Can science study religion?

[Rocinante]

@all

an well-endowed organization called the Templeton Foundation gives grants to scientists who are willing to say something nice about religion. it funded research on the efficacy of intercessory prayer. apparently it doesn’t work. not only that, patients who were prayed for and knew it fared worst of all.

nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

after the fact, many prayer supporters criticize the study saying the results don’t mean anything. i can’t help suspecting that the same people who dismiss such a study are the same people who would have been saying “see, i told you so” if the study had given favorable results to the power of prayer to heal people who are prayed for.

it seems to me that the question, “can science study religion?” is yes when the results favor religion and no when they don’t.

 

[NE_Catholic]

As a social science, yes. As a hard science, no.
This study was a waste of money. Most scientific studies outside of hard science (physics, chemistry, etc.) are wastes of money.

 

[Anselm33]

@all

an well-endowed organization called the Templeton Foundation gives grants to scientists who are willing to say something nice about religion. it funded research on the efficacy of intercessory prayer. apparently it doesn’t work. not only that, patients who were prayed for and knew it fared worst of all.

nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

after the fact, many prayer supporters criticize the study saying the results don’t mean anything. i can’t help suspecting that the same people who dismiss such a study are the same people who would have been saying “see, i told you so” if the study had given favorable results to the power of prayer to heal people who are prayed for.

it seems to me that the question, “can science study religion?” is yes when the results favor religion and no when they don’t.

Please cite the original scientific study. Nothing that’s printed in the New York slime is to be believed. Their bias against religion and the Catholic Church is well known. There are many other studies that contradict what you’ve said above. I won’t cite them now but will later. Again I ask, why the evangelical atheism? You’ll not sway believers here. Are you trying to convince yourself? It is very curious why you visit this site and what you’re trying to prove.

 

[Rocinante]

Please cite the original scientific study.

web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

There are many other studies that contradict what you’ve said above. I won’t cite them now but will later.

please do.

Again I ask, why the evangelical atheism? You’ll not sway believers here. Are you trying to convince yourself? It is very curious why you visit this site and what you’re trying to prove.

i would think that we are both here for the same reason: good conversation. i don’t have anything in general to prove but there are lots of philosophical issues i like to discuss. i don’t have any interest in convincing catholics not to be catholic if that’s what you think.

rocinante

 

[Barbkw]

All of science involves belief in a Higher Power. The definition of Higher Power becomes tricky - as anyone in a 12 Step program knows.

Science is a human observation of the past. Humans didn’t create or make any of the constants that they observe.

 

[edwest2]

Although this forum can be used for good conversation, specific topics should be addressed with specific answers. So, the study shows an effect that you believe if it were the opposite, would result in confirmation bias from believers. It appears you don’t think much of belief in the first place so why bring it up at all?

Not speaking about you, but others who think similarly: why waste your time? I go to atheist or free thinker forums and a big chunk of the conversation comes from posters who enjoy being frustrated - “You know what those cretards said today? I say we should just deny them the benefits of modern science since they’re always trash talking science!”

Wow. Big deal. I call this self-imposed raising of the blood pressure. I doubt it’s good for you.

God bless,
Ed

 

[NE_Catholic]

web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html
i would think that we are both here for the same reason: good conversation. i don’t have anything in general to prove but there are lots of philosophical issues i like to discuss. i don’t have any interest in convincing catholics not to be catholic if that’s what you think.

rocinante

some Agnostics and Atheists do come here for good conversations. The majority come here to troll.

 

[ZDHayden]

Science can and should study the scientific, social, and economic effects of religion, yes. This science is called History, Psychology, and Anthropology. The metaphysical portion of religion is beyond science’s realm and is the realm of the philosopher. This line is regardless of the outcomes of a study. You cannot put God in a test tube – you can, however, put the religious adherent in the proverbial test tube.

PS: Rocinante, your username got a good chuckle from me when it finally registered. I love the story of Don Quijote de la Mancha.

 

[Mark77]

**Pope Benedict XVI nailed it;

“We are dealing here with the vast question as to how we can and cannot know God, how we are related to God and how we can lose him. The arrogance that would make God an object and impose our laboratory conditions upon him is incapable of finding him. For it already implies that we deny God as God by placing ourselves above him, by discarding the whole dimension of love, of interior listening; by no longer acknowledging as real anything but what we can experimentally test and grasp. To think like that is to make oneself God. And to do that is to abase not only God, but the world and oneself, too.”**

“Jesus of Nazareth” Papa Benedictus XVI, (p. 37)

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Anselm33]

web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

please do.

i would think that we are both here for the same reason: good conversation. i don’t have anything in general to prove but there are lots of philosophical issues i like to discuss. i don’t have any interest in convincing catholics not to be catholic if that’s what you think.

rocinante

surprise: I agree with your contention (and that of the article) that prayer is not an appropriate subject for scientific invesitgation. It is non-replicable, non-quantitative, and not derived from some general theory. Nevertheless, there are objective evidences of the power of prayer: do a Google search under the search terms “Benson”, “Koenig”, “Israeli” and “retroactive prayer” (there are too many references to cite here). This subject, like that of miracles, is subject to verification (the Catholic Church does a rigorous job of verifying miracles during canonization procedures), but is not scientific because they are events that are not replicable, non-controllable to isolate extraneous variables, and not proceeding from some general theory formulated in mathematical terms.

And I do not believe your assertion that you’re here for “good conversation”. I’ve had good conversations (enlightening ones) with other atheists on this site whose beliefs I respect and who respect mine, and who don’t try to denigrate the rationality oif believers by using science to support their faith in atheism.

 

[Rocinante]

surprise: I agree with your contention (and that of the article) that prayer is not an appropriate subject for scientific invesitgation. It is non-replicable, non-quantitative, and not derived from some general theory.

that’s not my contention.

there are people who believe that praying for sick people helps them to heal. that is a testable theory about the efficacy of prayer. if prayer actually helps heal injuries or illness, that would be a quantifiable fact. if this theory about prayer is true, then the effects would be replicable. if it is false, then the absence of such effects are replicable.

of course one can argue that someone making the assertion that prayer is efficacious for healing has a misconception about what prayer is. though obviously a lot of people have this misconception or a $2.4 study would never have been conducted.

And I do not believe your assertion that you’re here for “good conversation”. I’ve had good conversations (enlightening ones) with other atheists on this site whose beliefs I respect and who respect mine, and who don’t try to denigrate the rationality oif believers by using science to support their faith in atheism.

i think that believers like yourself are rational or i wouldn’t bother conversing with them.

 

[danserr]

Those studies are absurd. C.S Lewis has an essay on prayer in the book “the world’s last night and other essays,” where he points out that invariable success in prayer wouldn’t prove the Christian notion of prayer, it would prove something more like magic, the power to control or compel the supernatural.
Anyway, “words without thoughts never to heaven go,” the people praying were not praying for the recovery of the patients, they were trying to see if prayer worked, which is a different thing altogether. If the words were all that were needed, we’d just train parrots to pray for us.

 

[Rocinante]

Those studies are absurd. C.S Lewis has an essay on prayer in the book “the world’s last night and other essays,” where he points out that invariable success in prayer wouldn’t prove the Christian notion of prayer, it would prove something more like magic, the power to control or compel the supernatural.
Anyway, “words without thoughts never to heaven go,” the people praying were not praying for the recovery of the patients, they were trying to see if prayer worked, which is a different thing altogether. If the words were all that were needed, we’d just train parrots to pray for us.

i agree, but i think most christians have an unsophisticated notion of prayer as a sort of magic and that more sophisticated christians do nothing to correct this idea. that is why templeton would throw away $2.4 million on this study rather than investing it in non-supernatural medical research.

 

[stenlis]

As a social science, yes. As a hard science, no.
This study was a waste of money. Most scientific studies outside of hard science (physics, chemistry, etc.) are wastes of money.

Religion can be studied for its effect on human body and human behavior.

Measuring what goes on in a person’s brain when he/she’s praying can be considered ‘hard science’. Similarly, you can study the physiological changes in a person when somebody prays for them. These kind of studies have been done.

The effects on behavior of groups and individuals would be the social science field. And while you might frown upon social sciences, they too can yield measurable repeatable results.

 

[NE_Catholic]

Religion can be studied for its effect on human body and human behavior.

Measuring what goes on in a person’s brain when he/she’s praying can be considered ‘hard science’. Similarly, you can study the physiological changes in a person when somebody prays for them. These kind of studies have been done.

The effects on behavior of groups and individuals would be the social science field. And while you might frown upon social sciences, they too can yield measurable repeatable results.

I think most of what you just listed is hog wash. And that’s not because I am Catholic, it’s because I am an engineer.

 

[stenlis]

I think most of what you just listed is hog wash. And that’s not because I am Catholic, it’s because I am an engineer.

You should judge ideas based on what they are not based on what you are

Why is measuring people’s brain and body output during different activities (praying included) hogwash?

 

[NE_Catholic]

You should judge ideas based on what they are not based on what you are

Why is measuring people’s brain and body output during different activities (praying included) hogwash?

what does it prove or mean? I:shrug:

 

[stenlis]

what does it prove or mean? I:shrug:

Light travels at 300 000 km/s. What does it prove or mean?

Nothing.

Science doesn’t tell you what things mean. Science tell’s you how things work. Science can tell you how your body reacts to praying. What does your body’s reaction ‘mean’ is outside of science’s scope just like the question what does the speed of light ‘mean’.

 

[NE_Catholic]

Light travels at 300 000 km/s. What does it prove or mean?

Nothing.

Science doesn’t tell you what things mean. Science tell’s you how things work. Science can tell you how your body reacts to praying. What does your body’s reaction ‘mean’ is outside of science’s scope just like the question what does the speed of light ‘mean’.

It means a lot in a practical application such as lasers or optical equipment. It can be applied.

The other stuff, meh. WASTE O TIME

 

[stenlis]

It means a lot in a practical application such as lasers or optical equipment. It can be applied.

The other stuff, meh. WASTE O TIME

Nope. Lasers would work just as well if the speed was 300 050 km/s. In any case, having a practical application does not mean it has a ‘meaning’.

Brain research has applications in therapy and treatment. Behavioral research has applications in the way we organize different things (security, education etc.).

For instance, this behavioral experiment had more impact on my life than Einstein’s theory of relativity had. You may choose to ignore social sciences, but that does not mean they don’t have an impact on our society and our lives.