Why isn't prayer testable?

[Resha Caner]

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.

Exactly. So we agree on a conclusion, but for different reasons. IMO that is a political answer.

 

[selfinflikted]

Exactly. So we agree on a conclusion, but for different reasons. IMO that is a political answer.

Ok, I just don't make that connection.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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."

A very good answer, and the only one that points to a methodological flaw in experimentally testing prayer. However, I believe I have a way to account for this 'eventuality': the problem is, since we don't know when a prayer could be answered, we can't say, "Aha, this prayer has gone unanswered".

But what about a scenario where there is a time limit? The terminally ill are cases where we can sadly predict a relatively short life expectancy. In such cases, there's a limited amount of time for God to act (though, being God, that shouldn't be a problem). If they die pretty much when medical science predicts, that points to God's answer being a definitive 'no'. His reasons are irrelevant, what matters is that we have an empirical result: a 'no'.

So, in that scenario, macabre as it may be, we can rule out a 'wait' response, and see how much more likely those prayed for are of surviving than those not prayed for.

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.

Nonetheless, my question is whether the claim can be tested. The claim is, that if you pray for something, then God may intervene. You can change God's mind, cause him to relent, and he'll divinely intervene and cause something different to happen.

The point isn't to question his motives for acting or not acting. The question simply is, does he act at all? If we pray for someone to come out of a coma, will the outcome be any different than if we didn't pray?

Is there any point in praying to God and asking him to bring someone out of a coma?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wasn't aware prayers weren't testable.

Nor I, till virtually every Christian I asked stated that it was categorically untestable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

My reply to post #6 is that I'm not asking if God answers prayers with a 'yes' or a 'no' or a 'wait' - that's not interesting. What's interesting is if God answers 'yes' and actively intervenes in the world. That's what the question means: can we test for that?

As to your analogy, the answer seems simple: take 1000 people (controlling for whatever variables the poster stipulates; age, race, religious beliefs) and have them write letters. Or, observe them writing letters as they normally do. Then, compare their receipt of money to that of those who don't write letters. If the former get more money than the latter, and the only difference is writing letters to the despot, then that provides good evidence that the despot is, indeed, giving out more money to those who write letters.

The hows and the whys are unimportant in deducing this fact: all we're interested in is if writing letters engenders more money from the despot. Similarly, I'm only interested in if God actively intervenes in the world as a result of prayer. Any stipulations or exceptions or contingencies or limits are irrelevant, just so long as, some of the time, God intervenes to grant someone's prayer. You can stipulate that he only intervenes to grant sports victories to Texan cricketers, and only if it's his will, and only if the prayer is genuine and selfless, and only if X, Y, and Z - that's irrelevant to the fact that, at the end of the day, God intervened.

You might think I'm harping on about this point, but you'd be amazed the mount of times I've seen this question asked and people focussing only on how "God isn't a vending machine!" and missing the point.

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

Why was Einstein the one to discover relativity? The question is ambiguous, so there are several answers:
Why him and not anyone else? Pure chance. He was gifted, but not unique. Perhaps Stephen Hawking would have discovered it.
What caused him to discover it? A gifted mathematical mind and the shoulders of giants to stand on; had he lived in ancient Greece, he probably wouldn't have discovered it.

Maybe I've misunderstood the question, but I don't see the relevance. Are you saying that this sort of question doesn't fall within the purview of science, and thus it's illogical to demand a scientific answer to it? If so, I don't see how that carries over to testing prayer - you'd have to explain why prayer doesn't fall within the purview of science.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why was Einstein the one to discover relativity? The question is ambiguous, so there are several answers:

Exactly. Now, let me draw out the word "ambiguous" a bit more. Not that this is what you meant by the word, but to clarify how I understand it.

Ambiguous | Define Ambiguous at Dictionary.com

I mean it primarily in the sense of definition #3 in the link. Focusing even further on how the answer is difficult to distinguish, I'm saying that the factors involved are confounded (definition #5 of the following link).

Confound | Define Confound at Dictionary.com

So, let's take a look at the analogy some more.

As to your analogy, the answer seems simple: take 1000 people (controlling for whatever variables the poster stipulates; age, race, religious beliefs) and have them write letters. Or, observe them writing letters as they normally do. Then, compare their receipt of money to that of those who don't write letters. If the former get more money than the latter, and the only difference is writing letters to the despot, then that provides good evidence that the despot is, indeed, giving out more money to those who write letters.

The hows and the whys are unimportant in deducing this fact: all we're interested in is if writing letters engenders more money from the despot. Similarly, I'm only interested in if God actively intervenes in the world as a result of prayer.

You've asked at least 2, if not more questions here, and the answers to them are not the same.

1. On average, would a control group of 1000 letter writers receive more money than a control group of 1000 who don't write letters (Matt 5:45)? I know you don't care about the Bible verses, but I think they're important in establishing exactly what it is I'm saying.

So, the answer is, probably not. The 1000 who don't write would receive extra money because of the 1000 who do write. IOW, you can't create the control group you're suggesting without the cooperation of the dictator ... which goes back to what I said about modelling "will."

2. Would the natives receive less money if all letter writing stopped (Matt 7:7-9, James 4:1-3)?

Yes. But, good luck getting every Christian in the world to stop praying for a controlled period of time. So, my yes is a statement of faith based on my belief in the Bible - not something I could prove. On the flip side, you wouldn't be able to conduct the test, either.

3. Can we prove the dictator's special intervention for a specific native or group of natives? IOW, can we prove a miracle (1 Kings 18:16-39)?

Again, not without the cooperation of the dictator. Special intervention is actually a very rare event in the Bible. If you were to consider everyone who has ever lived and the time span of the universe, the frequency of miracles as claimed by the Bible is very rare.

But that is not a problem specific to the Bible. It is a general problem for science. Can you give me a test that will establish the exact time when Betelgeuse will die (go supernova, explode, or whatever the correct term would be)? No. Can you give me a test that will establish the exact time and place when life began on earth? No.

Your question, no matter how it is posed, is confounded. If you choose, then, to withhold belief about prayer ... shrug ... not much I can do about that. As I said earlier, belief in the efficacy of prayer comes after belief in Christ, not before.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Exactly. Now, let me draw out the word "ambiguous" a bit more. Not that this is what you meant by the word, but to clarify how I understand it.

Ambiguous | Define Ambiguous at Dictionary.com

I mean it primarily in the sense of definition #3 in the link. Focusing even further on how the answer is difficult to distinguish, I'm saying that the factors involved are confounded (definition #5 of the following link).

Confound | Define Confound at Dictionary.com

So, let's take a look at the analogy some more.



You've asked at least 2, if not more questions here, and the answers to them are not the same.

1. On average, would a control group of 1000 letter writers receive more money than a control group of 1000 who don't write letters (Matt 5:45)? I know you don't care about the Bible verses, but I think they're important in establishing exactly what it is I'm saying.

So, the answer is, probably not. The 1000 who don't write would receive extra money because of the 1000 who do write. IOW, you can't create the control group you're suggesting without the cooperation of the dictator ... which goes back to what I said about modelling "will."

I disagree. We're trying to see if letter-writing has any effect on who, if anyone, the dictator deigns to send money. We can control letter-writing - just observe 1000 letter-writers and 1000 non-letter-writiers - and measure their finances. The dictator doesn't even need to know about the experiment.

The result, if the dictator does indeed preferentially send more money to the writers, is that there should be a statistically significant increase in money received by letter-writers than non-letter-writiers. If the dictator gives out money purely by random, we shouldn't see anything statistically significant either way.

I don't see what you mean by the control group getting money from the test group - the money is given to them directly. Interest rates being driven down by the influx of cash from the dictator is too indirect for our purposes. The dictator gives them money on an individual basis, and God, if he answers 'yes' to a prayer request for someone's healing, does it on a personal basis as well.

2. Would the natives receive less money if all letter writing stopped (Matt 7:7-9, James 4:1-3)?

Yes. But, good luck getting every Christian in the world to stop praying for a controlled period of time. So, my yes is a statement of faith based on my belief in the Bible - not something I could prove. On the flip side, you wouldn't be able to conduct the test, either.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that there will be less divine interventions if every Christian stops praying. That implies that there is divine intervention because Christians are praying - they ask, and, at least occasionally, they receive because of it.

3. Can we prove the dictator's special intervention for a specific native or group of natives? IOW, can we prove a miracle (1 Kings 18:16-39)?

Again, not without the cooperation of the dictator.

Why? We don't need to prove that a given instance is from the dictator or from their regular job - the money isn't traceable, and healing could be from medicine or from God. Rather, we look at the big picture. Even if we can't tell if a specific instance of healing is divine or not, I don't see why we can't deduce a correlation between prayer and healing. If God intervenes at least some of the time to grant a prayer for healing, no matter how stringent his criteria for a 'proper' prayer, there should be detectable increase in healing for those who are prayed for.

If there's a disease that kills exactly half of the time, 500 out of 1000 patients who are prayed for will die, while 500 out of another 1000 who aren't prayed for (they're homeless or alone or some such) will also die. If God intervenes based on prayer, if he grants prayerful requests for healing, then we should see slightly more than 500 people survive - even if it's just one, that's enough.

And notice that it doesn't matter which one. Yes, I can't tell if you his healing is from God or from luck, but we can still confidently say that someone's healing was from God.

Special intervention is actually a very rare event in the Bible. If you were to consider everyone who has ever lived and the time span of the universe, the frequency of miracles as claimed by the Bible is very rare.

But that is not a problem specific to the Bible. It is a general problem for science. Can you give me a test that will establish the exact time when Betelgeuse will die (go supernova, explode, or whatever the correct term would be)? No. Can you give me a test that will establish the exact time and place when life began on earth? No.

No, but I can tell you that Betelgeuse will die. The hows and the whys are interesting, but all I'm interested in is, "Does God ever heal because someone prayed for it?".

Your question, no matter how it is posed, is confounded. If you choose, then, to withhold belief about prayer ... shrug ... not much I can do about that. As I said earlier, belief in the efficacy of prayer comes after belief in Christ, not before.

I disagree. If praying for the divine healing of a sick person can occasionally change God's mind, and if God then heals that person, we should see a statistically significant increase in healing for those prayed for over those not prayed for. If not, then God doesn't heal the prayed-for any more than he heals the not-prayed-for, suggesting that praying for someone's healing is something of a futile gesture.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, but I can tell you that Betelgeuse will die. The hows and the whys are interesting, but all I'm interested in is, "Does God ever heal because someone prayed for it?".

So even though you can't tell me when, even though you will probably not live to see it (your answer is, "we'll just have to wait"), and even though you can't prove this specific instance to me, your understanding of the universe (induction from other events you have evidence of) leads you to believe that it will happen.

I disagree. We're trying to see if letter-writing has any effect on who, if anyone, the dictator deigns to send money. We can control letter-writing - just observe 1000 letter-writers and 1000 non-letter-writiers - and measure their finances. The dictator doesn't even need to know about the experiment.

The result, if the dictator does indeed preferentially send more money to the writers, is that there should be a statistically significant increase in money received by letter-writers than non-letter-writiers. If the dictator gives out money purely by random, we shouldn't see anything statistically significant either way.

I don't see what you mean by the control group getting money from the test group - the money is given to them directly. Interest rates being driven down by the influx of cash from the dictator is too indirect for our purposes. The dictator gives them money on an individual basis, and God, if he answers 'yes' to a prayer request for someone's healing, does it on a personal basis as well.

Hmm. You didn't reject my adjustment to your analogy, so I assumed you had accepted it. As such, it is not too indirect to consider interest rates. In fact, that is exactly my point. But, as a somewhat simpler example, remember that we have 3 groups, A, B, C. Among the believers (A & B) there is a dispute about how the dictator hands out the money. All they agree on is that it happens (think Betelgeuse here).

Also recall that somewhere way back we had a discussion about the inability in some cases to distinguish randomness from determined chaotic equations.

So, a person from the A group (A1) writes a letter asking for money. A person from the C group (C2) puts some gold in the hole. Statistics tell him that if he puts in 10 ounces he will get $10,000 +- 500. He gets $10,500, and his luck reminds him that he owes A1 $500, so he pays off a debt he wouldn't have otherwise.

Did A1 have his request granted or didn't he? Who is right? A, B, or C? After all, it is at the discretion of the dictator to determine when and how much money he gives a person. If he did give C2 the $500 above average in response to the request of A1, then didn't he cause a good even greater than what A1 asked for? It would have been a lesser good to just give A1 the $500.

And notice that it doesn't matter which one. Yes, I can't tell if you his healing is from God or from luck, but we can still confidently say that someone's healing was from God.

For the answers you want it does matter. Suppose someone prays for healing, and in response God inspires a doctor with a new cure. That cure will help the person who prayed, but also those who didn't pray.

Or maybe it will be too late for the person who prayed, yet it still helps those who didn't pray. God still responded to the prayer, but in the manner that was best. After all, nowhere does God promise to cure all disease. He has no obligation to cure someone just because they pray.

Argue the analogy all you want. My only point is that your test will always be confounded. If you get that, there isn't much more to say.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So even though you can't tell me when, even though you will probably not live to see it (your answer is, "we'll just have to wait"), and even though you can't prove this specific instance to me, your understanding of the universe (induction from other events you have evidence of) leads you to believe that it will happen.

Indeed. My point is that we can know that it will happen without needing to know exactly when. Likewise, the OP asks if we can know if God answers prayer with a 'yes' without know the precise hows and whys.

Hmm. You didn't reject my adjustment to your analogy, so I assumed you had accepted it. As such, it is not too indirect to consider interest rates. In fact, that is exactly my point. But, as a somewhat simpler example, remember that we have 3 groups, A, B, C. Among the believers (A & B) there is a dispute about how the dictator hands out the money. All they agree on is that it happens (think Betelgeuse here).

Also recall that somewhere way back we had a discussion about the inability in some cases to distinguish randomness from determined chaotic equations.

So, a person from the A group (A1) writes a letter asking for money. A person from the C group (C2) puts some gold in the hole. Statistics tell him that if he puts in 10 ounces he will get $10,000 +- 500. He gets $10,500, and his luck reminds him that he owes A1 $500, so he pays off a debt he wouldn't have otherwise.

Did A1 have his request granted or didn't he? Who is right? A, B, or C? After all, it is at the discretion of the dictator to determine when and how much money he gives a person. If he did give C2 the $500 above average in response to the request of A1, then didn't he cause a good even greater than what A1 asked for? It would have been a lesser good to just give A1 the $500.

B is right: the dictator gives money in response to letters, but only indirectly. As I said, it's not always possible to know if a specific instance is benefited, but we could still monitor those who believe A and see if they, in general, receive more money in correlation with their letters than B or C.

For the answers you want it does matter. Suppose someone prays for healing, and in response God inspires a doctor with a new cure. That cure will help the person who prayed, but also those who didn't pray.

Are you saying that's the only way God answers prayers? Indirectly? One wonders why he never inspired the doctor with the cure until the prayer.

Or maybe it will be too late for the person who prayed, yet it still helps those who didn't pray. God still responded to the prayer, but in the manner that was best. After all, nowhere does God promise to cure all disease. He has no obligation to cure someone just because they pray.

Argue the analogy all you want. My only point is that your test will always be confounded. If you get that, there isn't much more to say.

Again, I disagree. Your objections can be controlled with a sufficiently rigorous experiment.

In the dictator example, we simply follow three groups of 1000 people, each with a different belief, and see how their interactions with the hole affect their finances. Directly or indirectly, if A1 writes a letter asking for money to pay for her son's operation before he dies, then gets the money, that could well be through the bewilderingly convoluted actions of the dictator. Given a large enough sample, such a pattern would emerge: people would, occasionally, receive money in response to their letters.

With no intervention from the dictator, we should see no correlation between writing letters and solving problems stated in the letter. All other things being equal, two mothers are as likely to stumble upon the sufficient funding for their terminally ill sons' operations. If the dictator deigns to help the mother who writes a letter because she wrote a letter, she's more likely to find the money than the mother who doesn't.

The only alternative is if you're saying God only answers prayers by deliberately manipulating statistical phenomena in order to stay hidden, by raising everyone's chances of success, then prayer becomes moot: don't bother praying for someone's healing, as God is already hard at work inspiring cures in the minds of doctors in response to someone else's prayer.

In either case, there are troubling theological conclusions (Why does God inspire cures in doctors in response to prayer, and not before? Why doesn't God act overtly?), but that's for another thread.

In short, I only think your point is valid, that the experiment is necessarily flawed by confounding variables, if God actively only intervenes in cases where he can hide behind the curtain.

 

[AV1611VET]

In either case, there are troubling theological conclusions (Why does God inspire cures in doctors in response to prayer, and not before? Why doesn't God act overtly?), but that's for another thread.

Would it be too much to ask you to read Joshua 9, with verse 14 in mind?

Joshua 9:14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Would it be too much to ask you to read Joshua 9, with verse 14 in mind?

Joshua 9:14 And the men took of their victuals, and asked not counsel at the mouth of the LORD.

I read it, though I don't see the relevance.

 

[Resha Caner]

Indeed. My point is that we can know that it will happen without needing to know exactly when. Likewise, the OP asks if we can know if God answers prayer with a 'yes' without know the precise hows and whys.

Are you saying you know that Betelgeuse will die without the inductive conclusions I mentioned?

Are you saying that's the only way God answers prayers? Indirectly?

I was trying to keep things simple, so I only spoke of one confounding problem. There are others. In the cases where God responds, but by providing something not asked for, how can we possibly measure that? I ask to be healed and instead God gives me a puppy to comfort me as the disease progresses ... but only me. When Sally prayed, he gave her flowers for comfort, and when John prayed God said "no" because he's decided to use the disease to effect a change in John. When Barb prayed God said "no", but her husband, of his own volition and without God prompting him, gave Barb flowers to comfort her. When Prasad prayed, he lied about being a Christian (to avoid a confrontation with his family) and was actually praying to Baal, so God ignored the prayer. How could we ever sort out all the possible responses in a statistically significant way? How do we define our signal/noise?

On top of that you need to address the issues raised by AlexBP in your other thread. How do you design an experiment where some of the participants refuse to cooperate?

Again, I disagree. Your objections can be controlled with a sufficiently rigorous experiment.

Your statement is too general. Of course everything is OK if the experiment is sufficiently rigorous, but you haven't defined an experiment where I agree that is the case. From the beginning I said the only way you could do it is to model God's will (or, by AlexBP's requirement, to get God's cooperation). You don't have the control you seem to think you have.

In either case, there are troubling theological conclusions (Why does God inspire cures in doctors in response to prayer, and not before? Why doesn't God act overtly?), but that's for another thread.

Those theological issues don't trouble me. Why should God act at all? Assuming God will do the "proper" thing, and that the "proper" thing is different for every case, don't we have to establish what is proper before we can test for God's reaction?

 

[Jazer]

Why isn't prayer testable?

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.

 

[selfinflikted]

IF prayer was only as effective as a placebo, then isn't that enough?

Yes, but that is not what Christians claim.

"I was late for work this morning and I couldn't find my car keys! So I thought, 'Hey, I'll pray about it!' And I did, and god showed me where my keys were. Praises Jesus!"

^ This, um, scenario is what we often hear about. This is not a placebo situation.

 

[selfinflikted]

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.

And that makes it a crutch, and a very dangerous one at that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Are you saying you know that Betelgeuse will die without the inductive conclusions I mentioned?

Yes, with the caveat that 'know' doesn't refer to absolute knowledge.

I was trying to keep things simple, so I only spoke of one confounding problem. There are others. In the cases where God responds, but by providing something not asked for, how can we possibly measure that? I ask to be healed and instead God gives me a puppy to comfort me as the disease progresses ... but only me. When Sally prayed, he gave her flowers for comfort, and when John prayed God said "no" because he's decided to use the disease to effect a change in John. When Barb prayed God said "no", but her husband, of his own volition and without God prompting him, gave Barb flowers to comfort her. When Prasad prayed, he lied about being a Christian (to avoid a confrontation with his family) and was actually praying to Baal, so God ignored the prayer. How could we ever sort out all the possible responses in a statistically significant way? How do we define our signal/noise?

Since there are a great many things people pray for, we have a wide selection. The terminally ill are, sadly, not long for this world. If someone prays for their good health and long life, and they die around when their doctor predicted, it's safe to say God did not, in fact, answer the prayer with a 'yes'. The reasons could be anything, but the fact remains that they're dead, yet the prayer requested that they live.

Statistical noise is an obstical, but not an insurmountable one. The experiment can be designed to control such noise. Again, the OP isn't asking if God responds to prayers at all, but if he actively interferes with the world in order to bring about that requested in the prayer.

On top of that you need to address the issues raised by AlexBP in your other thread. How do you design an experiment where some of the participants refuse to cooperate?

One way to control for that obstacle would be to observe people praying already. With their consent (or not), you see if those prayed for are any more likely to survive their ordeal than those who aren't.

You could argue that God, in his infinite wisdom, shuts down the whole prayer system, refusing to answer any more prayers till the men with the clipboards go away. You could argue that, but you'd be arguing for a wicked and petty deity indeed.

Your statement is too general. Of course everything is OK if the experiment is sufficiently rigorous, but you haven't defined an experiment where I agree that is the case. From the beginning I said the only way you could do it is to model God's will (or, by AlexBP's requirement, to get God's cooperation). You don't have the control you seem to think you have.

I disagree that such tight control as you imagine is even needed. We don't need to actively control the system, just passively observe it. Apparently, prayers are sent up and, occasionally, God intervenes to make some come true. His reasons are irrelevant, the only question is if this actually happens.

So, we design an experiment to observe the goings on of prayer and result, without actually interfering in the system that is already ongoing.

Those theological issues don't trouble me. Why should God act at all? Assuming God will do the "proper" thing, and that the "proper" thing is different for every case, don't we have to establish what is proper before we can test for God's reaction?

Perhaps, but the main issue is why God reacts to prayer at all. If he's already going to do the good and proper thing, then why would he ever change his mind? The Bible says he does, which makes one wonder why he was ever going to go with his original course of action.

If God hears a prayer and reacts to that prayer by inspiring a doctor to find a cure, why wouldn't he inspire the doctor before? Surely if inspiring the doctor is good and proper, he'd do it with or without someone praying for it, and if it isn't good and proper, he won't do it, with or without the prayer. In either case, it doesn't seem like prayer does very much.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

IF prayer was only as effective as a placebo, then isn't that enough?

No, as people who think that prayer is enough to cure anything forgo real medical treatment. There are real cases where children die due to neglect, where people put their faith in divine intervention (surprisingly, this never actually works) instead demonstrable medicine.

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.

Certainly, but the claim being investigated is that prayer is more than a placebo. People really do believe that, if you pray to God, he'll come down and miraculously heal you. He may not do it all the time, but he does do it. That's a claim that I believe is scientifically testable.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, with the caveat that 'know' doesn't refer to absolute knowledge.

I'm not sure what you consider absolute knowledge, but what exactly are you basing you belief on?

Again, the OP isn't asking if God responds to prayers at all, but if he actively interferes with the world in order to bring about that requested in the prayer.

OK. Either I've misunderstood you so far, or the goalposts just moved. It now sounds as if you're restricting your investigation to: I ask for X and I get exactly X in miraculous form. I would say that is an extremely rare case (and in some ways a misrepresentation of the purpose of prayer) and a daunting task. If cases of miracles are 1 in 1,000,000 requests then your sample size of 1000 would be ill-formed. IOW, you would have to confirm miraculous cures as a first step to establishing the necessary sample size. And if you confirmed that miraculous cures do indeed occur ... well ... you might decide your test is moot.

One way to control for that obstacle would be to observe people praying already. With their consent (or not), you see if those prayed for are any more likely to survive their ordeal than those who aren't.

You could argue that God, in his infinite wisdom, shuts down the whole prayer system, refusing to answer any more prayers till the men with the clipboards go away. You could argue that, but you'd be arguing for a wicked and petty deity indeed.

First of all, this still wouldn't work. You would need access to their medical records to confirm your idea of whether the cure was miraculous or not. So, it couldn't be done passively.

Second, God could do other things to confound you besides shutting down the prayer system (think Pharoh). But I'm not sure I want to go there because this is getting a bit ridiculous ... and it's creating a tag team between me in this thread and AlexBP in the other thread that is a bit difficult to manage.

Perhaps, but the main issue is why God reacts to prayer at all. If he's already going to do the good and proper thing, then why would he ever change his mind?

You're making assumptions about what is good and proper. What if good and proper involves God considering our request before taking action?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Several studies testing prayer have been conducted, with some results showing those who knew they were being prayed for did worse than those who weren't being prayed for.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not sure what you consider absolute knowledge, but what exactly are you basing you belief on?

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. Either I've misunderstood you so far, or the goalposts just moved. It now sounds as if you're restricting your investigation to: I ask for X and I get exactly X in miraculous form. I would say that is an extremely rare case (and in some ways a misrepresentation of the purpose of prayer) and a daunting task. If cases of miracles are 1 in 1,000,000 requests then your sample size of 1000 would be ill-formed. IOW, you would have to confirm miraculous cures as a first step to establishing the necessary sample size. And if you confirmed that miraculous cures do indeed occur ... well ... you might decide your test is moot.

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. However, the prayer doesn't need to be so exact - if we pray for healing, and the person dies, that's a 'no'. If they survive against all odds, that might be a 'yes', or it might be purely natural. If prayed-for people get a 'yes' higher than the background average, we have evidence that prayer works.

First of all, this still wouldn't work. You would need access to their medical records to confirm your idea of whether the cure was miraculous or not. So, it couldn't be done passively.

That wouldn't mean it's not passive. Passive just means no one knows what you're doing, or that what you're doing doesn't disturb or change what's already going on. Naturally, doing this in the real world is unethical, but nonetheless it could be done.

Second, God could do other things to confound you besides shutting down the prayer system (think Pharoh). But I'm not sure I want to go there because this is getting a bit ridiculous ... and it's creating a tag team between me in this thread and AlexBP in the other thread that is a bit difficult to manage.

Still, any action on God's part to obfuscate his involvement would, in some way, hinder his efforts to heal people. Either the person is healed, yielding experimental data, or they're not, invalidating the experiment (albeit potentially unknown to me) and killing the patient. Though the latter does fit God's previous actions, such as killing the first-borns of Egypt when Pharaoh said no.

You're making assumptions about what is good and proper. What if good and proper involves God considering our request before taking action?

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?