Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[SteveH]

Terminal cancer - prayer - no cancer. It could be spontaneous remission - such things do happen, though its very rare - but a causal connection seems likely.

[Maeght]

Terminal cancer - prayer - no cancer. It could be spontaneous remission - such things do happen, though its very rare - but a causal connection seems likely.

How do you determine the likelihood?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Why would you think it to be likely? What about people with the same diagnoses who aren’t prayed for and go into spontaneous remission in any case? What if I was told that someone had a terminal diagnosis so slaughtered a goat at midnight, ran backwards three times round a maypole and sang Ricky Martin’s “Livin’ la Vida Loca” at the top of my voice and the person concerned recovered?

Would it be likely that these actions had effected the cure? If not, why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

That’s called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy Steve. There’s nothing “likely” about it at all.

[Maeght]

Also, if someone prays for someone with terminal cancer and they still die, what do you conclude from that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

The usual get out of jail free card is that god works in mysterious ways or some such, or (disgustingly) that the person who died wasn’t deserving of god’s intervention.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

The usual get out of jail free card is that god works in mysterious ways or some such, or (disgustingly) that the person who died wasn’t deserving of god’s intervention.

Yeah, I know, I'm familiar with the typical responses but wanted Steve H to answer.

[SteveH]

That’s called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy Steve. There’s nothing “likely” about it at all.

I am aware of that fallacy, but you can't push it to extremes and say that there is never any causal relationship. You might as well say that someone recovering from cancer after chemotherapy was a coincidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Funny innit that the world looks exactly as you’d expect it to if there was no god at all. People would get ill and receive terminal diagnoses, others would pray to their non-existent gods, and the results would be just the same - most would die, some would recover with no correlation at all of the outcomes between the prayed for and the non prayed for.

[SteveH]

Also, if someone prays for someone with terminal cancer and they still die, what do you conclude from that?

Ditto if someone has chemotherapy and still dies. I did say that whether it ever happens (healing after prayer) is another question. I don't rule the possibility out completely, but if it happens at all, it is very rare. I was, to my shame, a Charisatic Christian for 15 years. I eventually gave it up because of the large amount of prayer for healing and the non-existant actual healings that couldn't be ascribed to medicine or natural processes or self-deception.

[Maeght]

Ditto if someone has chemotherapy and still dies. I did say that whether it ever happens (healing after prayer) is another question. I don't rule the possibility out completely, but if it happens at all, it is very rare. I was, to my shame, a Charisatic Christian for 15 years. I eventually gave it up because of the large amount of prayer for healing and the non-existant actual healings that couldn't be ascribed to medicine or natural processes or self-deception.

Just saying ditto is not an answer. What conclusion do you drawer if such prayers are not answered?

[SteveH]

Just saying ditto is not an answer. What conclusion do you drawer if such prayers are not answered?

The conclusion I drew 25 years ago was that healing pryer doesn't work, and can be unintentionally cruel in that it sets up false hope. Read my previous post properly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

I am aware of that fallacy, but you can't push it to extremes and say that there is never any causal relationship. You might as well say that someone recovering from cancer after chemotherapy was a coincidence.

Two errors there - shifting of the burden of proof and dismissal of evidence.

For the former, no-one says that there's necessarily never a causal relationship - with praying and with singing Ricky Martin songs alike - because there's no way to eliminate the possibility of it working just as a matter of a lucky guess. What's actually said though is that there's no evidence to suggest that praying (or singing Ricky Martin) has any effect whatever. The burden of proof however is with those who would assert a causal relationship.

For the latter, that's flat wrong because you can test the effect of chemotherapy and obtain results that show that the test group who had it recover more frequently than the group who don't. Testing prayer on the other hand produces no such results.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

The conclusion I drew 25 years ago was that healing pryer doesn't work, and can be unintentionally cruel in that it sets up false hope. Read my previous post properly.

"Terminal cancer - prayer - no cancer. It could be spontaneous remission - such things do happen, though its very rare - but a causal connection seems likely."

(Steve H - Reply 1300)

Which is it - do you think a causal relationship is likely or not likely?

[Maeght]

The conclusion I drew 25 years ago was that healing pryer doesn't work, and can be unintentionally cruel in that it sets up false hope. Read my previous post properly.

Which post?

[SteveH]

Steve H,

Two errors there - shifting of the burden of proof and dismissal of evidence.

For the former, no-one says that there's necessarily never a causal relationship - with praying and with singing Ricky Martin songs alike - because there's no way to eliminate the possibility of it working just as a matter of a lucky guess. What's actually said though is that there's no evidence to suggest that praying (or singing Ricky Martin) has any effect whatever. The burden of proof however is with those who would assert a causal relationship.

For the latter, that's flat wrong because you can test the effect of chemotherapy and obtain results that show that the test group who had it recover more frequently than the group who don't. Testing prayer on the other hand produces no such results.

I agree with you, ffs! Why don't people read posts properly before jumping in with their smart-arse answers?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

I agree with you, ffs! Why don't people read posts properly before jumping in with their smart-arse answers?

I did read it properly. That's your problem. It'd be simple enough for you to settle for one answer or the other though - do you think a causal relationship between praying and clinical outcomes is "likely" or not?

[Maeght]

I agree with you, ffs! Why don't people read posts properly before jumping in with their smart-arse answers?

Perhaps you need to write them properly.

[SusanDoris]

I wonder if SteveH would like to come up with a figure for the likelihood of prayer having a causal effect on actually curing cancer?  After all, having cancer myself, I have a direct interest!!   

I would also like to know how much believers really, relly, deep-down actually believe that there is a god who would do anything anyway. I don't expect a response to this though.

[SteveH]

I am of the opinion prayer might act as a placebo, and may help in the healing process, which is instigated by the medics. As I have asked so many times, if god can heal people why does it only so when in the mood?

I am of the opinion that Little Roses has actually said something sensible for once. Pity she spoiled it with her predictable second sentence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

So which one did you plump for in the end Steve - that praying probably does work (Reply 1300) or that it doesn’t (Reply 1311)?

[SteveH]

I don't absolutely rule out the possibility, but it probably doesn't, except perhaps via the placebo effect.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H - it’s logically impossible to rule our absolutely the possibility of anything, but it sounds like you’re opting now for 1311 over 1300. Is that right?

[Maeght]

I don't absolutely rule out the possibility, but it probably doesn't, except perhaps via the placebo effect.

Why did you suggest it was likely to then?

[SteveH]

Probably. Who cares?