I apologize in advance if the subject has been done to death, but does prayer also seem pointless to the majority of atheists who post here? I don't mean for yourselves, of course it is pointless to pray to a god that you are certain doesn't exist, I mean pointless even if you do believe in the Christian god?
If the Christian god is omnipotent and is truly the Alpha and Omega to his followers, it reasonably follows that he is omniscient. If he is omniscient then he is prescient. If he is prescient he knows every single event that will happen unto the end of time.
Absolute knowledge is what I mean, knowledge of events that is completely and wholly immutable. Not a particle can change its position in the universe that the Christian god did not already foresee.
So will prayer change a future that is already written and known down to the smallest immutable event by the omnipotent Christian god?
I know this subject is interwoven with the illusion of free will, but I was hoping to address just prayer. May not be possible to separate the two though.
You are assuming that prayer is for requests.
Give me money, give me good health, let my loved one survive the accident, let me win a game, give me strength.
Anyone with any grasp on statistics and an intellectual honesty to themselves will realise that request prayers are never answered. Otherwise we would have measurable statistics that prove prayer works, no only that we will have concrete proof with regards to which god answers prayer.
Of course, compartmentalisation can allow a person to not engage in critical thought with regards to the obvious issue of statistics not showing any difference for prayed for events.
But I presume there are other reasons for prayer. All of which could be performed towards any imaginary "friend"
The thanks prayer
The "be the best friend I never had" and listen to my ramblings prayer. (a one sided conversation, much like a diary journal)
Imagination is a powerful thing. Sportspeople use visualisation all the time. I've done it playing pool, made many shots in my head, saw it played out, and could "see" if it looked odd, I used it to adjust my shot and saw that it had much value.
So a person can imagine having a conversation with an imaginary friend (god, Jesus, et all) and it can seem very real to them. They then think they have a very special personal relationship. When things do go well in their life they imagine that god is blessing them for being a good person, a good friend, when things don't go well, it is because of chance or because god has a bigger plan for them. They feel special and loved.
So prayer is a tool, to allow the followers to believe that god is real and is their friend, to make them connect and want to please it. If I were wanting to make money out of religion, I would certainly advise my "customers" to pray often.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farmzrace.com%2Fcej%2FCheapShots%2Fhow-prayer.jpg&hash=ca0e70b350cfa220340e51d67deb0aa8a652ac59)
I think that sums it up rather well.
But honestly, I think it does have, as most things religious or "spiritual", a pseudo effect. It makes a person feel like they have done something, when in fact they have done nothing ("the least I could do", indeed). But beyond this "feel good", it's useless, in my opinion.
Quote from: Stevil on July 24, 2012, 12:43:14 AM
You are assuming that prayer is for requests.
Give me money, give me good health, let my loved one survive the accident, let me win a game, give me strength.
Anyone with any grasp on statistics and an intellectual honesty to themselves will realise that request prayers are never answered. Otherwise we would have measurable statistics that prove prayer works, no only that we will have concrete proof with regards to which god answers prayer.
Of course, compartmentalisation can allow a person to not engage in critical thought with regards to the obvious issue of statistics not showing any difference for prayed for events.
But I presume there are other reasons for prayer. All of which could be performed towards any imaginary "friend"
The thanks prayer
The "be the best friend I never had" and listen to my ramblings prayer. (a one sided conversation, much like a diary journal)
Imagination is a powerful thing. Sportspeople use visualisation all the time. I've done it playing pool, made many shots in my head, saw it played out, and could "see" if it looked odd, I used it to adjust my shot and saw that it had much value.
So a person can imagine having a conversation with an imaginary friend (god, Jesus, et all) and it can seem very real to them. They then think they have a very special personal relationship. When things do go well in their life they imagine that god is blessing them for being a good person, a good friend, when things don't go well, it is because of chance or because god has a bigger plan for them. They feel special and loved.
So prayer is a tool, to allow the followers to believe that god is real and is their friend, to make them connect and want to please it. If I were wanting to make money out of religion, I would certainly advise my "customers" to pray often.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything that you said, and I was referring to materialistic prayers, thanks for pointing that out. The placebo effect of prayer is one that I can't deny, I've felt it myself.
My thought was how can an otherwise rational creature (I'm assuming that at least some Christians are rational outside of religion) not see the fallacy of influencing a future that is already written and cannot be changed?
Compartmentalization is the obvious cheap choice, and simply not thinking about the process certainly works for folks who can do that. But they must have other ways of coping with the paradox.
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 24, 2012, 12:21:08 AM
So will prayer change a future that is already written and known down to the smallest immutable event by the omnipotent Christian god?
Dear Jesus,
Please change the natural order of things to my favor.
Love,
Hismikeness
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 24, 2012, 01:01:53 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with anything that you said, and I was referring to materialistic prayers, thanks for pointing that out. The placebo effect of prayer is one that I can't deny, I've felt it myself.
My thought was how can an otherwise rational creature (I'm assuming that at least some Christians are rational outside of religion) not see the fallacy of influencing a future that is already written and cannot be changed?
Compartmentalization is the obvious cheap choice, and simply not thinking about the process certainly works for folks who can do that. But they must have other ways of coping with the paradox.
Here is an interesting article that I found. Written by theists. Experiments on Distant Intercessory Prayer (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=649475)
They set out to measure the effects of distant prayer, but in formulating their experiment plan they gave up.
QuoteWe conclude that research on the effects of religion and spirituality on health should avoid attempting to validate God through scientific methods.
It is an extremely long article, but well written and easily understandable for a non theist.
They ask some very valid and important questions,
Quote
Is the amount of prayer important? Is the type of prayer important? The form? The duration? The frequency? The level of fervency? The entity to whom it is directed? The number of prayers per unit of time? Does the number of intercessors matter? Does a team vs individual intercession method matter? Does the faith tradition of the intercessor and/or intercessee matter? Does the power of the intercessor matter? Do the beliefs and experiences of the intercessor and/or intercessee matter? Does the worthiness of the intercessor and/or intercessee matter?
but I feel they give up too quickly.
Quote
This list, unfortunately, generated questions of its own: If type or form is important, just how many types or forms are there? On what basis would you distinguish them? If "fervency" is important, how would you ever measure it to be able to manipulate it? The same is true if the power or worthiness of the intercessor is important: how would you ever measure them?
Of course these are valid questions, but I feel they ought to focus on a high level rather than to know all the little details.
If they can prove, statistically, that prayer works, then they can do further experiments to workout the subtleties and hence improve the effectiveness of prayer. Need to start from somewhere.
A fortune could be made if someone produces a guidebook to effective prayer, backed up by independently performed and verified experiments with supporting data.
They come up with further defeatist excuses
Quote
The epistemology that governs prayer (and all matters of faith) is separate from that which governs nature. Why, then, attempt to explicate it as if it were a controllable, natural phenomenon?
But if this were true, then this alone proves that request prayer does not work. If we can't control nature e.g. health, by prayer then prayer is not answered in a natural, measurable way.
They also state, because they don't have theories on how certain aspects of prayer work that they shouldn't bother trying to work it out
Quote
...the results of the study, no matter what the outcome, would be greatly reduced in interpretability
I think, at the high level, the reasoning doesn't matter. If they can come up with a recreatable experiment that shows statistically any advantage of prayer, then they are well and truly on a fascinating path. They would have proved prayer works, they could then move to the next stage and try to fine tune their understanding as to what are the important aspects of prayer. Understanding this will improve the effectiveness of prayer.
In search for finer detail, they get defeatist again
Quote
...we propose that multiple prayers are more efficacious than a single prayer. Our colleague asks the obvious question: Why should it matter? What logic, reasoning, model, or theory could answer our colleague's question? Unless we answer theologically, we cannot answer at all
I don't agree with this. Experimental science does not have to know the why. It can simply indicate that one factor provides consistently favorable results than another. e.g. a single prayer or multiple prayers. This on its own would be remarkable and would indicate that people ought to pray frequently in mass rather than one offs. The reasoning on why, is secondary.
In argument against measuring the effectiveness of prayer to one deity over another
Quote
What have we found if we discover a significant difference between Christian and Jewish intercessors? Validation of Christ? (No, as it turns out. The futility of empirically validating the mystical has been clear to many, including the deeply religious. At the turn of the last century, William James,12 philosopher and psychologist, asserted that "we cannot distinguish natural from supernatural effects; nor among the latter know which are favors of God, and which are counterfeit operations of the demon.") What are the theological and social implications of a study pitting Jewish intercessors against Moslem intercessors? (Would anyone dare such a study? Would the National Institutes of Health fund it? Would any institutional review board approve it?)
So here on the one hand they say they can't distinguish natural from supernatural effects, but they are ignoring the ability of statistics to show an improved probability of an event. One would assume if a god intervenes based on prayer then the probability will improve.
They also state that the statistics might be falsified by intervention of demons. If demons can hear your prayers and act on them, this may counter the benefits of praying to a god. Maybe people out to play it safe and not pray!
They then suggest best not to try this experiment because it might upset some people, which is ridiculous, how else are facts discovered. Are science to avoid working things out because it might upset someone with false knowledge?
Anyway, it is a very long article, I haven't read it all, but from what I have read, I do find it interesting.
Ultimately I think, they are looking for excuses on why not to test for improved probability based on prayer. I am sure they are just happy praying and believing that prayer works.
The main way that I conceive of prayer is communion with God, which results in one being "in tune" with God, which results in the best possible outcome.
I'll allow George Carlin on Praying (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=MeWZjTMnUAA&NR=1) to answer on my behalf.
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 24, 2012, 12:21:08 AM
I apologize in advance if the subject has been done to death, but does prayer also seem pointless to the majority of atheists who post here? I don't mean for yourselves, of course it is pointless to pray to a god that you are certain doesn't exist, I mean pointless even if you do believe in the Christian god?
If the Christian god is omnipotent and is truly the Alpha and Omega to his followers, it reasonably follows that he is omniscient. If he is omniscient then he is prescient. If he is prescient he knows every single event that will happen unto the end of time.
Absolute knowledge is what I mean, knowledge of events that is completely and wholly immutable. Not a particle can change its position in the universe that the Christian god did not already foresee.
So will prayer change a future that is already written and known down to the smallest immutable event by the omnipotent Christian god?
I know this subject is interwoven with the illusion of free will, but I was hoping to address just prayer. May not be possible to separate the two though.
The counter to this may be that the Christian god has already foreseen that he is going to grant these prayers.
Another strand of prayer is the 'Praise Him' bit. Why should this omnipotent being give a toss about being praised by a bunch of grubby, rebellious animals who do nasty sex things? Seems to me he should be a bit above that.
I was in my charity's HQ this morning, interacting with a seriously mentally handicapped young lady who doesn't understand too much of what's going on around her. I was being companionable, trying to cheer her up and allay some of her constant nervousness. She knows me, and I hope I brightened her morning somewhat. I hope she likes me, because that is a prerequisite of my being effective, but would I be hurt if she didn't? Do I need her good opinion for its own sake? No. Occasionally I do experience rejection from some of our people - does that hurt me, do I need their approval? No. Our relationship is above that.
Quote from: OldGit on July 24, 2012, 11:22:56 AM
Another strand of prayer is the 'Praise Him' bit. Why should this omnipotent being give a toss about being praised by a bunch of grubby, rebellious animals who do nasty sex things? Seems to me he should be a bit above that.
I was in my charity's HQ this morning, interacting with a seriously mentally handicapped young lady who doesn't understand too much of what's going on around her. I was being companionable, trying to cheer her up and allay some of her constant nervousness. She knows me, and I hope I brightened her morning somewhat. I hope she likes me, because that is a prerequisite of my being effective, but would I be hurt if she didn't? Do I need her good opinion for its own sake? No. Occasionally I do experience rejection from some of our people - does that hurt me, do I need their approval? No. Our relationship is above that.
The sum of human happiness is not a zero- sum game; by caring for others we benefit both them and enrich ourselves. In the context of shrinking State provision , and I suspect the ideological agenda of the present incumbents, I think the vulnerable and marginalised are going to become ever more reliant on the efforts of people like yourself.
I can understand the point of prayer in regards to becoming a better person. I know that my mom often prays for "strength" or "the grace to forgive" and things like that. I don't know if she literally thinks that god won't give her strength to overcome an obstacle, but I think it's a way of trying to solidify a commitment to do better and be better. I would liken it to how when I feel like I need to make a change, I'll often talk it over with my husband or my mom or one of my girlfriends. They probably aren't literally going to interceed and make me follow up on my commitments, although they will offer me support when I need it. But somehow saying it outloud to someone you care about and who cares about you sort of solidifies your commitment to yourself. That's my reading on those kinds of prayers.
Quote from: OldGit on July 24, 2012, 11:22:56 AM
Another strand of prayer is the 'Praise Him' bit.
I couldn't ever imagine telling my wife to praise and worship me. If she did, it would be a big turn off. I would be disappointed if my children worship and praise me. Loving someone means wanting that person to be happy, not wanting that person to worship me.
If the god is love then the god will not appreciate worship. Worship in my opinion represents failure with regards to love.
Yet another instance of the god that failed.
Quote from: Stevil on July 24, 2012, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: OldGit on July 24, 2012, 11:22:56 AM
Another strand of prayer is the 'Praise Him' bit.
I couldn't ever imagine telling my wife to praise and worship me. If she did, it would be a big turn off. I would be disappointed if my children worship and praise me. Loving someone means wanting that person to be happy, not wanting that person to worship me.
If the god is love then the god will not appreciate worship. Worship in my opinion represents failure with regards to love.
Yet another instance of the god that failed.
I never told my wife to worship me. It just happened naturally.
Quote from: En_Route on July 24, 2012, 09:35:13 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 24, 2012, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: OldGit on July 24, 2012, 11:22:56 AM
Another strand of prayer is the 'Praise Him' bit.
I couldn't ever imagine telling my wife to praise and worship me. If she did, it would be a big turn off. I would be disappointed if my children worship and praise me. Loving someone means wanting that person to be happy, not wanting that person to worship me.
If the god is love then the god will not appreciate worship. Worship in my opinion represents failure with regards to love.
Yet another instance of the god that failed.
I never told my wife to worship me. It just happened naturally.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg710.imageshack.us%2Fimg710%2F9922%2Frimshot.gif&hash=77d5ac078a921ed7ff6be629eed7a4f2ac98bb10)
Quote from: En_Route on July 24, 2012, 09:34:30 AM
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 24, 2012, 12:21:08 AM
I apologize in advance if the subject has been done to death, but does prayer also seem pointless to the majority of atheists who post here? I don't mean for yourselves, of course it is pointless to pray to a god that you are certain doesn't exist, I mean pointless even if you do believe in the Christian god?
If the Christian god is omnipotent and is truly the Alpha and Omega to his followers, it reasonably follows that he is omniscient. If he is omniscient then he is prescient. If he is prescient he knows every single event that will happen unto the end of time.
Absolute knowledge is what I mean, knowledge of events that is completely and wholly immutable. Not a particle can change its position in the universe that the Christian god did not already foresee.
So will prayer change a future that is already written and known down to the smallest immutable event by the omnipotent Christian god?
I know this subject is interwoven with the illusion of free will, but I was hoping to address just prayer. May not be possible to separate the two though.
The counter to this may be that the Christian god has already foreseen that he is going to grant these prayers.
And he has foreseen that that the person is going to pray. Still immutable since it doesn't change anything.
Quote from: Stevil on July 24, 2012, 01:50:52 AM
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 24, 2012, 01:01:53 AM
I don't necessarily disagree with anything that you said, and I was referring to materialistic prayers, thanks for pointing that out. The placebo effect of prayer is one that I can't deny, I've felt it myself.
My thought was how can an otherwise rational creature (I'm assuming that at least some Christians are rational outside of religion) not see the fallacy of influencing a future that is already written and cannot be changed?
Compartmentalization is the obvious cheap choice, and simply not thinking about the process certainly works for folks who can do that. But they must have other ways of coping with the paradox.
Here is an interesting article that I found. Written by theists. Experiments on Distant Intercessory Prayer (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=649475)
They set out to measure the effects of distant prayer, but in formulating their experiment plan they gave up.
Interesting thought, but controlling the variables would be a nightmare.
Do all subjects have the same strength of faith? How do you measure strength of faith?
Are they all praying straight to the Christian god or through an intermediary like Mary or Jesus (which can be argued as praying to an aspect of YHVH, but that would quickly become controversial)?
Are they each reading from a scripted prayer or do they all just make something up on the fly? Are they solo praying or do they have help? If they have help (a family or congregation) how much help do they have?
Do they pray at specific times or is it a random throughout the day thing? How do you know that prayer made any difference, in other words, how do you know that they would have not gotten better if they did not pray?
Etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.
How do you quantify the quality, the quantity and the sincerity of a prayer?
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 12:07:38 AM
Interesting thought, but controlling the variables would be a nightmare.
Do all subjects have the same strength of faith? How do you measure strength of faith?
Etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.
How do you quantify the quality, the quantity and the sincerity of a prayer?
This would be a discovery process.
First, just do some blanket experiments. Include many people of different faiths, different denominations, different styles, let them use their own personal styles.
If this shows no significant statistical advantage. Then for most people, in most cases prayer doesn't work.
If it shows that there is a significant statistical advantage then further experiments would be required to try to find important aspects. Obvious ones would be different faiths, quantity and frequency. The experiments might show no significant statistical advantage based on quantity and frequency, but it might show a significant statistical advantage based on a particular faith.
The aspects that show no advantage, could improve people's lives because then they wouldn't waste time on that aspect. E.g. repetition praying, or spending time to choose one faith over another etc.
If it is discovered that request prayer is not answered then people can stop performing that type or prayer.
In my mind, going under the premise that the universe operates in exactly the way it would as if there is no god, then any prayer which expects any type of physical response from a god is a prayer that won't "work".
The smart spiritual people keep everything in the conceptual realm, never crossing over into physical realm. E.g. the Catholic belief that bread and wine becomes blood and flesh but remains physically as bread and wine.
Thus the world is consistent with the no god view, and thus god can't be disproven but people can choose to believe anyway.
Quote from: Stevil on July 25, 2012, 12:45:47 AM
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 12:07:38 AM
Interesting thought, but controlling the variables would be a nightmare.
Do all subjects have the same strength of faith? How do you measure strength of faith?
Etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum.
How do you quantify the quality, the quantity and the sincerity of a prayer?
This would be a discovery process.
First, just do some blanket experiments. Include many people of different faiths, different denominations, different styles, let them use their own personal styles.
If this shows no significant statistical advantage. Then for most people, in most cases prayer doesn't work.
If it shows that there is a significant statistical advantage then further experiments would be required to try to find important aspects. Obvious ones would be different faiths, quantity and frequency. The experiments might show no significant statistical advantage based on quantity and frequency, but it might show a significant statistical advantage based on a particular faith.
The aspects that show no advantage, could improve people's lives because then they wouldn't waste time on that aspect. E.g. repetition praying, or spending time to choose one faith over another etc.
If it is discovered that request prayer is not answered then people can stop performing that type or prayer.
In my mind, going under the premise that the universe operates in exactly the way it would as if there is no god, then any prayer which expects any type of physical response from a god is a prayer that won't "work".
The smart spiritual people keep everything in the conceptual realm, never crossing over into physical realm. E.g. the Catholic belief that bread and wine becomes blood and flesh but remains physically as bread and wine.
Thus the world is consistent with the no god view, and thus god can't be disproven but people can choose to believe anyway.
To say that people who have pets live longer lives is fine. You can see the pet and you can easily find out how long a person lives. Two things that are easily quantifiable in a real, scientific sense. Even then it does not follow that the two things are related.
"Prayer" is a nebulous thing which may mean something different
to each member of the same congregation. There is no way to verify a "prayer" unless you force everyone to pray out loud and in range of recording equipment, otherwise I could claim to be praying while I'm really just rerunning I Love Lucy in my head.
If it is to be a completely unscientific survey then fair enough, but until you quantify what a "prayer" consists of, and are able to measure it in a clinical setting you can't even begin to study what the effects are, if any.
I'm sure that you realize that this is a complete derail btw... ;)
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 01:11:23 AM
To say that people who have pets live longer lives is fine. You can see the pet and you can easily find out how long a person lives. Two things that are easily quantifiable in a real, scientific sense. Even then it does not follow that the two things are related.
"Prayer" is a nebulous thing which may mean something different to each member of the same congregation. There is no way to verify a "prayer" unless you force everyone to pray out loud and in range of recording equipment, otherwise I could claim to be praying while I'm really just rerunning I Love Lucy in my head.
If it is to be a completely unscientific survey then fair enough, but until you quantify what a "prayer" consists of, and are able to measure it in a clinical setting you can't even begin to study what the effects are, if any.
I'm sure that you realize that this is a complete derail btw... ;)
I disagree
If it has been tested and is consistently recreatable that people whom have pets live longer, then I would state if a person wants to live longer then owning a pet may impact that goal.
Now, let's say a person decides to go out and buy themselves a pet turtle, in order to live longer. This does not guarantee that they will live longer, and it does not necessarily increase the probability that this person lives longer.
Without any knowledge of turtles and the correlation of owner's life longevity, it would seem a good choice to buy a pet (albeit a turtle) and it would be reasonable to suggest that this will increase the probability of living longer. Because on average, pet owners live longer.
If further studies are performed and they find out that pet turtle owners on average live shorter lives, then we would know that the person has shortened their life span by owning the turtle, thus it was the wrong choice. But they weren't to know, given the previous information, they made the right choice in buying a pet (but maybe it would have been wiser to purchase the most commonly owned pet type).
Now we take turtle ownership out of the previous data and this shows us a more significant increase in longevity based on non turtle pet ownership. Of course it would make sense, knowing that pet type is important, to test each of the most common pet types. Thus we are now getting closer to knowing the truth and understanding how a person can use pets to improve their longevity.
There is one case which might confuse us. That is in the case where the current demographics of pet ownership exactly equals a balance where +ve life expectancy pets and –ve life expectancy pets cancel each other out thus the result would be equal to the life expectancy of people whom don't own pets. If pet type does impact life expectancy then it would be much more likely to see an overall –ve or +ve effect than an exact balance. If doing a general test consistently shows a difference then we are onto something really interesting.
Same thing can be applied to prayer.
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 24, 2012, 11:36:03 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 24, 2012, 09:34:30 AM
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 24, 2012, 12:21:08 AM
I apologize in advance if the subject has been done to death, but does prayer also seem pointless to the majority of atheists who post here? I don't mean for yourselves, of course it is pointless to pray to a god that you are certain doesn't exist, I mean pointless even if you do believe in the Christian god?
If the Christian god is omnipotent and is truly the Alpha and Omega to his followers, it reasonably follows that he is omniscient. If he is omniscient then he is prescient. If he is prescient he knows every single event that will happen unto the end of time.
Absolute knowledge is what I mean, knowledge of events that is completely and wholly immutable. Not a particle can change its position in the universe that the Christian god did not already foresee.
So will prayer change a future that is already written and known down to the smallest immutable event by the omnipotent Christian god?
I know this subject is interwoven with the illusion of free will, but I was hoping to address just prayer. May not be possible to separate the two though.
The counter to this may be that the Christian god has already foreseen that he is going to grant these prayers.
And he has foreseen that that the person is going to pray. Still immutable since it doesn't change anything.
The ability to foresee everything doesn't mean cause and effect cease to exist. Let us assume that someone with magical powers can foresee that because I have written this post and given your personality, personal circumstances etc. you will respond to it and not simply ignore it; that does not mean that my writing this post is not a cause of you composing a reply and a cause of the form which your reply will take.
Quote from: ERThe ability to foresee everything doesn't mean cause and effect cease to exist.
No, but it must mean that god is bored out of his skull. Maybe that's why he loves having people burned and blown up and generally slaughtered - it's entertainment.
Quote from: OldGit on July 25, 2012, 10:36:09 AM
Quote from: ERThe ability to foresee everything doesn't mean cause and effect cease to exist.
No, but it must mean that god is bored out of his skull. Maybe that's why he loves having people burned and blown up and generally slaughtered - it's entertainment.
It's a question I never considered- what on earth ( sorry, not on earth) does he do all day?
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 10:39:33 AM
Quote from: OldGit on July 25, 2012, 10:36:09 AM
Quote from: ERThe ability to foresee everything doesn't mean cause and effect cease to exist.
No, but it must mean that god is bored out of his skull. Maybe that's why he loves having people burned and blown up and generally slaughtered - it's entertainment.
It's a question I never considered- what on earth ( sorry, not on earth) does he do all day?
Yes, especially because I've heard it said by many a Christian, "a day to God could be like a million years." :o
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 10:39:33 AM
It's a question I never considered- what on earth ( sorry, not on earth) does he do all day?
"he" is busy making souls and fusing them to embrios, he is busy watching us, he is busy listening to "our" prayers.
He awaits/causes our deaths and is busy judging us.
Because of course, it is all about us.
We are so special, all of creation, all of time, was for us ;D
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7256%2F7644661948_9ca461a6a6.jpg&hash=cdab19964f50215af9bb2fd77c07b8587f702742)
That's my take on prayer. I think it's just to make the person praying feel better -- either by feeling they have more control than they do, or hooked into something comforting, whatever. As long as we don't have laws compelling prayer, I'm fine with it.
Quote from: Stevil on July 25, 2012, 01:39:26 AM
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 01:11:23 AM
To say that people who have pets live longer lives is fine. You can see the pet and you can easily find out how long a person lives. Two things that are easily quantifiable in a real, scientific sense. Even then it does not follow that the two things are related.
"Prayer" is a nebulous thing which may mean something different to each member of the same congregation. There is no way to verify a "prayer" unless you force everyone to pray out loud and in range of recording equipment, otherwise I could claim to be praying while I'm really just rerunning I Love Lucy in my head.
If it is to be a completely unscientific survey then fair enough, but until you quantify what a "prayer" consists of, and are able to measure it in a clinical setting you can't even begin to study what the effects are, if any.
I'm sure that you realize that this is a complete derail btw... ;)
I disagree
If it has been tested and is consistently recreatable that people whom have pets live longer, then I would state if a person wants to live longer then owning a pet may impact that goal.
Now, let's say a person decides to go out and buy themselves a pet turtle, in order to live longer. This does not guarantee that they will live longer, and it does not necessarily increase the probability that this person lives longer.
Without any knowledge of turtles and the correlation of owner's life longevity, it would seem a good choice to buy a pet (albeit a turtle) and it would be reasonable to suggest that this will increase the probability of living longer. Because on average, pet owners live longer.
If further studies are performed and they find out that pet turtle owners on average live shorter lives, then we would know that the person has shortened their life span by owning the turtle, thus it was the wrong choice. But they weren't to know, given the previous information, they made the right choice in buying a pet (but maybe it would have been wiser to purchase the most commonly owned pet type).
Now we take turtle ownership out of the previous data and this shows us a more significant increase in longevity based on non turtle pet ownership. Of course it would make sense, knowing that pet type is important, to test each of the most common pet types. Thus we are now getting closer to knowing the truth and understanding how a person can use pets to improve their longevity.
There is one case which might confuse us. That is in the case where the current demographics of pet ownership exactly equals a balance where +ve life expectancy pets and –ve life expectancy pets cancel each other out thus the result would be equal to the life expectancy of people whom don't own pets. If pet type does impact life expectancy then it would be much more likely to see an overall –ve or +ve effect than an exact balance. If doing a general test consistently shows a difference then we are onto something really interesting.
Same thing can be applied to prayer.
What you propose is akin to the ice cream drowning fallacy. Just because there are more drowning deaths when ice cream sales are high doesn't mean that ice cream has anything to do with the drownings.
That some pet owners live longer than the norm doesn't mean that buying a pet will grant you a longer lifespan. I agree that studies regarding pet ownership and longevity are interesting but there are so many variables that the best that you will wind up with is a very general inferrence or probable trend.
Unless of course you can clone a set of humans and absolutely control their lives from birth to death. Then you would have something resembling a scientific study.
In order to conduct an experiment on whether or not prayer works the very first thing to be done is to define "prayer" rigidly enough to be studied. Saying that prayer is when a person prays is an extremely ill defined criteria. What defines a "prayer"?
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 09:46:31 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 25, 2012, 01:39:26 AM
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 01:11:23 AM
To say that people who have pets live longer lives is fine. You can see the pet and you can easily find out how long a person lives. Two things that are easily quantifiable in a real, scientific sense. Even then it does not follow that the two things are related.
"Prayer" is a nebulous thing which may mean something different to each member of the same congregation. There is no way to verify a "prayer" unless you force everyone to pray out loud and in range of recording equipment, otherwise I could claim to be praying while I'm really just rerunning I Love Lucy in my head.
If it is to be a completely unscientific survey then fair enough, but until you quantify what a "prayer" consists of, and are able to measure it in a clinical setting you can't even begin to study what the effects are, if any.
I'm sure that you realize that this is a complete derail btw... ;)
I disagree
If it has been tested and is consistently recreatable that people whom have pets live longer, then I would state if a person wants to live longer then owning a pet may impact that goal.
Now, let's say a person decides to go out and buy themselves a pet turtle, in order to live longer. This does not guarantee that they will live longer, and it does not necessarily increase the probability that this person lives longer.
Without any knowledge of turtles and the correlation of owner's life longevity, it would seem a good choice to buy a pet (albeit a turtle) and it would be reasonable to suggest that this will increase the probability of living longer. Because on average, pet owners live longer.
If further studies are performed and they find out that pet turtle owners on average live shorter lives, then we would know that the person has shortened their life span by owning the turtle, thus it was the wrong choice. But they weren't to know, given the previous information, they made the right choice in buying a pet (but maybe it would have been wiser to purchase the most commonly owned pet type).
Now we take turtle ownership out of the previous data and this shows us a more significant increase in longevity based on non turtle pet ownership. Of course it would make sense, knowing that pet type is important, to test each of the most common pet types. Thus we are now getting closer to knowing the truth and understanding how a person can use pets to improve their longevity.
There is one case which might confuse us. That is in the case where the current demographics of pet ownership exactly equals a balance where +ve life expectancy pets and –ve life expectancy pets cancel each other out thus the result would be equal to the life expectancy of people whom don't own pets. If pet type does impact life expectancy then it would be much more likely to see an overall –ve or +ve effect than an exact balance. If doing a general test consistently shows a difference then we are onto something really interesting.
Same thing can be applied to prayer.
What you propose is akin to the ice cream drowning fallacy. Just because there are more drowning deaths when ice cream sales are high doesn't mean that ice cream has anything to do with the drownings.
That some pet owners live longer than the norm doesn't mean that buying a pet will grant you a longer lifespan. I agree that studies regarding pet ownership and longevity are interesting but there are so many variables that the best that you will wind up with is a very general inferrence or probable trend.
Unless of course you can clone a set of humans and absolutely control their lives from birth to death. Then you would have something resembling a scientific study.
In order to conduct an experiment on whether or not prayer works the very first thing to be done is to define "prayer" rigidly enough to be studied. Saying that prayer is when a person prays is an extremely ill defined criteria. What defines a "prayer"?
There is some research which indicates a correlation between health benefits and pet ownership, taking into account co- factors such as age , income, sociability etc though the reasons for the linkage remain unclear. And of course a healthy scepticism needs to inform any discussion of medical research findings. There is plenty of social science research done which does not require anyone to regulate the lives of the human subjects. There has been a study done on testing the power of prayer which showed nil effect on the outcomes for medical patients.
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 10:31:34 AM
The ability to foresee everything doesn't mean cause and effect cease to exist. Let us assume that someone with magical powers can foresee that because I have written this post and given your personality, personal circumstances etc. you will respond to it and not simply ignore it; that does not mean that my writing this post is not a cause of you composing a reply and a cause of the form which your reply will take.
You are implying that you or I had a choice to post or not to post. If our actions are known beforehand we have no choice but to perform those actions. If we have no choice other than one set course, then that becomes an action, not a choice. We are actors in a film that has already been shot.
You cannot choose between the red pill or the blue pill if only the blue pill is available to you.
I would argue that the thing (creator) who caused the original motion is the only true cause and that free will is an illusion. Not an original argument I know, but it's one that I completely agree with.
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 10:08:26 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 10:31:34 AM
The ability to foresee everything doesn't mean cause and effect cease to exist. Let us assume that someone with magical powers can foresee that because I have written this post and given your personality, personal circumstances etc. you will respond to it and not simply ignore it; that does not mean that my writing this post is not a cause of you composing a reply and a cause of the form which your reply will take.
You are implying that you or I had a choice to post or not to post. If our actions are known beforehand we have no choice but to perform those actions. If we have no choice other than one set course, then that becomes an action, not a choice. We are actors in a film that has already been shot.
You cannot choose between the red pill or the blue pill if only the blue pill is available to you.
I would argue that the thing (creator) who caused the original motion is the only true cause and that free will is an illusion. Not an original argument I know, but it's one that I completely agree with.
Merely knowing advance in what someone will choose does not mean that they have not made a choice.
In my own view, free will cannot logically exist, irrespective of the existence of any alleged creator.
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 10:05:10 PM
There is some research which indicates a correlation between health benefits and pet ownership, taking into account co- factors such as age , income, sociability etc though the reasons for the linkage remain unclear. And of course a healthy scepticism needs to inform any discussion of medical research findings.
I am good with that.[/quote]There is plenty of social science research done which does not require anyone to regulate the lives of the human subjects.[/quote]Then it is really just an informed guess.
QuoteThere has been a study done on testing the power of prayer which showed nil effect on the outcomes for medical patients.
I am aware of at least one study with that finding, I simply question the methodology.
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 10:41:45 PM
Merely knowing advance in what someone will choose does not mean that they have not made a choice.
In my own view, free will cannot logically exist, irrespective of the existence of any alleged creator.
If you do not have a choice can you still make one?
On the other hand we may be wandering dangerously close to a semantic argument.
I agree that free will does not exist from either a secular or religious standpoint.
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 09:46:31 PM
What you propose is akin to the ice cream drowning fallacy. Just because there are more drowning deaths when ice cream sales are high doesn't mean that ice cream has anything to do with the drownings.
Unfortunately, I feel you are giving up too quickly.
Finding a correlation between drownings and ice cream sales is important.
It doesn't mean that drownings are because of ice cream sales but it can point to either one being the cause of the other or cause common to both.
In this case the common cause would be hot sunny days.
If there was found to be no correlation, then that in itself would be interesting as a person might think that hot sunny days ought to be a common cause, but the evidence would then suggest otherwise.
What I am suggesting is that if there is no difference in the probability of prayed for events compared to the probability of non prayed for events, then we are showing that in general, prayer does not work.
It might be the case that prayer does work but only in rare cases, maybe only prayer from some scientologists work. In the general tests the few that work might be insignificant thus might not show up with regards to a significant improvement of probability.
So maybe each organisation should be tested. Does prayer from Catholics work, how about from Hindus...
If we don't find any correlation then the majority of these prayers don't work.
If a person believed that request prayer works, I don't understand why they wouldn't research it more to find out how to improve the success rate.
Start broad and then fine tune, that's how scientists do it don't they?
Anyway, I am sure that no-one will find that request prayer works because:
1. There is no god
2. No one answers prayer
3. Even those that believe in gods that answer prayer, when pushed they come up with explainations as to why reality operates as if 1 and 2 are true.
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 10:41:45 PM
Merely knowing advance in what someone will choose does not mean that they have not made a choice.
In my own view, free will cannot logically exist, irrespective of the existence of any alleged creator.
If you do not have a choice can you still make one?
On the other hand we may be wandering dangerously close to a semantic argument.
I agree that free will does not exist from either a secular or religious standpoint.
I think we are probably verbally hair- splitting . I think choices are still choices even if they are predetermined.
But free will, the idea that we are ultimately responsible for our actions, just cannot be true.
Quote from: Stevil on July 25, 2012, 11:04:35 PM
Unfortunately, I feel you are giving up too quickly.
Finding a correlation between drownings and ice cream sales is important.
Finding the correlation between ice cream sales and drowning matters not a whit since the two things occur independently. Unless you are hoping to ban either ice cream sales or summertime. The correlation between more
an increase in people swimming and
drowning is the only correlation that matters, "ice cream sales" is completely incidental and unrelated to drowning, but feel free to chase that and ignore the more obvious correlations.
QuoteWhat I am suggesting is that if there is no difference in the probability of prayed for events compared to the probability of non prayed for events, then we are showing that in general, prayer does not work.
It might be the case that prayer does work but only in rare cases, maybe only prayer from some scientologists work. In the general tests the few that work might be insignificant thus might not show up with regards to a significant improvement of probability.
So maybe each organisation should be tested. Does prayer from Catholics work, how about from Hindus...
If we don't find any correlation then the majority of these prayers don't work.
Again, what constitutes a prayer?
Quote
If a person believed that request prayer works, I don't understand why they wouldn't research it more to find out how to improve the success rate.
Start broad and then fine tune, that's how scientists do it don't they?
Anyway, I am sure that no-one will find that request prayer works because:
1. There is no god
2. No one answers prayer
3. Even those that believe in gods that answer prayer, when pushed they come up with explainations as to why reality operates as if 1 and 2 are true.
My original reply was that controlling the variables would be a nightmare, a statement which I still firmly stand by. Are you arguing that it would not be?
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 11:25:43 PM
I think we are probably verbally hair- splitting . I think choices are still choices even if they are predetermined.
But free will, the idea that we are ultimately responsible for our actions, just cannot be true.
Agreed, I believe that we aiming for the same target, but I am still of the opinion that a choice is not a choice when the alternative is an illusion.
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 26, 2012, 12:00:46 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 11:25:43 PM
I think we are probably verbally hair- splitting . I think choices are still choices even if they are predetermined.
But free will, the idea that we are ultimately responsible for our actions, just cannot be true.
Agreed, I believe that we aiming for the same target, but I am still of the opinion that a choice is not a choice when the alternative is an illusion.
I think we do select between alternatives. If determinism is true then that choice is one we were always bound to make. If determinism is not true, then our choice is inherently random and unpredictable. Either way, the idea of free will is otiose.
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 26, 2012, 12:00:46 AM
I am still of the opinion that a choice is not a choice when the alternative is an illusion.
Do you believe that you can decide to make and cause events that are contrary to the physical laws of existence?
Do you think anything you do (even thinking) is not 100% bound to the physical laws of existence?
Are prayers pointless? almost certainly the answer must be yes. If God has a plan and every thing must exists in accordance with that plan, then, prayers will be answered if it fits with that plan. Any prayer that does not fit with that plan cannot be answered in the affirmative.
Quote from: markmcdaniel on July 26, 2012, 06:08:41 AM
Are prayers pointless? almost certainly the answer must be yes. If God has a plan and every thing must exists in accordance with that plan, then, prayers will be answered if it fits with that plan. Any prayer that does not fit with that plan cannot be answered in the affirmative.
No no no, there is a different pattern of positive responses to prayers for each person. You might get the prize on your 7th, 49th, 233rd and 312th prayer. A prayer may not get you what's wanted but it brings you closer to a win. It is possible that god is a spiteful bastard and enjoys granting wishes that bring you misfortune.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 26, 2012, 06:51:33 AM
Quote from: markmcdaniel on July 26, 2012, 06:08:41 AM
Are prayers pointless? almost certainly the answer must be yes. If God has a plan and every thing must exists in accordance with that plan, then, prayers will be answered if it fits with that plan. Any prayer that does not fit with that plan cannot be answered in the affirmative.
No no no, there is a different pattern of positive responses to prayers for each person. You might get the prize on your 7th, 49th, 233rd and 312th prayer. A prayer may not get you what's wanted but it brings you closer to a win. It is possible that god is a spiteful bastard and enjoys granting wishes that bring you misfortune.
And do not forget that God needs time to alter his plans. And its that God is a Mean, spiteful and capricious bastard.
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 11:25:43 PM
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 10:41:45 PM
Merely knowing advance in what someone will choose does not mean that they have not made a choice.
In my own view, free will cannot logically exist, irrespective of the existence of any alleged creator.
If you do not have a choice can you still make one?
On the other hand we may be wandering dangerously close to a semantic argument.
I agree that free will does not exist from either a secular or religious standpoint.
I think we are probably verbally hair- splitting . I think choices are still choices even if they are predetermined.
But free will, the idea that we are ultimately responsible for our actions, just cannot be true.
You seriously don't think people are able to make their own choices without a third party being involved?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 27, 2012, 06:42:55 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 11:25:43 PM
Quote from: Non Quixote on July 25, 2012, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 25, 2012, 10:41:45 PM
Merely knowing advance in what someone will choose does not mean that they have not made a choice.
In my own view, free will cannot logically exist, irrespective of the existence of any alleged creator.
If you do not have a choice can you still make one?
On the other hand we may be wandering dangerously close to a semantic argument.
I agree that free will does not exist from either a secular or religious standpoint.
I think we are probably verbally hair- splitting . I think choices are still choices even if they are predetermined.
But free will, the idea that we are ultimately responsible for our actions, just cannot be true.
You seriously don't think people are able to make their own choices without a third party being involved?
Sorry, but I don't understand your comment.
If we are able to make choices in any sense, which part of us does the deciding? It has been shown many times, by brain scans, that a decision is taken seconds before the conscious mind is aware of it. It seems that there is more than one 'person' inside every head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will)
Quote from: OldGit on July 27, 2012, 09:48:39 AM
If we are able to make choices in any sense, which part of us does the deciding? It has been shown many times, by brain scans, that a decision is taken seconds before the conscious mind is aware of it. It seems that there is more than one 'person' inside every head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will)
Well, the brain itself is deciding. Consciously becoming aware of that decision is just the peanut gallery applauding what the brain did.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 27, 2012, 03:35:21 PM
Well, the brain itself is deciding. Consciously becoming aware of that decision is just the peanut gallery applauding what the brain did.
The idea of the "soul", is it supposed to represent the conscious mind or the subconscious?
Quote from: StevilThe idea of the "soul", is it supposed to represent the conscious mind or the subconscious?
Exactly. When there are several independent / semi-independent entities all running in the same brain, who or what is
guilty of bad decisions made, which which goes to heaven / hell and what does
I/me refer to?
Quote from: Stevil on July 27, 2012, 08:15:37 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 27, 2012, 03:35:21 PM
Well, the brain itself is deciding. Consciously becoming aware of that decision is just the peanut gallery applauding what the brain did.
The idea of the "soul", is it supposed to represent the conscious mind or the subconscious?
I don't buy into the idea of the soul as a separate entity. The Greek word is "psuche", or psyche. It's just the mind, the phenomenon of consciousness and thought. That's my take, anyway.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 28, 2012, 01:42:55 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 27, 2012, 08:15:37 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 27, 2012, 03:35:21 PM
Well, the brain itself is deciding. Consciously becoming aware of that decision is just the peanut gallery applauding what the brain did.
The idea of the "soul", is it supposed to represent the conscious mind or the subconscious?
I don't buy into the idea of the soul as a separate entity. The Greek word is "psuche", or psyche. It's just the mind, the phenomenon of consciousness and thought. That's my take, anyway.
Not a dualist?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 28, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 28, 2012, 01:42:55 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 27, 2012, 08:15:37 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 27, 2012, 03:35:21 PM
Well, the brain itself is deciding. Consciously becoming aware of that decision is just the peanut gallery applauding what the brain did.
The idea of the "soul", is it supposed to represent the conscious mind or the subconscious?
I don't buy into the idea of the soul as a separate entity. The Greek word is "psuche", or psyche. It's just the mind, the phenomenon of consciousness and thought. That's my take, anyway.
Not a dualist?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 28, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Not a dualist?
Was I the only one reminded of The Simpsons.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 28, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Not a dualist?
When the body is dead, it's dead - that means the mind, soul, spirit, consciousness, etc. The only Christian hope for eternal life (IMHO) is resurrection.
I think prayers might give the illusion of control, i.e. that you can do something to affect an outcome you may not otherwise have the power to change. And it's not really surprising that this can occur given that human beings tend falsely assume they have 'magical' control even outside of prayers, i.e. good-luck rituals. Control, even if illusory, can be very comforting, and some might argue that the whole idea of consciousness is based on exactly this idea; that it is just an illusion of authorship. I personally think that this is the right idea, that consciousness is more of a post-hoc feeling of decisions already being processed, rather than an agent of decision making, but it's up for debate. (That dualism is just plain wrong, is less debatable)
But I also think that there is a danger when turning to prayer might not only be pointless (although perhaps comforting) but also counterproductive. I know people who spend nights praying for exam results when they could have been actually studying for it, or spend time praying for a smooth outcome when the time could have been spent trying to predict what can go wrong and preparing contingency plans. Uncertainty can be very troubling, and facing it head-on can be stressful. As a scientifically-minded individual, I like uncertainty because when there is uncertainty, there is knowledge to be discovered. But that mentality may not be for everyone.
Quote from: Synapse on July 29, 2012, 03:57:01 PM
I think prayers might give the illusion of control, i.e. that you can do something to affect an outcome you may not otherwise have the power to change. And it's not really surprising that this can occur given that human beings tend falsely assume they have 'magical' control even outside of prayers, i.e. good-luck rituals. Control, even if illusory, can be very comforting, and some might argue that the whole idea of consciousness is based on exactly this idea; that it is just an illusion of authorship. I personally think that this is the right idea, that consciousness is more of a post-hoc feeling of decisions already being processed, rather than an agent of decision making, but it's up for debate. (That dualism is just plain wrong, is less debatable)
But I also think that there is a danger when turning to prayer might not only be pointless (although perhaps comforting) but also counterproductive. I know people who spend nights praying for exam results when they could have been actually studying for it, or spend time praying for a smooth outcome when the time could have been spent trying to predict what can go wrong and preparing contingency plans. Uncertainty can be very troubling, and facing it head-on can be stressful. As a scientifically-minded individual, I like uncertainty because when there is uncertainty, there is knowledge to be discovered. But that mentality may not be for everyone.
I agree on pretty well all fronts. Of course religion can also generally engender a passivity and fatalism in society which often recommends itself to governing institutions- the opium of the people and so on.
Quote from: Synapse on July 29, 2012, 03:57:01 PM
I think prayers might give the illusion of control, i.e. that you can do something to affect an outcome you may not otherwise have the power to change. And it's not really surprising that this can occur given that human beings tend falsely assume they have 'magical' control even outside of prayers, i.e. good-luck rituals. Control, even if illusory, can be very comforting, and some might argue that the whole idea of consciousness is based on exactly this idea; that it is just an illusion of authorship. I personally think that this is the right idea, that consciousness is more of a post-hoc feeling of decisions already being processed, rather than an agent of decision making, but it's up for debate. (That dualism is just plain wrong, is less debatable)
But I also think that there is a danger when turning to prayer might not only be pointless (although perhaps comforting) but also counterproductive. I know people who spend nights praying for exam results when they could have been actually studying for it, or spend time praying for a smooth outcome when the time could have been spent trying to predict what can go wrong and preparing contingency plans. Uncertainty can be very troubling, and facing it head-on can be stressful. As a scientifically-minded individual, I like uncertainty because when there is uncertainty, there is knowledge to be discovered. But that mentality may not be for everyone.
That's interesting...but at what level does this 'authorship' occur? What's the difference between Skinner's superstitious pigeons and mammals of higher cognitive capacity?
(I'm another who's very interested in the subject)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 29, 2012, 04:38:16 PM
Quote from: Crow on July 29, 2012, 01:45:19 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 28, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Not a dualist?
Was I the only one reminded of The Simpsons.
???
Please elaborate?
Homer Simpson's soul - see this article: http://genealogyreligion.net/gandhis-dualism-and-homers-soul
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 29, 2012, 06:45:33 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 29, 2012, 04:38:16 PM
Quote from: Crow on July 29, 2012, 01:45:19 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 28, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Not a dualist?
Was I the only one reminded of The Simpsons.
???
Please elaborate?
Homer Simpson's soul - see this article: http://genealogyreligion.net/gandhis-dualism-and-homers-soul
I was thinking of the tomaco episode where homer goes around slapping people with a glove and challenging them to a dual, until he bumps into a southern gentleman who accepts his dual.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 29, 2012, 01:56:54 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 28, 2012, 06:42:39 PM
Not a dualist?
When the body is dead, it's dead - that means the mind, soul, spirit, consciousness, etc. The only Christian hope for eternal life (IMHO) is resurrection.
One step closer to atheism...
And to the OP, of course prayer is pointless.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 29, 2012, 04:40:52 PM
That's interesting...but at what level does this 'authorship' occur? What's the difference between Skinner's superstitious pigeons and mammals of higher cognitive capacity?
It's hard to say, really, at what level the perception of consciousness is at, particularly because it is difficult to judge what is conscious and what is not. I know that neuroscientists are working with philosophers to try to pinpoint the neural substrates that support the experience of consciousness, and there are increasingly more complex forms of conscious experience that are supported by more complex brain functions. So, for example, thalamocortical oscillations might enable 'synching' between different brain structures that creates a certain unified perception of an event, and this might make the human experience of consciousness richer than animals which don't have such a neurological feature. It can get pretty technical and the research is very ongoing, but is is pretty telling that there have been multiple experiments, using a variety of tasks, where brainwaves or neuronal activity that predicts your actions can be measured
before you actually can report your conscious desire to perform that action. Even aesthetic preferences can be predicted from fMRI signals. (http://www.visionsciences.org/abstract_detail.php?id=548 (http://www.visionsciences.org/abstract_detail.php?id=548))
Looking at it form a more psychological view, the pigeon's 'superstitious belief' is the product of operant conditioning (which occurs unconsciously), which also occurs in animals with greater cognitive capacity. But the involvement of the higher cognitive capabilities i.e. a better memory span and the ability to learn socially, makes this more complex. It could be a result of natural cognitive biases such as the availability heuristic, where because X makes you think of Y, you 'consciously reason' that there is some strong association there, when in fact the association between X and Y really was made through unconscious processes in the first place. When the idea is already in your head, you start to find more 'evidence' that fits that schema (incidentally, human beings do have a confirmation bias). It might seem very consciously motivated on the surface, but it might all be driven by unconscious processes. Incidentally, this is also a reason why I think it is dangerous to trust ideas that are not peer-reviewed. At least when you can independently confirm the associations, it is going to be less likely that the association is an illusory one driven by a quirk in the unconscious processing.
So basically, I tend to think that all cognition start off unconscious. You can be aware of some of them, but that probably is because the activity there has crossed some threshold. The idea that you can consciously initiate any cognition might just be an illusion. I don't know if what I wrote makes any sense or it sounds like gibberish, but if anyone is interested in some reading on the topic, I'd recommend Daniel Wegner's
The Illusion of Conscious Will. You can read a short paper he wrote on the subject as a starter: http://web.gc.cuny.edu/cogsci/private/wegner-trick.pdf (http://web.gc.cuny.edu/cogsci/private/wegner-trick.pdf)
Quote from: Synapse on July 30, 2012, 04:15:39 AM
It could be a result of natural cognitive biases such as the availability heuristic, where because X makes you think of Y, you 'consciously reason' that there is some strong association there, when in fact the association between X and Y really was made through unconscious processes in the first place. When the idea is already in your head, you start to find more 'evidence' that fits that schema (incidentally, human beings do have a confirmation bias).
This is particularly interesting. Explains so well why some believers say that their gods are "self evident". That is a perception that is alien to me and I find it puzzling. They seem to be equally puzzled by anyone saying that a conscious and intelligent creator is not self evident...
How far would you say the scientific community is from figuring out what the underlying processes are exactly with a good amount of evidence and relatively high degree of certainty?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 30, 2012, 05:45:29 AM
How far would you say the scientific community is from figuring out what the underlying processes are exactly with a good amount of evidence and relatively high degree of certainty?
Short answer is: I have no idea. Long answer:
It's quite unlikely that it's the same processes for everyone who is religious, I think, especially considering the individual differences. Although if there is anything that should be studied, it should be the indoctrination process that starts off at a young age. People tend not to keep track of why they think something is one way and not the other. You can be convinced of something by a lie, and later still be convinced even if you forgot what the actual lie that convinced you was. So you only 'feel' it to be true. And then the confirmation bias can kick in. And that feeling compounds and compounds. I imagine going through that process since childhood is going to inoculate a person's beliefs against reason pretty well and it takes a certain amount of willpower to overcome that. That's kind of the reason why I respect people who give up their religion so much.
I do wonder what goes on in the mind of of individuals who only find religion when they are adults though. Peer pressure? The comfort in thinking some hardship is all God's plan?
Quote from: Synapse on July 31, 2012, 09:52:03 AM
I do wonder what goes on in the mind of of individuals who only find religion when they are adults though. Peer pressure? The comfort in thinking some hardship is all God's plan?
Like Francis Collins, whose conversion to theism has always sparked my curiosity.
Frome Wiki:
QuoteCollins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[40] as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and became an Evangelical Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".
He says that he saw a frozen waterfall on that hike and from that point on decided to call himself a true believer. I don't know what else went on, but that is all very strange.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 31, 2012, 08:00:34 PM
Like Francis Collins, whose conversion to theism has always sparked my curiosity.
From Wiki:
QuoteCollins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[40] as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and became an Evangelical Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".
He says that he saw a frozen waterfall on that hike and from that point on decided to call himself a true believer. I don't know what else went on, but that is all very strange.
The "frozen waterfall" is just another term for "subjective experience." Such experiences can have the effect of connecting the dots in a way that pure, unadulterated reason cannot do at times. They give an over-arching meaning to any evidence-based approach. Like the apostle Paul on the Damascus Road, such events can be so intense that they are life-changing.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 31, 2012, 09:04:23 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 31, 2012, 08:00:34 PM
Like Francis Collins, whose conversion to theism has always sparked my curiosity.
From Wiki:
QuoteCollins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He familiarized himself with the evidence for and against God in cosmology, and used Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis[40] as a foundation to re-examine his religious view. He eventually came to a conclusion, and became an Evangelical Christian during a hike on a fall afternoon. He has described himself as a "serious Christian".
He says that he saw a frozen waterfall on that hike and from that point on decided to call himself a true believer. I don't know what else went on, but that is all very strange.
The "frozen waterfall" is just another term for "subjective experience." Such experiences can have the effect of connecting the dots in a way that pure, unadulterated reason cannot do at times. They give an over-arching meaning to any evidence-based approach. Like the apostle Paul on the Damascus Road, such events can be so intense that they are life-changing.
Though I couldn't possibly know what he was thinking when he saw a frozen waterfall and somehow connected it to a god, I like to wonder. Something to do with ordered molecules, perhaps?
Thing is, how do you know that your brain has connected the dots well? Especially knowing that perception can be so faulty at times. It's how I treat my intuition at times, sometimes to my benefit and other times, not. I wouldn't consider intuition to be reason, but it can be a good tool.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 31, 2012, 09:04:23 PM
The "frozen waterfall" is just another term for "subjective experience." Such experiences can have the effect of connecting the dots in a way that pure, unadulterated reason cannot do at times. They give an over-arching meaning to any evidence-based approach. Like the apostle Paul on the Damascus Road, such events can be so intense that they are life-changing.
Yup and Paul the Apostle was well wrong about a lot of things, its good for Christianity (also bad as well as it might have been more accepting of women) that a lot of his documentation was left out otherwise it might have become like the book of Enoch. Sorry I have no respect for Paul.
Quote from: Crow on July 31, 2012, 10:00:53 PM
Yup and Paul the Apostle was well wrong about a lot of things, its good for Christianity (also bad as well as it might have been more accepting of women) that a lot of his documentation was left out otherwise it might have become like the book of Enoch. Sorry I have no respect for Paul.
So, your position is that you don't like Paul's position on women and some other things, so he must be wrong about everything?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 31, 2012, 10:41:07 PM
Quote from: Crow on July 31, 2012, 10:00:53 PM
Yup and Paul the Apostle was well wrong about a lot of things, its good for Christianity (also bad as well as it might have been more accepting of women) that a lot of his documentation was left out otherwise it might have become like the book of Enoch. Sorry I have no respect for Paul.
So, your position is that you don't like Paul's position on women and some other things, so he must be wrong about everything?
No I liked the approach to women he had in his additional texts. I was talking about that he thought the world was going to end in his immediate lifetime because he was told this by Jesus. If you haven't read them have a look they paint a far more interesting story, one that doesn't exactly preach the same thing that is found in the Christian bible.
Quote from: Crow on July 31, 2012, 11:00:01 PM
No I liked the approach to women he had in his additional texts. I was talking about that he thought the world was going to end in his immediate lifetime because he was told this by Jesus. If you haven't read them have a look they paint a far more interesting story, one that doesn't exactly preach the same thing that is found in the Christian bible.
I'm not familiar with Paul's additional texts. What are they?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 01, 2012, 12:22:11 AM
Quote from: Crow on July 31, 2012, 11:00:01 PM
No I liked the approach to women he had in his additional texts. I was talking about that he thought the world was going to end in his immediate lifetime because he was told this by Jesus. If you haven't read them have a look they paint a far more interesting story, one that doesn't exactly preach the same thing that is found in the Christian bible.
I'm not familiar with Paul's additional texts. What are they?
They aren't exactly accepted by most biblical scholars but are by a lot (usually the left leaning ones) so take that as you will but they do have mainstream acceptance, maybe they are bullshit maybe not but they exist and when only 7 out of 14 of Pauls epistles are undisputed its worth looking at the others as they have about equal relevance, and some are letters addressed to the man, and some aren't epistles but are texts by/addressed/about him. But
Just a quick rundown of those I noted down (I think its all of them): Epistle to the Alexandrians, Acts of Peter and Paul, Apocalypse of Paul, Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul, Third Epistle to the Corinthians, Epistle to the Laodiceans, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Coptic Apocalypse of Paul, Prayer of the Apostle Paul, Epistle to Seneca the Younger.
Quote from: Crow on August 01, 2012, 01:00:11 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 01, 2012, 12:22:11 AM
Quote from: Crow on July 31, 2012, 11:00:01 PM
No I liked the approach to women he had in his additional texts. I was talking about that he thought the world was going to end in his immediate lifetime because he was told this by Jesus. If you haven't read them have a look they paint a far more interesting story, one that doesn't exactly preach the same thing that is found in the Christian bible.
I'm not familiar with Paul's additional texts. What are they?
They aren't exactly accepted by most biblical scholars but are by a lot (usually the left leaning ones) so take that as you will but they do have mainstream acceptance, maybe they are bullshit maybe not but they exist and when only 7 out of 14 of Pauls epistles are undisputed its worth looking at the others as they have about equal relevance, and some are letters addressed to the man, and some aren't epistles but are texts by/addressed/about him. But
Just a quick rundown of those I noted down (I think its all of them): Epistle to the Alexandrians, Acts of Peter and Paul, Apocalypse of Paul, Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul, Third Epistle to the Corinthians, Epistle to the Laodiceans, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Coptic Apocalypse of Paul, Prayer of the Apostle Paul, Epistle to Seneca the Younger.
These I'm familiar with, but they are all spurious and pseudepigraphical. I thought you had discovered some actual writings. The 7 undisputed ones in the NT are enough to understand what the actual historical Paul thought.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 01, 2012, 02:44:55 AM
These I'm familiar with, but they are all spurious and pseudepigraphical. I thought you had discovered some actual writings. The 7 undisputed ones in the NT are enough to understand what the actual historical Paul thought.
Then do you not put any weight with First and Second Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians. As they are all also considered to be pseudepigraphic and spurious by the mainstream. Many of those I mentioned in the prior post are part of the New Testament Apocrypha so they certainly had enough weight to be properly considered, again they are accepted by the mainstream scholars and is quite a large following (mainstream followers for clarification) that think the texts aren't pseudepigraphic or fakes it's not like Hebrews where nearly all scholars are in agreement that it wasn't the works of Paul. To outright deny the possibilities that they may be of genuine authorship unless you happen to be a scholar and done extensive studies is a bit arrogant don't you think? My opinion of Paul the Apostle isn't made up just from those texts but rather they ferment my opinion that was developed from the texts featured in the NT, I think he was either crazy or a liar, mainly crazy as he went too far for a liar in my opinion but its still a possibility.
Quote from: Crow on August 01, 2012, 03:29:16 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 01, 2012, 02:44:55 AM
These I'm familiar with, but they are all spurious and pseudepigraphical. I thought you had discovered some actual writings. The 7 undisputed ones in the NT are enough to understand what the actual historical Paul thought.
Then do you not put any weight with First and Second Timothy, Titus, Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians. As they are all also considered to be pseudepigraphic and spurious by the mainstream. Many of those I mentioned in the prior post are part of the New Testament Apocrypha so they certainly had enough weight to be properly considered, again they are accepted by the mainstream scholars and is quite a large following (mainstream followers for clarification) that think the texts aren't pseudepigraphic or fakes it's not like Hebrews where nearly all scholars are in agreement that it wasn't the works of Paul. To outright deny the possibilities that they may be of genuine authorship unless you happen to be a scholar and done extensive studies is a bit arrogant don't you think? My opinion of Paul the Apostle isn't made up just from those texts but rather they ferment my opinion that was developed from the texts featured in the NT, I think he was either crazy or a liar, mainly crazy as he went too far for a liar in my opinion but its still a possibility.
Appeals to authority ("scholars") aren't very persuasive, as biblical scholars are a dime a dozen. I have a Master of Divinity degree, for what it's worth (not much), so I've studied the texts in their original language and the history. I'm fine with just accepting the 7 undisputed works of Paul and calling it a day. The ones you are rely on are not Pauline.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 01, 2012, 04:40:43 AM
Appeals to authority ("scholars") aren't very persuasive, as biblical scholars are a dime a dozen. I have a Master of Divinity degree, for what it's worth (not much), so I've studied the texts in their original language and the history. I'm fine with just accepting the 7 undisputed works of Paul and calling it a day. The ones you are rely on are not Pauline.
Fair enough.
Genuine fantasies by Paul. Fantasies by other people pretending to be Paul. Fantasies by other people who didn't pretend to be Paul, but pretended the fantasies were by Paul. Fantasies which didn't claim to be by Paul, but which later people thought were by Paul. Fantasies by other people who really were called Paul.
Biblical scholarship may in time dig up even more categories.
Quote from: OldGit on August 01, 2012, 02:09:50 PM
Genuine fantasies by Paul. Fantasies by other people pretending to be Paul. Fantasies by other people who didn't pretend to be Paul, but pretended the fantasies were by Paul. Fantasies which didn't claim to be by Paul, but which later people thought were by Paul. Fantasies by other people who really were called Paul.
Biblical scholarship may in time dig up even more categories.
So, your position is that everything Paul wrote in his 7 letters was a fantasy?
QuoteSo, your position is that everything Paul wrote in his 7 letters was a fantasy?
It's all fundamentally concerned with a fantasy, so yes. For all I know, there are odd sensible bits in there which you could quote to prove me wrong; nevertheless the fairy-tale around which it is all spun is fundamentally unconnected with any reality, so the word 'fantasy' will cover it.
Quote from: OldGit on August 01, 2012, 06:16:00 PM
QuoteSo, your position is that everything Paul wrote in his 7 letters was a fantasy?
It's all fundamentally concerned with a fantasy, so yes. For all I know, there are odd sensible bits in there which you could quote to prove me wrong; nevertheless the fairy-tale around which it is all spun is fundamentally unconnected with any reality, so the word 'fantasy' will cover it.
Well, I suppose that relieves you of the need to evaluate it historically.
Fair enough, it was unmannerly of me to barge into your discussion. You take it seriously and there's as much scope for scholarship in it as in any other branch of literature. I'm not deriding serious scholarship of any kind.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 01, 2012, 06:57:42 PM
Quote from: OldGit on August 01, 2012, 06:16:00 PM
QuoteSo, your position is that everything Paul wrote in his 7 letters was a fantasy?
It's all fundamentally concerned with a fantasy, so yes. For all I know, there are odd sensible bits in there which you could quote to prove me wrong; nevertheless the fairy-tale around which it is all spun is fundamentally unconnected with any reality, so the word 'fantasy' will cover it.
Well, I suppose that relieves you of the need to evaluate it historically.
Can we evaluate it historically? As far as I know, to evaluate a primary source historically, we need secondary sources to validate it. Not just the bible, but anything in general. Is this accurate?
Quote from: Genericguy on August 01, 2012, 07:09:31 PM
Can we evaluate it historically? As far as I know, to evaluate a primary source historically, we need secondary sources to validate it. Not just the bible, but anything in general. Is this accurate?
Yes, secondary sources are needed. The scope of my comment was only about the 7 authentic letters of Paul. Some of the secondary sources that could be used to evaluate some historical components of those letters would include Tacitus and Josephus, plus any Greco-Roman writings of the period from 35-65 BCE, as those writings would give evidence of the historical situation of the time. A large portion of Paul's epistles is devoted to dealing with events that occurred in the congregations he dealt with, so secondary sources can be consulted to judge how those life situations fit into what is known about life in general during that time. Those sources give a context against which one can judge if the epistles are real or fantasy.
I would think that rather than secondary sources, one would prefer to use contemporaneous primary sources. After all, a secondary source can tell us that the primary document did indeed exist at the time the secondary source was created, and perhaps it can elucidate the contents of that document as they existed when the secondary source was created, but it cannot corroborate the events which the primary source purports to relate.
If such contemporaneous primary sources are not available, then there will always remain a question mark as to the veracity of the single source, in my opinion.
Quote from: Recusant on August 01, 2012, 10:08:18 PM
I would think that rather than secondary sources, one would prefer to use contemporaneous primary sources. After all, a secondary source can tell us that the primary document did indeed exist at the time the secondary source was created, and perhaps it can elucidate the contents of that document as they existed when the secondary source was created, but it cannot corroborate the events which the primary source purports to relate.
If such contemporaneous primary sources are not available, then there will always remain a question mark as to the veracity of the single source, in my opinion.
When dealing with ancient documents, there's always a question mark. Regarding the letters of Paul, there is (to my knowledge) no contemporary document saying "Galatians did, in fact, exist." However, there are multiple copies turning up in various cultures that aid experts in textual analysis to get a good idea of what the original document looked like. Now, there is the reference in II Corinthians to other Corinthian letters, so that's a primary, contemporary source in itself. But it's basically impossible to establish with 100% certainty that any ancient document is 100% valid. History is more approximation than certainty.