Should atheism be suppressed?

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

It's been many years since I read Russell's A History of Western Philosophy - but I distinctly remember Pythagoras, rather than Plato, as being the guy with the bean phobia.

Nope. Definitely Plato. He also said that one should never eat from a whole loaf of bread and numerous other quasi-metaphysical restrictions on what one should and shouldnt do.

PDN

Cardinal wrote:

If the two opposing side in the north had not been able to label themselves protestant and catholic, would the troubles have persisted for as long as they did?

The answer is probably yes. If the two tribes concerned had labelled themselves as Scots Unionists and Irish Nationalists then I don't see why the bitterness would have been lessened/

In many parts of the world (eg tribal warfare in New Guinea, or the Hutu/Tutsi conflict in Rwanda) opposing tribes are perfectly capable of slaughtering one another in huge numbers without any religious incentive.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The answer is probably yes. If the two tribes concerned had labelled themselves as Scots Unionists and Irish Nationalists then I don't see why the bitterness would have been lessened/

But the whole thing kicked off in the first place because of the switching back and forth in England between Catholic rule and Protestant rule. This is back when people took that stuff seriously and were prepared to kill and die rather than live under rule of one or the other.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

But the whole thing kicked off in the first place because of the switching back and forth in England between Catholic rule and Protestant rule. This is back when people took that stuff seriously and were prepared to kill and die rather than live under rule of one or the other.

Any historian will tell you that is a pretty drastic oversimplification of a complex process. For example, the switching back and forth in England began, not for religious reasons, but because Henry VIII wanted to get his greedy mitts on the wealth of the monasteries.

Undoubtedly religion played a role in the ethnic mix that ended up living in the same corner of Ireland, but no more so than economic push/pull factors. Human nature reveals that we like to murder and kill one another to get what we want. I suspect we will always disagree as to how things would have been if there was no religion. I reckon we would have easily found other reasons to kill each other, as Jonathan Swift put in Gulliver's Travels:

"...our histories of six thousand moons make no mention of any other regions than the two great empires of Lilliput and Blefuscu. Which two mighty powers have, as I was going to tell you, been engaged in a most obstinate war for six-and-thirty moons past. It began upon the following occasion. It is allowed on all hands, that the primitive way of breaking eggs, before we eat them, was upon the larger end; but his present majesty's grandfather, while he was a boy, going to eat an egg, and breaking it according to the ancient practice, happened to cut one of his fingers. Whereupon the emperor his father published an edict, commanding all his subjects, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of their eggs. The people so highly resented this law, that our histories tell us, there have been six rebellions raised on that account; wherein one emperor lost his life, and another his crown. These civil commotions were constantly fomented by the monarchs of Blefuscu; and when they were quelled, the exiles always fled for refuge to that empire. It is computed that eleven thousand persons have at several times suffered death, rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end. Many hundred large volumes have been published upon this controversy: but the books of the Big-endians have been long forbidden, and the whole party rendered incapable by law of holding employments. During the course of these troubles, the emperors of Blefusca did frequently expostulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a schism in religion, by offending against a fundamental the Blundecral (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a mere strain upon the text; for the words are these: 'that all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end.'

And which is the convenient end, seems, in my humble opinion to be left to every man's conscience, or at least in the power of the chief magistrate to determine. Now, the Big-endian exiles have found so much credit in the emperor of Blefuscu's court, and so much private assistance and encouragement from their party here at home, that a bloody war has been carried on between the two empires for six-and-thirty moons, with various success; during which time we have lost forty capital ships, and a much a greater number of smaller vessels, together with thirty thousand of our best seamen and soldiers; and the damage received by the enemy is reckoned to be somewhat greater than ours. However, they have now equipped a numerous fleet, and are just preparing to make a descent upon us; and his imperial majesty, placing great confidence in your valour and strength, has commanded me to lay this account of his affairs before you."

There is, of course, no way to prove me (or Swift) to be wrong, since we cannot turn back the clock and rerun a religionless version of history.

Now, you may of course argue that if there was no religion then mankind would have spent the last few thousand years living in a Golden Age where there was no war, just dazzling logic and amazing feats of scientific advancement. There is no way I can prove such a thesis wrong.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

So, you have shown that atheists have inherited some morality from theists, but not from theism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've jumped in on page 5 of this debate - I can't face reading the previous pages - so sorry if I'm completely missing the point.

Anyway, Scofflaw, in your nicely succinct sound-bite of a sentence I fail to see the overall difference. I'm curious to your answer, though. Yes or No - has Christianity influenced your morals?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Any historian will tell you that is a pretty drastic oversimplification of a complex process. For example, the switching back and forth in England began, not for religious reasons, but because Henry VIII wanted to get his greedy mitts on the wealth of the monasteries.

Well that in of itself is a rather gross over simplification of the foundations of the Protestant churches in England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

PDN wrote:

Human nature reveals that we like to murder and kill one another to get what we want.

It does, but we tend to do this in a "them and us" mentality. Religion allows people who share everything else to think of themselves as "them and us"

It is not of course the only thing that contributes to this, but it is still a real problem.

PDN wrote:

Now, you may of course argue that if there was no religion then mankind would have spent the last few thousand years living in a Golden Age where there was no war, just dazzling logic and amazing feats of scientific advancement.

Certainly not.

But no religion would have removed one of the major reasons why people divide themselves up into "them and us" and want to kill the "them".

Like it or not religion is a very emotive subject.

Yes people kill for country, or money, or power. But it seems that the thing people are most prepared to kill for is religion. Which kinda makes sense since the religions themselves promise something that is arguably far more important to the followers than country, money or power.

Leaders may go to war for power or money, but they more often than not get the general masses to follow them with religion. Religion is after all a form of manipulation.

It wouldn't have removed all of the reasons why people go to war obviously, but it would have removed a big one.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

Certainly not.

But no religion would have removed one of the major reasons why people divide themselves up into "them and us" and want to kill the "them".

I really don't know how you can reach such a conclusion. Your claim has no real evidence to support it - 'Sweden!' you cry.

I personally think that religion, emotive as it is, has throughout the ages been used as nothing more than a handy line drawn in the sand to create an 'us and them' scenario. Without it I'm sure mankind could come up with an equally ridiculous method to create an apartheid of some sort. Eh, apartheid perhaps!

Bearing in mind that I have absolutely no desire to defend Christendom, I agree that many, many terrible things have been done apparently (note the italics) for the good of God. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that in the absence of religion we would live in a war free utopia, spending each day running around hand-in-hand sing Burt Bacharach songs.

In the absence of religion, I would imagine there could quite easily be a massive war between those who extol the refreshing tang of the orange and those who exalt the mighty crunch of the apple. Conflict and division are part of human nature. Look no further than a bunch of kids playing to see the proof.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

So, you have shown that atheists have inherited some morality from theists, but not from theism.

Anyway, Scofflaw, in your nicely succinct sound-bite of a sentence I fail to see the overall difference. I'm curious to your answer, though. Yes or No - has Christianity influenced your morals?

If person X is a great moral thinker, and I am influenced by them, am I therefore necessarily influenced by their religion? I have been influenced morally by the Bible (NT anyway, plus the Decalogue), and by Bertrand Russell (an atheist), and Omar Khayyam (a Muslim, translated by a Victorian), Marcus Aurelius (a follower of the Roman state religion), Basho (a Buddhist and/or Shinto poet) - but have I actually been influenced by the beliefs of their religions?

If, like PDN, one believes that the doctrine of "just war" was concocted entirely so that Christians could feel certain they wouldn't go to Hell, then if I accept the doctrine of just war I have been influenced by Christian beliefs. However, the notion of a 'just war' predates Christianity, so this is not the case, even though I accept much of what Augustine thought.

Let us say that there was a clause in the doctrine of just war that said that it is just to go to war with unbelievers. Would I accept such a clause? Obviously not - such a clause only makes sense to the believer.

Similarly, I think a good deal of Plato, but am not influenced by his beliefs on beans.

Thus, while I am influenced by various people, who were theists, it's not necessarily the case that their thinking was entirely the outcome of their beliefs (any more than that of Torquemada was) - and in turn their influence on me is not that of theirm, but of the individuals concerned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Again, another very heavy-handed red herring. This is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether atheists have inherited the principle of the just war from theism.

Hi,
Not sure if this debate is wrapped up, but I am reading 'The History of Western Philosophy' right now. In the chapter 'Aristotle's politics', Chapter 21, page 180-181, Russell, talks about Aristotle's ideas of a just war.
"War, however, is just when waged against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit..."
Not sure if one could say the concept of a just war, originated with Augustine.
Your thoughts...

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hi,
Not sure if this debate is wrapped up, but I am reading 'The History of Western Philosophy' right now. In the chapter 'Aristotle's politics', Chapter 21, page 180-181, Russell, talks about Aristotle's ideas of a just war.
"War, however, is just when waged against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit..."
Not sure if one could say the concept of a just war, originated with Augustine.
Your thoughts...

The idea of whether a war is just or not probably dates back to the first time a group of cavemen bashed another group and said, "But they deserved it!"

However, the principles of the just war that are largely assumed today, and which are incorporated into the Geneva Convention, are those formulated by Augustine and refined by Aquinas.

Aristotle's concept of a just war, as indicated in your quote, sounds essentially racist. In fact it is remarkably close to the notion of Manifest Destiny (which was, I am ashamed to say, invented by an Irishman) that the white man used to justify his genocide against the Native American.

It's probably a good thing, therefore, that we have inherited this particular aspect of our morality from the theists of Christendom rather than from the Greek theists. Otherwise our discussion of the morality of the Iraq war would be confined to: "Arabs trying to run their own country? Of course they deserve to be invaded!"

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am reading 'The History of Western Philosophy' right now.

Excellent book. It's several years now since I lent my copy to some half-wit who never returned it. But I still remember the lines of poetry dedicated to Empedocles. He, of course, was the guy who jumped into a volcano to prove he was a god.

Empedocles, that noble soul,
Jumped into Etna,
And was roasted whole.

(Somewhere in the first 25 pages, on the left hand page, about 40% of the way down the page)

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

The idea of whether a war is just or not probably dates back to the first time a group of cavemen bashed another group and said, "But they deserved it!"

However, the principles of the just war that are largely assumed today, and which are incorporated into the Geneva Convention, are those formulated by Augustine and refined by Aquinas.

Aristotle's concept of a just war, as indicated in your quote, sounds essentially racist. In fact it is remarkably close to the notion of Manifest Destiny (which was, I am ashamed to say, invented by an Irishman) that the white man used to justify his genocide against the Native American.

Cough...and the, er, religion of this Irishman?

PDN wrote:

It's probably a good thing, therefore, that we have inherited this particular aspect of our morality from the theists of Christendom rather than from the Greek theists. Otherwise our discussion of the morality of the Iraq war would be confined to: "Arabs trying to run their own country? Of course they deserve to be invaded!"

Or from what appear to be other "theists of Christendom", who would have us invade them as part of our Manifest Destiny?

Perhaps one might say that it is "a good thing, therefore, that we have inherited this particular aspect of our morality from the right theists of Christendom, rather than from the wrong theists of Christendom - like the Manifest Destiny bloke, or the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury"?

I fear you are determining who you acclaim as "Christian moralists" by looking at whether we inherited what you consider to be good morality from them...shaping your measure to suit your cloth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I really don't know how you can reach such a conclusion. Your claim has no real evidence to support it

I think a couple of thousand years of history supports it

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Without it I'm sure mankind could come up with an equally ridiculous method to create an apartheid of some sort. Eh, apartheid perhaps!

So theists constantly claim. But it doesn't change the fact that religion was one of the great divider of history.

Couple that with a, well, religious, need to be right about ones own religion, and thrown in things like eternal heaven, and you have a very dangerous cocktail

Fanny Cradock wrote:

However, there is no evidence to support the claim that in the absence of religion we would live in a war free utopia

I never claimed we would.

No religion would of course not remove all hatred, violence and war. But it would remove a lot of hatred, violence and war.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

In the absence of religion, I would imagine there could quite easily be a massive war between those who extol the refreshing tang of the orange and those who exalt the mighty crunch of the apple.

Not really, because who likes oranges won't effect your eternal destiny.

You forget the fact that people tend to take their religion very seriously, because of all the things it promises them.

Its all very well to say that people would always fight, but how many things will get people on mass that mobilizes to fight for a cause as religion?

robindch

fanny craddock wrote:

In the absence of religion, I would imagine there could quite easily be a massive war between those who extol the refreshing tang of the orange and those who exalt the mighty crunch of the apple. Conflict and division are part of human nature. Look no further than a bunch of kids playing to see the proof.

Happily, most people don't spend their lives as bunches of kids, and instead, develop a fairly reasonable set of behaviors based upon mutual reciprocity. Around here, it's only religious people who claim that society would fall into ruin in the absence of religion.

Not sure about you, but I've neither seen nor heard of anybody getting excited over oranges or the crunch of apples, except, of course, that literalist section of the population who believes that humanity lost it all the moment that Adam took a bite of one. And as for orangemen? Pfff....!

PDN

robindch wrote:

Happily, most people don't spend their lives as bunches of kids,

Which is why you get people over 40 years old who sit and watch crap like Winning Streak, Big Brother, Celebrity Jigs and Reels, Coromation Street etc.

Most people do spend their lives as bunches of kids.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Cough...and the, er, religion of this Irishman?



Or from what appear to be other "theists of Christendom", who would have us invade them as part of our Manifest Destiny?

Perhaps one might say that it is "a good thing, therefore, that we have inherited this particular aspect of our morality from the right theists of Christendom, rather than from the wrong theists of Christendom - like the Manifest Destiny bloke, or the Papal legate Arnaud-Amaury"?

I fear you are determining who you acclaim as "Christian moralists" by looking at whether we inherited what you consider to be good morality from them...shaping your measure to suit your cloth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have no idea whether John L. O'Sullivan was religious or not (the chances are he would have been raised as either Catholic or Presbyterian). In fact, by the vague way he referred to "God" and "Providence" as some kind of natural force or principle, I suspect his concept of God, like that of many nineteenth-century theists, was much closer to that of Aristotle than that of Aquinas. Certainly he was no theologian, nor did he ever claim to speak on behalf of the Church.

So if you inherited morality from O'Sullivan then that could be an example of inheriting it from a theist rather than theism.

Of course, Scofflaw, I am not (and never have claimed) that all the morality we inherit from theism is good. In fact I believe we have inherited much that is bad and dangerous. Neither, incidentally, do I personally endorse Aquinas' concept of a just war - I'm just pointing out that is a significant improval on Aristotle's just war.

I was unaware I had acclaimed anyone as a "Christian moralist". I have tried to be careful in this thread by remaining in the spirit of the OP and sticking to the discussion of theism, rather than Christianity. Even where I made a comparison between Aristotle and Aquinas I was careful to refer to "Christendom" (something I despise) rather than "Christianity".

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

I think a couple of thousand years of history supports it

I think that a couple of thousand years has only confirmed that mankind has a talent for fighting - whatever the reason. It is impossible to say what would happen if religion was not around. So I completely reject your assertion that there would be less conflict, especially when there is no president to support your theory. In light of all the wars predicated on non-religious grounds, e.g. II World War, I would think the trail of dead in these conflicts would still have been as long with or without religion. Really, it's not very logical to argue something you can't prove :rolleyes:

Anyway, friendly jibes aside , I believe it was in another thread where you pressed me for an answer to the question (I'm paraphrasing) 'if all the Crusaders, Popes and others who perpetrated wars and atrocities were Christians?'. I never got around to answering you.

I would doubt they were Christians (I'm not the one to judge, though). Instead, I imagine that these men used an effective method to galvanise a pre-existing hatred. Much like Hitler with his national socialism and aryan race BS. More correctly, I would seriously doubt if they were doing this for anything but their own ends.

Wicknight wrote:

Its all very well to say that people would always fight, but how many things will get people on mass that mobilizes to fight for a cause as religion?

Of the top of my head:
Greed; Hubris; Hatred; Prejudice; Racism; Revenge; Fear... All the things that are the cause of a religious war, really. Whip up enough fervency in any of the above (it's like an emotional pick 'n' mix) and I'd imagine the result will lead to conflict on any scale.

I was listening to Johnny Adare on the radio a couple of days ago - despicable man. His war (and those on the Nationalist side) was not based on religion - though it was a handy line in the sand. If they all claimed to be Catholics or protestants the troubles would still have happened. Listening to the guy speak, he said that he could go with a clear conscience to his maker, yet bearing the allegations of his murders in mind, unproven though they are, he clearly displayed no Christian belief whatsoever.

My point above is that people can say this war is for God, but under the thin veil of their lie, God has nothing to do with it. If the was no religion the only thing that would change would be the loss of the pretence of going to war for God. The conflict, however, would still inevitably rage on.

cordially,
Fanny

Scofflaw

FannyCradock wrote:

I would doubt they were Christians (I'm not the one to judge, though). Instead, I imagine that these men used an effective method to galvanise a pre-existing hatred. Much like Hitler with his national socialism and aryan race BS. More correctly, I would seriously doubt if they were doing this for anything but their own ends.

I don't think that's fair at all. The writings we have from the period make it clear that many were genuinely motivated by a desire to defend Christianity, to go to Christ's birthplace, and to make the Holy Land Christian.

Some (but not necessarily all) of the leaders may well have been motivated by more cynical desires, but to to simply dismiss all Crusaders as motivated by greed/hatred is far too 'politically correct' to bear any relation to the truth.

Those who thought that by fighting for Christianity they were "doing the right thing" were acting on a faith far more visceral and bodily than most Christians have today (although modern Muslims give you a good idea), but they were genuinely acting out of faith. Remember that then as now Christianity contained an "apocalyptic subtext" that suggested that Christianity was under threat, and that the end times might come in your lifetime.

sincerely flattered?
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Quickly...

It's a fair point. No doubt there were many convinced they were doing the correct thing from God's perspective. However, I would also say that there were those who had no such moral convictions.

Flattery intended,
Fanny

dan719

PDN wrote:

Undoubtedly there is truth in what you say. Remove theistic ethical restraints and you can conduct forms of scientific research that you would otherwise be unable to conduct. The classic example of this would be Dr Joseph Mengele, who used gypsy children and Jews for human experimentation purposes in Auschwitz. However, I suspect this might stengthen rather than weaken Plato's argument.



Of course this would only apply when a country is populated and controlled by one particular form of theism (or in your example of those who take Genesis literally, one subset within one form of theism). Indeed, you must admit it is theoretically possible that atheists doctrinal presuppositions blind them to future scientific discoveries which hinge on belief in God. Therefore the population mix that is most likely to produce scientific innovation would be a mix of various kinds of theists with a sprinkling of atheists.

Godwinly,
PDN

Fortunately we can reject so called scientific discoveries that hinge on belief in a god, because there isn't one.;)

PDN

dan719 wrote:

Fortunately we can reject so called scientific discoveries that hinge on belief in a god, because there isn't one.;)

Well, discoveries can hinge on belief in a god, even if you yourself don't believe in God.

I understand that it has been demonstrated that stroke victims show a significantly higher rate of recovery if they pray regularly.

Now, I could claim that this proves there is a God, but my claim would be somewhat undermined by the fact that they show equally impressive rates of recovery no matter which god they are praying to. So, it is perfectly consistent for an atheistic researcher to make this discovery, but to ascribe it to the feeling of well-being that people get when they pray, rather than to any action of God.

But, of course, it would be impossible to make such a discovery in a society solely populated by atheists. So, if you ever have a stroke, pretend there's a god and pray to him (or her).

dan719

PDN wrote:

Well, discoveries can hinge on belief in a god, even if you yourself don't believe in God.

I understand that it has been demonstrated that stroke victims show a significantly higher rate of recovery if they pray regularly.

Now, I could claim that this proves there is a God, but my claim would be somewhat undermined by the fact that they show equally impressive rates of recovery no matter which god they are praying to. So, it is perfectly consistent for an atheistic researcher to make this discovery, but to ascribe it to the feeling of well-being that people get when they pray, rather than to any action of God.

But, of course, it would be impossible to make such a discovery in a society solely populated by atheists. So, if you ever have a stroke, pretend there's a god and pray to him (or her).

At least our atheist utopia would not be require doublethink. The stress of trying to ignore the obvious fallacies required to believe in a god would cause me to have another stroke.(insert famous orwell quote here-do lazy to type it out) Also placebo's have be shown to help people recover also.
Does this lead to the equation
tic-tacs=god???;)

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

The idea of whether a war is just or not probably dates back to the first time a group of cavemen bashed another group and said, "But they deserved it!"

However, the principles of the just war that are largely assumed today, and which are incorporated into the Geneva Convention, are those formulated by Augustine and refined by Aquinas.

Aristotle's concept of a just war, as indicated in your quote, sounds essentially racist. In fact it is remarkably close to the notion of Manifest Destiny (which was, I am ashamed to say, invented by an Irishman) that the white man used to justify his genocide against the Native American.

It's probably a good thing, therefore, that we have inherited this particular aspect of our morality from the theists of Christendom rather than from the Greek theists. Otherwise our discussion of the morality of the Iraq war would be confined to: "Arabs trying to run their own country? Of course they deserve to be invaded!"

You should that book by Hausser on morals, his hypotheisis is that we inherit morals from our culture. You might like it.

robindch

PDN wrote:

I understand that it has been demonstrated that stroke victims show a significantly higher rate of recovery if they pray regularly.

If it's not too much trouble, could you find a reference for this claim?

The only well carried out study on the effects of (intercessory) prayer that I'm aware of concluded that this type of prayer had no effect one way or the other, unless the subject knew that they were being prayed for, in which case a significant percentage fared worse. That study was funded by the pro-religion Templeton Foundation and a summary of the results is here.

karen3212

PDN wrote:

Which is why you get people over 40 years old who sit and watch crap like Winning Streak, Big Brother, Celebrity Jigs and Reels, Coromation Street etc.

Most people do spend their lives as bunches of kids.

Would you also consider those who turn up to a church to be told how to live, what to believe, how to read/interpret a book.......to be childlike? - trusting so much their new Daddy(because it's fairly rarely a new Mommy).

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

Would you also consider those who turn up to a church to be told how to live, what to believe, how to read/interpret a book.......to be childlike? - trusting so much their new Daddy(because it's fairly rarely a new Mommy).

I prefer 'childish' to 'childlike' when using it in a negative sense.

For those who behave in such a way because it's what the rest of their society does, absolutely! Throughout history many, probably most, of the people who claim to be Christians have made no reasoned decision to become such. They were simply born into a 'Christian' society and passively went along with the flow of what everyone else was doing. That, to me, sounds very childish. The same, of course, applies to any other religion that relies primarily on biological growth rather than growth by (non-coercive) conversion.

Now, for someone who has weighed up the possibilities and decided that Christianity makes sense, things are different. That person has consciously decided to live in a way that will probably attract ridicule from wider society, forsaken practices that they previously found gratifying, and now devotes a considerable portion of their time and finance to the benefit of others rather than themselves. You may choose to call that person odd, but they are not childish.

PDN

robindch wrote:

If it's not too much trouble, could you find a reference for this claim?

The only well carried out study on the effects of (intercessory) prayer that I'm aware of concluded that this type of prayer had no effect one way or the other, unless the subject knew that they were being prayed for, in which case a significant percentage fared worse. That study was funded by the pro-religion Templeton Foundation and a summary of the results is here.

I can't remember the source of the original claim that I saw, but I found this while googling: http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/probing-power-of-prayer

Other related studies: http://news.mc.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=359

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403132753.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/11/971101093808.htm

I would add that I am not a scientist so I would have zero ability to assess how accurate these reports are.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I can't remember the source of the original claim that I saw, but I found this while googling: http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/probing-power-of-prayer

Other related studies: http://news.mc.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=359

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403132753.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/11/971101093808.htm

I would add that I am not a scientist so I would have zero ability to assess how accurate these reports are.

From the medical science standpoint, the Harris prayer one is regarded as methodologically sound, but the results are statistically not significant. The 11% difference in "condition scores" for the two groups is within the range produced by random variation - primarily because it is only one out of three measures used, the other two of which show no difference. Possibly most pertinent is that the primary measure - length of stay (the prayers were for "speedy recovery") - showed no effect.

Very few "prayer studies" have been rigorous. Nearly all have been medical, presumably because praying for health is more worthy than trying to influence the lottery results. There are accepted standards for medical experiments (double-blind trials, primarily), and the majority of prayer studies don't follow those standards. Those that do have shown no significant results.

The other studies mostly show that going to church once a week is good for you. That proves nothing about prayer, little about religion, and nothing about God, unfortunately . It shows only what it shows - that going to church is good for you. So is any social exercise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

The other studies mostly show that going to church once a week is good for you. That proves nothing about prayer, little about religion, and nothing about God, unfortunately . It shows only what it shows - that going to church is good for you. So is any social exercise.

Good for some people of course, but not all people - excuse my pedantry. I would say my mood worsens after about 5 minutes in a Church.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Good for some people of course, but not all people - excuse my pedantry. I would say my mood worsens after about 5 minutes in a Church.

Maybe you just need to find the right one?