Posted on 04/13/2006 8:24:36 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
> Science deals with the physical world. God is Spirit. Therefore, science is not an appropriate tool with which to evaluate God's interactions with this world.
That would be true if you assumed that God has no interactions with this world... i.e. if you're a Deist. But there are relatively few of those. Far more people believe in miracles... a valid subject for scientific inquiry.
I take it from your post that you don't see the power of prayer? That wasn't my implication.
When we pray, we are ASKING God. He isn't some George Lucas Force that "partially controls our actions and also obeys our commands". A prayer is a request of a benevolent father. It's not that He doesn't know what we need--He knows everything--it's that our requesting of Him is acknowledging for our benefit the source of our succor.
To try to conduct an experiment into whether our prayers have effect by watching the outcome is folly when you consider it is up to a sentient being to choose to act according to His own Will. Just because we don't always understand His answer doesn't mean He hasn't responded.
I emphatically believe that God interacts with the world, and that he's not held captive to the natural laws he created.
That said, making him the subject of a scientific experiment just strikes me as presumptuous and inappropriate.
Had to add that.
> To try to conduct an experiment into whether our prayers have effect by watching the outcome is folly when you consider it is up to a sentient being to choose to act according to His own Will.
If that was true, it would be folly to try to apply science and statistics to the understanding of human behavior. But as we know, and as insurance companies can attest, basic science helps here.
Assume two worlds:
1) God answers some prayers but not others
2) God answers no prayers
In World 2, you'd have no distinction in results between prayer/no prayer situations, assuming you used a statistically valid sample size. In World 1, you *should* notice such a distinction, as the prayed-for group should, in principle, have at least a few "yes" hits that the un-prayed-for group wouldn't.
If in World 1 you found no distinction between prayer/no-prayer, you have a few possible explanations:
1) God does what he's gonna do regardless of prayer
2) God answers prayers sometimes, but also aided the unprayed-for group just to mess with the statistics
3) God answers prayers at such a low rate that it's statistically invisible.
If you have further alternate explanations, by all means, the floor is yours.
> making him the subject of a scientific experiment just strikes me as presumptuous and inappropriate.
Why? If God's about, and God created Man, then it is reasonable to assume that God created Man with both the ability and desire to understand his world. Science is the means by which Man has come to understand how the world works. Why would it be inappropriate for Man to try to understand God?
Assume a third world: God answers all prayers.
In this world, would it be possible for those of finite perception to second-guess the infinite? Could we possibly be able to distinguish between the "no", the "maybe" and the "no response"? Could we be sure that having something go the way we wanted was truly a "yes" answer and not just laissez-faire?
I submit to you that there is no way for the finite to put the infinite to the test. He has told us to turn to Him in prayer--and so we do. If we truly acknowledge Him in all His Glory, we will have to trust the outcome of our relationship.
Your logical stream is interrupted by your sample size. You may statistically test a hypothetical behavior based on certain stimuli to a statistically significant number of people. There is no way to make a statistical, empirical nor scientific conclusion from the actions of one being.
Time to go home. I enjoyed our discussion. Happy Easter--may the risen Christ bless you.
>Could we possibly be able to distinguish between the "no", the "maybe" and the "no response"? Could we be sure that having something go the way we wanted was truly a "yes" answer and not just laissez-faire?
We should be able to, yes. For this simple reason: those without prayers will have a recovery rate of X. Those *with* prayers should have a recovery rate of X+Y. If Y is indistinguishable from 0, then you've demonstrated that prayer is ineffective in attaining the goal of the prayer.
These experiments are not designed to see if God exists, or how tall he is or how much he weighs, but simply to see if prayer is effective in aiding heart surgery patients. Assuming 1800 patients is a statistically valid sample size... they have demonstrated that there seems to be little validity to prayers as a means to improve recovery from such surgeries.
> I submit to you that there is no way for the finite to put the infinite to the test.
This experiment showed one way to do just that.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD."
Isaiah 55:8
I would contend God hears EVERY prayer, what He chooses to do will be His will, and not ours.
An excellent question Orion. As a Christian who prays daily, I can tell you that my prayers have little to do with asking God to bend to my will.
I trust that God knows a future that I don't have the privilege of knowing. With that in mind, my prayer is that God will, through his Holy Spirit, show me His plan and allow me to grow in understanding the why's and how's of it.
I'd gladly offer you some examples of God showing me what comes next, but I won't bother unless your interested.
"I run in the paths of your commands, for you have set my heart free." (Psalms 119:32)
> my prayer is that God will, through his Holy Spirit, show me His plan ...
That is still an effort on your part to influence the actions of an infinite God. There is a logical inconsistency here, if one assumes that God was going to do what what Right And Proper anyway.
And PS: No, you can't say that here. This is a family forum. Shame on you.
I don't agree. On my own, my only real interaction would be to screw things up. My goal is to due justly, love mercy and walk humbly with my God. The only way I could ever pull that off is if He shows me how I ought to interact with his Will.
That is the point behind Christian obedience; I want my actions, thoughts, desires to be in sync with Gods, not the other way around. But I have to ask direction first. Then I have to be willing to follow through when I get an answer.
> The only way I could ever pull that off is if He shows me how I ought to interact with his Will.
Fine. Let's assume that. But... what difference would it make whether you pray for that or not? If God is going to show you something... he'll do it whether or not you ask, yes? If you can persuade God into doing something he previously wasn't going to do... doesn't that knock the pins out from under the idea that God is all knowing and all powerful?
Somehow I suspect that this issue will not be resolved here. I think people have been fighting this one out for a few centuries now.
You are misunderstanding my post. I was not criticizing the researchers. I was criticizing this: "Naturally, some observers were delighted at the results. They think the study proves conclusively that prayer doesn’t work, and it’s time for men of science to “stop dabbling in the supernatural,” as one academic put it."
> They think the study proves conclusively that prayer doesn’t work, and it’s time for men of science to “stop dabbling in the supernatural,” as one academic put it."
Well, if you dislike that attitude from some scientists, how about this, from post 43: "That said, making him the subject of a scientific experiment just strikes me as presumptuous and inappropriate." Same arguement, opposite side.
Yes, Jesus died on the Cross. But He rose again on the third day. And thanks to that so-called “unanswered prayer,” you and I can say this Easter, “Hallelujah! Christ is risen!”Amen.
I have a feeling that if you and I ever met, we'd kick back, have a nice cup of coffee and have a nice chat about everything we have in common. I suspect this topic would not be one of them.
The chasm, as I see it, is that you're willing to concede every idea except the one where a God who is big enough to have a personal relationship with all six billion people at the same time, is also big enough to conform his Perfect will to accomodate the ignorance, weakness, and sometimes outright disobedience of us lowly humans.
I suspect that at that point, you would sum it up with, "Well, isn't that awfully convenient." 2+2+4 is awfully convenient too, in that it is based on the fact that 4 really is the right answer, we've just got to figure out how to get there.
But really, what it all comes down to is, Did Jesus Christ really raise from the dead? If your answer is no, then we really have nothing else to discuss. If Christ was not resurrected, then it's all a sham and I've been duped. So my opinion is worthless.
If he really did, then we're arguing minor issues, cause I'm pretty much gonna take him at his word from that point on.
May the blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be upon you. Take care.
> I have a feeling that if you and I ever met, we'd kick back, have a nice cup of coffee ...
Coffee? COFFEE?!?!? What are you, some sorta Venezualen commie?
Not any more. That was in my past life.
>>What are you, some sorta Venezualen commie?
> Not any more. That was in my past life.
Now, if only all other such commies would be introduced to their next lives...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.