The Contradictory Failures Of Peter Hurford
Posted in Bible, Thinking Critically on | 4 minutes | 55 Comments →
This post is in direct response to Peter Hurford’s misleading essay, The Contradictory Failure of Prayer. My official position on prayer studies is that atheists who champion them as evidence for atheism are just as irrational as believers who champion them as evidence for theism.
As is typical of internet atheists, Mr. Hurford misleads his readers to believe that science is purely on his side, stating (bold mine) that “every time we look at the results, we notice that atheists recover from illness just as frequently as believers who pray.” I don’t know about you, but it really bothers me when people use “we” when they should use “I” instead [cf. Alonzo Fyfe and his litany of unsubstantiated “we” claims]. Peter’s use of “we” implies that his readers have reason to share his conclusions, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. When I look at the results, I notice a state of affairs quite different from the one Peter wants his readers to accept as reality.
For example, over a year ago I reported a study published in the journal Liver Transplantation suggesting that religiosity is associated with prolonged survival in liver transplant recipients. From the study:
This study shows that liver transplant candidates with high religious coping (defined as seeking God’s help, having faith in God, trusting in God, and trying to perceive God’s will in the disease) have more prolonged posttransplant survival than patients with low religiosity.
I’m left to assume that when Peter says “we,” he must be excluding people like me who are aware of studies that falsify his claims. Likewise, he must not be referring to the authors or readers of this list featuring 19 prayer studies suggesting a correlation between prayer and health benefits.
In a similar vein, Mr. Hurford misleads his readers to believe that, “We notice people who pray daily are no more happier, healthier, successful, or compassionate than those people who never pray.” Again, I suppose he must be excluding the authors and readers of these articles I came across on the Gallup website:
- Very Religious Have Higher Wellbeing Across All Faiths
- Very Religious Americans Lead Healthier Lives
- Very Religious Americans Report Less Depression, Worry
- Religious Attendance Relates to Generosity Worldwide
- Worldwide, Highly Religious More Likely to Help Others
- In More Religious Countries, Lower Suicide Rates
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying, “Peter, you’re wrong, here is the science which proves prayer.” For reasons I began explaining here, I don’t think ostensibly rational people should use prayer studies to bolster their metaphysical preferences. Rather, I’m saying that a rational person has legitimate grounds to be skeptical of Peter’s atheist apologetics. Take this rhetorical snippet as another example:
[prayer] has been disproven by science, makes no sense theologically, and reveals God as unfair and evil.
Nonsense. I respect Peter but I’ll mince no words here. Prayer has neither been proven nor disproven by science, Peter’s cherry-picking makes no sense rationally, and reveals Peter as ignorant, dishonest or negligent. Peter has departed from rationalism just as much as the fundies who say prayer has been scientifically proven. The truth is, we have a non-trivial number of studies suggesting positive effects, and we have a non-trivial number of studies that don’t. Any claim that goes beyond this departs from healthy scientific principle, and deserves to be scrutinized and challenged. Elsewhere, Mr. Hurford reminds us,
It’s very easy to talk about how amazingly accurate the Bible is if you point only to the hits and discard the misses.
Indeed. If I may hoist you by your own petard here, it’s also very easy to talk about how amazingly ineffective prayer is if you point only to the misses and discard the hits.
Mike Gantt
says...Since we have a God who dislikes being tested (Matt 4:7), it’s not hard to imagine Him refusing to participate in surveys.
Dale
says...RE: “[prayer] has been disproven by science, makes no sense theologically, and reveals God as unfair and evil.”
If science has “disproven prayer”, and the author of this quote is an atheist who doesn’t believe in God, then what sense are they making by saying “God (is) unfair and evil”?
Which is He? Is God unfair and evil or does He not exist?
This is pure nonsense, as you stated CL.
cl
says...Mike Gantt,
Good to “see” you.
Dale,
The sad thing is, this type of nonsense persuades.
joseph
says...@Dale
As I understand it the position being taken is hypothetical maltheism.
You may have similar thoughts about Baal, and Ishtar, when you read the OT, or maybe not (some Christians I know believe they were demons or nephilim).
cl
says...joseph,
After reading this piece, how do you feel about Peter’s claims? Do you think Peter made some false claims here?
cl
says...joseph,
Peter said, “prayer as currently employed by the religious is extensively unfair and trivializing to both all those that suffer and all those that help ameliorate suffering.”
That’s total nonsense, even by Peter Hurford’s standards. If I pray for God to give me strength to endure some trial, I have neither been unfair to anybody else or trivialized those who suffer.
Look, I like you, I enjoy our conversations for the most part, but at some point you have to call a spade a spade.
Thinking Emotions
says...I want you to know that everything you’ve said in this post is spot on. There are no “buts,” either. I actually share your stance on prayer studies; that is to say I don’t think they prove a damn thing for either side.
That being said, what inspired this post was not an aversion to irrationality or illogic, was it, cl? I can’t be the only who notices it, but I really feel you’re perceiving Peter as ignoring you and this is you lashing out in anger. I’m not going to make any inferences as to what Peter is doing right now. My subjective claim would be that he’s busy with school work and he’s in the midst of a lot of thinking right now. Or maybe he’s just taking some time off from the big questions — ever stop to consider that?
He hasn’t posted a new essay in ten days despite occasionally (far less frequently than usual) dropping comments around. Give the guy a break. And no, I’m not just sticking up for my “fellow atheist.” I would do the same thing on your behalf if Peter was posting things such as this.
cl
says...TE,
Cool. That’s good to hear. I get really sick of people refusing to take sides. It’s like the blogging equivalent of the bystander effect. Peter needs to be told—by fellow atheists—when his arguments don’t hold water.
Smoke another one Dr. Phil :)
Humor aside, you’re wrong. I already know Peter’s busy. I know he’s not ignoring me. Hell, it seems any time he gets a second, he’s here. In actuality, I’m glad he’s away right now because it gives me time to catch up. He writes looooong essays, and there are still at least five I intend to dismantle. There’s also strategy at work. I know he’s busy, so I’m turning up the heat.
Such as what? All I did was post an essay exposing the false claims he peddles. I think you’re mistaking strong tone for something it’s not. I personally couldn’t care less whether he ever came back. No offense to him, I value our interactions, but I don’t need his attention in order to falsify his claims.
joseph
says...First prayer studies. I think if done well, if the result is negative they tell you the prayer is ineffective but not why (wrong god prayed to, god does not like being tested, god does not exist) there are multiple plausible explanations.
Yes there are studies that produce a positive result. If done well they tell you pray is effective but not why (Devil was listening but he wanted to trick people into believing the wrong faith, God exists and answers prayers, God likes to provide evidence) there is not only a single plausible explanation.
Then we have the issue of who is funding the studies, are there unpublished trials, are the tests appropriately double blinded, randomized, is an appropriate statistical analysis applied.
Then we have the issue of metastudies.
One idea fowarded in Europe is that the purpose of the study be announced publicly before it commences and all results are published.
So, do I think one study disproves God? No. Do I think such studies are useless? No (Jesus supplied evidence to Thomas on request). Do I care about Peter Hurford’s use of “we” rather than “I”? Not particularly.
Is this statment wrong; “[prayer] has been disproven by science, makes no sense theologically, and reveals God as unfair and evil”? Yes, in isolation, but he attempts to qualify it.
Yes, cherry picking is a problem. It is one reason I attempt to read your blog CL, Peter will cherry pick one way, you the other.
I am afraid I have found it so, as it is frequently employed in situations where something practical could be done, and yet the practical approach is denied.
In situations where nothing can be done I don’t have a big problem with prayer, I view it as no different to an Atheist wishing things weren’t so.
cl
says...Sorry joseph, I have to press you here. Is Peter’s following claim true?
Next, do you agree or disagree with my following statement?
If you disagree, then you need to explain how my prayer is “unfair” and/or “trivializing” to those who suffer. If you agree, then, is Peter’s claim…
…false?
Lastly,
Well, I’ve provided a clear example of Peter’s cherrypicking. Can you do the same for me? I won’t be surprised if you do—we all depart from objectivity at times—but I suspect you’re just making that comment from some other motivation.
joseph
says...Is that true? One honest answer is I don’t know. It seems to depend on his meaning. Does he mean if you took every study he would consider to be correctly performed, and then performed a metastudy in a way he deemed satisfactory, he believes this is the result? Does he mean that every study he deems valid reaches this conclusion? Is one of those then the answer is yes. Is he saying out of that every study ever performed not one has found a difference between theists and atheists? If so then the answer is false.
It would seem possible. Praying to find lost car keys, which as a Christian I did, is something I now feel ashamed of.
Pardon? I just work under the assumption we all display some confirmational bias, and that is more pronounced in individuals than communities. As your blog, and Peter Hurford’s, are individual concerns I expect some bias to be present.
If I am to present an example, would you mind being explicit as to what you think my motivation is?
Thankyou. I concur.
cl
says...joseph,
Okay, but if one of those, hasn’t Peter made *HIMSELF* the arbiter of a correctly performed study, and shouldn’t “we” leave that to real scientists?
How so? Explain. Don’t just assert. I’m trying to raise the bar around here. Specifically: how is my praying for strength to endure some trial “unfair” or “trivializing” to those who suffer?
Why? Is it because you didn’t routinely pray for more noble results? Some other reason?
Yeah, I think I just got under your skin a little. I’m not talking about bias, either—though cherrypicking is inherently related to bias. I’m asking you to demonstrate what I demonstrated from Peter: a case of counting the misses and ignoring the hits (or vice versa). Don’t be tempted to run to the “Reminder To The Willfully Ignorant” thread, either. I never said, “Every we time we look at the Bible, we find its claims have been vindicated by science.” That’s the type of claim you need to find in order to uphold your accusation of cherrypicking, and if you cannot find such a claim, I accept your apology.
;)
joseph
says...CL,
I’m out of time for now, which is some of the reason why the last post wasn’t very deep.
I’ll reply later, but no, you did not get under my skin and I regret giving you that impression.
Thinking Emotions
says...I try to avoid looking at it as “taking sides.” To me, it’s just evaluating an argument and deciding whether or not it withstands scrutiny. You seem to feel this way as well. Besides, I’m sure you haven’t forgotten about my remarks in response to the POE debate. If anything, I was coming down just as harshly upon that argument as you, if not more harshly. Groupthink doesn’t fly with me. It really speaks to one’s credibility and honesty if they critique arguments from their own camp. I really appreciate it when you poke fun at WLC or mainstream Christianity.
LOL!
I really hope Peter decides to participate in another dialog on the POE. His newest thoughts on the subject strike me as powerful objections to skeptical theism.
Well, praying for strength to endure some trial, IMO, is not condescending to those with greater or equal issues. Context pending, I am occasionally offended by “I’ll pray for you,” but that remark is hardly any different from, “I’ll keep you in my thoughts.” Perhaps the greatest emphasis should be placed on the Christian — I’ve dealt with some haughty, ignorant Christians in my very short 18 years of existence and I can confidently say that many self-proclaimed followers of Christ couldn’t stray any further from his teachings if they tried.
Don’t get me wrong: big-mouthed, dumb atheists are far worse usually and always just as unpleasant.
You’re right. I was chalking strong tone up to abrasiveness and irritability. In any case, I’m almost 100% certain he’ll come back. Peter doesn’t seem like the kind of person to just cut and run, and I think he genuinely cares about this stuff.
TBH, I don’t even see how this could be true. The most one could say as an atheist is that prayer is seemingly unhelpful, or at least less helpful than actually doing something. Maybe one could also chime that it’s an unfair distraction from the issue at hand; some sort of mouthpiece that is irrelevant and unneeded. If you ask me, this is all the more motivation to actually go and do something to help.
Are those all fair criticisms of prayer?
cl
says...I suppose that when Peter says “we,” he must not be referring to the authors or participants in this study, either.
TE,
That’s what I meant: taking sides on the argument, not aligning oneself with a camp, so-to-speak.
Honestly, my current opinion is that skeptical theism is for the birds. As with almost every other theodicy, it’s advocates attempt to rationalize things away as opposed to confronting the issues from a standpoint of straightforward biblical exegesis. Since I know you’re interested, perhaps I’ll address Peter’s recent article in the upcoming week’s postings.
LOL! A certain atheist ’round these parts comes immediately to mind: pushy, condescending, insulting, misrepresenting his opponents and refusing to apologize when shown wrong, accusing without evidence then refusing to provide evidence or explanation when asked, all the while claiming that he “places intellectual honesty before any doctrine“… a whole gamut of unsavoriness. I’m continually perplexed when I see decent, ostensibly truth-seeking people refuse to confront his lies and accusations. It really does seem like the online equivalent of the bystander effect.
I agree, and I’ve never for even a second entertained the contrary. I respect Peter and value his engagement. Same with almost everybody who posts regularly here.
I don’t really think so, but I see your underlying point and it’s actually echoed in Scripture:
I don’t think it’s accurate or honest for an atheist to make a blanket statement like, “Prayer isn’t helpful.” As I’ve shown here, we have ample scientific evidence suggesting that prayer often is helpful, especially for the person(s) doing the praying.
That said, I agree with your underlying point and the writer of James: prayer and deeds are both equally important in the life of any believer.
Thinking Emotions
says...I think what we’re observing here is that the psychological effects of prayer are positive. I would liken this to how having an internal locust of control (i.e., believing in free will) is psychologically healthy regardless of whether we have free will. Now, it could be the case that we do have free will and believing in it is also healthy. The problem lies in demonstrating free will. Similarly, it could be the case that God exists and does respond to prayers and that prayers are also psychologically beneficial. IIRC, meditation has a slew of mental and physical health benefits, and this remains true regardless of its “spiritual” standing.
The problem is that Stephen is quite sharp. He shows strong mathematical inclination and excellent, albeit occasionally grandiose, use of the English language. I won’t pull punches: I think he has a bone to pick with you and is caught up in his own pride. Like anyone else who posts, I won’t address him unless I feel like discussing something he brought up or if I’m addressed first. I don’t approve of his demeanor most of the time, but I only observe this demeanor directed toward you, hence the bone to pick.
BTW, I called him out in one of those threads you linked to. I try to be as kind as possible since I value patience and niceness over intellectual aptitude any day of the week. Intellectual capacity is not something one can control, and I personally feel bad for putting other’s down for what they cannot help, so I try to avoid doing it. Not making excuses for Stephen or anyone else, I should add. Stephen is plenty intelligent enough to see the error of his ways.
cl
says...That’s correct. Of course, these are the type of things we would expect an intellectually honest account to report. Since I genuinely believe Peter is an intellectually honest person, I remain perplexed at his failure to do so.
I know, and if you recall, I thanked you for it.
That’s admirable, although, your desire towards kindness and patience need not preclude you from challenging what you think ought to be challenged. If I saw anybody treating you the way he treats me (and others), I would get your back in a heartbeat—every time I saw it. Honestly, I think that people’s reluctance to do so only encourages his pride and general negative demeanor. He doesn’t respect me, but he respects some of you, and that’s all the more reason to stand up for truth. Perhaps if more of you spoke up and had my back, he might actually be motivated to step outside himself and consider things objectively. Don’t’cha think?
Yeah, I agree. In his defense, although it wasn’t an apology, he did make one decent concession along those lines, in his closing paragraph here. At any rate, as far as his commentary here is concerned, the joke’s on him. He’ll figure it out soon, and if he doesn’t, somebody else will.
joseph
says...Everybody somewhat makes themselves an arbiter, even if you don’t check the methodology yourself for example you might only accept reports from the better established journals, you might know of criticism for a paper from within it’s own field by other scientists and statisticians.
Of course we have to be aware that results do get manipulated (in my world the case of Hwang Woo-suk was a scandal). Even my doleful training allows me to pass some criticism of papers, though my mathematical ability (or lack there of) is a weak point. As I understand it Peter Hurford’s understanding of mathematics is quite good, I feel he could at least comment on the statistical analysis.
On the issue of praying for lost keys. It seems to trivialise the importance of prayer, which is hypothetically the communication with the most powerful being in existance, somewhat akin to phoning the Prime Minister/President to complain about an itchy backside. If I do genuinely have to ability to contact a being of that power I should discuss, and ask for the remedy of, more serious problems if I want to live in a better world (defining “better” here specifically as less famine, less death of curable diseases, less mental anguish). Some of what WLC says about God springs to mind here, he said something about God being potentially infinite but not actually infinite (as I understand him), by praying for something like finding my keys I am taking a fraction of God’s hypothetical attention (sorry to keep repeating hypothetical, I don’t want to confuse readers like Dale), a fraction which could be used less trivially. Another thing is by reducing both sorts of problems (big ones, i.e. HIV deaths in Africa, and small ones i.e. my lost keys) to a 20 second or so prayer, followed by “in Jesus’s Name Amen” I’m giving them similar weighting.
So from Merriam-Webster:
Definition of CHERRY-PICK
intransitive verb
: to select the best or most desirable
transitive verb
: to select as being the best or most desirable; also : to select the best or most desirable from
My definition differs a little from yours, in that I would say you could Cherry pick merely by selecting the best possible tests, results, information etc. and presenting them in favour of your opinions.
The example that came to my mind was:
The Strange Case Of Ingo Swann: Anomalous Mental Phenomena, I
October 26, 2009
The report dealt with one case, and I haven’t seen you blog about research in which remote viewing is concluded to fail.
You don’t specifically mention things that seem pertinent. That is you say:
So you admit that other people have pointed at faults, but you don’t discuss them yourself, if I want to find the faults I have to go elsewhere. You present these faults more as if they are a matter of opinion, you mention that Randi says “x, y ,z”, not that “I CL conclude that ‘x,y,z were definately wrong but….”
For example that the rings of Jupiter are inside the atmosphere and not crystalline. That Ingo Swann did not mention the moons of Jupiter. That he reported some sort of 30,000ft mountain, which Swann later defended by saying that astral travel is so fast that he probably wasn’t seeing Jupiter but another planet in another solar system
You don’t elaborate on Randi’s findings which are something like:
“Of the statements, 7 were correct yet obvious, 11 were correct and available widely in reference books, 5 were probably true (scientific speculation), one was correct but not available from reference books, 9 were too vague to verify, 2 were probably incorrect and 30 were certainly incorrect.”
Now my definition of cherry picking is not as strong as your defintion, so if you thought I was using your defintion I apopologise. None the less you seem to promote (write about, display etc) material that supports your ideas without discussing, or giving very limited discussion of, the parts of that material that don’t support your ideas.
You’ve said yourself you probably do. I’d be surprised if there were a single human who didn’t. It seems more an issue of extent.
Peter Hurford links to wikipedia which includes studies that saw a positive effect, for example:
Byrd and Harris
“A 1988 study by Randolph C. Byrd used 393 patients at the San Francisco General Hospital coronary care unit (CCU). Measuring 29 health outcomes using three-level (good, intermediate, or bad) scoring, the prayer group suffered fewer newly diagnosed ailments on only six of them. Byrd concluded that “Based on these data there seemed to be an effect, and that effect was presumed to be beneficial”, and that “intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU.”
O’Laoire
“A 1997 study by O’Laoire measured the effects on the agents performing daily prayers and reported benefits not only for the beneficiary, but the agents, and the benefit levels correlated with the belief levels of agents and beneficiaries in some cases. The study measured anxiety and depression. This study used beneficiary names as well as photographs.”
“A 2001 study by Leonard Leibovici used records of 3393 patients who developed blood infections at the Rabin Medical Center from 1990-1996 to study retroactive intercessory prayer.[23] To compound the alleged miraculous power of prayer itself, the prayers were performed after the patients had already left the hospital. All 3393 patients were those in the hospital between 1990 and 1996, and the prayers were conducted in 2000. Two of the outcomes, length of stay in the hospital and duration of fever, were found to be significantly improved in the intervention group, implying that prayer can even change events in the past”
So he also does not present this information himself, but links to someone else who does. It seems he just can’t mean that EVERY SINGLE (sorry not shouting, but wanted to emphasis) prayer study supports a null hypothesis that intercessory prayer does not have a measurably significant effect on x.
Ronin
says...cl wrote:
No offense cl, but your comments reek of over simplification. What does a “straightforward biblical exegesis” even mean? What particular periscope would give us a “straightforward biblical exegesis”? Yours?
I wrote the following with regards to my skeptical theism:
dale
says...@Joseph
I understand that depending upon someone’s religious leanings, they may perceive the god or gods of another religion in questioning terms, but they all the same are believing in a supernatural and spiritual, invisible world. This all, at least, in some passive way implies some sort of theist belief system.
I just question why anyone who so strongly does not believe in something would put so much energy into, not so much disproving the things existence, but rather maligning (or praising) the nature of the said “non existent” being/spirits personality and nature.
If you don’t believe in football, why would you care to spend your time debating over the merits of kicking, running or passing for the extra point?
Mike Gantt
says...Dale, your #20 is an excellent question that should be asked all over the blogosphere.
The pro-Jesus people at least have a rational explanation of their love for Him. The anti-Jesus people, by contrast, have no explanation for their hatred of, and preoccupation with, Him.
Jesus, of course, told us things would be this way (John 15:25, quoting Psalm 35:19).
cl
says...joseph,
It’s a fair criticism—generally speaking—to say you’d like me to write more posts that challenge certain positions, but I think you missed the point about context. The whole point of my “Anomalous Phenomena” series is to present positive evidence that I think skeptics have either overlooked or paid short thrift to. At any point in that post, or the series for that matter, did I say, “Every time we look at the results, we find that RV is upheld?” Or, “Every time we look at the results, we find positive evidence for NDE?” Did I say or imply that there aren’t ANY negative results?
That’s what Peter did with prayer, and that’s what I mean by cherrypicking.
Ronin,
Nice to “see” ya. No offense taken, sorry if my bluntness offended you. I can understand how my comment might seem oversimplified, given that I haven’t posted my extensive analysis of the skeptical theism issue. It’s coming with days, sit tight.
Dale / Mike Gantt,
Very true, indeed. I’ve thought about this quite a bit. Notice how it’s almost invariably anti-Christian screeds we hear from atheists? Sure, there are some that extend their focus to, say, the paranormal, or Islam. But by and large, it’s usually anti-Christian material, often from former believers.
I’ve heard some explain this with some variant of, “Well, I live in the US, Christianity is the dominant religion there, so that’s what I criticize.” What we see as an odd preoccupation with something that allegedly doesn’t exist, some atheists apparently see as a form of activism or whatnot.
Either way, I’m left scratching my head. To hoist them by their own petard, I have no interest in stamp collecting. Therefore, I don’t waste any time writing or thinking about it. Moreover, if I were an atheist, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t waste any of my precious time trying to change the minds of religious people.
I think there is an inner struggle that often goes unrecognized.
joseph
says...@Dale (and Mike Gantt)
Well I don’t hate theists, I don’t hate Jesus (I’m not 100% sure he existed, as described in the Gospels, though I consider it more likely than not) some interpretations of his teaching on Hell Irk me.
Some of the opinions, or interpretations of them, in Pauline missives, worry me (in regard to homosexuality), though I understand the exact translation is hard to pin down and has become politicised.
Some individual churches worry me, for example the Catholic stance on Condoms, as well as some older mistakes like selling forgiveness.
I worry about people who believe in literal interpretations of Noah’s Ark, the age of the earth. People who literally believe a Good God could command a genocide.
Sometimes I feel I was indoctrinated as a child.
I suppose I was bought up to believe that ones orientation towards God was the main thing that matters in life. The fact that I take a different stance on the question does not mean the question itself:
“Is there a God, and if so what can be said of it”
Is not of importance to me. I don’t mind listening, testing my views or learning. I enjoy conversing with CL sometimes I think he/she is right. In fact as CL will tell you a lot of my views are undeveloped. Sometimes CL will be abrupt to the point of rudeness with me, and sometimes he/she probably feels I do the same to him/her, and yet I learn.
None the less, I hang my head in shame when I see the kind of gang mentality, bullying, etc that is seen on some Atheist websites.
As an example of people not believing in something, but the question of it’s existance still being important, please consider the case of manmade climate change (global warming).
Mike Gantt
says...Joseph,
Thanks for your candor. You sound like a man of good will, and also someone who has a lot on his mind.
It occurs to me that there is a recent post on James McGrath’s blog which you may find, at least in part, interesting – that is, both the post and the ensuing comments. The main topic is “Jesus Mythicism” and Bart Ehrman’s recent book critiquing it. Here’s the link: http://bit.ly/HSqQQs
The reason I suggest this is that it touches on what, from my point of view, would be the most important issue on your list: that is, Jesus.
(By the way, cl knows that I am convinced that the Bible teaches that everyone is going to heaven. Jesus is misunderstood on the point of hell. In a nutshell He is teaching that it’s on this earth and in this life, yet people think He is saying it’s somewhere else and after this life.)
cl
says...joseph,
Digital high five. I’m very fortunate to have the small little circle of regulars I do. My only wish is that they were *ALL* still here.
No ill will, ever. Frustration at times, sure, but never ill will.
Ronin
says...cl wrote:
cl,
Well, it’s not a matter of “might seem” but an actual oversimplification response on your part. For starters, you still did not answer my questions; so, here they are again,
You also wrote:
Looking forward to it…
cl
says...Mike Gantt,
You’ve been on my mind lately. I never finished my review of your e-book. I’d like to either do so, but regardless of the if/when that happens, perhaps we can set up a debate? Mind you, I wouldn’t be in it to convert you, but to tease out of you the best possible defense of your position, and give you the best possible defense of mine. If nothing else, two believers debating would be off the beaten path. Of course, it all depends on how much time you can afford. Even if you can’t afford much, I think we could come up with a successful format.
Just tossing it out there.
cl
says...Ronin,
Patience! It’s coming, I promise. I wrote the first half yesterday. :)
Ronin
says...cl,
That’s fine, I don’t mind waiting, but you did oversimplify. And, since you are relying on this analysis of yours I suspect you are going to clarify what you mean by “straightforward biblical exegesis.”
dale
says...@ Joseph,
I really hope you didn’t feel there was any anti-atheist tinge to my comments. Hating atheist would be counter productive to any theist leaning person who find merit in their faith worth sharing with others. I guess, as has been addressed further, my thoughts were more on the “anti” bent of the said statements. I didn’t feel you meant any of that, I just want to footnote my comments with this… :-)
Mike Gantt
says...cl, I’m not attracted to the debate format, but I’m willing to give it a try for the sake of the topic.
cl
says...Ronin,
I did oversimplify. That would be undesirable if I didn’t elaborate. I can say this much now: by “straightforward biblical exegesis” I mean sticking to principles that are likely to be accepted by the overwhelming majority of traditional monotheists (be they Jews, Christians, Catholics, etc). For example, that God is good. All moral banter about what “good” is aside, I feel confident in assuming that close to 100% of traditional monotheists believe that God is good. When I have to get more specific, I’ll at least try to reason from Scriptures that most or all Christians interpret the same. IOW I’m not going to spring anything that requires an unconventional manner of interpreting some obscure verse.
I will try to use these types of “undebated assumptions” and mount my case against skeptical theism from there. That’s what I mean by, “straightforward biblical exegesis.” I’m trying to avoid a case that requires any partisan readings of Scripture, if that makes sense.
Mike,
It makes sense to me that maybe a short “comment thread” discussion could work. You know, like an hour-or-two of real time back and forth, no rules, maybe a little structure if we want… I’ll think more about it, I wouldn’t be able to do it until late May anyways. Just wanted to toss it out there.
Mike Gantt
says...cl,
When you decide when and how, just let me know and I’ll try to be responsive.
Mike Gantt
says...cl,
I should add that while I am not attracted to a debate format, it’s not because I am reluctant to be challenged. On the contrary, I am quite happy to defend the things I have written on my blogs. Therefore, if and when the time comes, feel free to challenge me without restraint.
joseph
says...CL,
Thanks for the digi-high five, gladly returned. It was oddly hard to write, too personal probably.
I do see that, but it seems Peter Hurford could say “The whole point of my Prayer series was to demonstrate what I consider to be the overall lack of positive evidence for intercessory prayer”
This quote, especially standing alone, is open to the interpretation that Peter Hurford thinks in every individual case prayer studies support the null hypothesis that intercessory prayer does not effect x. Given that he sites a source that shows otherwise I doubt he intended readers to interpret his words so. My other guess is that he may adjust his wording to avoid that interpretation.
BTW I am on emergency/night shifts this week, so if it’s quiet I can engage in conversations a little more. During the first few days my brain suffers the most though.
Mike Gantt
Thankyou also for your kind words. The link was very interesting, I am making my way through the comments, also interesting. I have added your blog to my bookmarks.
Dale
Thankyou for clarifying, I wouldn’t totally blame you if there were, some atheists are arseholes, I can be as well, despite my attempts not to.
In all honestly the question of the existence of God is of great importance to me, and I don’t understand Theists or Atheists who wander through their lives without comtemplating it.
As such I respect blogs that consider the other side, and ideally address it respectfully.
joseph
says...Dale
Sorry to break up the response, I use a smart phone for the most part, the memory is limited and it suffers horrific lag once replies reach a certain size.
It is possible you would consider me an agnostic, I was having a chat with a blogger Stephen Diamond, who asked for a sort of mathematical presentation of my beliefs, I botched it the first time but anyway I said:
Innerrantist Evangelist God <0.001
Anglican/Catholic Style God <0.009
Liberal Christian Style God <0.014
Shinto style polytheistic Gods <0.05
Deistic God <0.0135
Pantheistic God <0.35
He identified me as an agnostic. However as I currently hold the position that there is not enough evidence to believe in God, CL and maybe yourself, had classified me as a weak atheist.
cl
says...joseph,
Yeah, that’s what he *SHOULD* have said. That’s an accurate, conservatively-stated claim that cannot possibly be misunderstood or rhetorically persuasive. Don’t you think those types of statements are the most conducive to the crystal-clear thinking that fruitful (a)theist discourse requires?
joseph
says...Yes, I think it would be better for it. Some thoughts spring to mind:
1/ He’s human, he will make errors in judgement over how the majority of readers will interpret him.
2/ Given, in general, that he communicates clearly, and eloquently, more so than I do, it would seem somewhat hypocritical of me to complain. You may fairly counter with “In blogging he has opened himself to a wider audience, has more responsibility his choice of words, and has bought greater accountability (and level of uss alternative interpretations.
3/ An alternative interpretation seems favoured by the context, but you haven’t discussed that possibility.
4/ He may be attempting to use rhetoric. I’d prefer a drier style, but I can understand that not everyone does, and I can attempt to compensate for it. I guess the good points of rhetoric are it makes a better emotional connection, it has more emotional appeal and attempts to be more persuasive.
joseph
says...Grrr…edit fail:
2/ Given, in general, that he communicates clearly, and eloquently, more so than I do, it would seem somewhat hypocritical of me to complain. You may fairly counter with “In blogging he has opened himself to a wider audience, has more responsibility his choice of words, and has bought greater accountability (and level of criticism) upon himself”.
Peter Hurford
says...I’m popping in here mainly to subscribe to upcoming comments to keep myself informed, but also to thank you guys for the wide variety of compliments I’ve garnered throughout this thread.
You guys know why I’m busy, but I again reassure you that I definitely care, and am excited to see cl play catch up. My work would be no good if not challenged and interacted with, and you guys are good at catching my errors.
I already see I’ve got several things to reconsider and recant, and am excited to find the time to dive back in.
Ronin
says...cl wrote:
Thanks for admitting it.
cl also wrote:
Well I look forward to your analysis, but if you think your “banter” comment will not be contested you are mistaken–as it is relevant to the topic you are trying to erect. Further, the statement God is “good” is subjective in accordance to whatever “tradition” one adheres to. So, for you to say that you believe traditional monotheists believe God is good is the equivalent of saying: “Well a lot of theists believe God is omniscient.” And my reply to you would be: “Well yes cl that’s true, but there are theists that are Open Theists, Molinists, etc. Surely, you know these theological leanings lead to different avenues, right?
cl wrote:
IMO, you are running a fools errand, but hey, I look forward to being proved wrong. However, I think I could use Scripture to support my position as well.
cl
says...Ronin,
It may or may not get contested, but it’s not relevant to the topic I’m trying to dismantle.
Yes, but there are also avenues all those people *MUST* go down. None of those people will deny that God is good. They can’t.
Well then, get ready… :)
Thinking Emotions
says...Does any Abrahamic theist (for lack of a better term) believe in a deity that isn’t omniscient or omnibenevolent? They may disagree on the nuances or extent of the typical properties, but broadly speaking, aren’t these universally accepted? I’m having a hard time imagining an Abrahamic theist worshiping a dystheistic/maltheistic god, or a god that is in some way ignorant. That just doesn’t seem to compute.
I read up on open theism and one of the objections is that God is ignorant of the future since knowledge of the future is basically a square circle. This is a philosophical view of time that still permits God to be omniscient since the future is unknowable within the constraints. So, seems like the tri-omni view still applies there. Apparently WLC is a molinist, and if his views are at all representative of the entire set, then I’d say tri-omni also applies there as well.
What about the quality of the evidence in question? That’s important. How far can you really advance a theory that is only supported marginally by the evidence? Regarding your question at the end, the answer is “no,” and I would never expect you to say such a thing given your emphasis on conservatively stated claims and skepticism.
joseph
says...Hey Thinking Emotions,
Don’t/didn’t the Gnostics hold that the creator was actually bad? My knowledge is limited, but I wan’t to throw that in.
CL & Peter Hurford
Whilst I can’t say I endorse the tone, this blog:
http://blogs.nature.com/kausikdatta/2010/10/23/holy-liver-transplant-batman
Discusses some of the statiscal analysis performed in the paper:
Religiosity
Associated with Prolonged Survival in Liver Transplant Recipients (Liver Transplantation, 16: 1158-1163, 2010; DOI 10.1002/lt.22122; PMID: 20818656), by Bonaguidi et al. of the Institute of Clinical Physiology of
the National Research Council of Italy
It presents one side of the argument, and the authors aren’t able to defend themselves, but still more information.
cl
says...RE Gnostics:
They believed the creator of this earth was bad, i.e. that the God of the Bible is actually malevolent. However, they didn’t believe this was “God,” if that makes sense. AFAIK, the Gnostics believe as the Christians: that God really is good. They simply deny that the God of the Bible is God.
TE,
As far as one wishes, really. Many theories persist for a long time without any “conclusive” evidence, then, all of a sudden one year, somebody overturns the whole of science. Besides, I don’t think it’s accurate to say something like Remote Viewing is only “marginally supported” by the evidence. RV has been statistically demonstrated. There are “real” scientists who have abandoned their skepticism regarding RV. I’m not going to fully support those statements right now, but anybody can do more research on their own. The Joint Communique, Ray Hyman, Charles Honorton, Jessica Utts… there’s enough there to get good background info going.
At the end of the day, it’s like many other things: some believe, others don’t, and that’s just how it is.
Thinking Emotions
says...More on Gnostics: This is borrowed from a forum I frequent; I stumbled upon this with a bit of serendipity. I found cl’s response left a lot to be desired, so hopefully this lengthy quote covers it with more precision. My apologies in advance if this is unneeded, Joseph.
Fascinating stuff.
cl,
Fair enough. I guess I’m just trying to pull a dguller and question this as much as possible. RV has been statistically demonstrated, eh? That didn’t seem to be the case from the entry in your AP series, but admittedly it’s been a while since I’ve read it. This is pertinent since my question about quality of evidence was mostly aimed at that entry, and from Joseph’s critique, I’m not sure I’m seeing statistical demonstration.
joseph
says...Thinking Emotions
No, I didn’t know all of that! I was fairly sure it was the creator the gnostics that was bad, but I didn’t know that they regarded the God of the Old Testament as malevolent (thanks CL).
I often get it very muddled with Scientology, I often wonder if it was knowingly done.
Ronin
says...TE wrote:
Do you think an Open Theist and a Molinist hold to the same definition of what it means to be omniscient? I don’t.
I bet it doesn’t compute, since it could be you have not pursued the topic or what-have-you. But really, here is a direct quote from Richard Swinburne’s email to me,
Since he is an “Open Theist” why don’t you email him and ask him why he worships God. Though I don’t hold to that position I highly respect the man, and if his position is the correct one I can see myself switching to it.
joseph
says...As for Remote Viewing being statiscially proven, I am sure it’s possible, a cheeky quote I read today , as I started reading testing treatments“Statistics can even sometimes tell you the truth”. That quote was in criticism of Big Pharma though, not anything like Remote Viewing. It underlines how carefully statiscal analysis must be applied, and how much scope statistics offer for distortion (especially for people with Maths Allergies, like me).
As to the claim that Real Scientists have concluded Remote Viewing is real, I am certain CL is right.
I must add that if Scientific Evaluations of such phenomena support them, I am a little curious as to why Project Stargate failed, and why James Randi isn’t somewhat poorer.
Thinking Emotions
says...From their own perspectives, no. However, the definition of omniscience remains the same regardless, and that’s what I was getting at. Let me try to explain what I was saying. An open theist seemingly holds a philosophy of time which makes knowledge of the future illogical or absurd. For the same reason God can’t make square circles, God also cannot know the future. Asking an open theist, “Why can’t God know the future if he knows everything?” would be like me asking any other theist why God can’t create a square circle if he can do everything.
A molinist holds that it is possible for God to know the future (and for us to have free will) based on differing stances on free will and philosophy of time. IOW, the debate is not over whether God has omniscience, but over compatibilism and philosophy of time.
I could be wrong, or it’s totally possible that I’m only looking at this from one perspective, so please correct me as you see fit.
Yep. I spent probably twenty minutes in total reading about both, so roughly ten minutes on each. If there’s some sort of fundamental misunderstanding on my end, I don’t see it or have yet to realize it due to ignorance.
That seems to cover the omnibenevolent part. Am I missing something?
Does anyone else find his grammar and phrasing to be a bit botched here? I can’t tell what he’s trying to say. This seems to be about what God’s free will, not the free will of people. Couldn’t a molinist and an open theist both hold this view? The debate between the two camps seems to be about whether God knows what we will do with absolute certainty.
Was the question of why open theists worship God ever being discussed? Did I ask it somewhere in my earlier post, perhaps implicitly? Help me out here.
Plenty of psychics and mediums are wealthy as well, and Project Stargate failed because, like, the government is totally suppressing the truth, man. ;)
joseph
says...The James Randi comment was a reference to this, I’m pretty sure Peter Hurford pointed it out to me:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Ronin
says...TE wrote:
Okay.
Eh? Both the open theist and molinist hold God is omniscient. Yet, you just conceded that from their own perspective the definition would not be the same. Then, you went on to explain how under open theism God could not know the future but under molinism God would know the future (contingent events). Well, in open theism God would be ignorant of contingent events but in molinism He wouldn’t be. Yet, both hold God is omniscient. What am I missing here?
Look, am not saying theists do not hold God is “good.” I am saying good is in the eye of the beholder.
Sure. You had written (which now appears to be amended),
(emphasis mine)
Again, what am I missing?
Ronin
says...I had written “(which now appears to be amended)”. I withdraw the comment I misread.
cl
says...TE,
That post was just a case report, something that needs to be explained. I fail to see how naturalism can explain that case, and I felt it was something all (a)theists should be familiar with. My “RV has been statistically demonstrated” post has never been published yet, but the research I allude to is fairly commonplace. Entire books have been written on it. Does it persuade everybody? Of course not, but just because there are some people who can seemingly doubt there own existence doesn’t mean squat. There will always be doubters in the world. That’s the only thing that can’t be doubted!
LOL!
joseph
says...From what little I’ve read if the statistician was Jessica Utts the analysis should be solid.