01 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo creator specifically. I was just talking about a little overlap in science and religion. George Coyne is an example of someone that believed in scientific observation. He was director of the vatican observatory. He believed that through observation that we were created by evolution based on observational science. He made a great video of it and eventually got the boot. Some in religion, say the opposite, and that is by looking at fossil records there is proof of creation without evolution. I take no stand on either, but if the fosil records were much more complete,and was still full of gaps, could a religeous person use that to support their beliefs?
By creation you mean by some supernatural being? Or do you mean specifically by the christian god?
If yes on any of these qeustions, then it's much simpler to prove the existance of this creator. It's very easy to set up an experiment and see the outcome. This has been done, with various methods, with no positive confirmation.
But if by 'creation' y 'creation' from different angles.
Religion cannot ever be dealt with scientifically.
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by joe beyserNo creator specifically, but yet a supernatural being?
No creator specifically. I was just talking about a little overlap in science and religion. George Coyne is an example of someone that believed in scientific observation. He was director of the vatican observatory. He believed that through observation that we were created by evolution based on observational science. He made a great video of it and eventua ...[text shortened]... complete,and was still full of gaps, could a religeous person use that to support their beliefs?
If any scientist was asked by a journalist: "Where did the universe came from?" and he (she) anwsered: "Science says that it was created by a supernatural being." Wouldn't he (she) be laughed at?
Yes of course. Because supernatural beings are not within the domain of science, it's within the domain of religion.
And if the 'scientist' explained further: "There is no observation about this, we just have to trust this scientific truth." Would the lafter stop? No, I don't think so.
If a religious scientist said that we were created by evolution based on observational science, then he wouldn't know anything about evolution. (1) Things aren't created, is has evolved to what it is now, and it will still evolve. (2) evolution doesn't say anything about how it started. So 'creation' has nothing to do with evolution. He just try to mix science with religion and failed.
What observatory? The Vatican observatory? Oh, that explains it all... Couldn't they observe a little how a condom works? In order to understand why AIDS would spread less with condoms than without. And tell the pope about it.
If the fundamentalist creationists just bother with religion, instead of trying to explain things scientifically, then much would be gained.
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasthere have been RCTs showing the beneficial outcome of remote prayer on hospital patients.
When an outcome of an scientific experiment can be altered by prayers, then I will change my mind.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1450
it hardly proves the existance of god though- it could just as easily demonstrate another unknown phenomena or merely highlight shortcomings of RCTs
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasMaybe the religious folks are trying to use science to recruit or keep the flock intact. I enjoyed that video but like you said it fails to prove. The argument for evolution was a good one and I don't dispute what he claimed about stars evolving. I don't think that someone will ever one day say we now have a fairly complete set of fossils of everything that existed. But if they did have that, It would sure persuade me. The bulk of religious BS would be unaffected however.
No creator specifically, but yet a supernatural being?
If any scientist was asked by a journalist: "Where did the universe came from?" and he (she) anwsered: "Science says that it was created by a supernatural being." Wouldn't he (she) be laughed at?
Yes of course. Because supernatural beings are not within the domain of science, it's within the domai ...[text shortened]... instead of trying to explain things scientifically, then much would be gained.
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by london nickI read of a similar experiment although the results were different. Cardiac patients at different hospitals were being prayed for by three different congregations throughout the US. The experiment had three groups.
there have been RCTs showing the beneficial outcome of remote prayer on hospital patients.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1450
it hardly proves the existance of god though- it could just as easily demonstrate another unknown phenomena or merely highlight shortcomings of RCTs
1. Patients who weren't being prayed for.
2. Patients who were being prayed for but didn't know.
3. Patients who were being prayed for and knew.
Groups 1 and 2 improved as was the norm. Group 3 in general improved worse than the other two groups.
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobI am surprised by this. I would have thought there may be somewhat of a placebo effect. Of course cardiac patients may not benefit from that anyway. May have helped athsma patients though.
I read of a similar experiment although the results were different. Cardiac patients at different hospitals were being prayed for by three different congregations throughout the US. The experiment had three groups.
1. Patients who weren't being prayed for.
2. Patients who were being prayed for but didn't know.
3. Patients who were being prayed for a ...[text shortened]... 1 and 2 improved as was the norm. Group 3 in general improved worse than the other two groups.
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by joe beyserI think I can explain this odd result: if a patient knew he was being prayed for then wouldn’t he wonder WHY somebody was praying for him! -this could make him concerned that his condition could be much worse than he imagined!
I am surprised by this. I would have thought there may be somewhat of a placebo effect. Of course cardiac patients may not benefit from that anyway. May have helped athsma patients though.
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobi'm not familiar with the trials on prayer, but the info at the bottom sugests that the majority of RCTs on remote prayer show a benefit (by 2001- so could've changed since). If this were a drug it would probably be in the later stages of testing if not already on the market
I read of a similar experiment although the results were different. Cardiac patients at different hospitals were being prayed for by three different congregations throughout the US. The experiment had three groups.
1. Patients who weren't being prayed for.
2. Patients who were being prayed for but didn't know.
3. Patients who were being prayed for a ...[text shortened]... 1 and 2 improved as was the norm. Group 3 in general improved worse than the other two groups.
@joe- RCTs are placebo controlled
i initially posted in response to fabians' statement about prayer, but do think that to categorically disallow the posibility of some kind of intelligence or guiding power either in creating or existing in the universe is poor science. One can say that all the current evidence does not suggest this, but that is all.
It is too easy for people to fall into a paradigm and refuse to see possibilities beyond it or which destroy it. Creationists also stridently fall into this. Sceptical agnostism seems to me to be the more sensible approach to discerning any objective truths (if there is such a thing)
the info from the BMJ at the end of the abstract:
What is already known on this topic
Two randomised controlled trials of remote intercessory prayer (praying for persons unknown) showed a beneficial effect in patients in an intensive coronary care unit
A recent systematic review found that 57% of the randomised, placebo controlled trials of distant healing showed a positive treatment effect
What this study adds
Remote intercessory prayer said for a group of patients is associated with a shorter hospital stay and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection, even when the intervention is performed 4-10 years after the infection
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by Proper KnobWould be interesting to know if praying to an Hindu god (or goddes) alter the result? Nad if so what, and how much. Perhpas this is the method to know wich god is the right one, and what gods are false.
I read of a similar experiment although the results were different. Cardiac patients at different hospitals were being prayed for by three different congregations throughout the US. The experiment had three groups.
1. Patients who weren't being prayed for.
2. Patients who were being prayed for but didn't know.
3. Patients who were being prayed for a ...[text shortened]... 1 and 2 improved as was the norm. Group 3 in general improved worse than the other two groups.
However, scientifically speaking - if this experiment is repeted, and ioutcome doesn't change, then it would be a scientific experiment with a scientifically trustworthy result. Can this be done?
Does god like to be experimented upon? I wouldn't. Therefore god can change the result any way he wants to. And therefore it's still not a true scientific experiment.
Bottom line: Religion cannot be studied with scientific methods.
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasdid you read my post above?
Would be interesting to know if praying to an Hindu god (or goddes) alter the result? Nad if so what, and how much. Perhpas this is the method to know wich god is the right one, and what gods are false.
However, scientifically speaking - if this experiment is repeted, and ioutcome doesn't change, then it would be a scientific experiment with a scientif ...[text shortened]... ue scientific experiment.
Bottom line: Religion cannot be studied with scientific methods.
prayer having an effect does not automatically suggest the existance of a god or the veritacity of any religion, but it does suggest some previously unexplained phenomena or a problem with the methodology accepted as the gold standard for medical research. The systematic review suggests a greater efficacy for prayer than placebo although i personally have not checked the methodologies or results. If prayer was patentable i would suggest it would already be on the market.
to have preconceptions of how a god would or would not behave does not seem to be sensible to me. Religion or aspects of a god per se perhaps cannot be scientifically studied, but religious belief and religious phenomenon if they exist surely can be to an extent
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by london nickYes of course I did. And I agree with you totally. I just expressed my own views further to yours.
did you read my post above?
prayer having an effect does not automatically suggest the existance of a god or the veritacity of any religion, but it does suggest some previously unexplained phenomena or a problem with the methodology accepted as the gold standard for medical research. The systematic review suggests a greater efficacy for prayer than pl ...[text shortened]... studied, but religious belief and religious phenomenon if they exist surely can be to an extent
01 Jul 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasoh ok 🙂
Yes of course I did. And I agree with you totally. I just expressed my own views further to yours.
it's just this that threw me:
"However, scientifically speaking - if this experiment is repeted, and ioutcome doesn't change, then it would be a scientific experiment with a scientifically trustworthy result. Can this be done?"
because it seems that there already is a body of evidence showing remote prayer working for whatever reason
02 Jul 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasI was thinking about what you said and I remembered the term pure science. Is that a term that is still in use? Not all science is pure science. The observational science, is where religion can back up their beliefs.
No creator specifically, but yet a supernatural being?
If any scientist was asked by a journalist: "Where did the universe came from?" and he (she) anwsered: "Science says that it was created by a supernatural being." Wouldn't he (she) be laughed at?
Yes of course. Because supernatural beings are not within the domain of science, it's within the domai ...[text shortened]... instead of trying to explain things scientifically, then much would be gained.
02 Jul 09
Originally posted by joe beyserI don't know the term 'pure science'.
I was thinking about what you said and I remembered the term pure science. Is that a term that is still in use? Not all science is pure science. The observational science, is where religion can back up their beliefs.
"The observational science, is where religion can back up their beliefs."
Would you kindly elaborate this a little?
02 Jul 09
Remote prayer has no evidence to support it as a adjunct in medical science. On the contrary, actually praying for someone appeared to lead to a death in the MANTRA (Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic TRAinings) study on morbidity/mortality data.
“If one takes the trouble to read the MANTRA I study,” says Skolnick, “ one can see that the prayed-for group of patients had one more death than the patients in the group who received only standard care. Contrary to what Dr. Krucoff told the news media, there was no difference, impressive or otherwise, in the number of patients who suffered congestive heart failure.”
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-09-02
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11685160?ordinalpos=8&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum