magic or not

[mooeypoo]

There is no reason for you to compare prayer to lint picking, other than as an ad hominum attack which is in itself a falacious logical tactic.

 

 

Actually, there is a perfectly good reason for this comparison. It's called "Doing Science". In scientific terms, these two cases are perfectly similar in the fact they are utterly baseless.

 

In science.

 

If you choose to believe in any of them out of a personal reason and in the full understanding that they are entirely unsupported (and, in fact, were both proven to *not* help), that is absolutely your prerogative.

 

However, since we are discussing science, we are evaluating these under the light of the scientific method and scientific evaluation, facts, evidence, experimentation, predictability and mathematics.

 

Under all of the above, prayer has failed to produce result just as much as lint picking has, or as much as worshiping Zeus or Mythra has. The claim is perfectly acceptable in science, because it is true.

 

This isn't a subjective opinion, tar, it is an objective fact judged by many experiments, and as such it is absolutely perfectly acceptable to compare any and all methods that have the same nonexistent effect.

 

~moo

[tar]

Mooeypoo,

 

Where has it been proven that prayer does not help?

 

Regards, TAR

[mooeypoo]

Actually, it should be the other way around, tar, a claim needs to be supported to be accepted, not shown to be false to be discarded.

 

If you want to show that prayer has any merit, you need to show us the experiments that prove it has, not the other way around. Asking it the other way around, quite frankly, is equivalent to me requesting you show me all the experiments that proved the invisible pink unicorn does not exist.. it's irrelevant - if I want to show it exists, I need to show you the evidence of its existence, not expect you to accept its existence unless you can prove me wrong.

 

As for the experiments - incidentally, in terms of prayers, there were some that were conducted, but I will need to remember where exactly and how to find the results. Maybe iNow can help... iNow?

 

 

~moo

[iNow]

Where has it been proven that prayer does not help?

First, a comment on your choice of terms. When conducting science, you do not ever "prove" anything. Proofs are for math. In science, we "disprove" things.

 

Second, acknowledging the underlying motivation of your request, I now present you with the following:

 

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x7rtu32722145572/

There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP [intercessory prayer] literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W9H-4JKC4CN-1M&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=988567949&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6c66e052459028896304cb0a9c2a5ee3

Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

 

 

 

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/8/487

The empirical results from recent randomised controlled studies on remote, intercessory prayer remain mixed. Several studies have, however, appeared in prestigious medical journals, and it is believed by many researchers, including apparent sceptics, that it makes sense to study intercessory prayer as if it were just another experimental drug treatment. This assumption is challenged by (1) discussing problems posed by the need to obtain the informed consent of patients participating in the studies; (2) pointing out that if the intercessors are indeed conscientious religious believers, they should subvert the studies by praying for patients randomised to the control groups; and (3) showing that the studies in question are characterised by an internal philosophical tension because the intercessors and the scientists must take incompatible views of what is going on: the intercessors must take a causation-first view, whereas the scientists must take a correlation-first view. It therefore makes no ethical or methodological sense to study remote, intercessory prayer as if it were just another drug.

 

 

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/9/1278

Funded mainly by the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research at the religion–science interface, the $2.4 million study was touted as ‘the most intense investigation ever undertaken of whether prayer can help to heal illness." (4) It found that patients undergoing CABG surgery did no better when prayed for by strangers at a distance to them (intercessory prayer) than those who received no prayers. But 59% of those patients who were told they were definitely being prayed for developed complications, compared with 52% of those who had been told it was just a possibility, a statistically significant, if theologically disappointing, result. Benson et al. came to the objective conclusion that "Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications." (

 

Tar... I'll tell you right now... There are scores of other studies showing not only the lack of efficacy of prayer, but also how it actually results in negative outcomes. If you'd like me to supply more, I'd be glad to do so.

 

 

Now... You are the one supporting the claim that there is measurable efficacy in prayer. So (to be perfectly frank), it's time for you to show your evidence which leads you to offer such an assertion, and recall that your personal faith/belief is not enough to convince us.

 

Put up, or shut up.

[mooeypoo]

First, a comment on your choice of terms. When conducting science, you do not ever "prove" anything. Proofs are for math. In science, we "disprove" things.

Minor contention here.. while *my* terms are often misused (I admit, as an ESL, these proof/evidence usages are sometimes getting mixed for me), that's not ENTIRELY accurate.

 

If one makes a claim about the existence of something, that person is in need of providing evidence of the existence of that something. In that aspect, science does "prove stuff".

 

And that was also my point in the above post. If I were to make a claim about the existence of some phenomenon, it would be unscientific of me to expect everyone to assume its existence until they are capable of proving me wrong. That's not the way science works. I will need to provide ample evidence.

 

However, once a claim is "proven true" (math or no), it is true that science is acting as "disproving" things, as we conduct experiments and find where the claim might be invalid and then try to expand the theory or change it.

 

That's not to say science must disprove everything first, yes? tar is making a claim, tar has the burden of proof in providing evidence for the claim. This is the way science is done. Good luck.

 

~moo

[iNow]

Indeed, and point completely taken. Thanks for the clarification, Moo.

[tar]

iNOW and moo,

 

I need to provide quantitative data. This is difficult. As seen by the study cited, the setup of the trial, introduced quite a number of conditions, that separted the IP tested, from the 30 seconds of prayer that Clairvoyant was talking about. The prayers in the study were said on behalf of strangers, which is not the same thing as a bedside prayer. The patients were informed or not informed that they may or may not be prayed for by strangers. There was no mention of what effects this notice or lack of notice had on believers as opposed to non-believing patients, and there was no possible way to stop somebody from praying for a group, or prove that nobody snuck an undocumented prayer in for somebody that wasn't supposed to be prayed for. Basically, the holistic effects of bedside prayer by a loved one, was not tested.

 

I do not have the resources to set up a trial, nor do I think that the prayer, by itself, is what has real effect on a situation. My hypothesis is that prayer by a loved one, is more effective than lint picking in helping the patient.

 

I would have to establish scientifically that having somebody at your bedside, to watch over you and make sure the equipment was working, and alert the nurses if you were looking a bit yellow or something, was better at avoiding complications than not having a loving eye peeled.

 

I would then have to establish scientifically that wishing the patient would recover without complications would increase the likelyhood that you, the loved one, or a surragate would be present to monitor the situation.

 

I would then have to prove that praying for an outcome, correlated with a desire for the outcome.

 

I would then have to prove that desire for the outcome is correlated to the loved one taking actions consistent with increased likelyhood of the outcome.

 

If successful in establishing the correlations scientifically, I would then need to find if picking lint, or praying was more effective at focusing ones will on an outcome.

 

And that would just be to check out, one possible effect of prayer on the situation. There could still be other lines to check out.

 

Regards, TAR

[mooeypoo]

iNOW and moo,

 

I need to provide quantitative data. This is difficult. As seen by the study cited, the setup of the trial, introduced quite a number of conditions, that separted the IP tested, from the 30 seconds of prayer that Clairvoyant was talking about. The prayers in the study were said on behalf of strangers, which is not the same thing as a bedside prayer. The patients were informed or not informed that they may or may not be prayed for by strangers. There was no mention of what effects this notice or lack of notice had on believers as opposed to non-believing patients, and there was no possible way to stop somebody from praying for a group, or prove that nobody snuck an undocumented prayer in for somebody that wasn't supposed to be prayed for. Basically, the holistic effects of bedside prayer by a loved one, was not tested.

Yes, it was, it just failed.

 

I do not have the resources to set up a trial, nor do I think that the prayer, by itself, is what has real effect on a situation. My hypothesis is that prayer by a loved one, is more effective than lint picking in helping the patient.

Good. Provide evidence.

 

Specifically in light of the fact that evidence were produced *AGAINST* your own statement, which means you now are in dire need of providing evidence to support your claim.

 

I would have to establish scientifically that having somebody at your bedside, to watch over you and make sure the equipment was working, and alert the nurses if you were looking a bit yellow or something, was better at avoiding complications than not having a loving eye peeled.

You are moving the goal post and changing the issue at hand.

 

We are discussing the effect of prayer, not the effect of someone taking care of you next to bed. Of course someone taking care of you is helpful, but that does not mean prayer is helpful, or all people who pray take care of you, or that all those who take care of you pray.

 

Don't change the subject,tar. You speak of prayer, stick with prayer.

 

I would then have to establish scientifically that wishing the patient would recover without complications would increase the likelyhood that you, the loved one, or a surragate would be present to monitor the situation.

Read iNow's post, it seems you are proven wrong with that assessment.

 

Moreover, check this site out: http://whatstheharm.net/ it showcases real instances (quite a lot, sadly) of people that not only did prayer and other "holistic" medicine/treatment/phenomena/whatever did not help, but actually caused HARM to.

 

 

I would then have to prove that praying for an outcome, correlated with a desire for the outcome.

 

You have a simple claim: That prayer is efficient. You can test this claim empirically.

 

Tests WERE conducted about this claim, all failed.

Not just one test, many tests.

All failed.

 

As far as empirical science is concerned, this is a moot issue. If you think otherwise, you will not convince us by reiterating what you *THINK*, you will only convince us by showing a proper scientific experiment.

 

I would then have to prove that desire for the outcome is correlated to the loved one taking actions consistent with increased likelyhood of the outcome.

And watch out from these goal-post shifts you do there. This above claim is *NOT* the claim in question. You are being unfair. No one said that a person at your bedside is not effective. We are saying that PRAYERS are not effective. By changing the claim slightly, you're forcing it to fit your conclusion.

 

That's not science.

 

 

If successful in establishing the correlations scientifically, I would then need to find if picking lint, or praying was more effective at focusing ones will on an outcome.

 

And that would just be to check out, one possible effect of prayer on the situation. There could still be other lines to check out.

 

Regards, TAR

The correlation will only be accepted if it's logical (hence, do not shift the goal post, stick with the claim) and if it's properly supported by evidence.

 

Until that happens, you claim is not supported by science, and since the counter-claim (taht prayers do NOT help) actually IS supported by science, the counter claim "wins" the argument here. Realistically, it was SHOWN that prayer does not work. If you think otherwise, you need to prove it.

 

~moo

[tar]

Mooeypoo,

 

I do not know what is stipulated and what is under discussion here.

 

Reasoning is no good without premises, and if I reason to a point using good stipulated premises, I would think the reasoning is sound. Evidently though this is more phisophical than scientific, by your reactions.

 

However, if there are details about the study, that show it is not directly addressing the situation Clairvoyant was talking about, you still say the study disproves my hypothesis.

This is very weird and disturbing to me. Are you after the "truth"?

 

Regards, TAR

[padren]

Mooeypoo,

 

Where has it been proven that prayer does not help?

 

Regards, TAR

 

The reason this is flawed, and the reason I used lint as an example, is what I call the "white noise effect" when it comes to unproven claims. When you assert a hypothesis and arguments for that hypothesis, you need to run through the standard critical thinking counter arguments. In this case, the argument you are proposing is that it hasn't been proven that prayer doesn't help, therefore you see that as somehow boosting the case for prayer.

 

You need of course to do the logical fallacy checks, but the "white noise effect" is you have to apply your assertion to arguments you yourself consider to have no merit, and see if it boosts those arguments in the same manner as the one you are arguing.

 

I used lint as a "white noise effect" test subject, iNow likes leprechauns it seems, but it's the same deal: test your logic on other arguments and if it is equally beneficial to all of them, then it has no specific merit to your case. If it can apply to all claims that drone on in the "white noise background of random theories" including those that run counter to your claim it has no specific value to your own.

 

Case in point:

 

Where has it been proven that picking lint does not help?

 

Where has it been proven that stepping over cracks in the sidewalk does not help?

 

Where has it been proven that whistling does not help?

 

Where has it been proven that abstaining from prayer does not help?

 

 

Your argument has as much value to all of those assertions as it does to your own, therefore it has no value at all towards yours. When someone tries to convert me to Judaism or Christianity or Buddhism and uses a 'leap of faith' argument, naturally I apply the white noise effect test to see if the 'leap of faith' argument could also apply to Islam, Scientology, and other religious belief systems that run counter to the one asserted along with the 'leap of faith' argument. If the argument equally applies to those, even though they make claims that run counter to the original - then it has no beneficial merit in consideration of the original claim. That's how you avoid believing the first thing that comes along and can take more care and precision in the information you place value in.

 

 

 

Next: To the challenge - it's already been demonstrated your call of fallacy was invalid, and I do get you may have not understood the purpose of the comparison but I do hope it is more clear with what I stated above.

Secondarily, you did not actually speak in favor of prayer, just against the comparison. If you want to try again, feel free to post to such.

 

 

Edit: For the record I do want to be especially clear: You can say it just feels to you like prayer is beneficial, and I would honestly respect that. That is a personal view and not a scientific claim and as long as you left it in the context of a personal view - you'll get no argument from me whatsoever. The moment you try to communicate and share arguments that support your personal view that do not hold up under scientific scrutiny, I will scrutinize those shared arguments. In that light I am not attacking your religious views as those are personal to you and I respect your right to feel anything your life experience tells you is true. I am only picking apart your shared arguments as any information that enters the realm of shared knowledge (regardless of how large or small the number of people with which it is shared) must be scrutinized as vast amounts of miss-information and conflicting information enter the realm of shared knowledge every day and science itself could not function or give us the gains we have achieved as a species without that scrutiny. That vast amount of conflicting and unsubstantiated information btw, is what I call the "white noise" of background information - from which your claims must stand out and apart from. Otherwise you are just another voice in a sea of voices of conflicting claims.

Edited August 24, 2009 by padren

[iNow]

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

In the study, the researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.

 

The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.

 

The researchers asked the members of three congregations — St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City — to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names.

 

The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."

 

Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not.

 

In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for — 59 percent — suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain.

 

<...>

 

The study also found that more patients in the uninformed prayer group — 18 percent — suffered major complications, like heart attack or stroke, compared with 13 percent in the group that did not receive prayers.

[bombus]

Magic could possibly exist if 'willpower' is able to cause quantum wave function collapse and/or influence which parallel reality one enters. Most practitioners of magic beleive that all the spells/rituals etc are just to cement a thought into the subconscious and that its all just willpower really. They also believe positive (or negative) thinking to be a form of magic.

 

They can't do 'Bigby's Interposing Hand' though...

 

On another vein, there are the thoughts of Frank Tipler (mathematical physicist and cosmologist). Below from wiki:

 

In his controversial 1994 book The Physics of Immortality,[4][5][6] Tipler claims to provide a mechanism for immortality and the resurrection of the dead consistent with the known laws of physics, provided by a computer intelligence he terms the Omega Point and which he identifies with God. The line of argument is that the evolution of intelligent species will enable scientific progress to grow exponentially, eventually enabling control over the universe even on the largest possible scale.

 

...In more recent works, Tipler says that the existence of the Omega Point is required to avoid the violation of the known laws of physics.

 

According to George Ellis's review of Tipler's book in the journal Nature, Tipler's book on the Omega Point is "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline",[5] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating flaws in Tipler's thesis.[7] On the other hand, David Deutsch (who pioneered the field of quantum computers), confirms that Tipler's basic concept of the physics of an Omega Point is correct.

Edited August 24, 2009 by bombus

[mooeypoo]

Maybe, but willpower isn't magic and positive thinking isn't prayer. We need to be specific when we define the claims we want to test, otherwise we're being too broad and subjective, and can easily fall into the trap of confirmation bias.

 

Positive thinking may be what is behind the actual effect of (if it has any) prayers, but that does not mean prayers in themselves are the effective thing.

 

Willpower and imagination may be the effective source behind some magic practices but that is not to say magic itself is real.

 

It's very important to keep the claim itself accurate and concise exactly for this reason. When you test, you want to know the actual underlying reason, and not just to confirm a pre-existing bias for or against the claim you're making.

 

~moo

[bombus]

Maybe, but willpower isn't magic and positive thinking isn't prayer. We need to be specific when we define the claims we want to test, otherwise we're being too broad and subjective, and can easily fall into the trap of confirmation bias.

 

Positive thinking may be what is behind the actual effect of (if it has any) prayers, but that does not mean prayers in themselves are the effective thing.

 

Willpower and imagination may be the effective source behind some magic practices but that is not to say magic itself is real.

 

It's very important to keep the claim itself accurate and concise exactly for this reason. When you test, you want to know the actual underlying reason, and not just to confirm a pre-existing bias for or against the claim you're making.

 

~moo

 

Yes, but I am thinking more that if willpower/positive thinking/prayer alone could affect the physical realm (even by tiny amounts) then it would qualify as magic vis-a-vis current scientific thinking.

 

Also, if we are living in a grand simulation (c/f Tipler & Bostrom) then magic would also be possible in our reality.

[mooeypoo]

bombus, I see what you're saying but my only contention with that would be that when something is explainable by science, it is no longer "magic". It's science.

 

We tend to define things we don't understand as "magic" but that doesn't mean they're supernatural or out of our realm of knowledge.. when we do explain them, they stop being "magic" and start being science. If that's the case, then the entire thinking of "magic" as a separate entity is flawed, isn't it? If eventually all "magic" turns science, then instead of calling it magic, we can just say it is, indeed explainable by science and actually take the steps to attempt that explanation.

 

~moo

[john5746]

I said no, but if magic is something that exists in the ignorant mind, then yes there is and will always be magic.

[bombus]

bombus, I see what you're saying but my only contention with that would be that when something is explainable by science, it is no longer "magic". It's science.

 

We tend to define things we don't understand as "magic" but that doesn't mean they're supernatural or out of our realm of knowledge.. when we do explain them, they stop being "magic" and start being science. If that's the case, then the entire thinking of "magic" as a separate entity is flawed, isn't it? If eventually all "magic" turns science, then instead of calling it magic, we can just say it is, indeed explainable by science and actually take the steps to attempt that explanation.

 

~moo

 

For the most part I agree with you. This is the argument that if ghosts exist they must be a natural phenomenon therefore not supernatural.

 

However, there are things that science can never explain, because they are fundamentally not scientific questions and so a belief in the 'supernatural' is perhaps equally as valid as anything else. One such question is 'why is there anything at all'. Science cannot answer this - and will never be able to unless it becomes totally entwined with subjective personal experience - which is what 'real' magic (as opposed to Dungeons and Dragons magic) is all about. Belief is Everything (and all that).

[The Clairvoyant]

Many thanks for all the arguments against prayer and the 'prove it' requests. It reminds me much of how I felt when I read Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion'. He put up some really good evidence, where I kept thinking 'he's got a point' but at the end of the book I just felt that he still hadn't proved there was no God. In fact by the end all it boiled down to was 'there probably isn't'.

 

That's much the same as how i'm feeling reading this thread.

 

I know you guys are probably right. There is no logical reason to believe in God or the power of prayer. So as a newbie in the world of science would I be right in thinking that scientists in general discount the idea completely that there just 'might be' ? If not, why don't they ? It has been said above that many scientists (some on this board ?) do believe and i'd like to hear more from them.

 

They may not have the proof, they may not be able to pass the tests given and yet they still believe. Why as a scientist would you still do that ?

[mooeypoo]

For the most part I agree with you. This is the argument that if ghosts exist they must be a natural phenomenon therefore not supernatural.

I completely agree.

 

This is also why the existence of ghosts or anything else "supernatural" is testable by science, and can be judged scientifically.

 

However, there are things that science can never explain, because they are fundamentally not scientific questions and so a belief in the 'supernatural' is perhaps equally as valid as anything else. One such question is 'why is there anything at all'. Science cannot answer this - and will never be able to unless it becomes totally entwined with subjective personal experience - which is what 'real' magic (as opposed to Dungeons and Dragons magic) is all about. Belief is Everything (and all that).

I don't know if I would say those are things science "can't explain", I would say those are things taht aren't really in the realm of science. Those aren't empirical questions per say, those are more philosophical questions that can be answered subjectively on the most part.

 

Since there's not a lot of ways to separate the subjective answers from any possible objective truth in these questions, they don't belong in the realm of science, and fall under philosophy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I know you guys are probably right. There is no logical reason to believe in God or the power of prayer. So as a newbie in the world of science would I be right in thinking that scientists in general discount the idea completely that there just 'might be' ? If not, why don't they ? It has been said above that many scientists (some on this board ?) do believe and i'd like to hear more from them.

I know some in the forum will disagree with me, but here's my take on it: Some things are not a matter of logic, they are a matter of belief. If the belief in God is something you find rewarding, and if it doesn't hurt anyone else or makes you follow archaic rules that have the potential of harming others or society as a whole, then I don't see anything wrong with it at all.

 

We all do subjective things and we all have a subjective "part" in us that defies logic. It can be certain beliefs or certain actions we choose to do, and whatever it is, we sometimes do them just because we like doing them.

 

The only situation where the belief - in God, in ghosts, in supernatural abilities, etc - comes to a clash with science is when you try to think about those scientifically. *IF* you consider these issues under the scientific method, critically, many of them have a physical problem. They are either not proven or proven not to exist. So, if you insert them into scientific operation, you will run into a problem. If you follow these beliefs while knowing they might not be "rational" or fully "logical" but choose to do so regardless (and, again, while you do not hurt or harm others) then by all means, who's business is it?

 

They may not have the proof, they may not be able to pass the tests given and yet they still believe. Why as a scientist would you still do that ?

Science as a whole does not go by beliefs. Scientists might, because they're human. The scientific method is meant to strip off any biases (or at least as many as possible) from the human component, that is prone to biases, and deliver an empirical methodology to judge reality.

 

That's why when you do science, you follow the scientific method, and when you practice faith, you don't.

 

The only important point here in all of this, is to make sure you separate the two completely. Do science when it's science, and faith when it's faith, but do not mix the two, that's a recipe for fallacies and confirmation bias.

 

~moo

[bombus]

Many thanks for all the arguments against prayer and the 'prove it' requests. It reminds me much of how I felt when I read Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion'. He put up some really good evidence, where I kept thinking 'he's got a point' but at the end of the book I just felt that he still hadn't proved there was no God. In fact by the end all it boiled down to was 'there probably isn't'.

 

That's much the same as how i'm feeling reading this thread.

 

I know you guys are probably right. There is no logical reason to believe in God or the power of prayer. So as a newbie in the world of science would I be right in thinking that scientists in general discount the idea completely that there just 'might be' ? If not, why don't they ? It has been said above that many scientists (some on this board ?) do believe and i'd like to hear more from them.

 

They may not have the proof, they may not be able to pass the tests given and yet they still believe. Why as a scientist would you still do that ?

 

I think Dawkins is great, and I totally agree with him that there is no need for God in evolution and science can explain just about everything without the need for intervention from supernatural entities - but ultimately I think he may well be wrong that there is no 'God' (note the inverted commas).

 

I think the fact that the universe exists at all HAS to have a spiritual (for want of a better word) reason - and cannot ultimately have an objective scientific one. I think INTENTION had to play a part in its initial existence, and that requires a consciousness.

 

I think the big bang (or whatever happened to start it all off) could have been the result of a 'supernatural' entity. Maybe the universe itself is that entity - which makes the whole thing tortological perhaps - but I suspect that's the way it works - everything is contained neatly within itself. I have a feeling mobius strips give us a clue!

 

Although I am sure to be accused of pseudoscience or philosophy (and perhaps I can't really argue with that at this stage in developments) it may be worth looking up the theories of Frank Tippler. Very interesting indeed!

 

Also look up Stuart Hammeroff and Amit Goswami.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I completely agree.

 

 

Science as a whole does not go by beliefs.

 

Mmm. Some argue that fundamentally science is very much based on beliefs, although I agree it's not MEANT to, but HAS to. I think the key issue is that they are not unshakeable beliefs as they can usually be proven wrong via experiment (even if only theoretically).

 

However, some scientific beliefs may be harder to shake than others as interpretation of results plays a major role.

Edited August 24, 2009 by bombus
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

I agree, bombus, but that's more because of the humans DOING the science than it is because of the scientific method itself.

 

The self-correctiveness of science, the method of experimentation, the critical nature of peer review -- all those serve as checks and balances to try to make science results as empirical as possible *DESPITE* human innate tendency towards subjectivity.

 

So I think I agree with you on the broad idea, bobmus, I just think we should separate the people from the method.

[iNow]

Many thanks for all the arguments against prayer and the 'prove it' requests. It reminds me much of how I felt when I read Richard Dawkins book 'The God Delusion'. He put up some really good evidence, where I kept thinking 'he's got a point' but at the end of the book I just felt that he still hadn't proved there was no God. In fact by the end all it boiled down to was 'there probably isn't'.

Well, good. That means you read it accurately. Dawkins was not attempting to disprove god, since that is nearly impossible (much like the argument from Bertrand Russell which is now summarized and commonly known as "Russell's Teapot").

 

There probably is no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

 

 

 

 

The only important point here in all of this, is to make sure you separate the two completely. Do science when it's science, and faith when it's faith, but do not mix the two, that's a recipe for fallacies and confirmation bias.

It's also a recipe for cognitive dissonance, forced rationalizations, as well as inconsistent applications of reason and a suspension of scientific values when discussing these beliefs.

[tar]

Thanks to all for your posts.

 

And keeping me honest. I tend to carry my logic far past the point, without properly inspecting the bridges from conclusion to next premise.

 

I don't do the white noise test, at least not rigorously.

 

I am just learning that this is indeed a science board, and scientific method must be adhered to, inorder to reach any valuable conclusions.

 

Mooeypoo,

 

I am not so sure that the subjective view and the scientific view need to be studied separately. Perhaps the two are more compatible than they seem.

 

I accept that the studies show that indeed there is no Magic in prayer. That is to say, that congregations, cannot, by uttering words to themselves affect the health of a stranger. There is no mechanism through which this can be accomplished. If there were, then prayer would not have failed the test. My argument is based around looking for a mechanism by which prayer indeed might affect reality. And in my search, I found found human will. I surmised that if human will can affect reality, which I take as stipulated, then a rather easy link between praying for something to happen, and willing it to happen, could be made, without too much fuss. Here I throw in an untested bit, that willing something to be so, will actually result in the required actions and manipulations of reality needed to actually affect reality in a manner that will result in the desired outcome. After applying the white noise test, I find I may be assumming too much. In fact, the fact that the prayer was said in the first place, could easily cause the willer to leave it the hands of God, expect a miracle, and NOT take the required scientifically proven actions. My mechanism would only be sure to work, if the prayer was said, set the will of the prayer toward the desired outcome, and was followed by actually changing the situation in scientifically proven ways. I can not provide a scientific reason for this part of the mechanism to work. I can just guess, or hope that consciously or subconsciously the sayer of the prayer would do things and cause others around, to do things, that would help.

 

But still, even though my hypothesis is weak, and I will discard it, for the moment, I would like to keep open the possibility that prayer is a part of a mechanism, that is actually scientifically definable. It may involve laws, and institutions, governments, religions, love, positive thinking, human wills and subjective thoughts of ones connection to the human race, the universe and an immortal spirit of some kind. But if it is a mechanism, a real mechanism, involving molecules that when put together, exhibit some emergent properties (humans,) then we can and should be able to approach it all, scientifically.

 

Regards, TAR

[enerjii]

the power of intention, sensing, focus, energy and movement and the skill of the mancer, the reader, the diviner . . . . connecting with energy points that which can be seen and unseen, . . . sensed and rhythmically and harmoniously connected with

[iNow]

the power of intention, sensing, focus, energy and movement and the skill of the mancer, the reader, the diviner . . . . connecting with energy points that which can be seen and unseen, . . . sensed and rhythmically and harmoniously connected with

 

Erm... There are three primary things which your post is missing. 1) Verbs; 2) Relevant points; and 3) Citations.

 

 

Is it possible you clicked the Submit Reply before you intended to, and that you have more to offer? If not, then please... just stop now.