cologne including  Cologne cathedral.  These European meetings still take place every New Year, the last one was at Riga which had over 15,000 young people attending.  Next year it will be Basel in Switzerland hosting the 40th European meeting.  We also discovered the Celebrate conferences held in Ilfracombe where families get together for a full week of sharing and celebrating their faith with 2000 others.  So I am sorry you were not able to follow up these seminars, because for my wife and I they started what was to be a truly life changing experience, made richer by meeting and sharing with so many other people.