Re: [Phys-l] God's reaction to prayers simply can't be explored by scientific study.

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>]

At 10:06  -0600 3/31/07, Brian Whatcott wrote:
> I was interested to examine my reaction to this story.   I noticed
> that rationalizing the outcome was relatively fast for me.
>   And I laughed: people do indeed rationalize any result that gives
> rise to conceptual conflict.

That certainly is a natural tendency, but I wouldn't say that it 
always happens. If it did, how would anything new ever get accepted?

However, it is certainly true that the religious ones were quick to 
attempt to rationalize these results, just a quick as they are to 
trumpet results which purport to show the efficacy of prayer.

> If anyone here is moved to explore or teach  the possibility of
> mounting such a research effort in future, may I suggest that the
>   crucial measure would better be an outcome that may be altered
> by ordinary human activity rather than a result that calls for a
>   miracle?

It does seem to me to be pretty hard to demonstrate something like 
the efficacy of prayer by any sort of double-blind research 
technique, since isolating the subject of the experiment will be 
nearly impossible, if not completely impossible. If God listens to 
all prayers, then that must include even those submitted outside of 
the study, and presumably, God would know which of those prayers were 
truly devoted to the desired outcome and which were pro-forma parts 
of the study and take appropriate action. So I would have to agree 
that seeking effects that are dependent on human or other natural 
causes are much more likely to be verifiable.

> A reminder: a virtue of people with spiritual extension is that
>   they are led to be more kind, more loving, more generous, more
> forgiving of transgressors - such social positives that one would
> rationally wish such elements of faith to be propagated even if
> one could know quite surely there was no basis to the Divine
> spirit to which they appeal.

I guess I would be But in any case, I doubt that there is much 
correlation between the core beliefs of people and the presence of 
kind, loving or more generous actions. Many atheists are kind and 
loving, and there are many who profess high religious calling who are 
quite mean-spirited. One fact is well-known: our prisons are 
populated by atheists in a much lower proportion than their presence 
in the general population would imply. One can make of that what one 
will.

> If one accepts this construction of faith, it is not fanciful to
>   realize  that people exposed to negative human relations may
>   easily be damaged, and that people in kinder relations can be
> invigorated.

I'm not sure what this has to do with faith. It does seem to be true 
that people raised in a kind and loving environment are more likely 
to be kind and loving adults, but it is much less clear that 
religious faith has any bearing on this fact.

> Here's a less than scientific example of faith-based intervention.
>   It is found that drug-offenders (and others) who are exposed to
> local faith-based support groups   (driving them to Narc-Anon
>   meetings,finding them small easements etc...) have a better
> recidivism rate than prisoners not so supported.
>   (The recidivism rate can be truly ruinous,
> to them and to the rest of us:   80% and higher; the supported
>   recidivism rate can be surprizingly better, 15% and lower...)
I would certainly like to see the evidence for these statistics. 
Intervention vs. non-intervention might well have such effects if 
they are well designed, but I would question that such huge 
differences would appear between faith-based and non-faith-based 
interventions.

Hugh
--

************************************************************
Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Hard work often pays off after time. But Laziness always pays off now.

			February tagline on 2007 Demotivator's Calendar