Sending Positive Thoughts

[reggieM]

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

Why can’t we include these factors?

I will help you.

Righteousness – How do you scientifically measure what “righteousness” is? This is a quality of the soul. External actions are not a sufficient guide. One must understand the “internal spirit”, motive or intention of the person.
How can you scientifically measure the quantity of “pride” or “humility” present in a person’s soul?

“Fervor” – how do you measure the relative intensity of prayer between one person and another. What measurable aspect would you use?

“Self-denial” – how does science know that a person’s “self” is actually being denied and not satisfied by any particular action? It’s not possible. Even “not eating” can be a satisfaction to some people and not self-denial.

“Quality of prayer” – How does science evaluate the quality of the interior thoughts of a person communicating with God? What instruments would you use to detect such things?

 

[1holycatholic]

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

Bingo.

 

[Leela]

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

I don’t most think people mean anything more than to express some words of support in saying they’ll send positive thoughts. But it is certainly possible that an atheist could hold onto other superstitions like believing that their thoughts could have healing power. They just by definition can’t be superstitious in the religious way. (That’s why “atheism” as a category is pretty worthless. All it describes is the lack of one particular belief.)

 

[1holycatholic]

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

There was a rather lengthy program on EWTN this past weekend discussing this with regards to Lourdes.

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t most think people mean anything more than to express some words of support in saying they’ll send positive thoughts. But it is certainly possible that an atheist could hold onto other superstitions like believing that their thoughts could have healing power. They just by definition can’t be superstitious in the religious way. (That’s why “atheism” as a category is pretty worthless. All it describes is the lack of one particular belief.)

I am amazed at how many superstitious atheists I encounter (dowsing, sending positive thoughts, ritual behavior etc.), but not as much as this:

religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf
**
21% of Atheists Believe in God
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/atheist.jpg
:doh2:
**

 

[Leela]

I am amazed at how many superstitious atheists I encounter (dowsing, sending positive thoughts, ritual behavior etc.), but not as much as this:

religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf
**
21% of Atheists Believe in God
**

That is strange.

What seems more surprising to me, though, is that according to that report, only 60% of Catholics (and 60% of people overall) believe in a personal God.

 

[po18guy]

Isn’t saying such is actually akin to St. Paul’s words?

For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit …
(Colossians 2:5)



My thought is that neither statement should be taken literally.

Essentially both might be saying something like, “I’ll be thinking about you.”

Yes, but the Saint was in prayer while the atheist is stumbling in the dark. Which will fall into a pit?

 

[1holycatholic]

That is strange.

What seems more surprising to me, though, is that according to that report, only 60% of Catholics (and 60% of people overall) believe in a personal God.

That doesn’t surprise me at all.

Were you baptized Catholic?

 

[Leela]

I will help you.

Righteousness – How do you scientifically measure what “righteousness” is? This is a quality of the soul. External actions are not a sufficient guide. One must understand the “internal spirit”, motive or intention of the person.
How can you scientifically measure the quantity of “pride” or “humility” present in a person’s soul?

“Fervor” – how do you measure the relative intensity of prayer between one person and another. What measurable aspect would you use?

“Self-denial” – how does science know that a person’s “self” is actually being denied and not satisfied by any particular action? It’s not possible. Even “not eating” can be a satisfaction to some people and not self-denial.

“Quality of prayer” – How does science evaluate the quality of the interior thoughts of a person communicating with God? What instruments would you use to detect such things?

If we are still focusing on testing the effects of fasting, we could certainly find a group of people for which fasting would constitute self-denial and randomly assign these people to two experimental groups where one groups fasts and the other doesn’t. While focusing on this one treatment, whether or not we can adequately measure the other variables you mentioned is not important since we can rely on the random assignment of subjects to treatments to create experimental groups that are similar (i.e., more and less righteous or fervent prayer sayers will be balanced between the groups) so that any differences at the end of the study can be attributed to either fasting or the random assignment.

I can’t understand why Catholics would not be interested in such a study to see if they could improve the efficacy of their prayers through fasting (assuming it is self-denial for them).

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

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?

Hi Reggie,

We don’t generally have anything like absolute proof to justify our beliefs, so I never demand it. We are in a condition of incomplete information and have to deal with the world on that basis.It’s not so much an issue of proof (evidence that is so convincing it absolutely compels belief) but of whether we have good reason to believe.

So, sure, I could provide evidence that is consistent with the fact that I love my children that you’d likely find convincing. My question is what sort of evidence is consistent with the claim that sending positive thoughts or praying for the sick or to a magic rock are any different in their effects on healing? It seems pretty clear to me that the way to get such evidence is with a randomized controlled experiment.

Start with a group of the Church’s best pray-ers and randomly assign them to either pray or not to pray for their assigned sick person based on whatever best praying practices the Church recommends, and lets see the results.

I get the sense that if such a study were conducted, and it was found that the prayed for patients fared much better, believers would be very interested in the results. However, if the results were not favorable to the power of prayer, they would be dismissed. Am I right?

Best,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi Reggie,

We don’t generally have anything like absolute proof to justify our beliefs, so I never demand it. We are in a condition of incomplete information and have to deal with the world on that basis.It’s not so much an issue of proof (evidence that is so convincing it absolutely compels belief) but of whether we have good reason to believe.

So, sure, I could provide evidence that is consistent with the fact that I love my children that you’d likely find convincing. My question is what sort of evidence is consistent with the claim that sending positive thoughts or praying for the sick or to a magic rock are any different in their effects on healing? It seems pretty clear to me that the way to get such evidence is with a randomized controlled experiment.

Start with a group of the Church’s best pray-ers and randomly assign them to either pray or not to pray for their assigned sick person based on whatever best praying practices the Church recommends, and lets see the results.

I get the sense that if such a study were conducted, and it was found that the prayed for patients fared much better, believers would be very interested in the results. However, if the results were not favorable to the power of prayer, they would be dismissed. Am I right?

Best,
Leela

Must you beat the dull drum of scientism in every thread?

 

[Leela]

Must you beat the dull drum of scientism in every thread?

I don’t subscribe to scientism, but if you mean that you wonder whether I would like to see people demonstrate a taste for evidence in support of their core beliefs and an openness to revising their beliefs in light of new experiences in contrast to dogmatic faith, then the answer is “yes.” That is always my intent.

With positive thoughts,
Leela

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t subscribe to scientism, but if you mean that you wonder whether I would like to see people demonstrate a taste for evidence in support of their core beliefs and an openness to revising their beliefs in light of new experiences in contrast to dogmatic faith, then the answer is “yes.” That is always my intent.

With positive thoughts,
Leela

You’re soaking in it right now.

:doh2:

 

[reggieM]

So, sure, I could provide evidence that is consistent with the fact that I love my children

What kind of scientific evidence can you use to measure the amount of love that you have for your children? You then, apparently, could determine if you love your children by “x quantity” more or less than other people love theirs, right?

What metrics are used to measure the quantity of love? Apparently, science can tell you if you truly love your children or perhaps if you do not love them at all.

Yes, I would like to see that information.

There should already be some studies done on this, because I’m sure atheists would want to measure the quantity of love that they have. So, you could just point me to some of those analyses. We could then determine if love is increasing or decreasing by a certain percentage in various parts of the population.

What is the maximum quantity (in numeric values) of love that a person has achieved thus far? What is your score in comparison?

 

[reggieM]

I don’t subscribe to scientism, but if you mean that you wonder whether I would like to see people demonstrate a taste for evidence in support of their core beliefs and an openness to revising their beliefs in light of new experiences in contrast to dogmatic faith, then the answer is “yes.” That is always my intent.

Your approach to human relationships appears to be based on scientism alone – as if you can scientifically measure:

1. The content of a person’s thoughts
2. The quality of a person’s intention and motive
3. The net quantity of love a person has

That would be quite consistent with materalist-atheism.

 

[reggieM]

Start with a group of the Church’s best pray-ers …

Explain how you can scientifically determine which are the best pray-ers. What scientific metrics do you use to measure the quality of the pray-ers? How do you determine if one prayer is stronger than another one?

 

[Leela]

What kind of scientific evidence can you use to measure the amount of love that you have for your children? You then, apparently, could determine if you love your children by “x quantity” more or less than other people love theirs, right?

What metrics are used to measure the quantity of love? Apparently, science can tell you if you truly love your children or perhaps if you do not love them at all.

Yes, I would like to see that information.

There should already be some studies done on this, because I’m sure atheists would want to measure the quantity of love that they have. So, you could just point me to some of those analyses. We could then determine if love is increasing or decreasing by a certain percentage in various parts of the population.

What is the maximum quantity (in numeric values) of love that a person has achieved thus far? What is your score in comparison?

All this sounds completely irrelevent to me with regard to whether or not the claims that prayer has healing power of the sick are justified. Such scientific hypotheses either can or cannot be supported by evidence, and if there is no evidence that anyone can provide consistent with the claim I can’t see why anyone would believe such a claim.

 

[Leela]

Explain how you can scientifically determine which are the best pray-ers. What scientific metrics do you use to measure the quality of the pray-ers? How do you determine if one prayer is stronger than another one?

It doesn’t actually matter at all. 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.

 

[Leela]

Your approach to human relationships appears to be based on scientism alone – as if you can scientifically measure:

1. The content of a person’s thoughts
2. The quality of a person’s intention and motive
3. The net quantity of love a person has

That would be quite consistent with materalist-atheism.

I never said we can directly measure any of those things. But if we want to know someone’s thoughts or intentions or motives, we can ask her, can’t we?

As for “quantity of love,” I don’t think it makes much sense to talk about measureable quantities but it does make sense to talk about loving behaviors.

 

[reggieM]

I never said we can directly measure any of those things.

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

But if we want to know someone’s thoughts or intentions or motives, we can ask her, can’t we?

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?

As for “quantity of love,” I don’t think it makes much sense to talk about measureable quantities but it does make sense to talk about loving behaviors.

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