Sending Positive Thoughts

[Leela]

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.

The key components of the experiment are simply whether or not someone prayed and whether or not the person prayed for was healed. These are pretty easy to measure unless you choose to be so skeptical as to not believe people when they say they prayed or not. If we start with a group of people who think that they can influence events through prayer, then there is no reason to think that they would lie about whether they actually prayed.

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.

The issue is never proof but rather generating evidence that is either consistent or inconsistent with the claim that prayer is efficacious in healing the sick.

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.

I understand that, but either the gift of healing the sick in response to prayer ever gets granted or it never does, and if it does occasionally get granted, there will be physical evidence of healing.

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.

Since there is no experience that is imaginable that would be consistent or inconsistent with healing sin, then we can’t test for it. But then such a difference that doesn’t make a difference isn’t claiming anything anyway.

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.

Love is a subjective emotion that one either experiences or not. I don’t think of it as an objectively measurable essence at all, and I don’t think you do either. You are taking a radically skeptical view that is unjustified. What could make you doubt that you yourself love? If you know you love, then you do love. If you don’t know you love someone or aren’t sure, then you don’t.

Though it is unreasonable to doubt your own experience of love, we do doubt that others love us, and our doubts are either confirmed or assuaged by our experiences of the other’s behavior towards us. So, again, such claims are either verified or not in lived experience. But the power of prayer in healing the sick cannot be verified in any way?

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.
reggieM;4797237:

Part of what we could try to figure out is what would constitute “praying done correctly” if such a thing is possible. But the basic question involves a group of people who claim that they know how to pray correctly and believe that their prayers result in healing. These people’s claims could be tested.

Why God heals some and not others is irrelevent when we can annalyze results statistically.
reggieM;4797237:

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

But neither of us claims to be a materialist.

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.

I can’t see how it is any different to claim that you are occasionally healing people with your prayers or that your prayers convince God to occasionally heal people from the point of view of the experience of whether or not someone prayed and whether or not someone got healed. I agree that there is a difference of some sort, but it is irrelevant to the experiment because all we want to do is establish a causal link between praying and healing. It doesn’t matter if the causal link includes praying to a saint that asks Jesus to ask God to heal or whether the prayer directly effects healing. The effect is the same, or as I suspect, nonexistent.

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

The key components of the experiment are simply whether or not someone prayed and whether or not the person prayed for was healed.

How do you quantitatively measure spiritual healing?

 

[reggieM]

Since there is no experience that is imaginable that would be consistent or inconsistent with healing sin, then we can’t test for it.

Certainly, those people who were criminals who stopped committing crime due to prayer would be examples of spiritual healing through prayer.

Love is a subjective emotion that one either experiences or not. I don’t think of it as an objectively measurable essence at all, and I don’t think you do either.

Yes, I agree, but prayer is a function of the love of God. It therefore is not measurable.

You are taking a radically skeptical view that is unjustified. What could make you doubt that you yourself love?

I’m taking the atheistic-materialst position. Science would have to prove that I love anyone.

For example, what if the government tested everyone scientifically (biologically) to determine if they loved their children? If the scientific test didn’t show “enough love” then the children would be taken away.

If you know you love, then you do love. If you don’t know you love someone or aren’t sure, then you don’t.

Again, prayer is a function of love. But if you can find someone who says that they know and love God so well that God will work miracles for them on demand – then that could be tested. Virtually no Catholics would say that though because we do not force the hand of God or subject our love to scientific testing.

Nor would most married couples or parents want their love tested in a scientific laboratory. Because science cannot test such things. But again, if someone said that their love could be measured scientifically and their love is greater than others – that could be tested.

Though it is unreasonable to doubt your own experience of love, we do doubt that others love us, and our doubts are either confirmed or assuaged by our experiences of the other’s behavior towards us.

Excellent point. But we wouldn’t ask science to give evidence that someone loves us.

But the power of prayer in healing the sick cannot be verified in any way?

It can be verified by the person praying – because only that person can understand personal motive and the response of God (how God’s will works for that person).

Inferences can also be drawn regarding the power of prayer. Just as you rightly assert that we can take someone’s word on how much they love their children, we can do the same on their love of God and the power of prayer in their life.

Here’s an example:

Did a submarine commander close a door against tons of water pressure?

We see it said that it was “humanly impossible”. We see the claim of a miracle and of prayer being the power.

An inference can be drawn here and there is evidence. You may not accept it but there is evidence that a person did something extraordinary and credited prayer for the accomplishment.

Part of what we could try to figure out is what would constitute “praying done correctly” if such a thing is possible. But the basic question involves a group of people who claim that they know how to pray correctly and believe that their prayers result in healing. These people’s claims could be tested.

Yes, that is true and I do agree.

Why God heals some and not others is irrelevent when we can annalyze results statistically.

God is a “key player” in the success of the experiment. It’s not like testing a natural law. It’s like proving that you could make another person do something. Perhaps you could but also perhaps you couldn’t.

But neither of us claims to be a materialist.

I can’t see how it is any different to claim that you are occasionally healing people with your prayers or that your prayers convince God to occasionally heal people from the point of view of the experience of whether or not someone prayed and whether or not someone got healed. I agree that there is a difference of some sort, but it is irrelevant to the experiment because all we want to do is establish a causal link between praying and healing. It doesn’t matter if the causal link includes praying to a saint that asks Jesus to ask God to heal or whether the prayer directly effects healing. The effect is the same, or as I suspect, nonexistent.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

Sorry – part of my reply was cut off.

But neither of us claims to be a materialist.

Ok, I wasn’t sure about that. It’s very good to hear, but I was arguing about the standard atheistic notion of materialism. I don’t know what other substances or essences you believe exist but that’s probably best for another thread or time.

I can’t see how it is any different to claim that you are occasionally healing people with your prayers or that your prayers convince God to occasionally heal people from the point of view of the experience of whether or not someone prayed and whether or not someone got healed.

The healing and response to prayer affects the sick person and the pray-er. The pray-er learns more about God and why some prayers are answered with healing and others are not.

I agree that there is a difference of some sort, but it is irrelevant to the experiment because all we want to do is establish a causal link between praying and healing. It doesn’t matter if the causal link includes praying to a saint that asks Jesus to ask God to heal or whether the prayer directly effects healing. The effect is the same, or as I suspect, nonexistent.

The effect is the same if the pray-er claims that prayer will heal on-demand, no matter the circumstances.

People tend to evaluate the power of their own prayers and observe the results. Prayer is a “communication of love”. We speak with God and bring Him all of our needs. God answers every prayer both for the benefit of the pray-er and for those who are prayed for.

It’s like when children asks for something from parents. Sometimes the parents will give what is asked for, sometimes not.

Would we want to prove, scientifically, that parents will give favors to children based on some criteria? It really doesn’t work.

 

[dkdempsey]

Did someone say that 21% of Atheists believe in God?
By definition an atheist does not believe in God or gods.

Will that person please remove their head from their butt?

 

[1holycatholic]

Did someone say that 21% of Atheists believe in God?
By definition an atheist does not believe in God or gods.

Indeed it is strange. 21% of atheists say they believe in God. :doh2:

 

[Leela]

Indeed it is strange. 21% of atheists say they believe in God. :doh2:

That is strange. But actually the study says that 6% believe in a personal God. Believing in an (name removed by moderator)ersonal force (and other/do not know) is consistent with atheism since theism is about believing in a personal God. It’s still hard to imagine how 6% of atheists could say that they believe in a personal God, but it seems much more strange to me that 40% of Catholics don’t believe in a personal God. In both cases it makes me wonder if people understood the questions.

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

That is strange. But actually the study says that 6% believe in a personal God. Believing in an (name removed by moderator)ersonal force (and other/do not know) is consistent with atheism since theism is about believing in a personal God. It’s still hard to imagine how 6% of atheists could say that they believe in a personal God, but it seems much more strange to me that 40% of Catholics don’t believe in a personal God. In both cases it makes me wonder if people understood the questions.

Best,
Leela

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
That’s deism and it’s the belief in an impersonal God.

 

[Leela]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/advrider/ImaPoser.gif
That’s deism and it’s the belief in an impersonal God.

Is that you laughing on the floor? Christians can sure be known by their love and charitable nature!

Anyway, atheism isn’t defined in contrast deism but theism. Still deism is usually thought of as belief in a personal God but one that chooses not to interfere after creation.

For more information, you might check the Catholic encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/04679b.htm

A good clue is the frequent use of the pronoun, He, when referring to the Deist God.

Come to think of it, you look a bit foolish laughing on the floor. At any rate, it doesn’t help any of your arguments.

Best,
Leela