Sending Positive Thoughts

[1holycatholic]

You really seem to be missing the point here:

Take anything like a tea cup, an egg timer, a pine cone, a sock, a bookshelf. Pray to it faithfully and your prayers will be answered, as long as you pray to it with the same faith you have in God.

In other words, as long as you give the object you chose credit for all the “blessings” it gave you.

No, you seem to be missing the point.

Your proposition is irrational. You are assigning attributes to things that can logically only be attributes of God.

 

[Leela]

… are you saying that scientific studies can tell us nothing about prayer? If not, why? Either people can be healed through prayer or not. If there is a truth here to be known, why can’t we know it?

I haven’t gotten any answers to my questions above about the power of prayer. I cited a study scientific study on the power of prayer to heal the sick which found no positive effect (and patients who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse than those who were not prayed for).

The response to such studies seems to be a shrug as if to say, of course the study found no evidence of the power of prayer. We know prayer works but science can tell us nothing about it.

I wonder if you would have the same attitude about science if the study had shown that the patients who were prayed for did much better than the ones who were not prayed for. I suspect not. Try to be honest with yourself here. If actual scientific evidence for the power of prayer were offered, would you still say that such evidence is irrelevant and science can’t tell us anything about prayer?

Best,
Leela

 

[Sideline]

No, you seem to be missing the point.

Your proposition is irrational. You are assigning attributes to things that can logically only be attributes of God.

This is amazing.

Yes the proposition is irrational, that’s the point!

Yes, it is irrational to assume rocks can answer prayers. We all know the rock isn’t doing anything. But try telling that to the person who has faith that the rock is answering their prayers. They have evidence. It’s even a real rock. They can show it to you. Their prayers were answered. It’s true the answer wasn’t always yes.

Now, let’s look at God. People pray to God and something happens. They blame the bad things on happenstance, and the good things they credit to God. They aren’t being anymore rational than the Rockians. There evidence is exactly the same.

God answered my prayers.
The Rock answered my prayers.

Jesus was a real person.
This is a real Rock.

Jesus has changed my life.
The Rock has changed my life.

Jesus gives me hope.
The Rock gives me hope.

I’d be a terrible person if it weren’t for Jesus.
I’d be a terrible person if it weren’t for the Rock.

You are able to see how ridiculous it is to believe in magic rocks, and yet you don’t seem believe that crediting these powers to Semitic carpenters is equally irrational.

 

[1holycatholic]

You are able to see how ridiculous it is to believe in magic rocks, and yet you don’t seem believe that crediting these powers to Semitic carpenters is equally irrational.

The existence of God is a rational proposition.

A rock is not God. Your proposition is irrational.

 

[Sideline]

The existence of God is a rational proposition.

A rock is not God. Your proposition is irrational.

:banghead:

And how is it rational?

 

[1holycatholic]

:banghead:

And how is it rational?

There are plenty threads regarding the existence of God. The Quinque Viae thread would be a start.

Perhaps you can answer the ridiculous claims in this post.

Your “magic rock” of atheist fallacies and scientism isn’t doing you much good.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

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?

http://www.bellenterprises.com/images/LightningFingers.png

Somebody’s got some 'splainin to do.

It’s basically the same thing. Positive thoughts, hoping, praying, contemplating etc. are technically done for the same purposes; in hopes that either you or someone else will get through a certain situation one may be struggling with.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Sideline]

There are plenty threads regarding the existence of God.

Yes, and they are all about as ridiculous as this one.

There are two “rational” lines of reasoning “proving” that there is a God.

1. Argue that something exists, and then call that something God.

Of course, no proof is offered why this thing is God. How do you know that the first cause was a purposeful cause, for instance? Most of the causes we observe in nature aren’t purposeful, they are random. It is more likely to assume, therefore, that the cause of the universe wasn’t a purposeful cause.

You also claim that Jesus was God. Jesus was born, and therefore caused. If Jesus could be God why can’t I be God, or my Rock be God?

1. God, by nature of who God is, must exist.

These arguments at least attempt to prove something that is recognizable as a “god”. But there aren’t any that succeed. Plantinga himself admits that his argument isn’t “always a good proof of God”. (I would have thought that a logician of his calibre would know that argues are either valid or not. There is no such thing as an argument that is “sometimes” good.)

If you want to argue the rationality of God, pick an argument, explain why I should believe God is this thing that you say it is, and we’ll argue whether you have succeeded.

I’m not going to waste my time refuting every argument for God in the whole world, because no one who believes in God is going to even consider the arguments.

Your “magic rock” of atheist fallacies and scientism isn’t doing you much good.

Yes, it appears that you are much too stubborn to understand the rock metaphor. You can’t blame me for trying.

You have no proof that prayers are being answered. In order to claim that 100% of prayers are being answered, an answered prayer becomes indistinguishable from an unanswered prayer.

God becomes as useless as a rock. Does that make sense now?

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes, and they are all about as ridiculous as this one.

There are two “rational” lines of reasoning “proving” that there is a God.

1. Argue that something exists, and then call that something God.

Of course, no proof is offered why this thing is God. How do you know that the first cause was a purposeful cause, for instance? Most of the causes we observe in nature aren’t purposeful, they are random. It is more likely to assume, therefore, that the cause of the universe wasn’t a purposeful cause.

You also claim that Jesus was God. Jesus was born, and therefore caused. If Jesus could be God why can’t I be God, or my Rock be God?

1. God, by nature of who God is, must exist.

These arguments at least attempt to prove something that is recognizable as a “god”. But there aren’t any that succeed. Plantinga himself admits that his argument isn’t “always a good proof of God”. (I would have thought that a logician of his calibre would know that argues are either valid or not. There is no such thing as an argument that is “sometimes” good.)

If you want to argue the rationality of God, pick an argument, explain why I should believe God is this thing that you say it is, and we’ll argue whether you have succeeded.

I’m not going to waste my time refuting every argument for God in the whole world, because no one who believes in God is going to even consider the arguments.

You are correct in that there are two types of proofs. It is apparent from your examples that you don’t know what they are since you provided two of the same kind of proof.

Where did I say God was caused? That’s your misunderstanding. If you’re going to argue against something you ought to make an attempt to understand it first.

 

[Sideline]

You are correct in that there are two types of proofs. It is apparent from your examples that you don’t know what they are since you provided two of the same kind of proof.

Swing and a miss. If you read the post again, you’ll see that they are quite different.

The first was the teleological proofs, which are all founded on the idea God being the origin of something (causes, morality, love, truth).

The second, which includes Plantinga’s, are ontological meaning that they are focused on what God means.

If you think those are the same, this conversation is even more doomed than it is.

Where did I say God was caused? That’s your misunderstanding. If you’re going to argue against something you ought to make an attempt to understand it first.

You said that Jesus is God. Jesus’ life, by definition, was a contingent event.

You should really take your own advice and learn this stuff. Especially since you think that God actually is a rational idea.

Seriously, learn then argue.

 

[1holycatholic]

Swing and a miss. If you read the post again, you’ll see that they are quite different.

The first was the teleological proofs, which are all founded on the idea God being the origin of something (causes, morality, love, truth).

The second, which includes Plantinga’s, are ontological meaning that they are focused on what God means.

If you think those are the same, this conversation is even more doomed than it is.

You said that Jesus is God. Jesus’ life, by definition, was a contingent event.

You should really take your own advice and learn this stuff. Especially since you think that God actually is a rational idea.

Seriously, learn then argue.

I meant a priori and a posteriori.

You indicated that the teleological argument is the origin of “(causes, morality, love, truth).” The teleological argument is a particular type of a posteriori argument also known as the argument from design.

The argument from causality is another type of a posteriori argument, not something subordinate to the teleological argument.

The ontological argument is an a priori argument, which you didn’t explain properly in your prior post or the one I reply to now. In fact, if you had not put the word “ontological” in the post I am replying to you would still have me lost because the ontological argument has nothing to do with what God “means”. The ontological argument shows the logical necessity for the existence of a greatest conceivable being. If by what God “means”, you are referring to His attributes (good, just, true etc.), they flow from the ontological argument, the argument doesn’t depend on them.

I’m only familiar with Plantinga because of his Molinism. Anselm and Descartes are the notable proponents of the ontological argument.

Jesus has always existed. You are stating Arianism.

 

[Leela]

Yes, it appears that you are much too stubborn to understand the rock metaphor. You can’t blame me for trying.

You have no proof that prayers are being answered. In order to claim that 100% of prayers are being answered, an answered prayer becomes indistinguishable from an unanswered prayer.

God becomes as useless as a rock. Does that make sense now?

Hi Sideline, all,

I’m still wondering if there is any way to demonstarte scientifically that praying to God works any better than praying to positive thoughts or praying to a so-called magic rock.

People who believe in the power of prayer claim that prayer helps heal the sick. If so, we should see some evidence of it.

Someone suggested that the quality of the person who prays is important and has not been taken into account in previous studies, because God is more likely to obey a righteous person while a sinner’s prayers are more likely to go unanswered. That sounds unChristian to me, but I’ll let others play the expert on that question. It is agreed that all prayers are answered, but do you agree that good people get their prayers answered with successful action and bad people are more likely to get an answer of “wait” or “no”?

What other factors should be taken into account in designing an experiment to test the power of prayer so that a better study may demonstrate the power of prayer?

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

Someone suggested that the quality of the person who prays is important and has not been taken into account in previous studies, because God is more likely to obey a righteous person while a sinner’s prayers are more likely to go unanswered. That sounds unChristian to me, but I’ll let others play the expert on that question.

Well, there’s a long history to Catholic spiritual teachings and usually what people think is “Christian” is actually Evangelical Protestantism which does not have any grasp on the teachings of the saints of the past. But yes, the quality of the person is essential to know. A scientific study that didn’t look at that aspect would be in error from the start.

It is agreed that all prayers are answered, but do you agree that good people get their prayers answered with successful action and bad people are more likely to get an answer of “wait” or “no”?

Excellent question. We have two categories to study scientifically: “good people” and “bad people”. I’ll add another criterion: “What are they praying for?” Normally, a “bad person” should first pray to become a “good person”. The sinner should pray for repentance before asking for favors and miracles.

What other factors should be taken into account in designing an experiment to test the power of prayer so that a better study may demonstrate the power of prayer?

Again, this is a very good question to help us understand how to pray and how to determine if prayer will be successful (a scientific study would have to include these factors).

1. a righteous person receives more success in prayer and more favors and gifts from God. What does it mean to be righteous?

• Reverence and fear of God,
• A solid life of virtue
  • What virtues? First, humility. The first and essential virtue. After that, prudence, temperance, justice, courage, patience … many more.

1. Prayer must be fervent (sincere, ernest, pure)
2. Prayer must be accompanied by Faith (God works miracles for others because they had faith)
3. Prayer accompanied by self-denial is more effective (prayer and fasting)
4. Prayer must be comprehensive. Not just prayer of petition (Dear God, please give me whatever I want). It must include Thanksgiving, Adoration, Sublimation, and a spirit of Repentance.

So, your scientific experiment needs to validate and measure the levels of:

Righteousness
Fervor
Faith
and Self-Denial

before being able to accurately measure the results.

A good guide to this is in the writings of the Desert Fathers. I would expect that all scientists studying this topic would be very familiar with those teachings.

 

[Leela]

Again, this is a very good question to help us understand how to pray and how to determine if prayer will be successful (a scientific study would have to include these factors).

1. a righteous person receives more success in prayer and more favors and gifts from God. What does it mean to be righteous?

• Reverence and fear of God,
• A solid life of virtue
  • What virtues? First, humility. The first and essential virtue. After that, prudence, temperance, justice, courage, patience … many more.

1. Prayer must be fervent (sincere, ernest, pure)
2. Prayer must be accompanied by Faith (God works miracles for others because they had faith)
3. Prayer accompanied by self-denial is more effective (prayer and fasting)
4. Prayer must be comprehensive. Not just prayer of petition (Dear God, please give me whatever I want). It must include Thanksgiving, Adoration, Sublimation, and a spirit of Repentance.

So, your scientific experiment needs to validate and measure the levels of:

Righteousness
Fervor
Faith
and Self-Denial

Hi Reggie,

You’ve identified 5 factors that may be interesting in studying the efficacy of prayer:

1. Righteousness
2. Fervor
3. Faith
4. Self-Denial
5. Form of prayer

(I added the fifth to your list since you said that a prayer must contain “Thanksgiving, Adoration, Sublimation, and a spirit of Repentance”)

Given that most Christians are not Catholic and have no understanding of the teaching of the saints, it seems to me that the Catholic Church would have an interest in conducting a study to not only demonstrate the efficacy of prayer in general, but also to show that these 5 things are important. As you say it doesn’t seem enough to say that prayer works, but if so, how can we pray most effectively.

For example, Catholics interested in prayer could try to find the form of prayer that is most effective through such a study and determine the effect of diferent forms of self-denial on the efficacy of prayer.

If prayer really works and can be demonstrated to work, it seems me that if the Church is interested in getting more people to pray, it should carry out such a study to convince people that praying is a good thing to do.

However, though I would think such information would be important to try to know, I doubt that the Church would ever commission such a study. Or am I wrong?

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi Reggie,

You’ve identified 5 factors that may be interesting in studying the efficacy of prayer:

1. Righteousness
2. Fervor
3. Faith
4. Self-Denial
5. Form of prayer

(I added the fifth to your list since you said that a prayer must contain “Thanksgiving, Adoration, Sublimation, and a spirit of Repentance”)

Given that most Christians are not Catholic and have no understanding of the teaching of the saints, it seems to me that the Catholic Church would have an interest in conducting a study to not only demonstrate the efficacy of prayer in general, but also to show that these 5 things are important. As you say it doesn’t seem enough to say that prayer works, but if so, how can we pray most effectively.

For example, Catholics interested in prayer could try to find the form of prayer that is most effective through such a study and determine the effect of diferent forms of self-denial on the efficacy of prayer.

If prayer really works and can be demonstrated to work, it seems me that if the Church is interested in getting more people to pray, it should carry out such a study to convince people that praying is a good thing to do.

However, though I would think such information would be important to try to know, I doubt that the Church would ever commission such a study. Or am I wrong?

Best,
Leela

If this interests you then start another thread about the efficacy of Christian prayer instead of hijacking this thread.

 

[Leela]

If this interests you then start another thread about the efficacy of Christian prayer instead of hijacking this thread.

Hi Holy1,

You said:
'“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?’

I wasn’t trying to hijack anything. As I understood the OP, it was concerned with the efficacy of prayer as compared to positive thoughts. Or was it just supposed to be a thread for making fun of atheists who wish others well?

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

If prayer really works and can be demonstrated to work, it seems me that if the Church is interested in getting more people to pray, it should carry out such a study to convince people that praying is a good thing to do.

I think we’ve shown pretty clearly that a “scientific study” cannot include the essential factors that make prayer effective.
Keep in mind, prayer is a relationship of the person with God. It’s not a magic trick or a mathematical formula. It’s possible to offend God through unworthy or prideful prayers. We are warned not to play games with God.

However, though I would think such information would be important to try to know, I doubt that the Church would ever commission such a study. Or am I wrong?

The Church has a huge degree of expertise in the area of prayer. There are massive examples of “effective prayer” in the lives of the Saints.

The path of holiness is open to anyone who wants to make the effort – even to scientists.

The Church does consult scientists to evaluate claims of miraculous events also.

 

[reggieM]

As I understood the OP, it was concerned with the efficacy of prayer as compared to positive thoughts. Or was it just supposed to be a thread for making fun of atheists who wish others well?

It was also pointing out an obvious contradiction for the atheistic position on this topic.

 

[Leela]

I think we’ve shown pretty clearly that a “scientific study” cannot include the essential factors that make prayer effective.

You’ve just listed the factors we should take into account:

1. Righteousness
2. Fervor
3. Faith
4. Self-Denial
5. Form of prayer

Why can’t we include these factors? Lets just take one example.
You said that prayers that involve self-denial are more effective that those that don’t. That is a verifiable scientific claim.

To test such a claim, we would need a group of people willing to pray and a group of sick people. The sick people would be randomly assigned to two groups, one to prayed for by each group of praying people. The praying people would be randomly divided into two groups where one group is instructed to fast and one is told to eat normally. After a set time period, we could compare which group had a better recovery rate. If we find that the prayers of those who were fasting were more successful (and the result was statistically significant) we would then have real evidence that fasting increases the power of prayer. Why would we not want to know such a thing if it can be known?

Keep in mind, prayer is a relationship of the person with God. It’s not a magic trick or a mathematical formula. It’s possible to offend God through unworthy or prideful prayers. We are warned not to play games with God.

This is not a game. It is scientific inquiry.

The Church has a huge degree of expertise in the area of prayer. There are massive examples of “effective prayer” in the lives of the Saints.

These examples do not constitute expertise in scientific terms. They are anecdotal evidence which is not considered to be convincing because they do not take into account important principles of control including replication, comparison, and blindness that would allow us to distinguish the effects of the variable or variables in question from confounding variables. Yet the anecdotal evidence was useful for you in coming up with the 5 scientific hypotheses that you mentioned. The next step is to test them so that we can learn how to pray more effectively.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

To test such a claim, we would need a group of people willing to pray and a group of sick people. The sick people would be randomly assigned to two groups, one to prayed for by each group of praying people. The praying people would be randomly divided into two groups where one group is instructed to fast and one is told to eat normally.

That is not how religious fasting works. It’s not merely a matter of not eating. It would require a “scientific measurement” of the ***intention ***of the person. Again, it’s a relationship. Science cannot measure such things.

Can you scientifically measure how much you love your family members?

This is not a game. It is scientific inquiry.

You’re making it into a game – primarily I think because you don’t understand the components of what prayer really is.

Yet the anecdotal evidence was useful for you in coming up with the 5 scientific hypotheses that you mentioned. The next step is to test them so that we can learn how to pray more effectively.

Prayer is communication with God. It’s a component of a “relationship”. Science cannot measure such things. It cannot measure the precise quantity of love a mother has for her children.

Can you prove, scientifically, that you love anyone?