|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 22, 2018 11:45:53 GMT
the fact that religious people have real scientific [and medical] knowledge and resources. If they do, then they are loath to demonstrate or explain it on their own behalf. As we have seen here. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 22, 2018 11:57:48 GMT
the fact that religious people have real scientific [and medical] knowledge and resources. If they do, then they are loath to demonstrate or explain it on their own behalf. As we have seen here. You need to get out more. Hospitals run by religious foundations have superior performance records and are famous for their research. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 22, 2018 13:09:41 GMT
If they do, then they are loath to demonstrate or explain it on their own behalf. As we have seen here. You need to get out more. Hospitals run by religious foundations have superior performance records and are famous for their research. This is an old hobby horse of yours, and has been dealt with before. Here (one imagines) is the work you have in mind, which despite the over-opitimistic headline of the piece sounds less reassuring in the detail when patient satisfaction is separated out from health outcomes:
Not only that but religious belief, when the cause of struggle (by which one assumes what is meant can be the worrying about salvation and doctrinal purity, common to the obsessively religious) can actually affect health adversely:
In other words, spiritual healing and chaplaincy can make the dying feel better, but there's no reliable, or substantial evidence that it will cure them any more than conventional treatments; while fretting over whether one is going to heaven or hell, etc can even lead to an earlier death. It can be reasonably argued, too, that those who pray very often do so through being in the throes of religious struggle of one kind or another, attempting to get guidance or answers to their problems.
Now, if prayer really did affect health and body then one would expect the most devout - or indeed also the most popular objects of the greatest amount of prayers and requests for intercession, like members of royal families etc - to be the least diseased and longest lived on the planet. Or those religious groups which abhor some practices of modern medicine for doctrinal reasons, instead relying on prayer and natural healing (I'm looking at you, Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists) would also show a clear benefit. Surprise. This is not the case.
Meanwhile I see that you did not address the need to show that religious people have "real scientific knowledge." As already noted, at least one - you - doesn't even know how old the cosmos and earth are, and argue against relativity. QED.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 22, 2018 21:44:46 GMT
Then why do you bother? No, that's a straw man. Use real data like infection rates, readmission rates, mortality rates anything real science you often claim to understand from Cedar Sinai or from Loma Linda or from any of the famous hospitals funded or otherwise affiliated with religious foundations. I'm sorry that your mental limitations so often become topical, I realize how unpleasant it can be. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 22, 2018 23:43:43 GMT
Then why do you bother? No, that's a straw man. Use real data like infection rates, readmission rates, mortality rates anything real science you often claim to understand from Cedar Sinai or from Loma Linda or from any of the famous hospitals funded or otherwise affiliated with religious foundations. I'm sorry that your mental limitations so often become topical, I realize how unpleasant it can be. So, Planet Arlon, are you claiming, in the context of this thread, that religious Hospitals and medical institutions are better ( as you claim and which is not necessarily true butt whatever) ...due to prayer, or because the religious institutions are funded on the back of religion and hence can afford better research, development and medical facilities? For your argument to be relevant, you would need to prove that they are better due to prayer being answered by God. |
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on May 23, 2018 8:14:24 GMT
Not right away. Giving him the threat of a good spanking usually gets better results.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 23, 2018 8:44:29 GMT
If we assume 'God' exists, then it's implied that death is not the end.
If death is not the end, what the hell do you need prayers for???
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 23, 2018 10:26:31 GMT
This is an old hobby horse of yours, Arlon: Then why do you bother? Because I find you instructive and entertaining. No, that's a straw man. I am sorry for that; but it was the only general research in the area I could find. You had better substantiate your source for your claim on your own, then. That would be an authoritative survey or work showing that, overall, hospitals run by religious foundations have 'superior performance records' - by which one understands proven outcomes, tied to pastoral care, prayers, and the like. Since you have claimed the work I presented was a straw man then, naturally, you cannot now include it by way of evidence. Your record on substantiation being poor, I will not expect too much this time again lol. Remember, too, how correlation is not cause. So a hospital which has a clergyman praying at every bedside with a good record on recovery and cure might just have superior outcomes for other reasons. See how this works? But it is your claim Arlon: so it is up to you to show me the data - if there is any - comparing the outcomes of religious foundation medical centres with others, showing the former are superior.. But, remember: (the claim being made by you) that's superior specifically because of the use of prayer, their spiritual/pastoral dimension & etc. The first thing to notice up front is that you just have two hospitals in mind, which rather narrows down your claim from the start, which was a universal one. Now, visiting the Cedar Sinai (one of your examples) website www.cedars-sinai.org/ one notes that while, yes, their credentials as a fine institution are not in doubt, critically for your claim I can see nothing at all about this being down to the efficacy, say, of bedside prayer over medical excellence, at least outside of a passing mention of being a "blessing in need". How can this be? Where are the specific grounds for your claim? You'd think they'd trumpet it. I don't know either. So over to you. But I shan't hold my breath. I am sorry too: sorry that you feel unable to make a real apology for your continued insulting language. |
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on May 23, 2018 21:25:42 GMT
Most of the time I just think "it just makes people feel better - so no real harm done" or if someone says they'll pray for me I take that as the equivalent of "I'm thinking of you" and again - no real harm.
But.
When something bad happens and their "solution" is that we should all just pray that annoys me. Mass shooting? Everyone pray! Flooding? Everyone pray! No. Do something about it instead. Give them physical help. Change the law. Do something! Don't just mumble some words and then think you've actually achieved anything. Because guess what? Praying has never actually changed any big picture issue in the world. Ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 23, 2018 23:57:33 GMT
Then why do you bother? No, that's a straw man. Use real data like infection rates, readmission rates, mortality rates anything real science you often claim to understand from Cedar Sinai or from Loma Linda or from any of the famous hospitals funded or otherwise affiliated with religious foundations. I'm sorry that your mental limitations so often become topical, I realize how unpleasant it can be. So, Planet Arlon, are you claiming, in the context of this thread, that religious Hospitals and medical institutions are better ( as you claim and which is not necessarily true butt whatever) ...due to prayer, or because the religious institutions are funded on the back of religion and hence can afford better research, development and medical facilities? For your argument to be relevant, you would need to prove that they are better due to prayer being answered by God. Although people who work in religious hospitals are in many cases better at the real science of medicine than others, they at the same time realize that there are limits to science. In the hopes of success beyond those limits they certainly do pray. You appear to be suffering from the delusion that not praying makes some kind "sense." It is a sign of your tragic misunderstanding and overrating of science. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 24, 2018 0:29:12 GMT
Because I find you instructive and entertaining. No, that's a straw man. I am sorry for that; but it was the only general research in the area I could find. You had better substantiate your source for your claim on your own, then. That would be an authoritative survey or work showing that, overall, hospitals run by religious foundations have 'superior performance records' - by which one understands proven outcomes, tied to pastoral care, prayers, and the like. Since you have claimed the work I presented was a straw man then, naturally, you cannot now include it by way of evidence. Your record on substantiation being poor, I will not expect too much this time again lol. Remember, too, how correlation is not cause. So a hospital which has a clergyman praying at every bedside with a good record on recovery and cure might just have superior outcomes for other reasons. See how this works? But it is your claim Arlon: so it is up to you to show me the data - if there is any - comparing the outcomes of religious foundation medical centres with others, showing the former are superior.. But, remember: (the claim being made by you) that's superior specifically because of the use of prayer, their spiritual/pastoral dimension & etc. The first thing to notice up front is that you just have two hospitals in mind, which rather narrows down your claim from the start, which was a universal one. Now, visiting the Cedar Sinai (one of your examples) website www.cedars-sinai.org/ one notes that while, yes, their credentials as a fine institution are not in doubt, critically for your claim I can see nothing at all about this being down to the efficacy, say, of bedside prayer over medical excellence, at least outside of a passing mention of being a "blessing in need". How can this be? Where are the specific grounds for your claim? You'd think they'd trumpet it. I don't know either. So over to you. But I shan't hold my breath. I am sorry too: sorry that you feel unable to make a real apology for your continued insulting language. I think it is important for you to understand that I not only do not care what you think the "rules" are, I do not have to care in this context. Claiming victory because some rule you imagine says so is pointless here. I have asked you several times to explain in full why any rules apply rather than simply citing them. This is not for my benefit, it is for yours because it prevents amateurs on these boards from misusing rules. I am quite well apprised of the rules myself. The real effects of medicine are difficult assess. If you take medication and your headache goes away, there really is no way to know for certain it went away because of the medication, or that it would have gone away regardless of the medication, or because someone prayed for it go away, or that you might feel even better had you not taken the medication. In order to get a better idea how well medication works numerous "similar" cases are sometimes compiled, but even then doubt can remain. Sometimes they are not similar enough. Medicine is not "science" in the same sense as physics or chemistry. The same rules do not apply. That is exactly why prayer makes such good sense and you still don't. See also my reply to goz |
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 24, 2018 3:23:51 GMT
So, Planet Arlon, are you claiming, in the context of this thread, that religious Hospitals and medical institutions are better ( as you claim and which is not necessarily true butt whatever) ...due to prayer, or because the religious institutions are funded on the back of religion and hence can afford better research, development and medical facilities? For your argument to be relevant, you would need to prove that they are better due to prayer being answered by God. Although people who work in religious hospitals are in many cases better at the real science of medicine than others, they at the same time realize that there are limits to science. In the hopes of success beyond those limits they certainly do pray. You appear to be suffering from the delusion that not praying makes some kind "sense." It is a sign of your tragic misunderstanding and overrating of science. So no, then. Just your usual 'religious people are better at everything than non-religious people' and 'praying achieves something' BOTH of which are total absolute and utter nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 24, 2018 9:21:52 GMT
I think it is important for you to understand that I not only do not care what you think the "rules" are, I do not have to care in this context. Whether you care for the idea or not, the rule is still that one making a claim, especially one which is contestable, would naturally be expected to substantiate it. Or - as I have explained to you before on several other similar occasions - your assertion can simply be rejected on the same basis and becomes just so much subjective opinion.. In which case, er, you making any positive assertions about the effects of prayers in medicine are in trouble, are they not? QED. But I guess that's your headache, not mine... Or, one can just look at outcomes where prayer alone is used, against those where medical intervention was the case. I don't remember much trumpeting for the better survival rates among the aforementioned Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists, where some medical treatments are proscribed for doctrinal reasons; and, given your regular practice, I don't ever expect you to provide any. It might also be observed that few believers overall ever rely on prayer alone, at least more than medicine to cure their illnesses, and I doubt you would do. One would have thought, if the efficacy of prayer was so clear, than there would be a clear choice. After all, who needs science when you have the supernatural and magic to rely on? But keep going. The same rules apply in medicine as in all the sciences Arlon, not least since very often medicine is based on those sciences. i.e. medicine is also peer reviewed and based on observation, theory and experiment, and is usually based on the known and demonstrable physical properties of things. If it makes proven 'good sense' in medicine, or instead of, Arlon, based on measureable outcomes, then substantiate why. Here and next message. Or, just cite an example of a leg growing back and make an instant convert. No, I don't think so either. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on May 24, 2018 10:08:59 GMT
The real effects of medicine are difficult assess. If you take medication and your headache goes away, there really is no way to know for certain it went away because of the medication, or that it would have gone away regardless of the medication, or because someone prayed for it go away, or that you might feel even better had you not taken the medication. In order to get a better idea how well medication works numerous "similar" cases are sometimes compiled, but even then doubt can remain. Sometimes they are not similar enough. Medicine is not "science" in the same sense as physics or chemistry. The same rules do not apply. That is exactly why prayer makes such good sense and you still don't. You have no idea what you're talking about.  |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 24, 2018 10:56:17 GMT
Why do most people pray when they are desperate over something? Isn't that abusing God, or whatever it is, it is supposed to represent? Probably because the Bible suggests that prayers will be answered, in verses like
Matthew 7:8 "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."
John 15:7 “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you" etc
see also the Qu'ran's similar "... and when my slaves ask you (O Mohammad) concerning me, then (answer them), I am indeed near (to them by My knowledge). I respond to the invocations of the supplicant when he calls on Me (without any mediator or intercessor). So let them obey Me and believe in Me, so that they may be led aright [Al-baqarah: 186].
But then again I have been assured - at times convenient to their argument, naturally - that God "does not micromanage". Go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 24, 2018 11:33:07 GMT
False dichotomy. The question assumes a binary choice between exactly two actions, one right and one wrong. That's rarely how the world works. What shall I have for dinner tonight -- tacos or stir-fry? I think you would be hard pressed to classify that as a choice between right and wrong (in a convincing way). Maybe BOTH choices are right, and the decision is made based on some other criteria. Maybe NEITHER choice is right. Or maybe there's more than one choice. What would you say the false dichotomy was that he presented? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 24, 2018 11:41:00 GMT
Could it be interpreted then, that only those that follow, will be heard and received? Well, since it is unlikely that one is going to pray to a deity in which one does not believe, arguably its a circular argument lol The verse from Matthew I quoted though does specify "everyone" who asks receives, so perhaps even the insincere are not excluded just as long as they throw in. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on May 24, 2018 11:56:18 GMT
This is all very interesting, but nobody is addressing the logical inconsistencies I asked about in two prior posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 25, 2018 9:46:18 GMT
This is all very interesting, but nobody is addressing the logical inconsistencies I asked about in two prior posts. [If God decides the fates of the lives of those who have been affected by the shooting, and the prayers are intended to nudge God in a certain direction, how do these prayers supposedly work? [That : If God is omniscient and God always does what is morally right, what difference does it make whether people pray or do not pray? And: Even if all people in the world were to pray that God do something that is wrong, God, being all-good, would not do it, so the prayers would have no intended effect.] The answer is two-fold and goes something like this: that God, the final judge decides apparently what is right and wrong and, since by His nature He is always right and good, then His decisions are necessarily always correct and moral; and that secondly, even so God can, on occasion, "repent", (change his mind) for his actions while still, it seems, being right anyway, if just right in, er, a different way. So while God is not unreachable and can be appealed to, (i.e through prayer) morality is handed top-down, its conditions ultimately not subject to human choice, as it is always justified - even, it seems, in the case of genocide or an uncontrolled natural evil. Something like that anyhow. Also, prayer has more than one purpose and if that is accepted then it is never wasted, since one can always find a reason. So you can see that any logical inconsistencies can be resolved by a grand circular argument and a healthy dose of special pleading. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 26, 2018 0:08:41 GMT
You want rules, I'll give you rules. Please address my arguments, not arguments you believe I should be making. (I think the kids call that a straw man.) I never said prayers could instantaneously and completely solve any medical problem. Beside the point, but I'll mention it anyway, I do not know anyone else, Christian or otherwise, who believes that; nor do I believe any god will instantaneously and completely deliver a million dollars upon a prayer request, nor do I know anyone who believes that either. If there has been an instant replacement of a lost limb along with a bonus large quantity of cash, I have never heard of it yet. The atheist bias against religion has become disturbingly obvious as have the reasons for it. You (plural) are using what a very few crazy "Christians" think is a religion as a definition of all religion. You (singular) just here tried to impose that view of prayer on me. You have no ability to listen because you have decided that some "ruling" authority has made listening unnecessary for you. You keep repeating words like reason, logic and science as though you would know what they mean. I happen to be a perfectly reasonable and scientific person, but you can't see it because of your totally unrealistic expectations of science that I reject. This makes twice atheists have been caught failing to understand evidence. You haven't yet acknowledged that the evidence for relativity is comparable to much of the available evidence for a god. Neither the evidence for relativity nor that evidence for a god are widely available for "repeated" tests, yet you insist that relativity is proven and the existence of god has not. Now we have this. Evidence of the efficacy of OTC pain relievers is no better than the evidence for the efficacy of prayer. Yet you insist prayer is a waste of time without mentioning that OTC pain relievers are exactly as much a waste of time. You insist that medicine is "science" because you need it to "rule" for you. You need it to rule for you because you are incapable of persuasion as I explained here. |
|
