Why isn't prayer testable?

[chilehed]

Do you really think that trying to get someone to do whatever you ask them to do is a valid test to determine whether or not they exist?

 

[Elendur]

Do you really think that trying to get someone to do whatever you ask them to do is a valid test to determine whether or not they exist?

Well, that's not really that way it's been tested. Nor how it has been proposed to be tested (if I haven't misunderstood it).

It's claimed that god does listen to prayers.
He either grants it (1), denies it (2) or grants it later on (3).

The amount that he grants (1) should be testable. (I'm not saying anything about the method of testing though, just that your method is wrong)

 

[Resha Caner]

It's based on our knowledge of stellar dynamics. Betelgeuse burns a finite supply of fuel, and when it runs out, it dies. Exactly when a star 'dies' is a matter of definitions, but a supernova seems as good a delineation as any. The evidence suggests that it will go supernova any time in the next million years.

OK, so it is inductive reasoning that led you to believe Betelgeuse will die. How many stars have we seen die, and what percentage is that of all visible stars? I suspect the percentage is very small.

So, even though you can't offer up a test that will confirm the specifics of the death of Betelgeuse, you believe it will happen.

If we used a sample of 1000, we'd get a negative result, and could conclude that miracles occur at a rate of less than 1 in 1000. That's meaningful data right there.

Not until you define what a miracle is.

Then prayer really is a vending machine. God doesn't know whether it's good and proper to alleviate someone's suffering until someone sits down and prays for them? That seems to undermine the whole idea of 'good and proper' being what's best for mankind. Isn't it the mantra of Christianity that God, not humans, knows best? God's wisdom vs. man's wisdom, and all that?

One thing we need to clarify here is that God doesn't do the logically impossible. So, we can't ask God whether the better answer for 4 / 0 is 1 or 2. Since the answer is undefined, we can't demand an answer from God. So, we would need to establish whether the future is defined or undefined before your challenge is meaningful.

Second, "good and proper" is not "what's best for mankind." It is what's best in totality. And, given that God is infinite, that pretty much means whatever God wills is what is good and proper. But what is God's will? We've looped back to my original point.

But, if we assume our decisions play a role in defining what the future is, then it does not make God a vending machine that he waits. It simply means good and proper is not defined from the outset. It is a continually evolving situation.

Children don't seem to come by an understanding of a good diet naturally. Rather, it would seem to come from those who have lived long enough to see the consequences of a bad diet accumulate. All the child understands is that he is hungry. But hunger does not necessarily mean the body will suffer irreparable damage if food is denied. Sometimes the feeling of hunger needs to be denied. From the childish perspective, when hunger occurs, food is always good.

But neither is it that the parent completely dictates the child's meal regimen. I want my child to learn what is proper. So, sometimes I wait for them to ask - I wait for them to propose what would be proper. Then I respond by agreeing or disagreeing.

From the child's perspective it's all about hunger. From my larger perspective, it's about more than hunger.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

In other words, if you pray to Allah, whatever happens is an answer.

Funnily enough, I can pray to my toaster and get the same response...

 

[TheReasoner]

Well, that's not really that way it's been tested. Nor how it has been proposed to be tested (if I haven't misunderstood it).

It's claimed that god does listen to prayers.
He either grants it (1), denies it (2) or grants it later on (3).

The amount that he grants (1) should be testable. (I'm not saying anything about the method of testing though, just that your method is wrong)

Aye, but what if God has a personality somewhat like:

(Which I doubt to say it mildly)
there would be no way to know if he's just fooling you or not there.
If we were dealing with a force of nature there would be predictability. But as we're dealing with an intelligent being whose intellect surpasses our own supposedly more than we surpass an insect's... And, topping it off, an omniscient being to boot... Well, can we really trust any negative result?

 

[Elendur]

Aye, but what if God has a personality somewhat like:
{picture}
(Which I doubt to say it mildly)
there would be no way to know if he's just fooling you or not there.
If we were dealing with a force of nature there would be predictability. But as we're dealing with an intelligent being whose intellect surpasses our own supposedly more than we surpass an insect's... And, topping it off, an omniscient being to boot... Well, can we really trust any negative result?

Well, the intelligence is a problem with testing.

But over a large population one should be able to see an increase, if he doesn't give an opposite result to some of the praying (or giving an advantage to the non praying).

Ex:
Population with 2'000'000 divided into:
1'000'000 who prays
1'000'000 who doesn't pray

If he does give the praying population any advantage (and not giving equal disadvantage) it would be measurable eventually.

Say the first population prays for tallness.
If god does give the praying population advantage they would get a higher average length.

If he is trolling or treating both populations equal it won't be measurable though, like you said

 

[TheReasoner]

Well, the intelligence is a problem with testing.

But over a large population one should be able to see an increase, if he doesn't give an opposite result to some of the praying (or giving an advantage to the non praying).

Ex:
Population with 2'000'000 divided into:
1'000'000 who prays
1'000'000 who doesn't pray

If he does give the praying population any advantage (and not giving equal disadvantage) it would be measurable eventually.

Say the first population prays for tallness.
If god does give the praying population advantage they would get a higher average length.

If he is trolling or treating both populations equal it won't be measurable though, like you said

There's also the psychosomatic effect to take into consideration, and other factors.

This is a mess I won't touch with a ten foot barge pole to be honest.

 

[MattRose]

IF prayer was only as effective as a placebo, then isn't that enough? It has been shown that placebos have a surprisingly positive effect. I remember a testimony night at church once. Person after person got up and gave a testimony for what God had done for them. I do not know of anyone that would have wanted to give up their life with God. But for the most part they just seemed to be more happy and they felt better. I do not remember any real miracles that night that science could have documented. If nothing else religion and being a part of a group of people can help you to overcome fear, worry, anxiety and a host of other problems.

I agree that there are verifiable postive outcomes from placebos. The problem is there is always a killjoy in every crowd who wants people who believe that prayer (or another placebo) works to know the truth. I fall into that category sadly.

 

[Jazer]

I agree that there are verifiable postive outcomes from placebos. The problem is there is always a killjoy in every crowd who wants people who believe that prayer (or another placebo) works to know the truth. I fall into that category sadly.

I remember a story the pastor told about a women that got a miracle for a problem with her hearing. Then two or three weeks later she is back again because she lost her miracle. The pastor asked her what did she do after she got healed. She said she went back to working her job in the bar. The pastor told her that God did not heal her so she could go back to listening to all that ungodly talk.

 

[Tiberius]

I remember a story the pastor told about a women that got a miracle for a problem with her hearing. Then two or three weeks later she is back again because she lost her miracle. The pastor asked her what did she do after she got healed. She said she went back to working her job in the bar. The pastor told her that God did not heal her so she could go back to listening to all that ungodly talk.

Well, perhaps God should have been a bit clearer with his instructions to this poor woman.

Anyway, what was her name? What city did this happen in? Or is this just a story?

 

[Elendur]

There's also the psychosomatic effect to take into consideration, and other factors.

This is a mess I won't touch with a ten foot barge pole to be honest.

True, to include humans in a study is a mess.

 

[TheReasoner]

True, to include humans in a study is a mess.

Yes. And that is one major reason I am not a med student. Human beings... Messy and unpredictable. I prefer the inner workings of cells and the nanoscale world. Using that I can help advance mankind without having to deal directly with all that human mess.