Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with those who believe in a deity

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, some prayer studies find that, others find the opposite. Whatever the result, the whole notion of scientifically testing the effectiveness of prayers is preposterous. For instance, there is absolutely no way you can guarantee that a control group hasn't received prayers.

Observations aren't limited to prayers. For example we can safely say that God isn't

1)striking people down
2)performng miracles in public
3)talking from the clouds
4)raising people from the dead

Observational evidence suggests that there is no evidence of God but that's not to say he doesn't exist.
It seems sensible however to ask why God started this way but didn't continue? Also it seems sensible to ask why one set of poeple seem to have advantage in that for them 'faith' is easier relative to experience.

darjeeling

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but it's ridiculous because it's not an accurate test for how effective prayer is then. You are no longer testing the God of Christianity, but rather a distortion of it. As I say they can keep doing it until theirs faces go blue.

PDN wrote: »

But that's rather the point isn't it? It's not science in the sense of trying to discover if something is true or not. It's all about how to another point of view as being wrong.

I think I may be with PDN on this one. What I've been getting at all along is how, when doing science, to interpret the command not to test / tempt God into showing himself. Jakkass's comments in this thread indicate two different readings. One is that you are forbidden to undertake any experiment that might compel God to reveal himself - such as testing whether prayers are answered, or the Genesis flood happened. The other is that you can do whatever science you like, though the results will not reveal God as he will not be tempted to show himself. The first understanding seems dangerously anti-science. I can quite happily live with the second.

What to make of the creationists who believe that science is indeed testing God and succeeding in getting him to show himself through his works? There's one for the creationism thread.
.

philologos

darjeeling wrote: »

I think I may be with PDN on this one. What I've been getting at all along is how, when doing science, to interpret the command not to test / tempt God into showing himself. Jakkass's comments in this thread indicate two different readings. One is that you are forbidden to undertake any experiment that might compel God to reveal himself - such as testing whether prayers are answered, or the Genesis flood happened. The other is that you can do whatever science you like, though the results will not reveal God as he will not be tempted to show himself. The first understanding seems dangerously anti-science. I can quite happily live with the second.

I only ever intended the second. A God who tells His people that He will not tolerate their testing, isn't a God who is likely to respond to prayers that are made in the intention to test Him.

Húrin

Liber8or wrote: »

I would like to direct people to my thesis on the subject since the origins of this debate seems to have stemmed from a statement I made.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59764559&postcount=90

Your arguments are not as strong as you think they are because they are reliant on the tired stereotype that religion practiced by people who don't think and that atheism (which you dishonestly label as science, in order to create a fantastical narrative of conflict between religion and science) is for people who think critically.


This paragraph in particular leads me to believe that you have little experience of either science or religion:

Science, however does not know everything, but it knows that and attempts to keep going and give as much answers as it can offer. It does this through "Proof", verifiable, undeniable evidence that clearly answers a question. If it does not answer the question, it simply tells you that but will try and find out. Religion, on the other hand, says "Have Faith".

stevejazzx

Húrin wrote: »

This paragraph in particular leads me to believe that you have little experience of either science or religion:

Science, however does not know everything, but it knows that and attempts to keep going and give as much answers as it can offer. It does this through "Proof", verifiable, undeniable evidence that clearly answers a question. If it does not answer the question, it simply tells you that but will try and find out. Religion, on the other hand, says "Have Faith".

If he made a slight error in mentioning 'proof's' - he made up for it somewhat in saying 'if it (science) doesn't know the answer it will endeavor to find it'.

You can't expect everyone to understand semantics of scientific language. I mean how many times have we heard someone say - usually, if we're honest, a religious poster - that something is only a 'theory'?

I don't see why you speculate, based on the paragraph you highlighted, that he knows little about religion either. He mentions it briefly saying it requires faith. Is this erroneous? I'm sure he could add more?

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote: »

Observations aren't limited to prayers.

But you specifically mentioned the study of prayers as evidence. When I challenged your findings you shuffle onto other ground. I don't see why any of the other things you mentioned are any more testable. The very nature of miracles is that they aren't done on demand.

As for the 'observational evidence suggesting that there is no evidence of God' I just don't buy it. I've said it countless times before, but there is evidence for God. However, it's up to you to decide if it is in any way reliable. Clearly you don't think it is, but that doesn't mean that you suddenly have the say on whether it should or should not constitute evidence.

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, some prayer studies find that, others find the opposite. Whatever the result, the whole notion of scientifically testing the effectiveness of prayers is preposterous. For instance, there is absolutely no way you can guarantee that a control group hasn't received prayers.

Didn't have time earlier sorry but the link to
http://www.physorg.com/news93105311.html

does not find the opposite exactly....

It finds that

study report wrote:

among people with psychological or medical problems. He found a positive effect

From reading the article the 'positive effect' is not defined but seems to be a reference to mental states of mind.

It goes on to say this

study report wrote:

“Some people feel Benson and associates’ study from last year, which is the most recent and showed no positive effects for intercessory prayer

study report wrote:

“It suggests that more research on the topic may be warranted, and that praying for people with psychological or medical problems may help them recover

study report wrote:

Is it effective enough to meet the standards of the American Psychological Association’s Division 12 for empirically validated interventions? No

So the report of this study which, by the way, I have been unable to get the actual data analysis of, suggest that prayer might have therapeutic value - not exactly an opposite finding to prayer studies that have indicated that prayer has no effect now is it? Most of the studies were the data shows no effect still allow for the fact in that there may be some therapeutic value. You cannot rule something like that out. That is hardly what we're discussing though - which is not that God can't work in mysterious ways but rather that 'the observational evidence of any God is zero' as backed up by prayer studies.

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But you specifically mentioned the study of prayers as evidence. When I challenged your findings you shuffle onto other ground.

Was in work earlier and no time to read the report you linked. By the way it does not contain the actual data report. I have addressed it now separately.

fc wrote:

I don't see why any of the other things you mentioned are any more testable. The very nature of miracles is that they aren't done on demand.

I'm not saying they should be testable in and of themselves but rather that they cannot be observed anymore. Two questions therefore arise:

a) why can we get any observational evidence anymore?
b) isn't it unfair that those who historically experienced observational evidence, like those in the bible for example, have a much easier time keeping their faith?

fc wrote:

As for the 'observational evidence suggesting that there is no evidence of God' I just don't buy it. I've said it countless times before, but there is evidence for God. However, it's up to you to decide if it is in any way reliable. Clearly you don't think it is, but that doesn't mean that you suddenly have the say on whether it should or should not constitute evidence.

First of all what is the evidence exactly?
Secondly how have I decided that the evidence is not to be accepted when I don't even know what the evidence is?

darjeeling

I'll confess I was recently intrigued enough to have a read up on all this. I've been through Hodge's paper, the Cochrane review of intercessory prayer studies, and some of the primary data on which these two analyses were based. On the primary data, there isn't a lot, and what there is varies massively in experimental design, sample size and scientific rigour.

Taking the data over all, Hodge found a slight significant positive effect of prayer, though this diminished considerably when he excluded a highly contentious paper on the beneficial effects of prayer on IVF success (one author is a convicted fraudster and another has disowned it).

The Cochrane report concluded over all that the only studies indicating any effect were the dubious IVF one and Benson's one on cardiac patients that found no effect of prayer unless patients were aware they were receiving it, in which case they had more complications. Benson's paper, incidentally, is out in front in terms of sample size and methodology.

In reviewing the literature, we have reason to expect a slight bias in favour of positive results. This is a known problem in scientific publishing. If a study doesn't come up with a association between treatment and condition, the people who carried it out are more likely to drop it in favour of more promising work, and journals are less likely to be interested in publishing it. This is particularly the case in small-scale studies that fail to pass the 'so-what' test. Meta-analyses that try to collate findings from multiple studies, then, have a bias towards finding significance, so we shouldn't be surprised at Hodge's conclusion - as he himself points out. Wiki here on all this, so it must be true!

Oh, and Leibovici's BMJ paper on retroactive prayer carried out years after the event is rather a good joke - and it even cites Jorge Luis Borges as a reference, so it wins my approval.

Leonard Leibovici wrote:

The very design of the study assured perfect blinding to patients and medical staff of allocation of patients and even the existence of the trial. Regrettably, the very same design meant that it was not possible to obtain the informed consent of the patients.

No mechanism known today can account for the effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer said for a group of patients with a bloodstream infection. However, the significant results and the flawless design prove that an effect was achieved. To quote Harris et al: "when James Lind, by clinical trial, determined that lemons and limes cured scurvy aboard the HMS Salisbury in 1753, he not only did not know about ascorbic acid, he did not even understand the concept of a `nutrient.' There was a natural explanation for his findings that would be clarified centuries later, but his inability to articulate it did not invalidate his observations."

Conclusion
Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer can improve outcomes in patients with a bloodstream infection. This intervention is cost effective, probably has no adverse effects, and should be considered for clinical practice.

Hats off - recommending that clinicians get people to pray that their patients have recovered, and all with a wonderfully straight face.

Anyway, I think I've said quite enough on all this around this forum. Any more and I shall begin to look like an obsessive.

blogga

A wise psychiatrist once advised: never try to reason with the irrational.

PDN

blogga wrote: »

A wise psychiatrist once advised: never try to reason with the irrational.

That sounds like good advice, but we care about your souls.

PDN

achtungbarry wrote: »

A post by Liber8or on the Christianity Forum got me thinking about this.

Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with the religious ?

Liber8or pointed out that the person with faith "will aways win".

This is ultimately true, one cannot use logic, rationale or evidence to argue against faith or the invocation of the supernatural.

Reason, logic, evidence are not compatible with faith and the supernatural.

It's like trying to win a rugby match by playing golf.

Any number of arguments for and against the existance of deities have been (and I say this word with caution) "debated" to death here and in countless other circumstances around the world for centuries and always with the same result.....

One side relying empirical research, logic and evidence...

...and the other side....

....also relying on empirical research, logic and evidence but ultimately falling back on "faith" and the invocation of the supernatural.

Rational argument is simply not possible in this case and is a waste of time. I used to engage in these debates until recently but I came to realise what it is impossible to argue against a point of view that sees "faith" as a genuine and relevent example of evidence.


Is rational debate with the religious ultimately pointless as a result ? *

And is it only lending legitimacy to the arguments of those that do view faith and the supernatural as acceptable forms of evidence ?

* now I didn't say it wasn't fun

Addressing the OP. I don't think it is true that the person with faith "with always win". If at the end of your debate both you and the religious person are still of the same opinions and beliefs as when you started, then no-one has won. The result is a stalemate.

I think it is important in such debates to lay down some boundaries and foundations for your discussion. Understand what is ruled in and what is ruled out of your debate. What is infuriating, for both sides, is when someone tries to change the rules in the middle of a debate.

For example, we sometimes get visitors to the Christianity forum who post something along the lines of: "How can you believe in such and such? And don't go quoting the Bible to me, because it's a load of old crap anyway." Obviously, since the Bible is foundational to the beliefs of most Christians, that is setting a fundamental basis for a debate that is impossible. Far better to agree in advance that such a debate under such conditions would go nowhere and tell the poster so straight away.

Another example is Creationism. If Creationists state that they believe that the world was created in 6 days because the Bible tells them so, and that they will believe the Bible over any scientific evidence then there isn't really a debate you can have with them. You can't agree with their fundamental basis so the whole exercise is pointless.

Now, if a Creationist claims (and I have heard some do this) that all the scientific data, geological phenomena etc. is entirely consistent with an understanding of Genesis as accurate historical narrative - then you may have a basis for discussion. If they go a step further, and claim that they can demonstrate the truth of the Creationist position on scientific grounds alone, then you have a fundamental basis on which you can agree and conduct a debate. What must be infuriating is when they then change the rules half way through the debate and start arguing on the basis of faith and the Bible rather than on the scientific evidence. In that case they have cheated, have lured you into a debate under false pretences, and the best thing you can do is call them out on it and then walk away (hard to do when you're infuriated - but there you go).

Sometimes the same thing happens in reverse. For example, if you initiate a discussion with a religious person on the grounds that you can demonstrate that it is unreasonable for them to worship God, then you are laying down certain a certain foundational basis for the debate. If you are discussing the Christian concept of God, then you have, by definition, already ruled God into the debate. Therefore it is natural, and entirely reasonable, for the Christian to refer to the attributes of that God (Eternity, omnipotence, perfection etc) during the debate. If you try to change the rules half way through the debate then they will find that infuriating, just as infuriating as when the Creationist does it to you. So, you can hardly initiate a debate on whether it is reasonable to worship an Eternal Being, and then complain because your opponent mention's God's eternal nature. The Christian, at that point, will conclude that you have lured him into a debate under false pretences. At that point the Christian should call you out and then walk away (again, hard to do when you're infuriated, but there you go).

If you really want to have a discussion with a Christian where they cannot refer to God's omnipotence or eternity, then simply state that at the beginning of the debate. Say, "I want to discuss why belief in God is unreasonable, but you aren't allowed to talk about God's omnipotence, eternal nature, or any other divine attribute." Of course they have the option of whether they want to debate with you under those conditions. My own response would be, "No thank you. Since my belief is in a being with those attributes, such a debate, by definition, is about a different god than the one in which I believe, so such a debate doesn't interest me."

It seems to me that agreeing such a basis for debates would cut out a huge amount of the mutual misunderstanding on these boards where people are just talking past one another instead of actually engaging in any meaningful dialogue. It would also enable us to differentiate between those (on both sides of the fence) who are genuinely interested in understanding each other and those who just want to sneer, or to convert (and, again, we have both categories on either side of the fence).

It is extremely unlikely that such debates will ever demonstrate God's existence or lack of existence - and I personally wouldn't expect anyone to become a Christian or an atheist due to a discussion on an internet forum.

But it should be possible to have debates on more limited areas of debate. For example, on specific claims that either side makes. This is why I was willing to engage in debate with Dumbledore on the issue of whether the Bible has been so edited and changed as to make it impossible for it to be considered the Word of God. I agreed to a condition that I could not use God's omnipotence as a factor in the debate. If you stop to think about it, that was actually a big concession for a Christian to make, but I was confident that the evidence was sufficient for me to argue my case purely on the basis of history, archaeology etc. I think it's a pity that my opponent was unable to adhere to the time condition (reply within 24 hours) specified by himself and by the mod concerned. It could have been a very interesting debate because the rules were clearly defined.

So, a bit more of the specifics when commencing a discussion would go a long way to making such debates less pointless. Otherwise it's like playing a game of pool without deciding in advance what the rules are about potting the black ball (any pocket? the player to nominate a pocket? the same pocket that the previous ball landed in?). You are guaranteed a row when someone finally gets to the point of potting the black.

gaynorvader

sink wrote: »

This whole 'don't test god' lark should be a red flag for anyone thinking straight. If I were to create my own religion it would be an essential component, as it ensures I can never be proved wrong. It's so obvious an evasion I can't understand how anyone with half a brain can buy it (not calling people who buy it stupid just that I don't understand it). If the god of Abraham existed he wouldn't need this clause but since he doesn't his religion does.

Indeed, it's quite similar to the whole "I'm invisible, but only when noone's looking at me" thing. If God does exist, then there's no reason why we couldn't test him, but not being able to test him doesn't, unfortunately, prove that he doesn't exist.

Naz_st

PDN wrote: »

...
It seems to me that agreeing such a basis for debates would cut out a huge amount of the mutual misunderstanding on these boards where people are just talking past one another instead of actually engaging in any meaningful dialogue. It would also enable us to differentiate between those (on both sides of the fence) who are genuinely interested in understanding each other and those who just want to sneer, or to convert (and, again, we have both categories on either side of the fence).
...

Good post, thanks for taking the time.

I agree that in theory this is definitely the ideal solution but that in practice it's quite hard to have such formal definitions in what is fundamentally a pretty informal setting. A lot of threads are created predicated on a question or statement and it's the Original Post that determines the definitions of the subsequent discussion. Often people will post purely to refute a specific point/post and then get sucked in to an under-defined debate.

I can't rememeber who said it, but it always rang true for me:
"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. Unfortunately in practice, there is"

stevejazzx

Naz_st wrote: »

Good post, thanks for taking the time.

I agree that in theory this is definitely the ideal solution but that in practice it's quite hard to have such formal definitions in what is fundamentally a pretty informal setting. A lot of threads are created predicated on a question or statement and it's the Original Post that determines the definitions of the subsequent discussion. Often people will post purely to refute a specific point/post and then get sucked in to an under-defined debate.

I can't remember who said it, but it always rang true for me:
"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. Unfortunately in practice, there is"

Extremely well put.
In my now, slightly controversial thread, the debate never started.
I realise that it is said that my intention wasn't debate.Those that know me better know that it was. On the more difficult questions it is very hard to get past that initial paranoia because they are immediately seen as accusations. So often, when debating with religious posters, the debate, from their side, often descends into pious, dreary neurosis. It is very hard to get past that but it does happen from time to time and that's what makes this forum enjoyable if occasionally futile.

stevejazzx

Sometimes the same thing happens in reverse. For example, if you initiate a discussion with a religious person on the grounds that you can demonstrate that it is unreasonable for them to worship God, then you are laying down certain a certain foundational basis for the debate. If you are discussing the Christian concept of God, then you have, by definition, already ruled God into the debate. Therefore it is natural, and entirely reasonable, for the Christian to refer to the attributes of that God (Eternity, omnipotence, perfection etc) during the debate. If you try to change the rules half way through the debate then they will find that infuriating, just as infuriating as when the Creationist does it to you. So, you can hardly initiate a debate on whether it is reasonable to worship an Eternal Being, and then complain because your opponent mentions God's eternal nature. The Christian, at that point, will conclude that you have lured him into a debate under false pretenses. At that point the Christian should call you out and then walk away (again, hard to do when you're infuriated, but there you go).

I think that is perfectly reasonable except in the instance where Christan's use it to answer all questions at hand. You can invoke a sky God to answer the mysterious but debates often move back and forth from direct actions of a creator to the concept of origins of belief - i.e what makes someone believe in the first place - in this case the 'rules' you outline have to be slightly modified to reflect the nature of the exact question at hand. I think as long there is respect of each other beliefs and positions (I am probably not the finest example of this recently) I don't think there is a problem.

The Mad Hatter

Beginning to think this thread answers its own question...

Tigger

i find this forum frustrating at best but anyway

of course it is pointless to discuss faith and belief in a deity with someone who has faith and belief

to debate it is a different matter

if it is debated *(for example here) in public view then those who have not yet seen the light (of understanding) can at least see that there are many many people that do not believe in the (patently rediculious) idea of magic and inviable superbeings

i am the type of non beliver in hocus - pocus that would like to discuss things with people without having to mark my position with regards to "god"

this forum seems to do nothing but discuss "god" and its non existance

blogga

PDN wrote: »

That sounds like good advice, but we care about your souls.

Don't. You are applying your care to consciousness, my consciousness and I resent the presumption, the intrusion and the invasiveness. If you want to call your consciousness generated by the organ in your head called the brain your soul go ahead but leave me out of your plans. Thanks very much.

Dades

Tigger wrote: »

this forum seems to do nothing but discuss "god" and its non existance

Imagine that! In this forum?!

Though there are frequently threads about unrelated stuff that only turn into discussions about "god" and its non existence.

Húrin

blogga wrote: »

Don't. You are applying your care to consciousness, my consciousness and I resent the presumption, the intrusion and the invasiveness. If you want to call your consciousness generated by the organ in your head called the brain your soul go ahead but leave me out of your plans. Thanks very much.

Do you always reject misplaced compassion so vehemently or does religion get a special treatment?

blogga

Húrin wrote: »

Do you always reject misplaced compassion so vehemently or does religion get a special treatment?

A leading question. You have incorrectly identified the emotion as misplaced compassion. It is patronising condescending superiority and an attempt to claim (by implication) that rationality lies with people of faith. Anyone who has studied religion at any depth knows that faith begins where reason ends; consequently I made my original statement about the futility of engaging in reasoned argument with a position which by defiinition places itself beyond reason. My vehemence is fuelled by the absurdity of religious people in continuing to foist their nonsense onto society.

Zombrex

Tigger wrote: »

this forum seems to do nothing but discuss "god" and its non existance

Tell me about it, every thread I start here about Lucy Pinder's magnificent breasts and how they look like two pillows I just want to fall sleep on .... er ... keeps getting deleted by the mods. It is so unfair