Ask an atheist anything! (seriously, anything)

[Mike_from_NJ]

So people prayed to God, and didn’t get the answers they were expecting.

It’s not so much that they didn’t get what they were expecting so much as what happened to the prayed for (physically) was statistically the same as those not prayed for. It would be like a medicine that was as effective as taking no medicine.

How exactly did they limit God to just those options in the test? To some degree, testing of prayer will require some measure of control over God. Good luck with that.

Those are good questions. Here is the abstract for the article. For the methodology it says:

In this randomized controlled trial conducted between 1997 and 1999, a total of 799 coronary care unit patients were randomized at hospital discharge to the intercessory prayer group or to the control group. Intercessory prayer, ie, prayer by 1 or more persons on behalf of another, was administered at least once a week for 26 weeks by 5 intercessors per patient. The primary end point after 26 weeks was any of the following: death, cardiac arrest, rehospitalization for cardiovascular disease, coronary revascularization, or an emergency department visit for cardiovascular disease. Patients were divided into a high-risk group based on the presence of any of 5 risk factors (age =70 years, diabetes mellitus, prior myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease) or a low-risk group (absence of risk factors) for subsequent primary events.

So in short, in the prayer group each patient was prayed for by 5 different people assigned to that task for at least once a week for 26 weeks. This doesn’t rule out prayers that may have been done by friends and family of either the prayer group or the control group. It does seem to indicate that those in the prayer group should be more likely to heal than those in the control group.

CAVEAT: We only have access to the abstract without paying for the article, so if there is some flaw in the methodology not mentioned in the abstract we don’t know about it.

If I ask my boss for a raise he will tell me “yes” or “no”, and if it’s a “no” I know I’ve been answered.

Assuming you limit his actions.
You cannot limit God in such a fashion.

It’s not limiting God’s actions so much as trying to differentiate praying to him as opposed to praying to a statue to some no-longer-believed-in deity. If I pray to Moloch or Apollo or a lamp a non-responsive answer from them looks just like a non-responsive answer from Yahweh.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

So people prayed to God, and didn’t get the answers they were expecting.

It is not that simple. People pray to God for all sorts of things. They follow the words of Jesus, who said: “Whatever you ask in my name will be fulfilled”. If their prayer SEEMS to be fulfilled by a positive result, they praise God for his help. When their prayer goes unanswered, they say nothing. So in the testing process they count the “good” outcomes, and forget the bad ones. Very bad way to conduct an experiment.

Now, if we would set up a proper correlation matrix, the result would not support the efficacy of prayers.

To some degree, testing of prayer will require some measure of control over God.

This is what the believers assert. “Whatever you ask in my name…”

 

[vz71]

We only have access to the abstract without paying for the article, so if there is some flaw in the methodology not mentioned in the abstract we don’t know about it.

I can tell you a flaw straight away.
They have no control over what exactly the answer to prayer is.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I can tell you a flaw straight away.
They have no control over what exactly the answer to prayer is.

I think @Thinker_Doer put it best about pointing to positive results as evidence of prayer being answered, but simply brushing aside negative results. That’s usually done by claiming it was not in God’s will to give what was asked.

In fact, you could take a trillion intercessory prayers by sincere believers and no matter the results – even if it were a trillion "no"s, apologists would still claim prayer works.

 

[vz71]

You make the point for me.
You cannot empirically test the efficacy of prayer.

 

[Gorgias]

Atheists don’t think there’s no value in life.

I think that @halogirl was asking whether, if atheists see human life as finite and limited, why an atheist would choose to invest heavily in an endeavor (i.e., progeny) that do not have any transcendent meaning? It’s an investment question: why invest in a losing proposition that doesn’t have legs?

even though at times life can be depressing, being alive is an amazing thing. I enjoy being alive.

What if you didn’t? What if your children would reach the point where they didn’t? How could you rationalize bringing into life a being who has the prospects of a life “not worth living”?

If I knew that my kids were going to suffer their whole lives though, I would not want to put them through that.

There we go! And, if you don’t know whether they would or wouldn’t, then the possibility that they would should give you pause as to the morality of bringing them into life… right?

It wasn’t really a choice for me. Was it your choice to stop believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny?

Of course it was a choice! You reasoned through it, and in the end, you had the choice of accepting your thought experiment or rejecting it!

How on earth does eternal damnation even begin to compare?

Answer: trust in God. (Working through the answer is an exercise left to the reader.)

I don’t like any of Thomas Aquinas’s arguments as they beg the question and are filled with fallacies.

Interesting take. Care to elaborate? Especially on the ‘fallacies’ part?

The study that we’re talking about consisted of people suffering from illnesses. Some were verified to have been prayed for while others were not. The idea was to check to see If those prayed for were more or less likely to get healed than those who were not prayed for. The answer was they were healed at about the same rate.

Boy, we’ve been over this again and again! If prayer were able to be measured by “I got what I asked for”, then that would be a valid approach. It ain’t, and therefore…

if there is some flaw in the methodology not mentioned in the abstract we don’t know about it.

We already know it. Prayer is meant to align us with God, not to change Him. So, the study has poor foundation.

I think @Thinker_Doer put it best about pointing to positive results as evidence of prayer being answered, but simply brushing aside negative results.

Right. “I changed God’s mind and He gave me what I wanted” is likewise an erroneous conclusion.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

We already know it. Prayer is meant to align us with God, not to change Him. So, the study has poor foundation.

That is your opinion, nothing more. Shared by some others, no doubt.

Right. “I changed God’s mind and He gave me what I wanted” is likewise an erroneous conclusion.

Tell that to the zillions of believers, who assert that fulfilled prayers are the sign that God cares for them and helped them in their time of need. You seem to think that those positive results are just lucky coincidences and have nothing to do with the prayers themselves. Of course I would agree with that conclusion. Are we in agreement? That would be wonderful.

 

[vz71]

That is your opinion, nothing more. Shared by some others, no doubt.

So is the study.
We all know that you cannot empirically measure acts of God. So any answers God provides to a prayer are likewise untestable.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

So is the study.

No, the study is a repeatable, testable action.

We all know that you cannot empirically measure acts of God. So any answers God provides to a prayer are likewise untestable.

That is again your opinion, which is flatly refuted by the experiments. Anything that happens in our physical realm is testable. Whether it comes from a physical source or some “magic”.

 

[vz71]

Anything that happens in our physical realm is testable.

So you claim that a prayer to God, outside of our physical realm, always yields results inside our physical realm.
Odd. How exactly do you go about proving that?

 

[vz71]

the study is a repeatable, testable action.

The study is entirely subjective.
It relies upon intimate knowledge of what is prayed for as well as knowledge of how God will react.
Since neither can be reliably quantified, the researcher is simply making assumptions.

I do not doubt that with the same assumptions the same results can be made.
But the assumptions make this subjective.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That is your opinion, nothing more. Shared by some others, no doubt.

Perhaps, but that’s the view on prayer from a Catholic perspective, so the study merely disproves a different view and has no bearing on us.

 

[Pattylt]

May I ask…

In general, would you expect Ill patients that are prayed for to have better outcomes from those that had no prayers offered? Not just one specific patient but those prayed for in general?

 

[vz71]

In general, would you expect Ill patients that are prayed for to have better outcomes from those that had no prayers offered?

No, I expect those that pray to be in a better relationship with God.

God is not a vending machine.
God is who we all should be closer to, especially when trials come.

 

[Pattylt]

No, I expect those that pray to be in a better relationship with God.

I respect this and understand that prayer is meant to better align you to God. It’s why your prayers usually say, “if it be your will”.

Do you think most people aren’t asking for a healing, though? Why are they asking?

 

[vz71]

Do you think most people aren’t asking for a healing, though? Why are they asking?

I do not know what most people pray.
However, a prayer for healing is not very specific.
I would suspect that God would heal what needs it most and would be best for the person asking for it.

 

[PickyPicky]

And the standard has to be apart from your current culture or religion or whatever, right?

No, I don’t think so.

 

[jesusmademe]

If Christian go to churches where do atheists go?
And why?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You make the point for me.
You cannot empirically test the efficacy of prayer.

I know you answered @Pattylt claiming that as a whole patients who were prayed for should not be healed more often than ones who are not prayed for. I have a hard time buying it. Believers will point to what they believe are answered intercessory prayers and tout the power of prayer, yet we are to believe that prayer is as effective as doing nothing.

The thing is prayer to have a better relationship with God isn’t mutually exclusive from prayers to have needed things occur. I can definitely see why prayer to have something bad happen to another would not cause that event to be more likely to happen. But it’s not as though healing a dying child would somehow harm a relationship with God. It would only help it.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Boy, we’ve been over this again and again! If prayer were able to be measured by “I got what I asked for”, then that would be a valid approach. It ain’t, and therefore…

Then believers should not tout when they think prayer got them what they asked for. They can’t have it both ways. And even if there isn’t a 1-to-1 ratio between people who were prayed for and people who were healed, it should be more likely that people who were prayed for were healed and in that study it didn’t happen.

Right. “I changed God’s mind and He gave me what I wanted” is likewise an erroneous conclusion.

We know God can change. Abraham was able to haggle him down to 10 righteous in Sodom. We know God can be tempted, as shown in the story of Job. So we shouldn’t be surprised if believers think that via prayer they can change God’s thinking.

It’s a weird doublethink when it comes to prayer. Believers are told to pray often and sincerely to affect change, but then when it doesn’t cause change they’re told that prayer doesn’t affect what God will do.