Probability of the Existence of God

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@sfmatheson

If you are serious about this, then you are saying that studies of the effects of meditation and of dietary supplementation are not worth pursuing. That was the whole point of my post: that it is false to claim that a scientific study can only be valid or efficacious if it “controls” everything. Readers should give careful thought to why this is not how scientists think.

I have not argued that a scientific study can only be valid if it controls everything. Look at my post #54. Rather it needs to control factors which are relevant for the effect being studied.

As the Masters paper I cited above argues, it may be more beneficial to study the effects of prayer on the wellbeing of the person who prays. That thinks of prayer more as a more physiological, social, or neurological activity like sleeping and meditating. It also limits the effects of prayer to something internal to one person.

@sfmatheson

And yet I know that zinc effects are complex, that they vary based on environment and genetics, that they can’t be separated from background zinc, that there is not a simple linear correlation between more zinc and more health, and that we don’t have a good theoretical model for modelling its effects when taken as a supplement. Our only experimental models to control zinc are reduced models (animal experiments, cell culture, biochemistry, etc.).

Right, but all of these effects of zinc are on the person taking it. In the case of IP studies, we’re typically studying the effect of prayer on some other person that is being prayed for, who could be far away from the intercessor. There’s no known physical mechanism that can cause this. In that sense it has no better theoretical foundation than ESP or psychic powers. We also have the “confounding factor” of God, who is typically believed to be an important part of the causal chain that would make prayer efficacious. But scientists can’t control for God’s behavior.

@sfmatheson

There are scientific ways to assess some religious claims.

Absolutely. And I would agree that any religious person who claims a simple linear relationship between praying for healing and getting healed is most likely wrong.

[sfmatheson]

An example of a dietary supplement that is strongly supported by evidence is folate supplementation during pregnancy. A useful thought experiment for readers of this thread who are still wondering how we could ever do a fully controlled experiment on effects of dietary folate on human embryonic development. Please. Think.

Folic Acid

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Michael_Okoko

I disagree. The OT clearly rules out the existence of other gods aside Yahweh. Yahweh calls these other gods mere wooden contraptions that can’t hear or see. Interestingly, when we read the holy books of other gods, they detail their own divine accomplishments and sometimes call other foreign gods fake or contrived.

You should read up on OT scholar Michael Heiser’s work…

The Divine Council.com

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@sfmatheson

A useful thought experiment for readers of this thread who are still wondering how we could ever do a fully controlled experiment on effects of dietary folate on human embryonic development. Please. Think.

As I said, I’m certainly not claiming that experiments are only valid if they are fully controlled. That would be a total misunderstanding of what I claimed.

[sfmatheson]

@dga471

it may be more beneficial to study the effects of prayer on the wellbeing of the person who prays.

Oh I completely agree, and that’s why I think meditation is the only reasonable context for consideration of prayer (of any kind) and its effects. Except that’s not the context or topic of the thread. @ProfBravus was discussing the kind of evidence that might be brought to bear on whether a particular god is real, and he was clearly focused on a god who answers IP.

@dga471

but all of these effects of zinc are on the person taking it . In the case of IP studies, we’re typically studying the effect of prayer on some other person that is being prayed for, who could be far away from the intercessor. There’s no known physical mechanism that can cause this. In that sense it has no better theoretical foundation than ESP or psychic powers. We also have the “confounding factor” of God, who is typically believed to be an important part of the causal chain that would make prayer efficacious. But scientists can’t control for God’s behavior.

Of course I agree with everything you wrote here, but none of that can salvage the claim that I thought was the basis of the discussion, which is the effects of IP. In the model of IP being discussed here, the praying person is the dispenser of the zinc (and that’s why a legit experiment almost certainly has to keep participants blind to identity of the praying people) and the IP (the prayer) is the zinc. I understand that you don’t see prayer that way, but that doesn’t affect the argument at all.

I do think you have identified the only thing that makes an experiment on intercessory prayer problematic in principle: the effect of the prayer is asserted (I think) to be mediated by an additional agent (a god) who makes choices. This agent may elect to adjust their behavior, since they are privy to every aspect of the experiment. (The agent can’t be blinded, can’t be contacted, can’t give informed consent to be studied, and can’t be trusted to refrain from interfering with the experiment.) If the premise of the experiment involves the actions of this additional agent, then the experiment is a joke because it is only about what the agent chooses to do during the experiment. The “experiment” is being run by the god. In practical terms, this means that the experiment’s results can only be interpreted by assuming or asserting that the god either doesn’t exist or is constrained by factors under the experimenter’s control.

[sfmatheson]

@dga471

I have not argued that a scientific study can only be valid if it controls everything. Look at my post #54. Rather it needs to control factors which are relevant for the effect being studied.

I looked at that post and didn’t see anything, but it’s a busy day and I could have missed it. What I have seen is a series of posts by you that cast all sorts of aspersions on the studies of IP, with a heavy and repeated emphasis on control of variables that I can see are clearly not a problem for the experimental design, and even included a swipe at sociological studies in general. If it was not your intention to attack the validity of the findings about IP, then at least one person (me) reached the opposite conclusion about your aims. Do whatever you want with that information.

[Dan_Eastwood]

??? Why me??? I didn’t write anything about Folic acid.

[sfmatheson]

@Dan_Eastwood

??? Why me???

LOL sorry I was piggybacking on your comments about zinc. You were the sure foundation upon which I built my house.

[Michael_Okoko]

@dga471

But praying is mainly a psychological act. It’s not just saying some magic words, taking a pill, or transplanting an organ.

Please define what you mean by “psychological act”.

@dga471

How do we know that everyone in a study executed this psychological posture properly?

Define what you mean by psychological posture.

@dga471

Prayer is a holistic act and an analysis which separates individual components will probably miss important points.

I did not divide prayer into components, I divided the purpose of prayer into categories. You are the one missing the point here.

@dga471

Reformed Christianity is a 500-year-old tradition which is espoused by about 75 million people worldwide.

There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics worldwide. Do the maths and see why Reformed Christianity is an oddity by comparison.

@dga471

And most studies of IP don’t control for “faith”, since that’s had to define.

I bring you back to Elijah. What if the prophets of Baal didn’t have enough faith, and why didn’t Elijah consider this?

@dga471

I noticed that you have not said anything about the effect of background prayers and other uncontrolled variables by the way.

Every study including well-designed RCTs will be plagued by unknown uncontrolled variables, but randomization is expected to reduce the impact of any such confounders. And as you know, a meta-analysis of the best findings tell us there are no benefits to intercessory prayer (just as we see no benefit to prolonged usage of supplements in healthy people).

@dga471

Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Sigh. If Baal responded, what would Elijah have done?

@dga471

Really? So why did he pray to the Father in Gethsemane to take away his cup of suffering? Why did Jesus do things that don’t matter?

@dga471

A good question. It seems that we need to brush up on Christology and Trinitarian theology. That would go beyond the scope of this thread. But it does show that you need to have a more holistic view of Christian theology to understand how things like prayer fit in that picture.

I am getting tired at responding to you. I had told you why Jesus’s case differs from Elijah’s, and then proceeded to express my confusion of Jesus praying to himself, yet you repeated the same questions to me.

@dga471

Because he didn’t have the public support for it among the Israelites, who were under the rule of an idolatrous king, Ahab.

Very good. That’s means he needed data to convince the Jews that Baal was a false god and that’s the point I have been hitting at and you keep ignoring. Elijah’s challenge to Baal is slightly akin to a clinical trial. His goal was to use a lack of response by Baal to restore worship to God. Elijah did not consider any uncontrolled variables like the faith of the prophets or Baal’s willingness to respond, and he we went ahead to have those prophets killed. As long as he did this, then we can equally say intercessory prayer is of no benefit since Yahweh did not deem it fit to respond.

@dga471

Because he’s a prophet of God, not of Baal. Elijah would not agree with you that the God of Israel had punished them for no good reason.

Abraham talked God out of destroying Sodom if he found out there were righteous people there apart from Lot and his family. Abraham considered this other factor (other righteous people), so I see no reason why Elijah could not do the same.

@dga471

And I bring you Proverbs 16:33. The idea that God ordains all things is part of orthodox theology including Roman Catholic theology

@dga471

They were not caused directly by God. But God certainly allowed them to happen via secondary causation.

So when a man shoots another man, God causes it? Or when Adam and Eve sinned, God ordained it (in secondary sense)?

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Michael_Okoko

I am getting tired at responding to you. I had told you why Jesus’s case differs from Elijah’s, and then proceeded to express my confusion of Jesus praying to himself, yet you repeated the same questions to me.

I’m also tired of explaining to you why Elijah’s case is different from that people in IP studies. I’m tired of responding to you in general, because I am not convinced all of your questions are in good faith, and you repeat many of the same points which have been dealt with over and over. You claim to be a Roman Catholic, but you defend many propositions which are at odds with standard Catholic theology. So it’s hard for me to understand where you’re coming from. Typing answers to all of your questions take up too much of my time. I think these questions you have are better answered in a live conversation. PM me if you are interested in doing that.

@Michael_Okoko

So when a man shoots another man, God causes it? Or when Adam and Eve sinned, God ordained it (in secondary sense)?

God ordains it secondarily, yes.

[Michael_Okoko]

@dga471

Rather it needs to control factors which are relevant for the effect being studied.

If we follow your argument, then we cannot rule out homeopathy as bunk because there are many magical features of the practice which we cannot control for.

@dga471

As the Masters paper I cited above argues, it may be more beneficial to study the effects of prayer on the wellbeing of the person who prays. That thinks of prayer more as a more physiological, social, or neurological activity like sleeping and meditating. It also limits the effects of prayer to something internal to one person.

Apostle Paul enjoins Christians to pray for each other, telling you that intercessory prayer is an important aspect of Christianity, so I don’t see why personal prayer is necessarily better.

@dga471

Absolutely. And I would agree that any religious person who claims a simple linear relationship between praying for healing and getting healed is most likely wrong.

That means Elijah shouldn’t have killed Baal’s prophets.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@sfmatheson

What I have seen is a series of posts by you that cast all sorts of aspersions on the studies of IP, with a heavy and repeated emphasis on control of variables that I can see are clearly not a problem for the experimental design, and even included a swipe at sociological studies in general.

Let me put it this way.

An IP study S has a certain hypothetical model M for how IP is supposed to work. M also presupposes some certain model for God’s behavior, call it G(t).

I agree that a negative result from S counts against the probability that M is true, and by extension also against G(t).

However, my only point in this thread is that the overlap between G(t) and the “proper” (in my opinion) Christian understanding of God - G'(t) - is small. I also think that to test G'(t) in a controlled experimental setting is impractical, and from a theoretical standpoint even most Christian theologians would not be confident that they can fully articulate G'(t).

Now, perhaps some atheists or even Christians might think that only a God who follows G(t) is worth worshiping or praying to, and they are free to hold their opinion as they wish. However, I disagree with that, and I think my view that Christianity teaches G'(t) \neq G(t) is not a fringe minority.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Michael_Okoko, as I said, I’m not going to respond to you endlessly on this thread. PM me if you want to continue the conversation.

[Michael_Okoko]

Fine.

[sfmatheson]

@dga471

An IP study SS has a certain hypothetical model M for how IP is supposed to work.

I think that is either wrong or overstated. One needn’t know anything about “how zinc is supposed to work” in order to design an experiment to test effects of supplemental zinc. In the case of an IP study, you and I have already discussed the only potential problem with any model, which is the fact that if a god is involved, and especially if their involvement is a premise of the experiment’s interpretation, then the experiment is no longer an experiment at all.

@dga471

my only point in this thread is that the overlap between G(t)G(t) and the “proper” (in my opinion) Christian understanding of God - G′(t)G’(t) - is small.

IMO you should reword this, because readers of the thread see many claims other than this and many strongly-worded “points” other than this. FWIW I agree with that point, although I think you have understated the extent to which Christians (broadly speaking) “believe” in the efficacy of IP.

@dga471

I also think that to test G′(t)G’(t) in a controlled experimental setting is impractical

If I understand you here, then I agree very strongly and would go further. If the god in question is unconstrained (or even mostly unconstrained), then “testing” their actions is beyond impractical. It is, by any understanding of an “experiment,” impossible for reasons I’ve already discussed.

[Dan_Eastwood]

I’d really like to jump in with a review of designing randomized trials for Interventional Prayer and controlling for confounding factors, but I have other things that must get done today. So long as there is material evidence available to measure the outcome, I see no insurmountable difficulties here.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@sfmatheson

One needn’t know anything about “how zinc is supposed to work” in order to design an experiment to test effects of supplemental zinc.

I agree that you can certainly collect data to know if there’s a correlation between supplemental zinc and certain health metrics without knowing anything about the mechanism.

I agree that you can also collect data to know if there is a correlation between the act of saying a few sentences prefaced by the phrase “Dear God” with certain health metrics without knowing about any deeper theoretical mechanisms.

However, if we want to connect the results of the second experiment with certain philosophical propositions such as the existence of God being more or less likely, then you need a theoretical model for why you think such saying a few sentences prefaced by “Dear God” should be expected to have anything to do with that proposition.

Both you and I know that science is more than just systematic data collection. It is also about successively building upon prior experimental and theoretical results in order to arrive at a comprehensive model of how nature behaves. Such progress requires positing specific theoretical models and mechanisms based on experimental results and designing new experiments to test them. That’s something that seems to be lacking in IP studies. It seems to be stuck in the basic stage of just collecting data without a clear theoretical model that can be explored further. So far such basic data collection has not turned up any interesting results.

@sfmatheson

FWIW I agree with that point, although I think you have understated the extent to which Christians (broadly speaking) “believe” in the efficacy of IP.

Well laypeople believe all sorts of things which turn out to be inaccurate if you go to the experts of each subject. Many laypeople who claim to believe in evolutionary theory would also not be able to articulate it correctly and may lose a debate with a skilled creationist debater, for example. That doesn’t impinge on the legitimacy or correctness of professional biologists’ understanding of evolutionary science.

[T_aquaticus]

@dga471

However, my only point in this thread is that the overlap between G(t)G(t) and the “proper” (in my opinion) Christian understanding of God - G′(t)G’(t) - is small. I also think that to test G′(t)G’(t) in a controlled experimental setting is impractical, and from a theoretical standpoint even most Christian theologians would not be confident that they can fully articulate G′(t)G’(t) .

As atheists, we hear all sorts of stories. We hear of people who claim that they prayed to God and their illness was miraculously healed by God. We also hear people say that God decided it was time for the sick person to leave this world and go to God in heaven, explaining why the prayers for their recovery were not answered. I think it would be fair to say that there are probably many more views than just the two I described. Needless to say, there doesn’t seem to be any straightforward way to even approach the question of intercessory prayer. It seems to be a matter of faith.

[Michael_Okoko]

@dga471

I agree that you can certainly collect data to know if there’s a correlation between supplemental zinc and certain health metrics without knowing anything about the mechanism.

Good.

@dga471

I agree that you can also collect data to know if there is a correlation between the act of saying a few sentences prefaced by the phrase “Dear God” with certain health metrics without knowing about any deeper theoretical mechanisms.

I am glad you got this. This is what I have been throwing at you since. The aim of IP research is to show if one can find any clinical benefit to people interceding in prayer for others.

@dga471

However, if we want to connect the results of the second experiment with certain philosophical propositions such as the existence of God being more or less likely, then you need a theoretical model for why you think such saying a few sentences prefaced by “Dear God” should be expected to have anything to do with that proposition

Elijah didn’t need a theoretical model, to conclude that Baal was most likely not real or impotent. All he did was use the outcome of the challenge to declare Baal as a false god. We do the same to homeopathy even though there is no theoretical model for many aspects of homeopathy (how can you model water memory?).

@dga471

That’s something that seems to be lacking in IP studies.

Prayer is claimed by many theists to improve health outcomes and if that’s true, then it means that we should be able to see this effect if we apply the methods of clinical research. IP studies try to detect any such beneficial effects. You can’t build theoretical foundations for a practice that has consistently failed to yield any benefit.

@dga471

It seems to be stuck in the basic stage of just collecting data without a clear theoretical model that can be explored further.

Its stuck because there is nothing there to find. Clinical researchers are also stuck at collecting data on homeopathy, acupuncture and a wide range of “integrative” medical practices.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

Again, Michael, I’m not interested.