Why isn't prayer testable?

[Wiccan_Child]

Why isn't prayer testable? Specifically, prayer requests: prayers that ask God for something, be it a footballer praying for victory in a sports game, a mother praying for healing for her comatose son, or a child praying for her rapist to stop.

These types of prayers go on all the time, and believers often posit that such prayers are, at least some of the time, answered with a 'yes' - he deigns to interfere in worldly events.

But, at the same time, most believers claim that such events are fundamentally untestable and are outside the purview of science (and, bizarrely, they can even take offence to the very idea).

This baffles me, so I invite people to explain the fundamental reasons why no experiment, real or imaginary, could yield hard evidence that God is indeed answering prayers.

Why can't we devise an experiment? What are the exact and specific reasons that invalidate any such attempt? What would the outcome be if we tried a proposed experiment - presumably the researchers burst into flames for testing God, so what actually happens?

"God isn't testable" isn't a good response, it just reiterates the problem. "God isn't testable because he insta-kills anyone who tests him", while a clearly farcical response, does provide an explanation for why God is, indeed, untestable.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why isn't prayer testable?

Possibly the most fundamental building block would be a need for a scientific consensus on how to model "will." If that could be successfully test-driven on animals, then humans, we might finally be ready to address a question like this.

The second, and very problematic issue would be how to apply this to the will of a being whose knowledge is superior to our own.

If I might offer an analogy, I would consider it equivalent to demanding a scientific test for the question, "Why was Albert Einstein the one to discover relativity?"

If you don't see the parallel, and want to argue that my analogy is not fitting, I would suggest that a better way to approach this would be to ask you if you think there are any effects in today's world where we are currently incapable of correlating the effect to a cause ... not because technology is not precise enough yet, but because there is no theory in place to make the connection.

 

[selfinflikted]

Prayers are testable. It's been done.

(And the result of the study found that praying makes no difference at all, at least in the lives of hospital patients. I will try to hunt for the link)

ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Possibly the most fundamental building block would be a need for a scientific consensus on how to model "will." If that could be successfully test-driven on animals, then humans, we might finally be ready to address a question like this.

Why? I don't see why we need to model 'will' in order to test the efficacy of prayer. The goal of the experiment isn't to develop a mathematical model that can predict whether a given prayer will be answered 'yes' or 'no'. It's to see if the act of prayer itself ever really does lead to change (whether that's change caused by the intercession of Gods, saints, or sheer positive energy).

Take prayers for healing. Some people believe that, if you pray for someone's survival, God may, occasionally, intervene and cause that person to survive. Besides the uncomfortable theological implications of this belief (would God have let that person die, had they not been prayed for?), the implication is clear: pray for someone's survival, and God may deign to intervene in the world.

So long as God does actively intervene in response to at least some prayer requests, I don't see why this isn't a testable phenomenon.

Remove God altogether. Think of a mad and spontaneous dictator*, who gives money to people who write letters to him - not to everyone, and not according to any known metric or predictable model, but he does give money to some people. Now, an outsider comes in and hears the native smake their claim: "If we write a letter asking for something to the dictator, sometimes he gives us money in proportion to what it is we want - £50 if we're hungry, £7 if we need vaccines, etc". Why can't that outsider deduce the truth of this claim?

Similarly, why can't we test the truth of the claim that, if you pray for something, sometimes, just sometimes, God grants your request? Moreover, why does it matter whether or not we have a predictable model of whether or not God will answer 'yes' or 'no'? Surely it only matters that he answers 'yes' some of the time - the exact distribution of 'yes' and 'no' is irrelevant.

*The choice of a mad and spontaneous dictator is not meant to imply anything. It's just the most convenient example of someone with pretty much overarching sovereignty (as opposed to an elected minister) whose whims are unknown and unknowable (as opposed to a predictable individual whose actions are bound by legislature).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

edit <- double post

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In Islam IIRC there is a saying that for prayers only Allah is reliable. And of those He may answer in line with request, delay the reward (even till the hereafter) or give something else in return.

So if I ask for x, not getting x is still consistent with God answering the prayer. As non-x would seem to be the only way to falsify the idea prayer works, but this has been excluded, then prayer is not testable/falsifiable.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why isn't prayer testable?

I wasn't aware prayers weren't testable.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why?

Remove God altogether. Think of a mad and spontaneous dictator ...

Your analogy is much too simple. At the very least we would need to make the following modifications:

The natives receive money through a hole in the wall of the dictator's palace. Receiving money is common enough that many consider it a "natural" event. However, sometimes people don't receive the money they think they need. A) Some of these people believe that if they write a letter and stick it through the hole in the wall they are more likely to receive money. This belief is based on a poster pasted to the wall. B) Some people believe it is OK to write letters to the dictator, but A misinterprets the poster and the result is not a direct flow of money. Rather, the dictator answers the request by giving the money indirectly (i.e. to someone other than the one who made the request) because he knows that increasing the amount of currency in circulation will eventually benefit the one making the request. C) There is yet a 3rd set of people who believe no dictator exists, but the money is real enough. They have also read the poster and have posited a "scientific" theory about the "natural" process of obtaining money. This process involves sticking gold in the hole in the wall, and they can show high correlation (though not 100%) that money does indeed come out when they do that. And, C has a contractual agreement with some people who hold belief A that they will exchange money for work.

How do you prove whether the belief of A is correct or not? [edit] My modification of your analogy is basically trying to make the same point as post #6.

But this analogy is still too simple. What is your reply to the Einstein question I posed?

 

[MattRose]

Well the only logical answer is that prayers aren't answered. Hence religious people try to stymy any scientific attempts to prove prayer works lest the emperor's behind become visible.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Why isn't prayer testable? Specifically, prayer requests: prayers that ask God for something, be it a footballer praying for victory in a sports game, a mother praying for healing for her comatose son, or a child praying for her rapist to stop.

These types of prayers go on all the time, and believers often posit that such prayers are, at least some of the time, answered with a 'yes' - he deigns to interfere in worldly events.

But, at the same time, most believers claim that such events are fundamentally untestable and are outside the purview of science (and, bizarrely, they can even take offence to the very idea).

This baffles me, so I invite people to explain the fundamental reasons why no experiment, real or imaginary, could yield hard evidence that God is indeed answering prayers.

Why can't we devise an experiment? What are the exact and specific reasons that invalidate any such attempt? What would the outcome be if we tried a proposed experiment - presumably the researchers burst into flames for testing God, so what actually happens?

"God isn't testable" isn't a good response, it just reiterates the problem. "God isn't testable because he insta-kills anyone who tests him", while a clearly farcical response, does provide an explanation for why God is, indeed, untestable.

There is a famous quote:

"God answers prayers in three ways:
first, He says "yes", and give you what you want.
second, He says "no", and gives you something better.
third, He says "wait", and gives you the best on His own time"

This ideology makes prayer infallible because any result you get is valid. If you run an experiment and the prayer isn't answered, then the person can just say, "Well, we just have to wait and it'll be answered eventually. God has his own timetable."

With regards to pain and suffering and death, I've heard someone once say that God can either answer the prayer but if he chooses not to its because he wants to take the dying person home to heaven and/or he wants you to learn and grow in the suffering that follows.

This also makes God infallible and makes unanswered prayers valid because now someone can just say, "God didn't answer that prayer because he knows what's best and wants me to learn from this experience."

So any outcome from prayer: pain, healing, death, suffering, joy, etc are all covered and God remains infallible whether or not prayers are answered.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether prayers are answered or not, because any outcome validates God's intervention, power, love and compassion.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether prayers are answered or not, because any outcome validates God's intervention, power, love and compassion.

Exactly. And there's something else I've often wondered about: To hear Christians tell it, everything that happens, happens according to god's plan or god's will. If this is the case, what's the point in praying? Will god change his plans or change his will if one prays hard enough? If everything that happens does so according to the will of god, prayer seems rather pointless.

 

[Resha Caner]

So any outcome from prayer: pain, healing, death, suffering, joy, etc are all covered and God remains infallible whether or not prayers are answered.

Yes, so you can either view this as a cop out or as the truth. If a child asks for something detrimental, the parent should say no. As long as we hold to that principle, the situation will remain indeterminate as you said.

So, one has to look elsewhere if one is looking for a certainty of God. IOW, prayer comes after belief, not before ... at least the type of petition suggested by the OP.

 

[Resha Caner]

To hear Christians tell it, everything that happens, happens according to god's plan or god's will.

I've heard that said as well, but the Bible disagrees with it, so I think it is a misinformed position.

 

[selfinflikted]

I've heard that said as well, but the Bible disagrees with it, so I think it is a misinformed position.

As do I.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. And there's something else I've often wondered about: To hear Christians tell it, everything that happens, happens according to god's plan or god's will. If this is the case, what's the point in praying? Will god change his plans or change his will if one prays hard enough? If everything that happens does so according to the will of god, prayer seems rather pointless.

No, prayer isn't pointless.

It would be the natural outcome of someone who believes in God.

Yes, the Bible says:

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

... but that doesn't mean we should stop praying.

Jesus prayed -- and prayed often.

Prayer is a form of worship, and praying and getting your prayers answered NO builds character.

I have prayed and prayed and prayed and prayed for God to give me a good memory for peoples' names, and I haven't gotten it.

Now I'm some character --

 

[Resha Caner]

As do I.

Hah! Love it. A perfectly political answer.

 

[selfinflikted]

Double post.

 

[selfinflikted]

Now I'm some character --

You most certainly are, AV.

 

[TheReasoner]

There have been clinical trials.
Wikipedia has some:
Studies on intercessory prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and I have run across some on pubmed, as I am a little curious.
Read up if you wish.

 

[selfinflikted]

Hah! Love it. A perfectly political answer.

How so? You don't believe everything that happens, happens according to "plan." Well, I don't believe it either, though I suspect we have far different reasons for concluding such.