What is a good theological critique of "coincidences"? How do you know that answered prayers aren't merely a coincidence?

[Spock]

Except that we were told that if we asked we would receive.

Show me. Tell that mountain “move yonder” and see it move. It will be very convincing.

Precisely because God has shown Himself. Now, He wants us to love Him back in as much as possible the same way He loves us.

Has he? The only “evidence” is that hearsay stuff we already covered a few times. And if God’s “love” does manifests itself in the tsunamis and Earthquakes, then he is lucky that we cannot reciprocate his “love” in kind.

Do you really not see that as demeaning?

Demeaning to whom? What is demeaning about asking for evidence? Oh, it is embarrassing to those who cannot provide the evidence.

Almost every religion sees that man consists of a body and a soul.

I cannot help that. Almost all people saw the Earth as a flat surface for a long time. Their problem.

 

[JDaniel]

Spockmeister:

I have to go and get ready for a St. Patty’s day thing. I’ll be back later. Have a great rest-of-the-day!

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

Spockmeister:

I have to go and get ready for a St. Patty’s day thing. I’ll be back later. Have a great rest-of-the-day!

God bless,
jd

You too, buddy.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You can’t, at least not on an anecdotal level.

You could, of course, study the effect – or lack thereof – of prayer and compare it to the results you would expect from pure chance.

For example, you could get a group of patients with a specific disease (some form of cancer, let’s say), and pray for a select number of them and not for the others. You make the experiment double-blind so that the doctors and the patients do not know who is being prayed for. Then you see if the sub-group being prayed for recovers 1) at a rate significantly higher than the others who were not prayed for and 2) at a rate significantly higher than the rate we would expect from pure chance (the usual rate of remission).

If prayer worked, you could – obviously – do this experiment over and over and over and over and consistently demonstrate that the group being prayed for consistently recovers at a much higher rate than everyone else. You could actually demonstrate it to a statistically significant amount.

Now imagine if this experiment were repeated again and again, with different members of different religions saying the prayers, and you could demonstrate that it is only the prayers of Catholics that have this effect.

Wow! That would be one heck of a discovery, wouldn’t it? While it wouldn’t immediately demonstrate that the rest of the claims that this religion makes are true, it would sure tell us that something is special about this one particular religion, and suddenly its other claims become much more viable.

You’d have grant money pouring in, scientists ready to really study the other claims made by the religion, a lot of credibility, etc.

But the fact of the matter is that none of the above is ever going to happen because prayer doesn’t work. If you could consistently demonstrate its efficacy to statistically significant degrees, someone would have done it already, and it would have been front-page news pretty much everywhere because it would rock the very foundations of human knowledge.

The fact of the matter is that prayer and its “results” are completely unmeasurable and completely indistinguishable from coincidence.

EDIT: Oh, I just noticed that you were an atheist. Sorry, you probably wanted the theist “party line” on this issue, but I guess it never hurts to start off with a rational approach to a subject.

You call that a “rational approach”? That was not even an approach, much less rational. This assumes that anything and everything could and needs to be measured in terms of scientific experiements.

 

[AntiTheist]

You call that a “rational approach”?

Yes.

This assumes that anything and everything could and needs to be measured in terms of scientific experiements.

No, it doesn’t. It assumes that things that we’re justified in considering real are things that have measurable effects on the world.

If you can’t demonstrate that prayer has a measurable effect – i.e. that it can cause results statistically significant beyond what we would expect from normal chance – then it’s indistinguishable from prayer not working at all.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Yes.

No, it doesn’t. It assumes that things that we’re justified in considering real are things that have measurable effects on the world.

If you can’t demonstrate that prayer has a measurable effect – i.e. that it can cause results statistically significant beyond what we would expect from normal chance – then it’s indistinguishable from prayer not working at all.

Well, then this conversation is impasse and completely useless. To me, you are under the impression that God can be tested. To you, I am under the impression that prayer works.

I know that the prayers and Masses being said right now are the only thing keeping us alive.

You think it is “normal chance”.

You think I am deluded. I know you are deluded.

This situation is impasse and your argument from experiments is completely irrational and does not define the reality of prayer that people have seen. Which is fine. I would not expect anything else from an antitheist. I already know your convoluted intentions. I have seen 0 integrity from any of your posts. You are trying to incorporate theological realities into scientific experiments.

Take it from someone who knows much more about the power of prayer than you do. You cannot make a decision based on a misunderstanding of prayer (much less of God). That is all you have done.

If an asteroid were to come, people prayed and it went away, you would say, “We are lucky! Thank you normal chance.” If your dear parents were saved from death after people prayed, you would consider yourself lucky.

Hence, this conversation is impasse because I know that prayer has measurable effects and you think otherwise. I am set because I know much more about God than you do. You think you are set because you have not “experienced” it or seen any evidence when all the evidence is there.

Again, impasse.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I thought it might be interesting to point out that the empirical method, as a scientific technique, is only applicable to the immediate empirical evidence one has to formulate hypothesis. Its domain is tiny.

The doctrine of empiricism on a universal domain is an entirely different creature. It failed as a standard of proof decades ago, in both strong and weak forms. The strong form is self refuting and therefore unable to act as a standard of proof. Like this

"Any statement can only be proven true if supported by empirical evidence" fails its own test. It is itself a statement that is not supported by any empirical evidence.

The weak form “some statements can only be proven true if supported by empirical evidence.” fails because there is no mechanism to distinguish which statements need empirical evidence for proof.

The point being that when someone asks you to prove that G-d exists with some form of empirical evidence, they are expecting you to meet a false standard of proof because they never realized that it is self refuting. I find that almost all people run for the hills when confronted with the logical impossibility of their most potent argument. After all, they really have no other good arguments than, “where’s the proof?”

 

[Tsuwano]

Yes.

No, it doesn’t. It assumes that things that we’re justified in considering real are things that have measurable effects on the world.

If you can’t demonstrate that prayer has a measurable effect – i.e. that it can cause results statistically significant beyond what we would expect from normal chance – then it’s indistinguishable from prayer not working at all.

Why do you maintain that if you can’t demonstrate that prayer has a measureable effect, then it’s indistinguishable from prayer not working at all? This may hold true for you, but it doesn’t hold true for the person who prays and maintains that prayer does work for him. Praying and not praying are certainly distinguishable for him if he claims that he has been changed through prayer. I claim that prayer has changed me. Can I measure that change? I’m not sure how to measure it, but I believe I am a different person than what I would be if I did not pray. I believe I am a different person from the person I was before I prayed. How can I prove it? Why must I prove it? The point is I believe it, and if I believe that prayer has changed me, then of course it is distinguishable from what I think I would be if I did not pray.

 

[Tsuwano]

I thought it might be interesting to point out that the empirical method, as a scientific technique, is only applicable to the immediate empirical evidence one has to formulate hypothesis. Its domain is tiny.

The doctrine of empiricism on a universal domain is an entirely different creature. It failed as a standard of proof decades ago, in both strong and weak forms. The strong form is self refuting and therefore unable to act as a standard of proof. Like this

"Any statement can only be proven true if supported by empirical evidence" fails its own test. It is itself a statement that is not supported by any empirical evidence.

The weak form “some statements can only be proven true if supported by empirical evidence.” fails because there is no mechanism to distinguish which statements need empirical evidence for proof.

The point being that when someone asks you to prove that G-d exists with some form of empirical evidence, they are expecting you to meet a false standard of proof because they never realized that it is self refuting. I find that almost all people run for the hills when confronted with the logical impossibility of their most potent argument. After all, they really have no other good arguments than, “where’s the proof?”

Yes! Exactly!

 

[RobbyS]

Experimentation is only useful when it is anchored, in all aspects, to the domain of spacetime. This is where logic lives. In matters of faith, prayer and coincidence, the methodology of experimentation is incomplete and therefore useless. Much of the stuff of prayer is popping and cracking outside of spacetime where we cannot exhaustively discern it.

Does God exist and answer prayer? The atheist cannot deny it and the theist cannot confirm it. However, lived subjective experience may lead individuals to different conclusions that are valid for them. There is no “chromatograph” on Earth that can answer that one.

The limit on experimentation is how to establish a control group.

 

[Windfish]

Given the existence of God, can there really be “coincidences” in this case? If someone already knows God exists, he knows that whatever happens somehow fits into either God’s direct will or permissive will. Therefore, if a prayer of petition is answered, he can be certain that it was answered by God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes! Exactly!

:tiphat:

No, problem. I practically live for the opportunity to spring that one on unsuspecting atheists.

 

[AntiTheist]

I’m going to reorder your points a little bit as I address them:

I claim that prayer has changed me. Can I measure that change? I’m not sure how to measure it, but I believe I am a different person than what I would be if I did not pray. I believe I am a different person from the person I was before I prayed. How can I prove it? Why must I prove it? The point is I believe it, and if I believe that prayer has changed me, then of course it is distinguishable from what I think I would be if I did not pray

Yes, of course prayer has changed you, just as meditation changes a Zen Buddhist, just as initiation rituals change the tribal individuals who underwent them, and just as finding a rare stamp changes the person who collects stamps.

Everything is changing all the time, and of course every act that we do has the effect of “changing” us in some regard (usually in tiny, unnoticeable ways). Ritualized acts that the mind attaches siginificance to will, naturally, produce changes that the mind is more impressed by.

No one is denying that ritualized behavior of all kinds has an effect on the mind and perhaps, correspondingly, the behavior.

The issue at stake here, however, is not just whether prayer produces psychological/behavioral effects, which is exactly what we would expect if prayer were nothing more than talking to yourself or meditating. The issue at stake is whether prayer can cause change to occur in the world through some supernatural causal means (such as, for example, through the intervention of a supernatural god). This is explicitly the topic of the thread, since the OP is asking how we can distinguish “granted” prayers (“I prayed to find my car keys and then I found them!”) and coincidence (you would have found those keys whether you prayed or not).

Why do you maintain that if you can’t demonstrate that prayer has a measureable effect, then it’s indistinguishable from prayer not working at all?

You’ll see the point pretty easily if we replace “prayer” with pretty much anything else.

For example, let’s say that I claim that doing a rain dance causes it to rain. So I do a rain dance one day, and within fifteen minutes after I finish, it starts to rain. Question: am I really justified in believing that it was my raindance that caused the rain? Or could it be that it was just a coincidence?

This one event cannot itself answer this question; if we don’t want to avoid mistaking a coincidence for a causal event, we need to test it.

What I’m saying is that a claim about affecting the external world, like “This rain dance can make it rain” needs to be able to demonstrate its claim – and in this case, since we can measure the results very accurately, it needs to demonstrate them to a statistically significant degree – before we can accept it. Imagine if I did a rain dance every day for a specified period, and we recorded the results: some work and some don’t (and, of course, I’ll say that “The conditions weren’t right” or “My power was weak” or some other excuse when the ritual doesn’t work): in the end, we find that the amount of rainfall that came over that period is within the amounts of rainfall that we would expect from weather data.

So I claim that this rain dance has an “effect” – and indeed, sometimes I do the dance and it rains shortly thereafter – but when we actually take the time to examine the claim, we find that the amount and pattern of rainfall that “results” from my dance is more or less exactly what we would expect if I had never done the dance at all.

That’s what I mean by “indistinguishable from not working at all.” Now just replace the rain dance with prayer, and you’ve got the crux of my argument.

 

[Spock]

Yes! Exactly!

Don’t fall into that stupid trap. The epistemological method of “deduction” cannot be established deductively - and it is NOT a problem. The epistemological method of “induction” cannot be established inductively - and it is NOT a problem. The epistemological method of “empiricism” cannot be established empirically - and it is NOT a problem. Only an ignorant fool would wish to establish any epistemological method by applying it to itself. Epistemological methods must be established meta-epistemologically, which has been pointed out too many times to count. But some people never learn. Don’t be one of them.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The issue at stake is whether prayer can cause change to occur in the world through some supernatural causal means…

if we don’t want to avoid mistaking a coincidence for a causal event, we need to test it.

Did you really just say that you wanted to empirically test supernatural causal events? Considering that the empirical method of scientific examination only allows empirical evidence in the formulation of hypothesis. You are clearly misunderstanding the proper use of scientific technique.

Now that I notice that you are not fully aware of scientific best practices, I wonder if you realize there is no way to control for variables in your suggested test. How would you test for the level of righteousness of the people praying? Their humility? Their desire to please G-d? How pleased G-d is by them, etc. You can’t control for any of these variables.

Real scientists know that the results of tests where the variables cannot be accounted for are invalid.

Further, I am sure you realize that in order to formulate such a flawed test, one has to admit the existence of the supernatural? Otherwise how could it be testing for causal events related to it like prayer? After all, prayer requires a supernatural object to pray to. It seems a little strange to admit in the premise what you seek to deny in the conclusion. :whacky:

What I’m saying is that a claim about affecting the external world, like “This rain dance can make it rain” needs to be able to demonstrate its claim –

Why? If you mean it in the sense of the empirical statement “Any statement can only be proven true if supported by empirical evidence” Then I would like to point out that the statement is logically invalid. if it were true, then it would be false.

If that is not what you mean, then for what other reason does it need to be demonstrated?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Don’t fall into that stupid trap. The epistemological method of “deduction” cannot be established deductively - and it is NOT a problem.

Absolutely false. Deductive reasoning is derived from axioms (premises). Those axioms may only be reached by induction. Induction has a huge problem. see the links below. Therefore one can only deduce a true argument if the inductive basis of it is true. Which can never be proven because no amount of evidence ever proves any inductive argument.

thefreedictionary.com/axiom

ax·i·om (ks-m)
n.

1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth

The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge. That is, what is the justification for either:

1. generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that “all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white,” before the discovery of black swans) or
2. presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature.

**The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method. **

Deduction ultimately depends on Induction, which has a problem. See below

The epistemological method of “induction” cannot be established inductively - and it is NOT a problem.

**False!!! ** There is literally something called the Problem of Induction!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_induction
plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

The epistemological method of “empiricism” cannot be established empirically - and it is NOT a problem.

Its a huge problem. let me qoute it again here

**The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method. **

Only an ignorant fool would wish to establish any epistemological method by applying it to itself.

Is there some rational reason for not expecting a standard of proof to to meet its own requirements? Isn’t that about the same as a judge who doesn’t feel as if he has to follow the very laws he applies?

Here “ignorant fool” seems too mean “intellectually honest”

Epistemological methods must be established meta-epistemologically, which has been pointed out too many times to count. But some people never learn. Don’t be one of them.

---

Really? Please demonstrate this proof. If you can. Because it looks a whole lot like circular reasoning to me.

The Paradox of Self-Study

However it may be seen as possible-and-desirable for the art of epistemology to be applied sometimes to itself (now acting in a “meta-” role) — and if it then gains new insights on how to ensure validity in its subject matter (S), it follows that those insights may be call for a revision of its own procedures (in its P role), thus calling into question the exercise just performed!

This may be seen as a variant of the infinite regress problem, raised within the epistemology discussion; — or compared to a brain-surgeon operating on his/her own brain. In any case, we may see this problem regarding the methodology of Karl Popper, at least in its initial form (1934), in which his methodological (meta-epistemological) rules were essentially laid down by his fiat — rules which dictated how scientific investigation (epistemology) was to be performed in a fiat-free environment.

Once again you are attempting to do the very thing you condemn. In this case you say that an epistemological standard should not be applied to itself, but then it looks like you are saying there is a meta-epistemological proof that can be applied to an epistemological standard? Other than an trivial attempt to jump up a domain and call it a whole new world. Whats the substantive difference?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Did you really just say that you wanted to empirically test supernatural causal events? Considering that the empirical method of scientific examination only allows empirical evidence in the formulation of hypothesis.

If the hypothesis was that praying for X to happen in observable reality makes X more likely to happen, that is something that one would expect to see evidence in this world (empirical evidence) for. For example, if one was to claim that intercessory prayer increased the likelihood of survival of cancer patients, that’s something that can be tested empirically because it is a claim that would have an effect on reality if true. How else would you test it other than empirical evidence?

 

[Tsuwano]

I’m going to reorder your points a little bit as I address them:

Yes, of course prayer has changed you, just as meditation changes a Zen Buddhist, just as initiation rituals change the tribal individuals who underwent them, and just as finding a rare stamp changes the person who collects stamps.

Everything is changing all the time, and of course every act that we do has the effect of “changing” us in some regard (usually in tiny, unnoticeable ways). Ritualized acts that the mind attaches siginificance to will, naturally, produce changes that the mind is more impressed by.

No one is denying that ritualized behavior of all kinds has an effect on the mind and perhaps, correspondingly, the behavior.

The issue at stake here, however, is not just whether prayer produces psychological/behavioral effects, which is exactly what we would expect if prayer were nothing more than talking to yourself or meditating. The issue at stake is whether prayer can cause change to occur in the world through some supernatural causal means (such as, for example, through the intervention of a supernatural god). This is explicitly the topic of the thread, since the OP is asking how we can distinguish “granted” prayers (“I prayed to find my car keys and then I found them!”) and coincidence (you would have found those keys whether you prayed or not).

You’ll see the point pretty easily if we replace “prayer” with pretty much anything else.

For example, let’s say that I claim that doing a rain dance causes it to rain. So I do a rain dance one day, and within fifteen minutes after I finish, it starts to rain. Question: am I really justified in believing that it was my raindance that caused the rain? Or could it be that it was just a coincidence?

This one event cannot itself answer this question; if we don’t want to avoid mistaking a coincidence for a causal event, we need to test it.

What I’m saying is that a claim about affecting the external world, like “This rain dance can make it rain” needs to be able to demonstrate its claim – and in this case, since we can measure the results very accurately, it needs to demonstrate them to a statistically significant degree – before we can accept it. Imagine if I did a rain dance every day for a specified period, and we recorded the results: some work and some don’t (and, of course, I’ll say that “The conditions weren’t right” or “My power was weak” or some other excuse when the ritual doesn’t work): in the end, we find that the amount of rainfall that came over that period is within the amounts of rainfall that we would expect from weather data.

So I claim that this rain dance has an “effect” – and indeed, sometimes I do the dance and it rains shortly thereafter – but when we actually take the time to examine the claim, we find that the amount and pattern of rainfall that “results” from my dance is more or less exactly what we would expect if I had never done the dance at all.

That’s what I mean by “indistinguishable from not working at all.” Now just replace the rain dance with prayer, and you’ve got the crux of my argument.

I think you miss the point of prayer, a point I’ve addressed in a previous post. The point of prayer is to confirm the petioner to God’s will, not the other way around. Therefore, if I pray and feel that I am changed for the better by that prayer, then prayer can be said to work. You admit this when you admit that ritualized acts can change us. You now raise the point that the thread is actually addressing whether prayer can change the physical world, and not necessarily the inner person. But, if prayer changes a person to the point that he is willing to do God’s will, then that person will seek out ways of fulfilling God’s will in the material world. A Christian, in short, will seek the ways and means of fulfilling Christ’s mandate to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the orphan and widow, and so on. A person who is changed by prayer to conform to God’s will other than his own, will seek to change the physical world by living out the commission of Christ. Thus, we have hospitals, schools and universities, homeless shelters, orphanages, soup kitchens, or numerous other organizations founded by religious men and women to effect change in the physical world, all the result of prayer, or the conforming of personal will and desire to God’s will and desire. In your critique of prayer, you continually leave out the most important change that prayer effects in the physical world, namely the change on the individual heart to give us its own personal desire to acheive God’s desire in the world and among the people of God. I realize that this does not serve as a proof for God, but then I’m not trying to prove that God exists. I’m refuting the argument that prayer does not effect change in the physical world. It can and does, through the conversion of the individual person to do God’s will. I also realize that what an individual may perceive to be God’s will may have its own problems, but it is also true that much good has been done by those who have conformed themselves to the example of Christ.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If the hypothesis was that praying for X …

With no way to control for all these variables(bolded below) one cannot formulate a testable hypothesis about praying for X.

I don’t know of any means of testing the efficacy of prayer other than the individual subjective experience. Only you know if you are truly righteous, or truly pleasing to G-d, or truly humble. I know I am not. I am too proud, I am a hypocrite, and I am selfish. In short I am a sinner who has no more real idea about the efficacy of prayer than you do. I simply admit it. Maybe that realization in itself is some indication of the efficacy of my Momma’s prayers. I’d like to think so.

Here are a few specifics.

  2 Chronicles 7:14
  If my people, who are called by my name, will** humble themselves** and pray and seek my face and **turn from their wicked ways,** then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (NIV)

  Jeremiah 29:13
  You will seek me and find me** when you seek me with all your heart**. (NIV)

  Mark 11:24
  Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, **believe that you have received it**, and it will be yours. (NIV)

  James 5:16
  Therefore **confess your sins to each other** and pray for each other so that you may be healed. **The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.** (NIV)

  1 John 3:22
  And we will receive whatever we request b**ecause we obey him and do the things that please him.** (NLT)

  Psalm 34:17
**  The righteous cry out,** and the LORD hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles. (NIV)

  Psalm 91:15
  He will call upon me, and I will answer him;** I will be with him in trouble**, I will deliver him and honor him. (NIV)

 

[AntiTheist]

I realize that this does not serve as a proof for God, but then I’m not trying to prove that God exists. I’m refuting the argument that prayer does not effect change in the physical world. It can and does, through the conversion of the individual person to do God’s will. I also realize that what an individual may perceive to be God’s will may have its own problems, but it is also true that much good has been done by those who have conformed themselves to the example of Christ.

Ok, I understand, and this is a good response to the OP. As long as you acknowledge that, to an outside observer, Christian prayer appears to be no different from, say, Hindu prayer or Muslim prayer or Buddhist meditation or any other kind of act with purely psychological implications, I’m fine with accepting that answer. And you’ve also nicely qualified your position by noting that what people interpret to be “God’s will” can vary greatly from person to person. Well done.

I guess the only thing I can add to this is to note that there really are people in the world who do claim that prayer has had effects – i.e. “I prayed to find my lost car keys, and I found them” or “I prayed to get a parking spot, and I got a great one” or “I prayed for Grandpa, and he got better.” There really are people who claim that prayer has effects on the world through the intercession of a god.

It’s the claims of those people that the critique of this thread is really responding to.

Thanks for your post.