Schizophrenia And Genetics

[Guest end3]

 

 

That's not a deflection, End.

In post # 342 (which you quote from) I was describing my position on the issue to Directionless. 

(I still hold to that position.  You haven't yet persuaded me.)

.

.

.

 

You then objected to it, in # 343.

.

.

.

 

I then replied to you in # 344, asking you to persuade me. That's an open-minded and fair invitation for you to persuade me that I'm wrong.  If I'm asking you to persuade me of something, then I haven't yet been persuaded have I? 

 

You haven't yet swayed me from my current position, so I'm holding to it... UNTIL YOU DO.

 

That's not a deflection of any kind, End.

 

I sincerely hope you can see that.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Ok, I would like to discuss it if you have time.

 

Do you think testing prayer is valid. And if so, why please.

 

 

 

Once again I must politely request that you stay on-topic, End.

 

You opened this thread with the issue of original sin and epigenetics and prayer testing is (imho) a side issue that should be dealt with, either later or elsewhere.  

 

So... Yes, I do have the time to discuss original sin and epigenetics with you.

As I wrote earlier, you have my attention and you now know my position (I described it to Directionless on # 342) on the issue.  Please persuade me, using logical argument, evidence, data and science that I'm wrong.  I'll read and digest your arguments.  I'll examine your evidence and your data.  I'll closely inspect the science involved.  Please persuade me.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

No, this is why I think you are being dishonest. YOU deviated from the conversation for Directionless and are not willing to deviate for me. Why not? I was polite, I noted that I would be willing to get back to the original subject after this deviation, but really this IS on topic because it leads to me making my point ABOUT original sin.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Using the quote function, please show me where I deflected, End.

I'll make the effort.

 

The conversation had deviated to post whatever it was that you said, paraphrasing, that science was just the key to one door, and not a key that we could use to unlock or test the supernatural. So that is the issue at hand IMO, not original sin. I will be glad to go back to original sin after we have discussed this if you would like Otherwise, I tend to think you do not really wish to have a conversation.

 

Maybe you ought to start a fresh thread on defining and testing "supernatural"? That would be an interesting discussion IMO.

 

I disagree with the idea that supernatural is simply undiscovered natural. I think supernatural is randomness that is somehow controlled from outside the natural world.

 

One of my physics professors said that a piece of chalk could theoretically quantum-tunnel through an eraser except that it would be extremely unlikely. Probability and randomness are fundamental to quantum mechanics (not that I claim to understand QM much ). Everything is made of tiny particles that behave randomly.

 

IMO supernatural is when we cannot predict the result of something in the natural world - even if we know as much as possible about the state of the natural world and the natural laws. But also believing in supernatural means to believe that this fundamental uncertainty reflects the will of something outside the natural world (God, human spirit, etc.)

 

 

 

Is this relevant, Directionless?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

It doesn't really matter the salient points D, they are just going to gang up and stay on talking points or tell you how much you need to go study some more in order to avoid putting the cards on the table.

[Guest end3]

prayer

 

 

/pre(ə)r/

 

 

noun

 

noun: prayer; plural noun: prayers

 

 

 

 

a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.

"I'll say a prayer for him"

 

 

synonyms: invocation, intercession, devotion; More

archaicorison

 

"the priest's murmured prayers"

 

 

 

 

•a religious service, especially a regular one, at which people gather in order to pray together.

"500 people were detained as they attended Friday prayers"

 

 

 

•an earnest hope or wish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1sin noun \ˈsin\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EasyBib

 

 

 

 

 

 

Definition of SIN

 

 

1

 

a : an offense against religious or moral law

 

b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food>

 

c : an often serious shortcoming : fault

 

2

 

a : transgression of the law of God

 

b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

[Guest Marty]

 

...IMO supernatural is when we cannot predict the result of something in the natural world - even if we know as much as possible about the state of the natural world and the natural laws. But also believing in supernatural means to believe that this fundamental uncertainty reflects the will of something outside the natural world (God, human spirit, etc.)

 

 

But since we are nowhere near knowing "as much as possible about the natural world", and probably never will, what is the point of positing a super-natural?  If we have exhausted every natural possibility, then I could see that.  But how could we ever even know if we know everything about natural laws?

 

And, if it is possible for something outside of nature affecting the natural laws, wouldn't that, by definition, make it a natural occurrence?  

[directionless]

Is this relevant, Directionless?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Maybe... I tried to discuss my ideas about supernatural on an atheist forum and specifically mentioned the uncertainty principle, but some people there claimed that I misunderstood the concept.

 

I probably have the details wrong and misunderstood, but a couple of atheists I've met on forums have said my ideas are not completely ridiculous. They seemed to know a lot about physics.

 

Someday I want to work my way back through all the basic math and science I've forgotten and flunked until I can understand quantum mechanics a little bit for myself.

[bornagainathiest]

 

No, this is why I think you are being dishonest.

 

I am not being dishonest End.  I am on the level with you.  Please stop suspecting my motives.

 

YOU deviated from the conversation for Directionless and are not willing to deviate for me.

 

Yes, I deviated for Directionless.

Why?  Because he didn't and doesn't hold to the same position as you.  Therefore, I could quite legitimately discuss and debate with him in parallel, without affecting the dialog and the content of the debate between us.  The comments I wrote to him could be seen by you, but they weren't expressly meant for you.  Nor were they meant to persuade you.   

 

If seven or eight other people were involved in this thread I'd still feel quite entitled to talk with them in parallel, while you and I stay on the main topic.  If that's something you can't deal with End, I'll concede the point for that sake of making progress in this thread, ok?

 

Why not? I was polite, I noted that I would be willing to get back to the original subject after this deviation, but really this IS on topic because it leads to me making my point ABOUT original sin.

 

 

Now, let it be noted that I've yielded on this so that you can make your point about prayer, End.

 

Right now I can't see what you're driving at - so I'm accepting by faith that your point IS on topic. 

Now it's up to you to deliver the goods.

 

Please go for it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

 

Is this relevant, Directionless?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Maybe... I tried to discuss my ideas about supernatural on an atheist forum and specifically mentioned the uncertainty principle, but some people there claimed that I misunderstood the concept.

 

I probably have the details wrong and misunderstood, but a couple of atheists I've met on forums have said my ideas are not completely ridiculous. They seemed to know a lot about physics.

 

Someday I want to work my way back through all the basic math and science I've forgotten and flunked until I can understand quantum mechanics a little bit for myself.

 

 

Well, as I understand it Directionless, the Uncertainty Principle doesn't actually tell us that quantum events are random.

 

It tells us that there is always a certain degree of uncertainty about them.  Which is why they are assigned probabilities and why quantum physics has to factor in this lack of certainty.  Does that sound right to you?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[directionless]

 

...IMO supernatural is when we cannot predict the result of something in the natural world - even if we know as much as possible about the state of the natural world and the natural laws. But also believing in supernatural means to believe that this fundamental uncertainty reflects the will of something outside the natural world (God, human spirit, etc.)

 

But since we are nowhere near knowing "as much as possible about the natural world", and probably never will, what is the point of positing a super-natural?  If we have exhausted every natural possibility, then I could see that.  But how could we ever even know if we know everything about natural laws?

 

And, if it is possible for something outside of nature affecting the natural laws, wouldn't that, by definition, make it a natural occurrence?

 

I agree we don't know everything, some of what we know is wrong, and we ourselves are part of the universe so we can't know everything.

 

Here are some thoughts: My definition of natural is those things that we can theoretically measure and know. I believe QM already precisely specifies the limits of what we can know and what we can't know about physical states. I think that is what the uncertainty principle is about.

 

So we already know (if QM is correct) that "randomness"/"uncertainty" is inherent to the universe. It's just a question of what "randomness" means. Is God controlling outcomes each time a probability collapses into a measurement? Or is it just purposeless chaos? If scientists could guess God's purpose could they discern a pattern in the apparent randomness? Like if a sequence of coin flips spelled-out the Torah in Morse code would that mean something? Would that still be "random" if we understand God's purpose enough to expect an outcome with high probability? Does God need to limit his control of random outcomes to preserve randomness?

[directionless]

 

...IMO supernatural is when we cannot predict the result of something in the natural world - even if we know as much as possible about the state of the natural world and the natural laws. But also believing in supernatural means to believe that this fundamental uncertainty reflects the will of something outside the natural world (God, human spirit, etc.)

 

But since we are nowhere near knowing "as much as possible about the natural world", and probably never will, what is the point of positing a super-natural?  If we have exhausted every natural possibility, then I could see that.  But how could we ever even know if we know everything about natural laws?

 

And, if it is possible for something outside of nature affecting the natural laws, wouldn't that, by definition, make it a natural occurrence?

 

I agree we don't know everything, some of what we know is wrong, and we ourselves are part of the universe so we can't know everything.

 

Here are some thoughts: My definition of natural is those things that we can theoretically measure and know. I believe QM already precisely specifies the limits of what we can know and what we can't know about physical states. I think that is what the uncertainty principle is about.

 

So we already know (if QM is correct) that "randomness"/"uncertainty" is inherent to the universe. It's just a question of what "randomness" means. Is God controlling outcomes each time a probability collapses into a measurement? Or is it just purposeless chaos? If scientists could guess God's purpose could they discern a pattern in the apparent randomness? Like if a sequence of coin flips spelled-out the Torah in Morse code would that mean something? Would that still be "random" if we understand God's purpose enough to expect an outcome with high probability? Does God need to limit his control of random outcomes to preserve randomness?

 

EDIT: There are also the conservation laws, entropy, and so forth. So God would need to keep the conservation laws in balance as he guides fate.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

...IMO supernatural is when we cannot predict the result of something in the natural world - even if we know as much as possible about the state of the natural world and the natural laws. But also believing in supernatural means to believe that this fundamental uncertainty reflects the will of something outside the natural world (God, human spirit, etc.)

 

But since we are nowhere near knowing "as much as possible about the natural world", and probably never will, what is the point of positing a super-natural?  If we have exhausted every natural possibility, then I could see that.  But how could we ever even know if we know everything about natural laws?

 

And, if it is possible for something outside of nature affecting the natural laws, wouldn't that, by definition, make it a natural occurrence?

 

I agree we don't know everything, some of what we know is wrong, and we ourselves are part of the universe so we can't know everything.

 

Here are some thoughts: My definition of natural is those things that we can theoretically measure and know. I believe QM already precisely specifies the limits of what we can know and what we can't know about physical states. I think that is what the uncertainty principle is about.

 

So we already know (if QM is correct) that "randomness"/"uncertainty" is inherent to the universe. It's just a question of what "randomness" means. Is God controlling outcomes each time a probability collapses into a measurement? Or is it just purposeless chaos? If scientists could guess God's purpose could they discern a pattern in the apparent randomness? Like if a sequence of coin flips spelled-out the Torah in Morse code would that mean something? Would that still be "random" if we understand God's purpose enough to expect an outcome with high probability? Does God need to limit his control of random outcomes to preserve randomness?

 

 

Good questions, Directionless.

 

But... do you mind if I put them on hold?

 

I don't want to do or post anything which could be construed as prejudicing, influencing or adding to the dialog between End3 and me, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

 

No, this is why I think you are being dishonest.

 

I am not being dishonest End.  I am on the level with you.  Please stop suspecting my motives.

 

YOU deviated from the conversation for Directionless and are not willing to deviate for me.

 

Yes, I deviated for Directionless.

Why?  Because he didn't and doesn't hold to the same position as you.  Therefore, I could quite legitimately discuss and debate with him in parallel, without affecting the dialog and the content of the debate between us.  The comments I wrote to him could be seen by you, but they weren't expressly meant for you.  Nor were they meant to persuade you.   

 

If seven or eight other people were involved in this thread I'd still feel quite entitled to talk with them in parallel, while you and I stay on the main topic.  If that's something you can't deal with End, I'll concede the point for that sake of making progress in this thread, ok?

 

Why not? I was polite, I noted that I would be willing to get back to the original subject after this deviation, but really this IS on topic because it leads to me making my point ABOUT original sin.

 

Now, let it be noted that I've yielded on this so that you can make your point about prayer, End.

 

Right now I can't see what you're driving at - so I'm accepting by faith that your point IS on topic. 

Now it's up to you to deliver the goods.

 

Please go for it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Thanks,

 

Do you think testing prayer is scientifically valid. And if so, why please.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

No, this is why I think you are being dishonest.

 

I am not being dishonest End.  I am on the level with you.  Please stop suspecting my motives.

 

YOU deviated from the conversation for Directionless and are not willing to deviate for me.

 

Yes, I deviated for Directionless.

Why?  Because he didn't and doesn't hold to the same position as you.  Therefore, I could quite legitimately discuss and debate with him in parallel, without affecting the dialog and the content of the debate between us.  The comments I wrote to him could be seen by you, but they weren't expressly meant for you.  Nor were they meant to persuade you.   

 

If seven or eight other people were involved in this thread I'd still feel quite entitled to talk with them in parallel, while you and I stay on the main topic.  If that's something you can't deal with End, I'll concede the point for that sake of making progress in this thread, ok?

 

Why not? I was polite, I noted that I would be willing to get back to the original subject after this deviation, but really this IS on topic because it leads to me making my point ABOUT original sin.

 

Now, let it be noted that I've yielded on this so that you can make your point about prayer, End.

 

Right now I can't see what you're driving at - so I'm accepting by faith that your point IS on topic. 

Now it's up to you to deliver the goods.

 

Please go for it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Thanks,

 

Do you think testing prayer is scientifically valid. And if so, why please.

 

 

I don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement on that question, End.

 

Can you help me out with the details please?

[Orbit]

Scientific tests HAVE been done on the efficacy of prayer, and prayer is not effective. Why are you obsessing on this?

Reference: http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html

[directionless]

Well, as I understand it Directionless, the Uncertainty Principle doesn't actually tell us that quantum events are random.

 

It tells us that there is always a certain degree of uncertainty about them.  Which is why they are assigned probabilities and why quantum physics has to factor in this lack of certainty.  Does that sound right to you?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

That sounds right to me, but when I say "random" I simply mean all we know is a probability - 50%, 99%, or whatever.

 

Apparently there are three ways of interpreting QM that correspond to three different religious models of the universe. It's interesting and tantalizing, but I don't know enough about QM to follow the articles on this.

[directionless]

Good questions, Directionless.

 

But... do you mind if I put them on hold?

 

I don't want to do or post anything which could be construed as prejudicing, influencing or adding to the dialog between End3 and me, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

No problem. I agree it should be a separate thread. End3 said it has been discussed in the past anyway.

[Guest end3]

I don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement on that question, End.

 

Can you help me out with the details please?

Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives.

 

I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly.

[Orbit]

 

I don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement on that question, End.

 

Can you help me out with the details please?

Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand that prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives.

 

I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly.

 

Here is an account of a prayer study: http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html

[bornagainathiest]

 

I don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement on that question, End.

 

Can you help me out with the details please?

Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives.

 

I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly.

 

 

To answer that question End, I'd have to see and check their methodology for myself.

 

Can you supply this?

.

.

.

 

But there's another possible route you could go... if you're open to it, that is.

 

As you know I'm interested in cosmology.

But from my location in the back of beyond, there's no way I can verify the data from the Planck satellite.  Nor, with my feeble IQ can I hope to understand the workings of General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.  So, how do I proceed?

 

The answer is that I place my confidence in the existing system of peer-reviewed science publication.

(Please note that this is not a religion, nor a religious faith.   It is my confidence in a man-made, and therefore fallible, system of understanding the world.  There is no supernaturalism involved.  Nor are science's findings absolute truths, written in stone.  They can be overturned by better theories, better data and new evidence.)

.

.

.

So, if you can't supply me with the methodology that was used in a prayer-testing study, would you be prepared to meet me on my personal level of confidence and to trust the existing system of peer-reviewed scientific publication? 

 

If so, would you be prepared to accept what these test conclude?

 

Unfortunately Orbit's link to such a test doesn't seem to work... at least for me.

[Guest end3]

 

 

I don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement on that question, End.

 

Can you help me out with the details please?

Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives.

 

I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly.

 

 

To answer that question End, I'd have to see and check their methodology for myself.

 

Can you supply this?

.

.

.

 

But there's another possible route you could go... if you're open to it, that is.

 

As you know I'm interested in cosmology.

But from my location in the back of beyond, there's no way I can verify the data from the Planck satellite.  Nor, with my feeble IQ can I hope to understand the workings of General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.  So, how do I proceed?

 

The answer is that I place my confidence in the existing system of peer-reviewed science publication.

(Please note that this is not a religion, nor a religious faith.   It is my confidence in a man-made, and therefore fallible, system of understanding the world.  There is no supernaturalism involved.  Nor are science's findings absolute truths, written in stone.  They can be overturned by better theories, better data and new evidence.)

.

.

.

So, if you can't supply me with the methodology that was used in a prayer-testing study, would you be prepared to meet me on my personal level of confidence and to trust the existing system of peer-reviewed scientific publication? 

 

If so, would you be prepared to accept what these test conclude?

 

Unfortunately Orbit's link to such a test doesn't seem to work... at least for me.

 

Basically what I am asking is can science study the efficacy of prayer with the scientific method and the definition of prayer I have provided.

[Orbit]

 

 

I don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement on that question, End.

 

Can you help me out with the details please?

Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives.

 

I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly.

 

 

To answer that question End, I'd have to see and check their methodology for myself.

 

Can you supply this?

.

.

.

 

But there's another possible route you could go... if you're open to it, that is.

 

As you know I'm interested in cosmology.

But from my location in the back of beyond, there's no way I can verify the data from the Planck satellite.  Nor, with my feeble IQ can I hope to understand the workings of General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.  So, how do I proceed?

 

The answer is that I place my confidence in the existing system of peer-reviewed science publication.

(Please note that this is not a religion, nor a religious faith.   It is my confidence in a man-made, and therefore fallible, system of understanding the world.  There is no supernaturalism involved.  Nor are science's findings absolute truths, written in stone.  They can be overturned by better theories, better data and new evidence.)

.

.

.

So, if you can't supply me with the methodology that was used in a prayer-testing study, would you be prepared to meet me on my personal level of confidence and to trust the existing system of peer-reviewed scientific publication? 

 

If so, would you be prepared to accept what these test conclude?

 

Unfortunately Orbit's link to such a test doesn't seem to work... at least for me.

 

The link describes a peer reviewed study discussed in The God Delusion: 

 

"This is how they conducted it. 1802 cardiac bypass patients were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: One group received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; the second group did not receive intercessory prayer after also being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and the third group received intercessory prayer after being informed that they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days and the primary outcome was the presence of any complication within 30 days of bypass surgery. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality.

The first two groups test for the effectiveness of intercessory prayers while the third group tests for the psychosomatic effects of knowing one is prayed for. The results for the first two groups are virtually indistinguishable while the third group, for some reason (performance anxiety?), showed higher incidences of complications."

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

I don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement on that question, End.

 

Can you help me out with the details please?

Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives.

 

I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly.

 

 

To answer that question End, I'd have to see and check their methodology for myself.

 

Can you supply this?

.

.

.

 

But there's another possible route you could go... if you're open to it, that is.

 

As you know I'm interested in cosmology.

But from my location in the back of beyond, there's no way I can verify the data from the Planck satellite.  Nor, with my feeble IQ can I hope to understand the workings of General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.  So, how do I proceed?

 

The answer is that I place my confidence in the existing system of peer-reviewed science publication.

(Please note that this is not a religion, nor a religious faith.   It is my confidence in a man-made, and therefore fallible, system of understanding the world.  There is no supernaturalism involved.  Nor are science's findings absolute truths, written in stone.  They can be overturned by better theories, better data and new evidence.)

.

.

.

So, if you can't supply me with the methodology that was used in a prayer-testing study, would you be prepared to meet me on my personal level of confidence and to trust the existing system of peer-reviewed scientific publication? 

 

If so, would you be prepared to accept what these test conclude?

 

Unfortunately Orbit's link to such a test doesn't seem to work... at least for me.

 

Basically what I am asking is can science study the efficacy of prayer with the scientific method and the definition of prayer I have provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement on that question, End.

 

Can you help me out with the details please?

Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives.

 

I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly.

 

 

To answer that question End, I'd have to see and check their methodology for myself.

 

Can you supply this?

.

.

.

 

But there's another possible route you could go... if you're open to it, that is.

 

As you know I'm interested in cosmology.

But from my location in the back of beyond, there's no way I can verify the data from the Planck satellite.  Nor, with my feeble IQ can I hope to understand the workings of General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.  So, how do I proceed?

 

The answer is that I place my confidence in the existing system of peer-reviewed science publication.

(Please note that this is not a religion, nor a religious faith.   It is my confidence in a man-made, and therefore fallible, system of understanding the world.  There is no supernaturalism involved.  Nor are science's findings absolute truths, written in stone.  They can be overturned by better theories, better data and new evidence.)

.

.

.

So, if you can't supply me with the methodology that was used in a prayer-testing study, would you be prepared to meet me on my personal level of confidence and to trust the existing system of peer-reviewed scientific publication? 

 

If so, would you be prepared to accept what these test conclude?

 

Unfortunately Orbit's link to such a test doesn't seem to work... at least for me.

 

The link describes a peer reviewed study discussed in The God Delusion: 

 

"This is how they conducted it. 1802 cardiac bypass patients were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: One group received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; the second group did not receive intercessory prayer after also being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and the third group received intercessory prayer after being informed that they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days and the primary outcome was the presence of any complication within 30 days of bypass surgery. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality.

The first two groups test for the effectiveness of intercessory prayers while the third group tests for the psychosomatic effects of knowing one is prayed for. The results for the first two groups are virtually indistinguishable while the third group, for some reason (performance anxiety?), showed higher incidences of complications."

 

 

I can see that Orbit, but when I click on the, "This Study" link, it's broken.

 

Therefore, I can't do what End wants and examine the methodology of that specific test, as published in a peer-reviewed paper.  

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

I don't know enough about it to make a proper judgement on that question, End.

 

Can you help me out with the details please?

Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives.

 

I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly.

 

 

To answer that question End, I'd have to see and check their methodology for myself.

 

Can you supply this?

.

.

.

 

But there's another possible route you could go... if you're open to it, that is.

 

As you know I'm interested in cosmology.

But from my location in the back of beyond, there's no way I can verify the data from the Planck satellite.  Nor, with my feeble IQ can I hope to understand the workings of General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.  So, how do I proceed?

 

The answer is that I place my confidence in the existing system of peer-reviewed science publication.

(Please note that this is not a religion, nor a religious faith.   It is my confidence in a man-made, and therefore fallible, system of understanding the world.  There is no supernaturalism involved.  Nor are science's findings absolute truths, written in stone.  They can be overturned by better theories, better data and new evidence.)

.

.

.

So, if you can't supply me with the methodology that was used in a prayer-testing study, would you be prepared to meet me on my personal level of confidence and to trust the existing system of peer-reviewed scientific publication? 

 

If so, would you be prepared to accept what these test conclude?

 

Unfortunately Orbit's link to such a test doesn't seem to work... at least for me.

 

Basically what I am asking is can science study the efficacy of prayer with the scientific method and the definition of prayer I have provided.

 

 

Yes, I can see what you're asking End, but I need to see how the scientific method was applied in a specific example.

 

Think of it this way.

The way you employ a certain methodology in your lab remains unknown to me unless I can observe you doing it or unless I can read about it.  

If you asked me to comment on the methodology you use in your lab, without me knowing or seeing what happens in your lab, how can I do that?

 

The scientific method is the basis of science, but how it's applied in a specific circumstance of prayer testing is what need to see. 

[bornagainathiest]

Look, I'm not trying to be picky End.

 

But consider this.

When I post on a science topic, I cite the relevant website and/or the relevant paper, so that if anyone's interested they can check out what I'm saying for themselves.

 

Can you do the same, please?

[Guest end3]

Look, I'm not trying to be picky End.

 

But consider this.

When I post on a science topic, I cite the relevant website and/or the relevant paper, so that if anyone's interested they can check out what I'm saying for themselves.

 

Can you do the same, please?

I don't know that we need a specific study to cite. If you and I proceeded with a scientific study regarding the efficacy of prayer, could we justifiably publish results (based on the definition of prayer I have provided), that anyone would consider valid? Again, using the scientific method as our approach?

 

Thx.