|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:47 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| Novernae wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
Even Dr. Herbert Benson, the doctor supposedly proving prayer ineffective, cannot make up his mind: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s13887.htm
This interview is from 1998. The New York Times article is from 2006. What is Dr. Benson's real, scientific opinion? It seems to change every few years.
Peace |
How is an opinion changing with the evidence a negative thing? Dr Benson set out to test your beliefs, not to disprove them. He was trying to improve upon a poorly designed study that had questioned prayer's effectiveness. He was very open about his belief in prayer's benefits. He did a study, the results were contrary to his hypothesis, his hypothesis modified with the evidence. That's how science works. |
The fact that his opinion changed was not my point. It's the fact that the evidence changed, and could possibly change back and forth many times.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| How on earth can science prove the efficacy of prayer? That's ridiculous. |
Via controlled studies.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Novernae
Joined: 02 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| Novernae wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
Even Dr. Herbert Benson, the doctor supposedly proving prayer ineffective, cannot make up his mind: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s13887.htm
This interview is from 1998. The New York Times article is from 2006. What is Dr. Benson's real, scientific opinion? It seems to change every few years.
Peace |
How is an opinion changing with the evidence a negative thing? Dr Benson set out to test your beliefs, not to disprove them. He was trying to improve upon a poorly designed study that had questioned prayer's effectiveness. He was very open about his belief in prayer's benefits. He did a study, the results were contrary to his hypothesis, his hypothesis modified with the evidence. That's how science works. |
The fact that his opinion changed was not my point. It's the fact that the evidence changed, and could possibly change back and forth many times.
Peace |
Yes, it is possible that more evidence could be gathered that changes the analysis, but right now the only tested evidence we have argues against the efficacy of prayer. (another point: the evidence did not change, there was no acceptable quantitative evidence until this study, considering the previous studies all had severe methodological flaws and everything else was purely anecdotal) Until a new peer reviewed study comes out with evidence opposing this study would it not make sense to scientifically accept it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| Novernae wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| Novernae wrote: |
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
Even Dr. Herbert Benson, the doctor supposedly proving prayer ineffective, cannot make up his mind: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/helthrpt/stories/s13887.htm
This interview is from 1998. The New York Times article is from 2006. What is Dr. Benson's real, scientific opinion? It seems to change every few years.
Peace |
How is an opinion changing with the evidence a negative thing? Dr Benson set out to test your beliefs, not to disprove them. He was trying to improve upon a poorly designed study that had questioned prayer's effectiveness. He was very open about his belief in prayer's benefits. He did a study, the results were contrary to his hypothesis, his hypothesis modified with the evidence. That's how science works. |
The fact that his opinion changed was not my point. It's the fact that the evidence changed, and could possibly change back and forth many times.
Peace |
Yes, it is possible that more evidence could be gathered that changes the analysis, but right now the only tested evidence we have argues against the efficacy of prayer. (another point: the evidence did not change, there was no acceptable quantitative evidence until this study, considering the previous studies all had severe methodological flaws and everything else was purely anecdotal) Until a new peer reviewed study comes out with evidence opposing this study would it not make sense to scientifically accept it? |
OK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:13 am Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
| How on earth can science prove the efficacy of prayer? That's ridiculous. |
Via controlled studies.
Peace |
Science can neither prove nor disprove the efficacy of prayer simply because of the nature of what prayer is. I'll explain:
First off, 'Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God' means you do not perform 'tests' or 'studies' on the Almighty. When you try to prove the efficacy of prayer by experiment you are, from the Christian point of view, testing the reactions of a person, not a physical phenomenon; moreover, a person who has told you not to test Him. Why should you expect the same reaction from God that you might get from honest prayer?
Prayer has to be more than just reciting some words: you have to mean it or it means nothing.
Secondly, it's immoral to pray for some outcome for the sake of a test rather than because you believe it to be good. And it's just as immoral to refrain from praying for an outcome you believe to be good for the sake of a test. In order to perform tests under controlled conditions you need groups of praying people and control groups who do not pray, but neither will be either praying or refraining from praying honestly. Why would God listen to insincere prayers?
So I think you can see that you can't let the people doing the praying - or neglecting to do the praying - know that they're in an experiment. Ok, let's say you somehow arrange it so you have groups of people praying and refraining from praying for certain outcomes without knowing you're observing them. You still have a problem: you can't see into their minds to see exactly what they're praying for, how sincerely they're praying, or even if they're praying at all.
Fourthly, even if you could somehow be sure of what all the people in your experiment are doing - could see into their hearts - you can't look into God's mind. You can't know whether God did or did not change a certain outcome as a result or not as a result of the prayers made or not made. For example, God might decide that a sick person should recover but for reasons that have nothing to do with the prayers made on that person's behalf, and there's no way you could know it wasn't the prayers that made the difference.
So your problem is that prayers are not just words, God is not just a physical phenomenon, and you're not telepathic.
Notice that throughout I have been assuming that God exists. The problem of testing the efficacy of prayer is a problem for believing Christians, not just for unbelieving atheists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
