|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How to Talk to God.
Have you every prayed to God and been answered?
What do you think is the most effective way to please God and talk to him? Is there any way? Can we do a research and find out?
What questions do you want to ask him?
Forget all religions and ask directly to God, the right answers???? That would be awesome!!
What do you think is the most effective way to please God and talk to him? Is there any way? Can we do a research and find out?
What questions do you want to ask him?
Forget all religions and ask directly to God, the right answers???? That would be awesome!!
| Quote: |
| Have you every prayed to God and been answered? |
Never had a thought in my mind, it's stupid to pray to something that is imaginary.
| Quote: |
| What do you think is the most effective way to please God and talk to him? Is there any way? Can we do a research and find out? |
Check out that adults bed time story book, the bible. There are many ways to 'please' something that isn't real, then again what's the point in pleasing a figment of your imagination?
| Quote: |
| What questions do you want to ask him? |
If I die and find out there was a god I would ask 'Why didn't you give us more evidence? Idiotic fool.'
| Quote: |
| Forget all religions and ask directly to God, the right answers???? That would be awesome!! |
All religious groups once originated from one simple thing. Some people say to find the meaning of life, I say the fear of death.
I don't think God would, if he existed, listen to us and make our wishes come true... if that would happen he would have a very bizzy 'life'.
And I think that it's very plain that God doesn't listen to us as there happen enough things that could be prevented by an easy prayer.
I would even say that it's very obvious that there is no God (as you see him) or he is keeping himself away from all our problems etc... anyway, he wouldn't be a very good God in you kind of view.
And I think that it's very plain that God doesn't listen to us as there happen enough things that could be prevented by an easy prayer.
I would even say that it's very obvious that there is no God (as you see him) or he is keeping himself away from all our problems etc... anyway, he wouldn't be a very good God in you kind of view.
| Roald wrote: |
| I don't think God would, if he existed, listen to us and make our wishes come true... if that would happen he would have a very bizzy 'life'.
And I think that it's very plain that God doesn't listen to us as there happen enough things that could be prevented by an easy prayer. I would even say that it's very obvious that there is no God (as you see him) or he is keeping himself away from all our problems etc... anyway, he wouldn't be a very good God in you kind of view. |
I agree with your point that it's much more subtle, God isn't someone like Santa Claus, you can't ask him for presents etc...
I think praying to something imaginary just wouldn't work out. But I guess when there's no one to turn to, God can be a great comfort. But talking about things practically, it just isn't a solution to many problems. I don't think I had any of my prayers answered (when I still believed in Him). And even if he did answer, I guess I did it within my own power too.
If you'd wanted any answers, the best thing to do is research and research. If God gave answers to everything, wouldn't that make life abit boring? And with so much knowledge, are you sure you could handle it? Haha, some things are just meant to be untouched.
If you'd wanted any answers, the best thing to do is research and research. If God gave answers to everything, wouldn't that make life abit boring? And with so much knowledge, are you sure you could handle it? Haha, some things are just meant to be untouched.
| supernova1987a wrote: |
| Have you every prayed to God and been answered? |
Not like "O Lord, won't you buy me a mercedes benz"
More like... "O universe... take care of me, guide me, keep me close to the Truth."
And somehow, the universe/God granted this prayer, in rather miraculous ways. And that remains my prayer to this day.
| supernova1987a wrote: |
| What do you think is the most effective way to please God and talk to him? Is there any way? Can we do a research and find out? |
God pays really good wages for those who serve him. How to serve him? Serve his creation with love and devotion. It has been written "God is Truth, and his language is of abundant love"... that means if you have abundant love (for all things) in your heart, words and deeds, you're speaking the language of the Creator.
| Quote: |
| Forget all religions and ask directly to God, the right answers???? That would be awesome!! |
| supernova1987a wrote: |
| Have you every prayed to God and been answered? |
No. I have never had a prayer answered. I have prayed to God many years ago when I believed that a god existed. The last time I prayed, I was probably 15-16 years old.
| Quote: |
| What do you think is the most effective way to please God and talk to him? Is there any way? Can we do a research and find out? |
Research shows that the most effective way is to simply not pray. I'm serious. Research was done on sick patients, and the results showed that people who didn't pray tended to get better quicker. Ironic, eh? I think it may have been sort of a reverse placebo. People who prayed relied on something imaginary to get them better where as people who didn't, relied on themselves and medicine to get them better. Maybe I'm wrong in my conclusions, but that is what the data showed...
| Quote: |
| What questions do you want to ask him? |
I wouldn't even know where to get started. I guess I'd start with asking him why he's such an ass and why he killed all of those people in his Bible...
| Quote: |
| Forget all religions and ask directly to God, the right answers???? That would be awesome!! |
Yes it would be awesome... Of course I could just ask myself questions because in my mind, I am God.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Research shows that the most effective way is to simply not pray. I'm serious. Research was done on sick patients, and the results showed that people who didn't pray tended to get better quicker. Ironic, eh? I think it may have been sort of a reverse placebo. People who prayed relied on something imaginary to get them better where as people who didn't, relied on themselves and medicine to get them better. Maybe I'm wrong in my conclusions, but that is what the data showed... |
(Actually, if i recall the experiment, they suspect that the people being prayed for were stressing out because they were worried that if they didn't get well, it would disprove prayer. So if they got better, that's doubly good because they would get better and help show God exists, but if they didn't get better not only would they be worse off they would have helped disprove God. By contrast the people who weren't getting prayed for had nothing to worry about... if they got better they got better, if they didn't get better then they will have helped show that God exists which would be good in the long run anyway.
In other words, it was the fear and doubt that prayer might all be a sham that hurt the "pray" group. The "no pray" group just relaxed and didn't stress out... and got better.)
| Indi wrote: | ||
(Actually, if i recall the experiment, they suspect that the people being prayed for were stressing out because they were worried that if they didn't get well, it would disprove prayer. So if they got better, that's doubly good because they would get better and help show God exists, but if they didn't get better not only would they be worse off they would have helped disprove God. By contrast the people who weren't getting prayed for had nothing to worry about... if they got better they got better, if they didn't get better then they will have helped show that God exists which would be good in the long run anyway. In other words, it was the fear and doubt that prayer might all be a sham that hurt the "pray" group. The "no pray" group just relaxed and didn't stress out... and got better.) |
Thanks for the information. As I mentioned, I just remembered the results but were unsure about the conclusions drawn so I just made a quick guess. Stress makes much more sense than a reverse placebo.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
If you want to Google the study then it was funded by the Templeton Foundation.
The conclusions were as stated - prayer (if you don't know you are being prayed for) has no statistically significant effect. Prayer (if you know you are being prayed for) has a slight detrimental effect. I tend to go along with Indi, in that this is probably anxiety related, but I'm not sure if it was the fear of it being a sham, or the fear that you are so ill that you need prayer....
If you want to Google the study then it was funded by the Templeton Foundation.
The conclusions were as stated - prayer (if you don't know you are being prayed for) has no statistically significant effect. Prayer (if you know you are being prayed for) has a slight detrimental effect. I tend to go along with Indi, in that this is probably anxiety related, but I'm not sure if it was the fear of it being a sham, or the fear that you are so ill that you need prayer....
| Bikerman wrote: |
| ... but I'm not sure if it was the fear of it being a sham, or the fear that you are so ill that you need prayer.... |
Oh yes, right! That was the other possibility. i completely forgot about that.
| peaceupnorth wrote: | ||||||
Not like "O Lord, won't you buy me a mercedes benz" More like... "O universe... take care of me, guide me, keep me close to the Truth." And somehow, the universe/God granted this prayer, in rather miraculous ways. And that remains my prayer to this day.
God pays really good wages for those who serve him. How to serve him? Serve his creation with love and devotion. It has been written "God is Truth, and his language is of abundant love"... that means if you have abundant love (for all things) in your heart, words and deeds, you're speaking the language of the Creator.
|
Exactly! Thats what I mean by 'Prayer'
| Bikerman wrote: |
| http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
If you want to Google the study then it was funded by the Templeton Foundation. The conclusions were as stated - prayer (if you don't know you are being prayed for) has no statistically significant effect. Prayer (if you know you are being prayed for) has a slight detrimental effect. I tend to go along with Indi, in that this is probably anxiety related, but I'm not sure if it was the fear of it being a sham, or the fear that you are so ill that you need prayer.... |
Thats not the kind of 'prayer' I am talking about. Peaceupnorth knows.
And yeah, I think you 'can' 'please' god by loving him, and loving his creation, loving all the creatures. What I mean is that, if you keep killing animals and ask God, he might not answer all your questions. However, he does help everyone in many ways that we are not always aware of. If you at least try once like Peaceupnorth did, and I did, you will start seeing the results. So I recommend you to try it.
Being human is NOT following animal instinct thinking that it is natural but getting out of it and loving all the creatures and getting closer to God.
| Denvis wrote: |
| All religious groups once originated from one simple thing. Some people say to find the meaning of life, I say the fear of death. |
Religion did not start from some selfish mind that feared death.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Research shows that the most effective way is to simply not pray. I'm serious. Research was done on sick patients, and the results showed that people who didn't pray tended to get better quicker. Ironic, eh? I think it may have been sort of a reverse placebo. People who prayed relied on something imaginary to get them better where as people who didn't, relied on themselves and medicine to get them better. Maybe I'm wrong in my conclusions, but that is what the data showed... |
To me at the most simplistic level, prayer brings peace of mind, to pray for others (intercessory prayers) bring something additional, a good feeling of doing something for others. If someone really believes in God, and believes in prayer, there is some power in the prayer for that person that can bring benefits to him along the lines of psychoneuroimmunology.
Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoneuroimmunology
If it would be a research study that took people who were non-believers and sceptical of prayer, to test whether prayer would work to cure their illness, I am confident that the results would be negative. Most physicians by nature of their training are really uncomfortable with the application of spiritual practices so if they would do a research study, possibly there would be factors of faith absent that would guarantee negative results. But if someone really had a lot of faith in God and faith in prayer, and would pray repeatedly and religiously with faith in their hearts, that is the kind of prayer I believe could help people get well. As it brings peace and relief, there is also a great element of care and love in it.
Obivously prayers aren't for non-believers. If you don't believe you will get well, I doubt you will. and if you are really very ill, I don't believe that by doing nothing you stand a better chance than trying something like prayer, meditation or look for the next cure. As the something at least underlines a wish for getting better, rather than just surrendering completely to a state of illness.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
To me at the most simplistic level, prayer brings peace of mind, to pray for others (intercessory prayers) bring something additional, a good feeling of doing something for others. If someone really believes in God, and believes in prayer, there is some power in the prayer for that person that can bring benefits to him along the lines of psychoneuroimmunology. Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoneuroimmunology If it would be a research study that took people who were non-believers and sceptical of prayer, to test whether prayer would work to cure their illness, I am confident that the results would be negative. Most physicians by nature of their training are really uncomfortable with the application of spiritual practices so if they would do a research study, possibly there would be factors of faith absent that would guarantee negative results. But if someone really had a lot of faith in God and faith in prayer, and would pray repeatedly and religiously with faith in their hearts, that is the kind of prayer I believe could help people get well. As it brings peace and relief, there is also a great element of care and love in it. Obivously prayers aren't for non-believers. If you don't believe you will get well, I doubt you will. and if you are really very ill, I don't believe that by doing nothing you stand a better chance than trying something like prayer, meditation or look for the next cure. As the something at least underlines a wish for getting better, rather than just surrendering completely to a state of illness. |
Bikerman has already given a link to an article in the NYT on the research, and the search terms you'd need to google anything else.
The particular research that Afaceinthematrix is talking about is not the first or only research that has been done in the field, it is just the most rigorously scientific study ever done (millions were spent). Tons of experiments have been done. Most show no result, some show a benefit to prayer, some show that prayer makes things worse, but most of those experiments use poor methods. The Templeton experiment was carefully designed and run... it was supposed to be the final "proof" that prayer works - one of Sir Jon Templeton's pet projects. (Of course, it didn't work out that way, but they made a sincere attempt.)
Googling about research on prayer will give you tons of information about all of the other attempts to prove prayer works.
| Indi wrote: |
| Most show no result, some show a benefit to prayer, some show that prayer makes things worse, but most of those experiments use poor methods. |
The ironic thing about this experiment was that, according to the Templeton Foundation, this experiment also used a poor method. But I have a suspicion that they only made this claim because they did not get the results that they wanted. Their claim was that since it was part of an experiment, it wasn't real prayer and that God wouldn't help those people. However, I am sure that if they did get the results they wanted, they would brag about how they "proved that prayer worked." Pretty shady, eh?
| Indi wrote: |
| Googling about research on prayer will give you tons of information about all of the other attempts to prove prayer works. |
http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/press_releases/060407step.html
I also found some comments on the study by theologians:
| Quote: |
| Koenig, of Duke University Medical Center, who didn't take part in the study, said the results
didn't surprise him. "There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either," he said. "There is no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Muslim scriptures that can be constrained to the point that they can be predicted." Within the Christian tradition, God would be expected to be concerned with a person's eternal salvation, he said, and "why would God change his plans for a particular person just because they're in a research study?" Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, said he believes intercessory prayer can influence medical outcomes, but that science is not equipped to explore it. "Do we control God through prayer? Theologians would say absolutely not. God decides sometimes to intervene, and sometimes not," he said. As for the new study, he said, "I don't think ... it's going to stop people praying for the sick." |
Source: http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/articles/060331Houston_Chronicle_AP.pdf
So according to the research results, prayer is ineffective or has adverse effects.
And according to those theologians, God doesn't change your fate if you pray, basically saying God doesn't care about your prayers because he's going to do whatever he had planned anyway.
So, the point and utility of prayer is...?
I also can't follow the logic in doing a drawn out, tedious research study, then concluding you didn't get the results you wanted because God can't be brought into human terms -.-
And according to those theologians, God doesn't change your fate if you pray, basically saying God doesn't care about your prayers because he's going to do whatever he had planned anyway.
So, the point and utility of prayer is...?
I also can't follow the logic in doing a drawn out, tedious research study, then concluding you didn't get the results you wanted because God can't be brought into human terms -.-
| Denvis wrote: | ||||||||
Never had a thought in my mind, it's stupid to pray to something that is imaginary.
Check out that adults bed time story book, the bible. There are many ways to 'please' something that isn't real, then again what's the point in pleasing a figment of your imagination?
If I die and find out there was a god I would ask 'Why didn't you give us more evidence? Idiotic fool.'
All religious groups once originated from one simple thing. Some people say to find the meaning of life, I say the fear of death. |
Turn away from those thoughts you have, please! Hell is real and if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord and repent of your sins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87qkY1XZtIs
This man was in hell and his testimony is true! Turn now that you have the chance; DON'T wait till tomorrow, because tomorrow might never come. Please I beg you to turn and let God save you because if you don't you'll regret it all the days of your life in eternal punishment!
Err...let me get this straight. You think that this chap actually went to hell?
You don't, for example, think he is a manipulative liar who wants to sell some books and establish a high media profile to earn some money?
You really find his account credible? You don't even see the theological objections (which are too may to elucidate here, but should be apparent to anyone who actually thinks about it for a moment)? You don't notice any contradictions and plain stupidity in his account?
All I can say is, wow! I'm gob-smacked by the whole notion that anyone could take this seriously..really! C'mon, you simply have to be joking...this must be ironic (in some strange way I haven't yet understood), surely?
PS - I'm assuming that you haven't done any basic sanity checks? Like, for example, checking out the broadcaster putting out this nonsense - TBN. You really do need to inject a bit more healthy scepticism into your world-view if you want to avoid being taken-in by shysters like this.
You don't, for example, think he is a manipulative liar who wants to sell some books and establish a high media profile to earn some money?
You really find his account credible? You don't even see the theological objections (which are too may to elucidate here, but should be apparent to anyone who actually thinks about it for a moment)? You don't notice any contradictions and plain stupidity in his account?
All I can say is, wow! I'm gob-smacked by the whole notion that anyone could take this seriously..really! C'mon, you simply have to be joking...this must be ironic (in some strange way I haven't yet understood), surely?
PS - I'm assuming that you haven't done any basic sanity checks? Like, for example, checking out the broadcaster putting out this nonsense - TBN. You really do need to inject a bit more healthy scepticism into your world-view if you want to avoid being taken-in by shysters like this.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| I also can't follow the logic in doing a drawn out, tedious research study, then concluding you didn't get the results you wanted because God can't be brought into human terms -.- |
With regard to prayer, perhaps it is meaningful to those who practice it. If it provides relief and comfort to people I'm happy for them. It obviously does not have meaning to those who do not believe in it.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
With regard to prayer, perhaps it is meaningful to those who practice it. If it provides relief and comfort to people I'm happy for them. It obviously does not have meaning to those who do not believe in it. |
He means exactly what I said. The people spent millions of dollars conducting a study and then when they did not get the results they wanted, they said that it must be because the prayers weren't genuine because they were part of a study. So they did a tedious study, didn't get the desired results (they wanted to prove prayer works), and then concluded that Go cannot be brought into human terms.
| supernova1987a wrote: |
| Religion did not start from some selfish mind that feared death. |
| Whong wrote: |
| Turn away from those thoughts you have, please! Hell is real and if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour and Lord and repent of your sins. |
| Indi wrote: |
| (Actually, if i recall the experiment, they suspect that the people being prayed for were stressing out because they were worried that if they didn't get well, it would disprove prayer. So if they got better, that's doubly good because they would get better and help show God exists, but if they didn't get better not only would they be worse off they would have helped disprove God. |
The biggest flaw with this study, as far as I am concerned, was that they approached it with the intent of proving prayer worked. To do any sort of scientific study, you don't aim for a certain outcome. You simply gather data, then let the data itself reveal the outcome. This was not a scientific study at all, but rather an attempt at propaganda.
Good to see they fell flat on their faces.
Thank god.
If you look at the study in detail you will see that it WAS properly blinded.
There were 3 groups
a) Received prayer but knew it
b) Received prayer but didn't know it
c) Didn't receive prayer
There were 3 groups
a) Received prayer but knew it
b) Received prayer but didn't know it
c) Didn't receive prayer
| Bikerman wrote: |
| If you look at the study in detail you will see that it WAS properly blinded.
There were 3 groups a) Received prayer but knew it b) Received prayer but didn't know it c) Didn't receive prayer |
I'm still skeptical about this whole test. For example, maybe subject(a) was prayed for, and healed fine, while subject(b) got no prayer and didn't recover. On the surface, it looks like prayer had a hand in the recovery of subject(a). But no 2 people are the same, and maybe subject(a)'s height and weight and genetic make-up had something to do with his recovery. Maybe he has a stronger will to survive. Maybe he had a better diet. There are too many variables involved to determine whether or not prayer has anything to do with the recovery of a patient. I just don't think it's possible to prove it one way or another. Besides, prayer is based on faith. Doesn't the whole idea of this study pretty much undermine that faith?
Well, on the study itself - I don't have access to the full protocols, but from the information I do have, I think it was designed reasonably well. The analysis used proper statistical techniques, and the study groups were large enough to 'smooth out' individual differences between patients.
When you look individually at patients then, yes, there are significant differences. When you 'average' over a sufficiently large group, however, then you get a much more accurate picture. This type of double-blind study is the cornerstone of medical trials..
When you look individually at patients then, yes, there are significant differences. When you 'average' over a sufficiently large group, however, then you get a much more accurate picture. This type of double-blind study is the cornerstone of medical trials..
| Bikerman wrote: |
| When you look individually at patients then, yes, there are significant differences. When you 'average' over a sufficiently large group, however, then you get a much more accurate picture. This type of double-blind study is the cornerstone of medical trials.. |
Moreover, I certainly don't see the point. One of the things that has baffled me, but gained my respect, about the truly faithful is their faith. Their complete lack of any need for evidence for what they know to be truth. I don't get it, I think it's silly sometimes, but if that's what they are selling then I don't know why they would support a scientific study to prove something that for centuries they have claimed they need no proof of.
I think you perhaps misunderstand the nature of double-blind studies. The whole design of such a study is to get rid of extra factors, other than the thing being tested. That is why you need a large group and that is why the study is double-blinded. Any individual differences are averaged out and become statistically insignificant. It works for the medicine in your cabinet.
I know how it works, and I know why. I just don't see how a double blind study can prove something ethereal, such as prayer. Even if prayer is the only major difference in the groups, after all other differences are averaged out, it still doesn't mean that prayer was the determining factor in anyones recovery.
Prayer can't be tested like the medicine in my cabinet, because I can measure the medicine in my cabinet. You can't measure prayer. You can't administer 22 grams of it.
They base the whole study on a couple of assumptions:
1 - There is a god
2 - He will answer every prayer in the study(with a "yes, I will heal this person")
These guys set out to prove prayer works, so it's a safe assumption they believe in such a god. Anyone who subscribes to this god knows that he doesn't say yes to every prayer(remember, he has a plan). So even if we were to believe there was a god, it's ridiculous that he would grant every prayer, in the same way, for the sake of this study. He's a god, not a lab partner. He has been elusive about his own existence for thousands of years, but he's going to let some guys "out" him for an experiment?
That's where I see the flaw. Not so much in how they set it up. I'm sure that had they been testing a headache pill it would have worked fine. But they are trying to measure the effects of a god they can't prove exists, while assuming he will answer, and his answer will be the same for each prayer in the study.
It just doesn't cut the mustard, scientifically speaking.
Prayer can't be tested like the medicine in my cabinet, because I can measure the medicine in my cabinet. You can't measure prayer. You can't administer 22 grams of it.
They base the whole study on a couple of assumptions:
1 - There is a god
2 - He will answer every prayer in the study(with a "yes, I will heal this person")
These guys set out to prove prayer works, so it's a safe assumption they believe in such a god. Anyone who subscribes to this god knows that he doesn't say yes to every prayer(remember, he has a plan). So even if we were to believe there was a god, it's ridiculous that he would grant every prayer, in the same way, for the sake of this study. He's a god, not a lab partner. He has been elusive about his own existence for thousands of years, but he's going to let some guys "out" him for an experiment?
That's where I see the flaw. Not so much in how they set it up. I'm sure that had they been testing a headache pill it would have worked fine. But they are trying to measure the effects of a god they can't prove exists, while assuming he will answer, and his answer will be the same for each prayer in the study.
It just doesn't cut the mustard, scientifically speaking.
Well, the thing being measured isn't really important. The important fact is that it either has an effect or it doesn't.
Not every prayer had to be answered - a few would have shown up. As a scientific test it stands up to scrutiny.
PS - you are wrong about the other 'assumption' as well. There is no explicit assumption that there is a God. Prayer could work without any such agency. The fact that knowing you were being prayed for DID have an effect shows this is indeed the case. That is the whole point of the blinding system. (The fact that the effect was negative, rather than positive, was probably a disappointment to the Templeton Foundation - but they reported the facts).
Not every prayer had to be answered - a few would have shown up. As a scientific test it stands up to scrutiny.
PS - you are wrong about the other 'assumption' as well. There is no explicit assumption that there is a God. Prayer could work without any such agency. The fact that knowing you were being prayed for DID have an effect shows this is indeed the case. That is the whole point of the blinding system. (The fact that the effect was negative, rather than positive, was probably a disappointment to the Templeton Foundation - but they reported the facts).
I think the "stress" theory that someone posted has something to do with the negative effect.
Seems a few people agree with that as well.
So, if god doesn't need to exist for this study to be scientifically accurate, then what are we really measuring here? Psychic healing abilities? The person or people who do the praying, are they doing it exactly the same way, with just as much meaning every time? Or are they mentally drained after 50 or so prayers? Wouldn't this effect the outcome, especially if we don't need god in the equation, putting the healing power directly into the hands of these mystics?
Seems a few people agree with that as well.
So, if god doesn't need to exist for this study to be scientifically accurate, then what are we really measuring here? Psychic healing abilities? The person or people who do the praying, are they doing it exactly the same way, with just as much meaning every time? Or are they mentally drained after 50 or so prayers? Wouldn't this effect the outcome, especially if we don't need god in the equation, putting the healing power directly into the hands of these mystics?
Well, it is true that we don't know exactly what the agency is, from the design of the study. It doesn't actually matter though. What the study showed was that there was no positive effect from using a particular technique (praying) which is commonly thought to be an appeal to a higher authority (in fact a very specific one) but might be voodoo, telepathy or whatever.
The 'prayers' (as in those doing the praying) were congregations at 3 churches. I believe the same prayers were offered by the 3 congregations for the 2 study groups. (Obviously the control group had no payers).
The 'prayers' (as in those doing the praying) were congregations at 3 churches. I believe the same prayers were offered by the 3 congregations for the 2 study groups. (Obviously the control group had no payers).
When you look around and don’t see anything but darkness staring in front of you
and your friends are not next door,
when you are down and everything seems
unfriendly and cold, when life seem so bad that death is a welcome mat
when you feel this and long to see your mom or dad but they are passed
What re-search is able?
Like talking to your father and asking with all your heart.
“Will you listen to me, please?”
not to ask for anything or grant some gift you do not need
but just to be by your side
Then, my friend you will know how to pray, honestly.
and your friends are not next door,
when you are down and everything seems
unfriendly and cold, when life seem so bad that death is a welcome mat
when you feel this and long to see your mom or dad but they are passed
What re-search is able?
Like talking to your father and asking with all your heart.
“Will you listen to me, please?”
not to ask for anything or grant some gift you do not need
but just to be by your side
Then, my friend you will know how to pray, honestly.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| When you look around and don’t see anything but darkness staring in front of you
and your friends are not next door, when you are down and everything seems unfriendly and cold, when life seem so bad that death is a welcome mat when you feel this and long to see your mom or dad but they are passed What re-search is able? Like talking to your father and asking with all your heart. “Will you listen to me, please?” not to ask for anything or grant some gift you do not need but just to be by your side Then, my friend you will know how to pray, honestly. |
Or go out and socialize, find a job (make an effort), and make amends with the people who should reasonably be close to you.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Or go out and socialize, find a job (make an effort), and make amends with the people('personal being' -inserted...by Bluedoll) who should reasonably be close to you. |
or do both(make an effort)
I found an interesting article on "Challenges in Healing Experiments", which takes the position that a classical physics model of "cause and effect" may not be the appropriate model to use for a study like this. A network model may be more appropriate. It argues that in communal type studies like these the experimenter would need to be studied as part of a network of all of the elements as all of it would be related in the study. It makes sense to me.
The article compared two studies on intercessory prayer with different results and then compared the research methods of the two:
Source: http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit05_06/edit8-may06.php
| Quote: |
| Let's apply the network model to the whole human community. When we shift from a Newtonian world view to a quantum physics world view a series of factors enter - - the interaction of an observer becomes an essential element. In addition, there exists a connectiveness between parts. This interconnectiveness in quantum physics is called nonlocality -- a universal property by which apparently separate items are still entangled over space and time. You are all familiar with the worldwide network of information sites on the internet. In an analogous manner a human being can be considered an informational site. In effect we are nodes that are interconnected via a non-local Web of quantum entanglement. This could represent the network over which long distance healing and intercessory prayer travel. |
The article compared two studies on intercessory prayer with different results and then compared the research methods of the two:
| Quote: |
| So let's look at a positive study that I am familiar with and then explore the differences in scientific approach between the two studies.
A double-blind randomized study of distant healing on a population with advanced AIDS was carried out by Fred Sicher, Elisabeth Targ, et. al. The healers represented many different healing and spiritual traditions, had "an average of 17 years of experience and had previously treated an average of 106 patients at a distance." The Sicher/Targ study concluded that there were positive therapeutic effects of distant healing. The results showed "decreased medical utilization, fewer and less severe new illnesses, and improved mood for the treated group compared with the controls." The Benson/Dusek study used a large groups of heterogeneous inexperienced participants who were instructed to include the phrase "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications." The study was based upon "congregational prayer" from three Christian faith communities. In comparison the Sicher/Targ study selected experienced healers from various backgrounds who chose their own techniques. The ability to sharply focus one's intention to affect a person at a distant location is a skill that these individuals spent a lifetime developing. They have the ability to connect to a "site" on the quantum entanglement Web. The experienced healers that I know focus upon a feeling state of love and connect to the "node" of the heart. Much anecdotal evidence in support of prayer comes from individuals praying for a loved one with whom they have a strong connection and to whom they send sincere heart felt healing intentions. In the Benson/Dusek study the participants were given only the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names -- an incomplete "web site address." This is probably not a serious obstacle to an experienced healer who knows how to manipulate the search criteria of the quantum entanglement Web. However, for an inexperienced person it might nullify their ability to connect and provide healing. In the Sicher/Targ study each healer received a packet that included a 5x7-inch color photograph. In subtle energy healing practices a full name, photograph, or DNA sample (like a strand of hair) normally serves as an "address" for non-local distant healing. The tradition for scientific experimentation is to look for events that are precisely defined and testable. However, if the experiments are the type that are highly sensitive to the beliefs and expectations of the experimenters this undercuts the objectivity so desired by science. If the results of the experiment are generated, not by the subjects as individuals, but by the whole community involved with the experiment, then this effect becomes inevitable. Hence, we must recognize in the design of such experiments that we are dealing with a network of our own interconnected communal natures. |
Source: http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit05_06/edit8-may06.php
Pure woo-woo, and quite typical of the type.
Non-locality is a quantum phenomenon - it doesn't apply to macroscopic states (like us, for example) in which quantum decoherence has already 'collapsed' any entanglement. The author either doesn't understand QM or, more likely, likes to bamboozle the reader. It clearly worked.
This reminds me of the rubbish that Deepak Chopra regularly spouts.
PS - the Sicher-Targ study was so flawed it would take pages to detail the problems. I'll just point to an article instead - http://www.skepdic.com/sichertarg.html
Amongst the most heinous and dishonest faults was the retrospective data mining. When any author of a study does that, or commissions it, then it is a fair bet that she/he is dishonest at a fundamental level. The study has since been discredited comprehensively.
(There is also a certain amount of irony in the fact that Targ died of an untreatable brain tumour not too long after the study. Physician heal thyself!).
It is important to understand why this sort of woo-woo should be ignored. What you have is a 'foundation' - which is another name for a group of self-selected people with a website. What you actually NEED is some peer review.
Now occasionally studies like the Sicher-Tag study slip under the radar and actually get into the peer-reviewed literature. This is normally (as in this case) because the authors of such studies have been dishonest. Scientists generally place a premium on personal honesty. When a scientist says 'this study is designed to test hypothesis x' then this is taken at face value. Fortunately, science in general also includes a mechanism for revealing such dishonesty (ie you have to be able to repeat an experiment), but in studies like this you rely on the integrity of those who do the work. In this case that faith was misplaced, and this only came to light after the facts.
That doesn't excuse the FMBR article from completely failing to mention any of this. There again, if you check the references at the end of the article you will find the only reference to any peer-reviewed work is actually to the Templeton study.
Non-locality is a quantum phenomenon - it doesn't apply to macroscopic states (like us, for example) in which quantum decoherence has already 'collapsed' any entanglement. The author either doesn't understand QM or, more likely, likes to bamboozle the reader. It clearly worked.
This reminds me of the rubbish that Deepak Chopra regularly spouts.
PS - the Sicher-Targ study was so flawed it would take pages to detail the problems. I'll just point to an article instead - http://www.skepdic.com/sichertarg.html
Amongst the most heinous and dishonest faults was the retrospective data mining. When any author of a study does that, or commissions it, then it is a fair bet that she/he is dishonest at a fundamental level. The study has since been discredited comprehensively.
(There is also a certain amount of irony in the fact that Targ died of an untreatable brain tumour not too long after the study. Physician heal thyself!).
It is important to understand why this sort of woo-woo should be ignored. What you have is a 'foundation' - which is another name for a group of self-selected people with a website. What you actually NEED is some peer review.
Now occasionally studies like the Sicher-Tag study slip under the radar and actually get into the peer-reviewed literature. This is normally (as in this case) because the authors of such studies have been dishonest. Scientists generally place a premium on personal honesty. When a scientist says 'this study is designed to test hypothesis x' then this is taken at face value. Fortunately, science in general also includes a mechanism for revealing such dishonesty (ie you have to be able to repeat an experiment), but in studies like this you rely on the integrity of those who do the work. In this case that faith was misplaced, and this only came to light after the facts.
That doesn't excuse the FMBR article from completely failing to mention any of this. There again, if you check the references at the end of the article you will find the only reference to any peer-reviewed work is actually to the Templeton study.
Yes, I do pray to God. And yes, I do believe that when I am in a dire need for help, God does listen to my prayers.
I am not a Christian, and I do not believe in the Christian way of thinking about God. I just believe that there is some higher power above us who can listen to us, and protect us in time of need.
Is there anyone out here who believes in God like me?
I am not a Christian, and I do not believe in the Christian way of thinking about God. I just believe that there is some higher power above us who can listen to us, and protect us in time of need.
Is there anyone out here who believes in God like me?
I have prayed to God many times and He has answered me many times in different forms and ways.
The bible teaches us on different ways of praying and all of them are for a particular purpose, time and place.
I believe that it is purely based on the level of relationship one has with God. For example sometimes i will be walking and talking to God in my head and I know and believe that He hears me.
You see, we carry the very presence of God every where we go, anywhere no matter what we are doing thus we should know that He is with us (EMMANUEL).
God hears you anytime you open your mouth to talk to him whether is understanding language or in tongues.
The bible teaches us on different ways of praying and all of them are for a particular purpose, time and place.
I believe that it is purely based on the level of relationship one has with God. For example sometimes i will be walking and talking to God in my head and I know and believe that He hears me.
You see, we carry the very presence of God every where we go, anywhere no matter what we are doing thus we should know that He is with us (EMMANUEL).
God hears you anytime you open your mouth to talk to him whether is understanding language or in tongues.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Pure woo-woo, and quite typical of the type. |
I am not discrediting, or trying to discredit the study, as you are correct, not only has the study been peer-reviewed, but there have been subsequent papers in PubMed that validated the results. However all of these studies used rigorous scientific methods. Prayer is more than just stats, there is something sacred in it, lots of faith, surrender, absence of fear, all the stuff that obviously would be completely excluded by a scientist. For example if you would go to a patient and tell that patient you are doing a study about intercessory prayer, perhaps that patient will immediately become afraid that he/she is going to die and start worrying. Compare this with people who care about the patient, have a link with the patient through that caring and have built some trust with the patient. And then without letting the patient know about it, gather friends together, and pray. I know this has to be the world of "woo-woo" for you, but for me it is the background that is completely necessary to prayer, the elements of faith, love, and hope. Of forgiveness, and letting go, of getting to the stage where you do not fear death anymore. You have to have faith and being receptive to prayer.
So my question is: how can the methods of scientific research studies allow for all of these factors, can it make room for it?
| saratdear wrote: |
| Yes, I do pray to God. And yes, I do believe that when I am in a dire need for help, God does listen to my prayers.
I am not a Christian, and I do not believe in the Christian way of thinking about God. I just believe that there is some higher power above us who can listen to us, and protect us in time of need. Is there anyone out here who believes in God like me? |
What about when you're not in dire need of help?
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
There IS NO middle ground. Either you do it scientifically or you don't. Should we change the scientific method because millions of people believe in Astrology? Hey, let's chuck out the actual science of Astronomy and all go back to believing that your future is predicted by a lot of hypothetical and deeply inaccurate planetary motions.
The fact that people THINK that prayer works is fine. The placebo effect is real. Don't try to tell me that it has some effect OTHER than placebo, however. If you want to demonstrate that then do it scientifically, don't ask me to suspend my disbelief, because I say it is bollox!
| Quote: |
| So my question is: how can the methods of scientific research studies allow for all of these factors, can it make room for it? |
People misunderstand that word. They think that placebo is some sort of imaginary effect and that scientists are belittling it by calling it 'placebo'. Far from it. We know it exists and, in many cases, can be a very important factor. You wouldn't want to sanction a new drug that only works on those who 'believe' - that way lies madness. In the olden days we did exactly that - doctors routinely prescribed sugar-pills, and the patient's belief in the treatment was enough to ensure some positive effect. That is fine (and there are those who say that this should still be done), but it doesn't say that sugar pills are an effective treatment. It says that science does not yet have a handle on the power of the mind. That is a work in progress - but the only way it CAN progress is by sticking to the scientific method. Introducing woo-woo concepts, which are blatant nonsense, merely clouds the issue.
The basic proposition is that prayer has some effect. The scientific consensus is that it does NOT - even after allowing for the placebo effect. It really is THAT simple.
PS - The whole mission statement of the Templeton Foundation is to do with reconciling science with faith. It is a non-starter, but at least the TF had the basic honesty to publish their survey, even though it didn't show what they wanted. The FMBR article is deeply dishonest and I have no time for such nonsense.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
|
I believe prayer works for people who have faith and believe in it, and are receptive to it. It is something that goes deep inside ourselves. It cannot be proven with the scientific method that we have as the scientific method disregards the essential elements that make prayer work. That does not mean that prayer does not work. Perhaps only for scientists it does not work.
Quite some time ago, people worshiped many different gods. Currently, most of the world views these old gods as mythological. In short, they are not now, and were not then, real. Despite this, these gods were prayed to by their followers. This brings to mind two questions.
Did these prayers go unanswered, due to the fact that the gods were not real?
Or, as has been mentioned, does prayer work regardless of the existence of a deity?
If the prayers to "false gods" went unanswered, then prayer is a specifically Abrahamic tool for speaking to that particular god. On the other hand, if the prayers to the old gods were as legitimate as modern prayer is to "the" god, then prayer is nothing more than a placebo. We might as well pray to a can of peas. So let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that there was a scientifically sound test performed, which proved beyond doubt that prayer had a definite positive effect on a persons health.
It seems that there really are only two choices at this point. Either accept that prayer is a placebo, or go with the idea that the millions upon millions of people who prayed to other gods(and many still do) were wasting their time praying to the "wrong" god(s).
After sitting here thinking about it, I see a third option, which is sort of a religious compromise: Prayer works for everyone, because "the" god listens to all people, regardless of whether they worship "him". But then, that would mean it doesn't matter what religion one is, which makes the idea of conversion and spreading the gospel rather useless.
Did these prayers go unanswered, due to the fact that the gods were not real?
Or, as has been mentioned, does prayer work regardless of the existence of a deity?
If the prayers to "false gods" went unanswered, then prayer is a specifically Abrahamic tool for speaking to that particular god. On the other hand, if the prayers to the old gods were as legitimate as modern prayer is to "the" god, then prayer is nothing more than a placebo. We might as well pray to a can of peas. So let's imagine, for the sake of argument, that there was a scientifically sound test performed, which proved beyond doubt that prayer had a definite positive effect on a persons health.
It seems that there really are only two choices at this point. Either accept that prayer is a placebo, or go with the idea that the millions upon millions of people who prayed to other gods(and many still do) were wasting their time praying to the "wrong" god(s).
After sitting here thinking about it, I see a third option, which is sort of a religious compromise: Prayer works for everyone, because "the" god listens to all people, regardless of whether they worship "him". But then, that would mean it doesn't matter what religion one is, which makes the idea of conversion and spreading the gospel rather useless.
| Ophois wrote: |
| Isn't that sort of an idiotic way to perform such an experiment? Dealing with ailing patients and such, one would figure that they would make it a completely blind study. Not telling the subjects that they are partaking in an experiment which may or may not undermine their most dearly held beliefs while they or their loved ones lives and health are at risk. Seems extremely unscientific.
The biggest flaw with this study, as far as I am concerned, was that they approached it with the intent of proving prayer worked. To do any sort of scientific study, you don't aim for a certain outcome. You simply gather data, then let the data itself reveal the outcome. This was not a scientific study at all, but rather an attempt at propaganda. Good to see they fell flat on their faces. Thank god. |
Others have pointed out that your understanding of the methodology was flawed, but no one was pointed out the fundamental flaw in the arguments of everyone who says "prayer works, but can't be measured".
But first a couple of points:
"The biggest flaw with this study, as far as I am concerned, was that they approached it with the intent of proving prayer worked. To do any sort of scientific study, you don't aim for a certain outcome." - Completely false. That's not how science works. You make a hypothesis, then you test it. That's what they did. They hypothesized that prayer would make a difference for the better, and it didn't.
"This was not a scientific study at all, but rather an attempt at propaganda." - It was, in fact, both.
Now for the general problem: you cannot honestly make a claim that prayer has a measurable effect in the natural world, then turn around and say it can't be measured. That's patently dishonest.
If prayer does anything measurable - regardless of what that "anything" is, or how it's done (whether it's done by a god or not) - then it can be scientifically tested. It doesn't need to be quantifiable (you don't need to be able to put it in specific numbers), it just needs to be measurable.
That's the bottom line for believers: either stop saying that prayer has an effect on the world, or start showing us what that effect is. It doesn't matter how minute that effect is (we can image individual atoms... and even smaller), or how complex and distributed it is (we have statistical tools that can let us pick a fart out of a furor). Just tell us what prayer is supposed to do, and we'll test it. Or, stop trying to tell us that prayer works.
| Indi wrote: |
| Completely false. That's not how science works. You make a hypothesis, then you test it. |
| Quote: |
| That's what they did. They hypothesized that prayer would make a difference for the better, and it didn't. |
My big question about this test is "Why"? What was the point?
Was this supposed to convert people, had it gone the other way? I'm sure that nobody abandoned prayer, much less religion, after seeing the test results. So why bother? I'm actually amazed that they released the results, they do earn points for that.
| liljp617 wrote: | ||
What about when you're not in dire need of help? |
Well, that depends. What I actually meant was, God might or might not listen to everything I say to him, but when I need him the most, like, say some danger situation, he responds by showing me a way.
I do not hear any magical voice of God in my head, talking to me back, but I believe that he listens to everything.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Would you say science is the same as it has been hundreds of years ago before people realized the world was round instead of flat? |
The ancient Greeks knew the world was round. No educated person in Europe thought anything other than that. It is also a crazy debating point for the supporters of the paranormal to attempt. It simply demonstrates the 'ad populum' fallacy in action. Just because many people think that there is some effect, that doesn't mean (or even imply) that there IS such an effect.
| Quote: |
| So how can it stay the same? And no, for me it does not work completely as when you disregard part of "life", there has to be something lacking in science when it cannot make allowance for it. |
| Quote: |
| Prayers have been around for centuries, so has religion. At least Richard Dawkins tried to work his way through it. |
| Quote: |
| That I like. But to completely disregard human emotion, shows that something is lacking somewhere. You can't stick humans in a test tube and strip everything else away, because when you strip their emotions and the "unscientific" parts away, you don't have the same reality anymore. It is something that is part of "an experiment" not the real world. |
| Quote: |
| I believe prayer works for people who have faith and believe in it, and are receptive to it. It is something that goes deep inside ourselves. It cannot be proven with the scientific method that we have as the scientific method disregards the essential elements that make prayer work. That does not mean that prayer does not work. Perhaps only for scientists it does not work. |
Just because you 'believe' that prayer works does not mean that we should throw away, or modify, the most successful and powerful tool we have to look at the world. Uri Geller appears to believe that he can bend spoons with his mind, perform telepathic acts, and various other woo-woo. He can't. That is not a problem for science - it is a problem for Geller and those gullible enough to believe him.
Those who believe, like you, that prayer works, should demonstrate that. The simply fact is that you can't, because it doesn't. It is the same mentality displayed by 'believers' in alien abductions and similar conspiracy theories:
"These things happen", they say, "and millions of people agree"
"Well, we can find no evidence", say the scientists
"Well, your scientific method is therefore flawed", they say
"Or perhaps there is nothing to detect", say the scientists
"That is because science doesn't know everything", they say
Typical resort to woo-woo. No scientist would claim to 'know everything', but that 'defence' is simply a smoke-screen to hide the fact that there is actually nothing to measure, and therefore nothing to explain.
The 'ad populum' fallacy, coupled to the 'appeal to ignorance' fallacy, is a very poor basis for debate....
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I get tired of hearing this fallacy repeated.
The ancient Greeks knew the world was round. No educated person in Europe thought anything other than that. It is also a crazy debating point for the supporters of the paranormal to attempt. It simply demonstrates the 'ad populum' fallacy in action. Just because many people think that there is some effect, that doesn't mean (or even imply) that there IS such an effect. |
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
|
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Those who believe, like you, that prayer works, should demonstrate that. The simply fact is that you can't, because it doesn't. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
You clearly don't understand it, hence you make fairly stupid comments about 'the naked eye' and 'completely disregard what it cannot see'. Last time I checked the particle physicists were not relying on the 'naked eye'.
If you spent a fraction of the time you spend posting actually THINKING, then you might post something sensible, instead of this string of falsities, fallacies and woo-woo.
| Quote: |
| Then perhaps psychologists and neuro-scientists should have been involved in the study? Were they? |
| Quote: |
| Right, it cannot be demonstrated scientifically. There are elements in prayer that cannot be accommodated by science. |
| Ophois wrote: | ||
My big question about this test is "Why"? What was the point? Was this supposed to convert people, had it gone the other way? I'm sure that nobody abandoned prayer, much less religion, after seeing the test results. So why bother? I'm actually amazed that they released the results, they do earn points for that. |
You're looking in the wrong place. The religious group had their mind made up before the experiment began - and that's not opinion, it's fact, backed up by the evidence of the fact that after the experiment failed... the experiment that they designed, agreed to and paid for... they just brushed it off with a stupid argument about how it never would have worked anyway (so why pay for it, duh?). Forget them. They don't matter.
The people that matter are people like me, who are genuinely curious to see if intercessory prayer does make a real difference. i don't believe in the religion of the experimenters, or in any gods in general, but if intercessory prayer worked that would certainly make the claims more plausible. (Or, it may be the first evidence for some kind of psychic capability... who knows?) The results didn't surprise me - they were just what i expected - but if they had shown an effect i would have been one of the most vocal proponents of further experimentation.
Believers in "stuff" - like religious stuff - like to claim that they're the open-minded ones because they "accept" things that others (people like me, for example), don't... but that's rubbish. Open-mindedness doesn't mean accepting everything, it just means accepting that anything is possible. That's another reason for the experiment: to answer the curiosity of open-minded people - real open-minded people, not the ones who claim they are.
And finally, there is the practical reason for it. If the experiment had shown evidence of a "prayer effect", it might have been a powerful medical tool - there could have been churches "hired" by hospitals to pray for people, or people could increase their chances by appealing to their congregations, etc. etc. It would have also opened up an entirely new field of research, with great potential benefits. It may even have led to a scientific study of gods!
But, of course, it didn't work (as expected). But that doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying.
| Indi wrote: |
| You're looking in the wrong place. The religious group had their mind made up before the experiment began - and that's not opinion, it's fact, backed up by the evidence of the fact that after the experiment failed... the experiment that they designed, agreed to and paid for... they just brushed it off with a stupid argument about how it never would have worked anyway (so why pay for it, duh?). Forget them. They don't matter. |
| Quote: |
| But, of course, it didn't work (as expected). But that doesn't mean it wasn't worth trying. |
| Indi wrote: |
| You're looking in the wrong place. The religious group had their mind made up before the experiment began - and that's not opinion, it's fact, backed up by the evidence of the fact that after the experiment failed... the experiment that they designed, agreed to and paid for... they just brushed it off with a stupid argument about how it never would have worked anyway (so why pay for it, duh?). Forget them. They don't matter. |
| Ophois wrote: | ||||
|
i think you are making unrealistic demands on scientists. It doesn't matter whether you expect certain results before running an experiment, or even whether you want them - and in almost all situations, scientists do expect or hope for certain results. What matters is whether or not you seek out and report those results honestly. These scientists did that - even though it contradicted their personal beliefs - and for that, they deserve due credit.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
There are a number of factors you have to understand if you want a clear picture of what happened.
First, Benson didn't design the study, the Templeton Foundation did (technically, one of their committees) - and then they shopped around for a scientist who shared their vision to run it. The Templeton Foundation didn't really design the study either; they used an earlier design by Randolph Byrd.
Now, the Byrd study is (in)famous as one of the most notorious of the "scientific prayer study" genre. Byrd ran a study in 1988 very similar to Benson's to find out whether prayer helped sick patients, and "found" a statistically significant positive prayer effect. But the Byrd study was a sham. He didn't "find" the statistically significant relationship, he made it. Literally. Initially he found no change was caused by prayer. Then he used his knowledge of which patients were prayed for (violating the rule of blind studies), and then checked data table after data table to sniff out (positive) relationships, and then published that data as his "positive result". Needless to say, scientists didn't take it seriously.
Fast forward to 1996. The Templeton Foundation wants to run the Byrd experiment again (because they believe it's "positive results" were legitimate) - only this time, they want to run the experiment properly, so they fix the problems with the design, and start shopping around for a scientist who will do it for them. The stumble upon a scientist in their ranks who'll do it, and start channelling him money... and the rest is history.
Am i saying that Herbert Benson was part of the Templeton Foundation? Why yes, yes i am. This is Dr. Benson's professional resume. Scroll on down to the section on "Affiliated Institutions", under the heading "National and Regional", and lo:
1991-2003 Board of Advisors, Center for Humility Theology, John Templeton Foundation
| Indi wrote: |
| Am i saying that Herbert Benson was part of the Templeton Foundation? Why yes, yes i am. This is Dr. Benson's professional resume. Scroll on down to the section on "Affiliated Institutions", under the heading "National and Regional", and lo:
1991-2003 Board of Advisors, Center for Humility Theology, John Templeton Foundation |
| Quote: |
| Dr. Herbert Benson of the Harvard Medical School is a board member who
believes that evidence for the efficacy of intercessory prayer in medicinal settings is mounting. |
Source: http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/articles/Spirituality_and_Well_Being_Programs.pdf
Wonder how ethical it is to award a research study to someone who is a member of the Board? Sort of immediately indicates bias of a kind.
| deanhills wrote: | ||||
Source: http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/articles/Spirituality_and_Well_Being_Programs.pdf Wonder how ethical it is to award a research study to someone who is a member of the Board? Sort of immediately indicates bias of a kind. |
Not really - it's rather like someone on the board of directors for a pharmaceutical company testing to see whether one of that company's drugs works to cure some disease. There's nothing underhanded about it, provided the study is done legitimately. (And, really, who else is going to do it? A competitor? Hardly.)
Scientists are not robots. They have beliefs and desires. So long as they do their jobs as scientists without letting their biases influence them, it's all good. And, the whole point of openness in science, and peer review, is so that just in case their biases did influence their work - deliberately or not - it can be sniffed out and fixed.
| Indi wrote: |
| Not really - it's rather like someone on the board of directors for a pharmaceutical company testing to see whether one of that company's drugs works to cure some disease. There's nothing underhanded about it, provided the study is done legitimately. (And, really, who else is going to do it? A competitor? Hardly.)
Scientists are not robots. They have beliefs and desires. So long as they do their jobs as scientists without letting their biases influence them, it's all good. And, the whole point of openness in science, and peer review, is so that just in case their biases did influence their work - deliberately or not - it can be sniffed out and fixed. |
U don't need to pray to talk with god... just listen a bit!
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
Scientists don't work by bidding on contracts. They decide what they will research next, then create proposals to ask for grants to do that research. Why? Because scientists know better than corporations (or religious foundations, for that matter) what research:
- Has the best chance of producing publishable results,
- Is in the capabilities of their expertise (and scientific research in general),
- They understand best (and their understanding and knowledge is what gets put on the line when they publish).
And that's the way it should be. Science is done by scientists - in every stage of the process, from designing the experiments to publishing the results. Organizations with agendas have no business involving themselves in any part of that process. If they want to offer money, that's fine - so long as the science is still being left to scientists. Science should not be done - even just the designing of experiments - by organizations, it should be done by scientists.
And that was what was done here. It just so happened that the organization already had a scientist in their midst who was willing to stake his professional reputation on the research - and who was capable of designing (technically "fixing the previous design") an experiment that would serve the aims of the organization. After all, if Benson had done anything unethical or incompetent, the Templeton Foundation wouldn't have suffered - Benson's career would have.
| Indi wrote: | ||||
Scientists don't work by bidding on contracts. They decide what they will research next, then create proposals to ask for grants to do that research. Why? Because scientists know better than corporations (or religious foundations, for that matter) what research:
And that's the way it should be. Science is done by scientists - in every stage of the process, from designing the experiments to publishing the results. Organizations with agendas have no business involving themselves in any part of that process. If they want to offer money, that's fine - so long as the science is still being left to scientists. Science should not be done - even just the designing of experiments - by organizations, it should be done by scientists. And that was what was done here. It just so happened that the organization already had a scientist in their midst who was willing to stake his professional reputation on the research - and who was capable of designing (technically "fixing the previous design") an experiment that would serve the aims of the organization. After all, if Benson had done anything unethical or incompetent, the Templeton Foundation wouldn't have suffered - Benson's career would have. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Very good posting thanks Indi. Got it! For example if Templeton had 1-million dollars for research, they could advertise it somewhere, and then someone would apply and say this is the topic I would like to research and this is my proposal, plan and budget. The part that is difficult to figure out however is that the proposal was made by someone who sits on the board of Templeton. I would have thought that that would have disqualified him. It obviously did not. It's a pity though, as I can imagine there are many academics who would have loved to do the project. It may have been good if they could have considered competing proposals. |
There were dozens of offers from dozens of organizations similar to the Templeton Foundation that were open to any takers, before, during and after the Byrd experiment. There still are (if you're a scientist of any merit, put together a proposal, then go to someone like Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute... you'll be set up in no time). No scientists were interested. i doubt even Benson would have bothered with it if he weren't actually part of the Templeton Foundation.
There's nothing really surprising about that. There are thousands of open offers for thousands of different kinds of experiments - on topics ranging from Bible stuff to ESP - that just sit untouched for decades. Why? Because most professional scientists are smart enough to realize that they're just dead ends. The chance of getting a result worthy of mentioning is next to zero - and you're going to have a hard time convincing a respectable journal to publish a paper that's going to make every scientist in the world go "yeah, duh."
So, no, there probably wouldn't have been any competing proposals. It's kinda neat to have the results, but they're not exactly shocking results. They found a scientist who was willing to waste their career time on the experiment, and good for them, but they're not going to find too many more of those.
Scientists make their careers almost entirely on how often they publish. Journals exist almost entirely on the quality of the papers they publish. Journals don't publish papers with no interest - and frankly, there's no interest in papers that state the obvious. So put yourself in the shoes of a scientist, who has to publish or perish. Do you run an experiment that will almost certainly fail, and which will therefore probably not get published because the failure is no big news?
I sometimes talk to someone I believe in in case I need to be very lucky/I need to do my best to do something.
For example just before an important test, in the lottery ...
I just say to myself, please man, help me.
And for the more serious things, in hard times, I sometimes 'pray' to someone, but this rarely ever happens.
For example just before an important test, in the lottery ...
I just say to myself, please man, help me.
And for the more serious things, in hard times, I sometimes 'pray' to someone, but this rarely ever happens.
| Indi wrote: |
| So, no, there probably wouldn't have been any competing proposals. It's kinda neat to have the results, but they're not exactly shocking results. They found a scientist who was willing to waste their career time on the experiment, and good for them, but they're not going to find too many more of those. |
| Quote: |
| Dr. Harold G. Koenig is co-director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology, and Health at Duke University Medical Center, where he also serves on the faculty as Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Associate Professor of Medicine. Dr. Koenig is the author of many books, including "The Healing Power of Faith," "Faith and Mental Health," and "Spiritual Caregiving," and he has been nominated twice for the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. He spoke with us recently about why he believes being part of a religious community can make people healthier—and happier.
A recent study suggests that praying for others does not improve their health. How do you interpret the results? I think the results are very consistent with good science and good theology. Good science because there's no acceptable scientific mechanism or pathway by which prayer—at least the way it was designed in this study without people knowing whether or not they were prayed for—could have any effect, and it's good theology because God is not predictable, he's not a part of the material universe. It tells us nothing about the effectiveness of prayer. Do you think it's impossible to do that? It's impossible for studies designed like this. God would have to be quantitative and predictable, which is ludicrous in the context of any Christian or Jewish or Islamic tradition and even within the Eastern traditions. How do you measure God's will for a person? Ninety-six percent of the participants in the Harvard study had someone else praying for them. We don't know how much prayer they had, we don't know how sincere the prayers were. None of that was taken into account, and it would be very hard to measure those things. And none of the benefits to the prayed-for group were measured after 30 days. Maybe God healed them after 30 days—we don't know. You can see that this study is ridiculous. Putting aside the ability to be able to prove it or not, do you believe that prayer can heal—specifically help someone, for example, recover from cancer? Absolutely. I believe that on faith and I also believe it because I've seen that happen with people, including personal friends. Of course they knew they were being prayed for, by their families and their churches, and those people have had remarkable recoveries. I believe it because it says it in the scriptures that I believe in. So there's no doubt in my mind that prayers help people—those who are prayed for and those saying the prayer. One thing we do know is that God is good and because God is good, whatever God allows to happen or does in response to prayer has to be good. Theologically speaking it may be bad for a person to do well after coronary artery bypass surgery. It may be that if a person had some complications, he would realize his limitations, he may reach out to God, he may forgive his neighbor, he may tell his loved one that he loves them. Good things come out of difficult situations. |
Source: http://www.beliefnet.com/Health/2006/05/What-Religion-Can-Do-For-Your-Health.aspx
Dr. Koenig Books: http://www.templetonpress.org/bookreviews_detail.asp?book_id=80
Bio at Dukes University:http://www.spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/about/hkoenig/
| deanhills wrote: |
| I can think of at least one person (and me not being an expert I would then think there has to be many others as well), who would have been interested to conduct a research study like that. The following is a quote from an interview that also touches on the Benson study. For me it shows that there is a possibility of doing the research differently as Dr. De Koenig indicated that there was no information regarding the quality of the prayers, i.e. how sincere the prayers had been conducted: |
| Koenig wrote: |
| I think the results are very consistent with good science and good theology. Good science because there's no acceptable scientific mechanism or pathway by which prayer—at least the way it was designed in this study without people knowing whether or not they were prayed for—could have any effect, and it's good theology because God is not predictable, he's not a part of the material universe. |
Read what he is saying again carefully. He has (either through ignorance, laziness or malice) ignored the fact that a major part of the study involved EXACTLY one group of patients knowing that they were being prayed for. In fact it is the ones who DID know that did the worst in the study.
Now, check his statement about science - 'no acceptable scientific mechanism'? What does that mean? Acceptable to whom? Is he trying to say that science is unable to address this issue because no mechanism has been proposed? Absolute rot! If the experiment HAD shown a positive effect for prayer then a mechanism would be being actively sought as we speak.
It is perfectly legitimate to first check if there is anything to explain. If there is nothing to measure then why on earth would you wish to devise a mechanism to explain it?
Did Newton propose a mechanism for gravity? (well, actually he did, but it was loony-tunes nonsense involving angels and the like). Does that mean that gravity has 'no effect'?
The question is not one of mechanism, it is one of existence. You don't propose a mechanism UNLESS there is something to explain - to do otherwise would be potty.
Koenig doesn't know what he is talking about in the realms of science - that much is crystal clear., so perhaps we need to consider him more as a theologian?
Let's see...
"God is not predictable, he is not part of the Material universe". OK - that sounds like classic Deism to me. (Remember this statement of his, because we will come back to it in a couple of paragraphs, when he directly and blatantly contradicts it.)
As an attempted argument it, of course, sucks.
If God is not part of the material universe, and if this explains why we can't detect his 'works', then why on earth would anyone bother praying to him/her/it at all? Clearly we exist in the material universe. If God doesn't, then there is no communication possible (or, put another way, God is out of 'causal contact' with us. Out of causality, out of mind!
Let's tackle his next set of nonsense....
| Koenig wrote: |
| It's impossible for studies designed like this. God would have to be quantitative and predictable, which is ludicrous in the context of any Christian or Jewish or Islamic tradition and even within the Eastern traditions. |
) I suspect that Koenig doesn't know what the terms he uses actually mean, which is a bit worrying....More importantly, Koenig has a fairly strong relationship with the Templeton foundation (he has been proposed as an award winner at least twice) so it seems odd that he didn't voice these concerns BEFORE the results were announced. One wonders, if the study HAD produced a positive result, whether he would still be claiming that it was ludicrous? Call me an old cynic if you like, but I think not......
Now check the following fantasy:
| Quote: |
| How do you measure God's will for a person? Ninety-six percent of the participants in the Harvard study had someone else praying for them. We don't know how much prayer they had, we don't know how sincere the prayers were. None of that was taken into account, and it would be very hard to measure those things. And none of the benefits to the prayed-for group were measured after 30 days. Maybe God healed them after 30 days—we don't know. You can see that this study is ridiculous. |
a) We do know the minimum prayer that they had. They may have had more. They had significant amounts of prayer, weekly, from large congregations.
Here's was the study authors say
| Quote: |
| The researchers standardized the start and duration of prayers and provided only the patients' first name and last initial. Prayers began on the eve or day of surgery and continued daily for 14 days. Everyone prayed for received the same standardized prayer. |
b) "96 percent of the participants in the Harvard study had someone else praying for them"
What does he mean by this? Where does this figure come from? The whole POINT of the study was to test intercessory prayer. That means, BY DEFINITION, someone else praying for you. That is, in fact, what the damn word means. What IS Koenig on about here?
Actually I KNOW what he is on about, because I have read the study several times.
About 96% of the entire test groups (including control) BELIEVED that relatives and friends would ALSO be praying for them, as well as the study 'prayers' (note that this was a 'belief' NOT a fact). So, if we assume that everyone had a bit of prayer, then what we have is a control group with a bit of prayer or no prayer, and two test groups with a lot of prayer. Interesting, then, that the group with a lot of prayer did a bit worse than the group with little or none.....Maybe prayer is potent stuff and you only need a whiff to do the trick? Or maybe it just doesn't work
c) The people praying were regular church-going Christians. True, it was not possible to strictly control the amount and sincerity of prayer (but they had a good stab at it, as we see above). The whole reason for using large samples/groups is to iron out the sort of 'blips' you see with small numbers. There was certainly enough prayer to 'reach' God (or there would have been, if God was part of the material universe)
d) 30 days is a reasonable time-scale for individual subjects in such a study, since it represents the period of recovery when the patient is most likely to show deleterious (or positive) effects. There would be little point tracking them for months, since the objective was to study the influence of prayer on recovery from a specific operation.
Now, watch this next bit of ducking and diving....I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry...
| Koenig wrote: |
| Absolutely. I believe that on faith and I also believe it because I've seen that happen with people, including personal friends. Of course they knew they were being prayed for, by their families and their churches, and those people have had remarkable recoveries. I believe it because it says it in the scriptures that I believe in. So there's no doubt in my mind that prayers help people—those who are prayed for and those saying the prayer. |
'I believe it because it says it in the scriptures'. That is ALL you need to know about Mr Koenig.
Finally, he backtracks and directly argues against his previous point that God is neither quantitative nor predictable.
| Quote: |
| One thing we do know is that God is good and because God is good, whatever God allows to happen or does in response to prayer has to be good. |
Finally he goes 'Monty Python' and completely looses any touch with reality (or credibility) with this incredible final passage:
| Quote: |
| Theologically speaking it may be bad for a person to do well after coronary artery bypass surgery. It may be that if a person had some complications, he would realize his limitations, he may reach out to God, he may forgive his neighbor, he may tell his loved one that he loves them. Good things come out of difficult situations. |
It may be 'bad' for a person to 'do well' after heart surgery?
Good things come out of difficult situations? Of course they can - but a lot of BAD things do too. This is tautological garbage unworthy of an undergraduate theology student. The Jesuits would be ashamed of this 'amateur night' nonsense - he can't even demonstrate a basic competence in Jesuitical trickery, let alone string a coherent argument together. I sincerely hope that he is not a teaching professor, because he must have a combined doctorate/masters in tautolologies, statements of the bleedin obvious, and amateur pseudo-logical rhetoric. It certainly isn't science and its pretty awful theology.
Just when I thought I'd read the worst of his nonsense, we get
| Quote: |
| Faith is evidence of things not seen. |
| Quote: |
| So be alert, if your prayer isn't being answered, then maybe you're not looking for the answer that you really need. |
a) This argument is about 1500 years old - and it wasn't particularly convincing at the time.
b) Tautological* arguments are fine in maths, but not much use in this context.
Simply framed, he is saying that God knows what you need. Therefore, by definition, if he doesn't appear to answer your prayer then obviously you are praying for the wrong thing.
Yes, nice try Koenig, but hardly a new (or particularly good) argument......
*Tautological arguments offer no new information. Consider his position:
a) God only does good (faith)
b) Prayer works (faith)
c) Therefore prayer does good (logic&faith)
d) The fact that the recipient doesn't see it as good is because he/she doesn't understand what is good for them. (dribble)
Is that a reasonable argument? Is it testable? Is it, in fact, anything other than a poor attempt at rhetorical sophistry? I think not.
Last edited by Bikerman on Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:09 pm; edited 5 times in total
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Yes, nice try Koenig, but hardly a new (or particularly good) argument...... |
Koenig is a scientist. He is an academic with quite a large number of publications to his name. He is also a Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and an Associate Professor in Medicine at a prominent University in the United States. In other words, he is a specialist in psychiatry and behaviour of people as well is medically qualified. As such he would have been a good candidate for conducting a research study of this kind. The fact that you do not agree with his views, does not automatically disqualify him as a suitable candidate for undertaking a study like this. Nor would it have determined the outcome of the study either. Benson had also hoped for a different outcome for his study. I'm not saying that Koenig would have done a better study. I'm saying that (1) Benson had been on the Board of Templeton Foundation (2) then asked why Benson and not someone else (3) Indi then suggested there might not have been anybody else (4) I then answered with the name of someone who could have done the study too.
Why would Koenig have been a good choice? He is clear that he thinks such studies are a waste of time.
He is NOT a scientist. He started as a nurse, got a batchelor of Arts degrree, trained as a doctor and has got himself certified as a psychiatrist. That is not what I call a scientist - that is what I call a doctor.
Most of his publications (or at least the ones I have managed to find) are popular books.
Look - I have nothing against the man. He has certainly published in the peer-reviewed journals (in fact he was editor of one), largely on the subject of geriatric medicine and treatments.
I know nothing 'ill' of him and have no wish to indulge in character assassination. I simply judge the article you cited - which is contradictory, illogical, poorly thought out and, ultimately, a very poor polemic which would be barely acceptible from an A level theology student, and is certainly not worthy of further serious consideration.
If Koenig wishes to do a 'proper' study then fine - let him do so. To date we have him stating categorically that prayer works based on....well, based on anecdote and faith. That is not the position of a scientist!
He is NOT a scientist. He started as a nurse, got a batchelor of Arts degrree, trained as a doctor and has got himself certified as a psychiatrist. That is not what I call a scientist - that is what I call a doctor.
Most of his publications (or at least the ones I have managed to find) are popular books.
Look - I have nothing against the man. He has certainly published in the peer-reviewed journals (in fact he was editor of one), largely on the subject of geriatric medicine and treatments.
I know nothing 'ill' of him and have no wish to indulge in character assassination. I simply judge the article you cited - which is contradictory, illogical, poorly thought out and, ultimately, a very poor polemic which would be barely acceptible from an A level theology student, and is certainly not worthy of further serious consideration.
If Koenig wishes to do a 'proper' study then fine - let him do so. To date we have him stating categorically that prayer works based on....well, based on anecdote and faith. That is not the position of a scientist!
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Why would Koenig have been a good choice? He is clear that he thinks such studies are a waste of time. |
You keep side-tracting the argument by focussing on Koenig as some sort of review of his credentials. That was not why he was mentioned. Koenig was mentioned as one of possibly more other scientists who could also have done the research study. The argument was that Benson was on the Board of Templeton Foundation, I was wondering whether that would show some form of conflict of interest or bias to have given him the million dollar research study to do. I had thought that it should have been put out for tender. Indi did not see it that way, and suggested that perhaps he would have been the only one really qualified to do the study. I thought there would have been more people who could have done the research as well. Koenig came to mind, if not Koenig, I'm sure there has to be others as well qualified, if not better qualified than Benson has been. The only way they would have known is if they had issued an invitation for scientists to submit research proposals.
By the way, if you apply your high standard of being a scientist to Benson as well, how would you rate him? I checked up in PubMed, and have not seen that many first-author "scientific" papers by him, and the books he wrote below are not that scientific to me either. More of the popular kind of books that would have sold by the millions. I'm not knocking Benson, I'm just saying that there had to have been quite a number of other "scientists" who could have done the research study as well.
| Quote: |
| Herbert Benson, M.D., is the Director Emeritus of the Benson-Henry Institute (BHI), and Mind/Body Medical Institute Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
A graduate of Wesleyan University and the Harvard Medical School, Dr. Benson is the author or co-author of more than 180 scientific publications and 11 books: The Relaxation Response, 1975 The Mind/Body Effect, 1979 Beyond the Relaxation Response, 1984 Your Maximum Mind, 1987 The Wellness Book, 1992 Timeless Healing: The Power and Biology of Belief, 1996 The Relaxation Response - Updated and Expanded (25th Anniversary Edition), 2000 The Breakout Principle, 2003 Mind Over Menopause, 2004 Mind Your Heart, 2004 The Harvard Medical School Guide to Lowering Your Blood Pressure, 2006 More than five million copies of his books have been printed in many languages. Dr. Benson is a pioneer in mind/body medicine, one of the first Western physicians to bring spirituality and healing into medicine. In his 35+ year career, he has defined the relaxation response and continues to lead teaching and research into its efficacy in counteracting the harmful effects of stress. The recipient of numerous national and international awards, Dr. Benson lectures widely about mind/body medicine and the BHI's work. His expertise is frequently sought by national and international news media, and he appears in scores of newspapers, magazines, and television programs each year. Dr. Benson's research extends from the laboratory to the clinic to Asian field expeditions. His work serves as a bridge between medicine and religion, East and West, mind and body, and belief and science. |
http://www.mbmi.org/benson/bio.asp
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
| Deanhills wrote: |
| As such he would have been a good candidate for conducting a research study of this kind. |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| don't think I misrepresented what you said. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
In fact you did say that.
| Quote: |
| What I did say was that you were side-tracting the debate. Koenig as a candidate had not been the main issue. Neither did he offer himself (as far as I know) as a candidate for doing the research. I then asked you about Benson's credentials in comparison with Koenig's, when you indicated that you did not regard Koenig as a scientist. I note that you have not replied to this question. |
What do I think of Benson? Well, his CV is available on-line HERE. I obviously don't agree with some of his views on the importance of religion, but I don't doubt his basic stance that the mind is very important in the health of the body. We've known that for a long time - we even have a name for it - the placebo/nocebo effect. To the extent that Benson can add to our knowledge of how this works then I think his work is useful.
I don’t talk to God.
Sometimes, when something really good happens I say “Thank you, God!”.
But that is more a habit. Other than that… I don’t see how He can help me to deal with my problem… I used to talk to Him years ago… What’s the point if nobody listens?
Sometimes, when something really good happens I say “Thank you, God!”.
But that is more a habit. Other than that… I don’t see how He can help me to deal with my problem… I used to talk to Him years ago… What’s the point if nobody listens?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| So, who actually raised the issue of Koenig in the first place? Ahh...that would be you. |
| Quote: |
| What do I think of Benson? Well, his CV is available on-line HERE. I obviously don't agree with some of his views on the importance of religion, but I don't doubt his basic stance that the mind is very important in the health of the body. We've known that for a long time - we even have a name for it - the placebo/nocebo effect. To the extent that Benson can add to our knowledge of how this works then I think his work is useful. |
If Koenig or anyone else really wanted to run the experiment, all they would have to do is go to AiG, or the Discovery Institute, or any one of a dozen other Christian organizations, and present them a sound proposal. They haven't done so.
That's a little paranoid, don't you think?
If Benson's study had turned up positive results, they would have been intensely scrutinized... because they violate everything science "knows" about the universe. The same scrutiny is applied to all scientists. It's called the scientific process. It's not religious persecution. It's science.
What made Benson look good wasn't that he acted as a proper scientist. It was that he acted as a proper scientist even when his beliefs surely tempted him to act otherwise. That is commendable.
Honestly... playing the persecution card is just sad.
| deanhills wrote: |
| I am almost certain that if the prayer study had worked out as Templeton had hoped it would, that Benson would have been given a huge thumbs down. Perhaps people who are happy with the outcome of the study are more tolerant of him as a "scientist" than they would otherwise have been. In a very strange way, the fact that he reported on the study that turned in the opposite direction of what he had hoped for, made him look credible in the eyes of those that might have shot him down completely if his findings had been positive about prayer. |
That's a little paranoid, don't you think?
If Benson's study had turned up positive results, they would have been intensely scrutinized... because they violate everything science "knows" about the universe. The same scrutiny is applied to all scientists. It's called the scientific process. It's not religious persecution. It's science.
What made Benson look good wasn't that he acted as a proper scientist. It was that he acted as a proper scientist even when his beliefs surely tempted him to act otherwise. That is commendable.
Honestly... playing the persecution card is just sad.
You beat me to it Indi.
Yes indeed. The point here is that Benson 'did the right thing' according to the 'rules' of science, even though his beliefs might have sorely tempted him to fudge, or even misrepresent the results. That is what is expected of a scientist - whatever their personal beliefs maybe - and that is, with a very few exceptions, what we get from scientists.
Yes indeed. The point here is that Benson 'did the right thing' according to the 'rules' of science, even though his beliefs might have sorely tempted him to fudge, or even misrepresent the results. That is what is expected of a scientist - whatever their personal beliefs maybe - and that is, with a very few exceptions, what we get from scientists.
Related topics
 |