tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post2608743984442621971..comments2023-11-22T09:00:59.909-08:00Comments on Atheistwatch: The Atheist Problem with Prayer: prayer studies vs emprical miracles Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-34793423205100970752015-01-22T20:48:35.131-08:002015-01-22T20:48:35.131-08:00Oh, I agree with your point, certainly. I was just...Oh, I agree with your point, certainly. I was just exploring another facet of the study, particularly thrown into relief by Mehta's surprise. Such a deviation between the groups is as problematic for the atheist as Mehta seems to think it must be for the Christian. He just doesn't seem to realize it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07003124353591315236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-33121296601498345822015-01-22T07:52:31.014-08:002015-01-22T07:52:31.014-08:00my point was that double blind studies are not app...my point was that double blind studies are not appropriate for the study of prayer.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-69392970103729156212015-01-22T07:52:26.030-08:002015-01-22T07:52:26.030-08:00my point was that double blind studies are not app...my point was that double blind studies are not appropriate for the study of prayer.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-291204646476347072015-01-22T07:52:24.583-08:002015-01-22T07:52:24.583-08:00my point was that double blind studies are not app...my point was that double blind studies are not appropriate for the study of prayer.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-57327773150992398322015-01-22T07:52:19.248-08:002015-01-22T07:52:19.248-08:00my point was that double blind studies are not app...my point was that double blind studies are not appropriate for the study of prayer.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-71599435571158341512015-01-22T07:52:17.431-08:002015-01-22T07:52:17.431-08:00my point was that double blind studies are not app...my point was that double blind studies are not appropriate for the study of prayer.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-66547805609912134632015-01-21T20:51:17.584-08:002015-01-21T20:51:17.584-08:00"2) "Patients who knew they were receivi..."2) "Patients who knew they were receiving intercessory prayer fared worse.""<br /><br />I'm intrigued by this. On a naturalistic worldview, which excludes a priori the efficacy of prayer on its own terms, one should expect identical outcomes for both groups. That is, the prayed-for group should fare neither better nor worse.<br /><br />Three possible explanations for the discrepancy occur to me:<br /><br />1) Prayer IS efficacious, just not in the way we expect. Perhaps God is some sort of petty, spiteful monster who gets off on inflicting pain on people we pray for.<br /><br />2) Some sort of negative placebo effect. The knowledge that I'm being prayed for actually sends me into depression and causes my health to deteriorate.<br /><br />3) The study was flawed.<br /><br />An atheist must reject the first explanation. The second seems counter-intuitive, at least, but in any case, being double-blind, presumably (I haven't looked at it) the study was supposed to be controlling for placebo effects. So the second explanation devolves down to explanation three, which seems to be the only conclusion an atheist could come to: the study was flawed.<br /><br />Am I missing something?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07003124353591315236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-8431255586751664622014-05-30T00:44:29.553-07:002014-05-30T00:44:29.553-07:00Meta,
This is a bit off-topic, but..
...Just hav...Meta,<br /><br />This is a bit off-topic, but..<br /><br />...Just have a look a this for a real good laugh:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.phact.org/ire.php" rel="nofollow">PhACT's Cheat Sheet</a><br /><br />PhACT Stands for Philadelphia's Association for Critical Thinking<br /><br />Gotta love that subliminal naming...<br /><br />Kind Regards.yonosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00853519252063461784noreply@blogger.com