Sending Positive Thoughts

[reggieM]

All I’m saying is, bring the best pray-ers you know (or any pray-ers you claim have this power to heal the sick or even just yourself if you think your prayers have this power) and lets see some evidence of what they can do.

The Church does not rank pray-ers into categories of worst to best. Again, it’s not a game or a competition. It’s a relationship with God.

But if you want to learn about the power of prayer (and I’m very glad that you do). I recommend that you spend two weeks with the Benedictine Monks at Clear Creek, Oklahoma. Or if you can do so, go to the Monastery at Le Barroux in France.

Then talk with the monks and explain that you are an atheist, searching for evidence on the power of prayer. Stay there two weeks and participate in the exercises as they direct you.

Then come back and tell us what you found, if anything.

 

[Leela]

You claimed to have scientific evidence about the amount of love you have for your children.

Please explain. You’re asking for scientific proof. Now you’re saying that we merely need to ask someone in order to know their thoughts and intentions. Is that how you would measure the scientific truth or validity of something? If the person says something, then it is true?

If you can’t measure it, how do you perform your scientific analysis on it?

I never claimed to have any particular measureable amount of love for my children or made any hypothesis about the effects on others of being loved or not. What sort of units would we measure love in? We just know if we love someone, and if we don’t know, then we don’t love them.

I just said that I love my children and that there is evidence of this love in how I behave toward my children. I’m not claiming that this is proof. In fact, I keep saying that proof is not the issue, the issue is having evidence to show that prayer works at all like people claim it does. I haven’t made any cause-and-effect claim about my love’s healing power that needs to be demonstrated.

Christians claim that prayer heals people. That is a scientifically valid hypothesis that is testable. We can note whether or not someone was prayed for, and we can note the physical condition and any improvement of those prayed for. If anyone claims to have this special ability to heal others with their prayers, then we can verify their claim scientifically. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe that they have this power.

Similarly, if someone claimed that they hate onions, we don’t require any special study to verify this claim. They are not claiming to have any special power. They are just expressing a preference they have. But if someone claims that they can bend spoons with his thoughts (or by praying to Zeus to bend it for him), then this is a scientific hypothesis. I’d need to have this demonstrated before I’ll believe this claim. Wouldn’t you? Could this person claim that this power stands outside scientific study? I don’t see how. Either poeple have these sorts of special powers or they don’t, and if they do, there will be evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

I just said that I love my children and that there is evidence of this love in how I behave toward my children. I’m not claiming that this is proof. In fact, I keep saying that proof is not the issue, the issue is having evidence to show that prayer works at all like people claim it does. I haven’t made any cause-and-effect claim about my love’s healing power that needs to be demonstrated.

Ok, but don’t lose sight of the point. You were looking for some controlled scientific testing on prayer. You claimed that science could determine various qualities of the pray-er, for example, if the pray-er actually loves God or not.

But here, you correctly point out that it would not be possible for science to evaluate such characteristics of a “good pray-er”. Therefore, how could it analyze the effects of prayer if the characteristics of the control group could not be evaluated?

Clearly, a scientific test like that could not be achieved.

The Church would not support something like that because it would be “tempting God” – in other words, playing a game or acting like God is a magician who will do things when told to.

Christians claim that prayer heals people. That is a scientifically valid hypothesis that is testable.

Again, you just proved that it is not testable since you cannot evaluate some of the essential qualities that must be part of “successful prayer”. You cannot determine the “quantity of love” that a person has for God. How could science choose a person who would infallibly work a miracle upon request?

We can note whether or not someone was prayed for, and we can note the physical condition and any improvement of those prayed for.

Please return to the lengthy posts that I offered which explain the “quality of the pray-er”.

If anyone claims to have this special ability to heal others with their prayers, then we can verify their claim scientifically.

There I can agree with you. If people says that they will work miracles of healing, then this can be evaluated.

Could this person claim that this power stands outside scientific study? I don’t see how.

I explained how. God does not work like a law of science. He grants miracles at times and more frequently based on various factors that science cannot evaluate (righteousness, fervor, motive, etc).

Either poeple have these sorts of special powers or they don’t, and if they do, there will be evidence.

Miracle-working Catholics of the past did not claim to “have these special powers”.

Again, read the life of Padre Pio when you get a chance. Or take up the other suggestion I offered.

 

[Leela]

Ok, but don’t lose sight of the point. You were looking for some controlled scientific testing on prayer. You claimed that science could determine various qualities of the pray-er, for example, if the pray-er actually loves God or not.
But here, you correctly point out that it would not be possible for science to evaluate such characteristics of a “good pray-er”. Therefore, how could it analyze the effects of prayer if the characteristics of the control group could not be evaluated?

I only said that we could take such factors into account in a study if you believe that certain particular people have these different qualities. For factors that we can’t identify, we rely on random assignment of subjects to treatments to create experimental groups that are similar.

Again, you just proved that it is not testable since you cannot evaluate some of the essential qualities that must be part of “successful prayer”. You cannot determine the “quantity of love” that a person has for God. How could science choose a person who would infallibly work a miracle upon request?

“Science” doesn’t need to choose people who have these powers. You are claiming that some people have these powers, so you (or whoever hopes to be convincing about the power of prayer) would need to produce those people so they can be tested.

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

That doesn’t surprise me at all.

Were you baptized Catholic?

:coffeeread:

 

[reggieM]

“Science” doesn’t need to choose people who have these powers. You are claiming that some people have these powers, so you (or whoever hopes to be convincing about the power of prayer) would need to produce those people so they can be tested.

It’s not the powers of the person but of God. I claim that God has manifested His powers through people – powers of healing. I didn’t not claim that this was something that could be predicted or manipulated by science, given the reasons I already provided. The Church does not identify anyone has “having powers” more or less. Nor does the Church scientifically measure the quantity of love of God that a person has. There are no competitions or games to prove who has greater or lesser powers of love. It’s a relationship with God and built interiorly.

The Church does use science to validate miraculous events and can draw inferences based on science.

But in the same way that you cannot determine the quantity of love that you have for your children, science (or the Church) cannot determine if a given subject has the proper qualities required for God to work a miracle (or even that other criteria are in place).

Since the worker of the miracle is actually God, science would need to understand things from God’s perspective and from knowing His will.

Since we do not know that ahead of time, we can only evaluate miracles after the fact.

 

[Leela]

:coffeeread:

No, I was not baptized Catholic. Why do you ask? Is there a way to become unbaptized?

 

[Leela]

It’s not the powers of the person but of God. I claim that God has manifested His powers through people – powers of healing.

…and that people praying is what motivates this healing. Either that is true or it is false. It is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested.

I didn’t not claim that this was something that could be predicted or manipulated by science, given the reasons I already provided. The Church does not identify anyone has “having powers” more or less. Nor does the Church scientifically measure the quantity of love of God that a person has. There are no competitions or games to prove who has greater or lesser powers of love. It’s a relationship with God and built interiorly.

None of the above is relevant. Anyone who feels that they can successfully use prayer to aid in healing could be studied.

Since we do not know that ahead of time, we can only evaluate miracles after the fact.

But you are saying ahead of time that prayer helps heal the sick. Either that prediction is born out in lived experience or not.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

It is a scientific hypothesis that can be tested.

It’s not, as already proven.

But you are saying ahead of time that prayer helps heal the sick. Either that prediction is born out in lived experience or not.

You’re claiming that you love your children. According to atheistic-materialism, and consisent with your views, either that can be quantitatively measured by science and validated or not.

You’ve already claimed that it cannot be measured quantitatively. Thus, you’ve refuted your own point.

You cannot scientifically prove that you love your own children. There are no measures you can use for it.

Therefore, either you don’t love your children or this test cannot be subject to science.

You claim to love your children. Thus, you either do or don’t. Science should be able to determine if you do or do not and how much or how little based on some measurement.

 

[1holycatholic]

No, I was not baptized Catholic. Why do you ask? Is there a way to become unbaptized?

You mentioned being surprised at the fraction of Catholics that don’t understand their faith.

I haven’t seen anything in your posts other than a superficial understanding of Catholicism. I wondered if you were part of that group.

If you were validly baptized, then you were baptized ad aeternum. Ontological changes can’t be undone or repeated.

 

[Leela]

Hi Reggie,

It’s not, as already proven.

I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that point at all.

You’re claiming that you love your children. According to atheistic-materialism, and consisent with your views, either that can be quantitatively measured by science and validated or not.

You’ve already claimed that it cannot be measured quantitatively. Thus, you’ve refuted your own point.

You cannot scientifically prove that you love your own children. There are no measures you can use for it.

Therefore, either you don’t love your children or this test cannot be subject to science.

You claim to love your children. Thus, you either do or don’t. Science should be able to determine if you do or do not and how much or how little based on some measurement.

I’m not a materialist, and this all seems to be beside the point, but okay, if you would like to know whether or not I love my children, you will first need to determine what would constitute evidence for or against that claim. In other words, what sorts of experiences would be consistent with me loving my children and what sorts of experiences would contradict that claim.

Certainly if you read in the paper towmorrow morning that a woman named Leela murdered her children and complained that she had been frustarted over a discussion in a Catholic forum, that would constitute evidence against that claim. While if I provided corraborating witnesses to verify that while holding my youngest and slipping on some ice, I twisted so as to protect my child but in failing to try to break my fall I broke my arm and two ribs, that would constitute evicdence consistent with that claim.

But if you can think of no way that your experience could under any circumstances be any different if it were true or false that I love my children, then it is meaningless for you to even ask the question. So you either need to think hard about what sort of evidence you’d like to see, or unask the question. Because a difference that doesn’t make a difference is not a difference.

So…back to the efficacy of prayer. If prayer actually has any effect on healing the sick or injured, it is very easy to imagine the sort of experiences that would be consistent with that claim. We just don’t see that sort of evidence.

Best,
Leela

 

[wasmit]

On many forums when someone is in some form of distress a self-proclaimed atheist will often say something like:
“I can’t pray for you, but I will send positive thoughts your way.”
How exactly does this work? What is the nature and efficacy of positive thoughts?

Somebody’s got some 'splainin to do.

positive thoughts and praying for someone are very similar - they both do nothing for the target.

 

[dkdempsey]

Having positive thoughts would at the very least create a positive mindset. I know this from personal experience. If I walk around with negative thoughts and being mad, the more likely it is I might snap at someone and hurt their feelings. Every now and then (often frequently) I have to take a couple seconds worth of “time out” and clear the negativity, and focus on postive things instead. This can improve my mind and disposition pretty well.

 

[1holycatholic]

positive thoughts and praying for someone are very similar - they both do nothing for the target.

Prayer is efficacious but not empirically verifiable.

Sending positive thoughts is simply atheist superstition.

 

[Leela]

You mentioned being surprised at the fraction of Catholics that don’t understand their faith.

Well, yeah. It’s not like 40% of Catholics don’t understand some esoteric aspect of their religion. According to the study you cited, 40% of Catholics don’t believe in God!

If you were validly baptized, then you were baptized ad aeternum. Ontological changes can’t be undone or repeated.

…so at least I have that going for me.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

positive thoughts and praying for someone are very similar - they both do nothing for the target.

It’s hard to imagine that they would do anything for the target, since I don’t know of any mechanism by which that would work, but I am open to the possibility. I would just like to see some evidence before I’ll believe it.

 

[1holycatholic]

Well, yeah. It’s not like 40% of Catholics don’t understand some esoteric aspect of their religion. According to the study you cited, 40% of Catholics don’t believe in God!

:ehh:
97% of Catholics believe in God. That leaves 3% who don’t believe in God.

55% of agnostics believe in God.

21% of atheists believe in God.

The agnostics figure isn’t surprising since agnostic, by definition, means “no knowledge” not “there is no God, but I can’t prove or disprove it” or “I have no reason to believe in God.”

The atheism figure is surprising since atheism, by definition, is the affirmation of a universal negative: “there is no God.”

 

[Leela]

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/atheist.jpg

97% of Catholics believe in God. That leaves 3% who don’t believe in God.

55% of agnostics believe in God.

21% of atheists believe in God.

The agnostics figure isn’t surprising since agnostic, by definition, means “no knowledge” not “there is no God, but I can’t prove or disprove it” or “I have no reason to believe in God.”

The atheism figure is surprising since atheism, by definition, is the affirmation of a universal negative: “there is no God.”

You say 97% believe in God but according to the table, that number includes 29% who do not believe in a personal God but rather in an impersonal force. It also includes 8% in the other/don’t know category.

Only 60% say that they actually believe in a personal God, so 40% of Catholics do not believe in God.

I have no problem with belief in impersonal forces (gravity?) or people who don’t know things. I just think this personal God concept is one we need to do away with.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

Hi Reggie,
I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that point at all.

You have to scientifically measure the various components that go into the experiment. This you cannot do even in trying to scientifically prove your own love for your children. It cannot be measured by your external actions – there is an interior aspect that science cannot grasp.

But you want to know about the efficacy of prayer and proving it scienfically. It’s worth understanding what prayer is – and then how the benefits are gained.

Prayer is communication with God. God is a person, our Father. He is also the source of all Life, all Good, all Perfections and all things (from his own Creative Will).

So, when a person prays to God, he or she is not using “special powers” that the person possesses. The person is asking God for this gift.

There are various kinds of illnesses which are healed by prayer. The worst illness, the one which Jesus came to heal the most – is that of sin. This is a spiritual illness that can be healed by God through prayer.

Unbelief is one of the most serious spiritual illnesses that there is to be found – certainly atheism is a very serious sin and needs the grace of healing.

But the disease of atheism very often is not healed, even if many prayers are offered for the person. The reason for this is found in the will of the non-believer who does not want to be healed.

The same is true of physical illness.

I’m not a materialist, and this all seems to be beside the point, but okay, if you would like to know whether or not I love my children, you will first need to determine what would constitute evidence for or against that claim. In other words, what sorts of experiences would be consistent with me loving my children and what sorts of experiences would contradict that claim.

That is subjective though. How do we know that those experiences mean “love”? Science should be able to show, objectively, how much love you have.

The same with prayer. Science should be able to show if “prayer was done correctly” or not. It should know the factors involved in why God heals some persons through prayer and not others.

Certainly if you read in the paper towmorrow morning that a woman named Leela murdered her children and complained that she had been frustarted over a discussion in a Catholic forum, that would constitute evidence against that claim.

In materialistic terms, no it wouldn’t. Evolutionary processes caused you to kill your children. It says nothing about “love”.

While if I provided corraborating witnesses to verify that while holding my youngest and slipping on some ice, I twisted so as to protect my child but in failing to try to break my fall I broke my arm and two ribs, that would constitute evicdence consistent with that claim.

Love is interior to the person, not judged on external actions alone. You could have made that seemingly-sacrificial action because you wanted to torture you kids but you accidentally died instead. Science would have to judge your motive and intention.

It’s the same with prayer.

On the other hand, if you find someone who claims to have “the power to heal” and claims that this is some kind of independent power that is controlled (like a spoon-bending trick), then that can be tested.

 

[1holycatholic]

You say 97% believe in God but according to the table, that number includes 29% who do not believe in a personal God but rather in an impersonal force. It also includes 8% in the other/don’t know category.

Only 60% say that they actually believe in a personal God, so 40% of Catholics do not believe in God.

I have no problem with belief in impersonal forces (gravity?) or people who don’t know things. I just think this personal God concept is one we need to do away with.

Best,
Leela

You see only what you want to see, not what is there.

Impersonal force is an impersonal God.

**NET believe in God: 97% **That includes personal, impersonal and other.