• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Always with the "Prayers"

Copernicus said:
Well, thank you for your thoughts, if not your prayers, on this sensitive issue. Suddenly, I realize that I, too, am posting in an IT (?) forum, so I obviously have no other reason to reply. I'm sure that both Guru Dawkins and Jesus would approve of your concern for your fellow human beings.
Click to expand...
Welcome to DP.
 
VINLO said:
That is precisely what you claimed. Here were your exact words:



If you meant something else, I don't know what it is, because your words were very precise.



You've moved the goalpost. Your original comment declared that prayer "does not help the psychological well being of the person being prayed for." I also addressed your argument that silent prayer without telling the other person you are praying for them is effectively only helpful to the person doing the silent prayer, and I agreed with you.

You are also correct in saying that if a person believes in the power of prayer, and is told they are being prayed for by a person, it doesn't really matter whether or not the prayers actually happen. I would say that's kind of a crappy thing to do-- people should at least follow through on what they say they will do-- but whatever.

You keep changing the conditions of prayer to fit your argument. First you claimed prayer was totally unhelpful; then you claimed that silent prayer with no indicator to the subject of the prayer is totally unhelpful; then you claimed that telling a person you are praying for them but not actually praying is helpful, but that isn't the point of your argument.

You need to pick a condition of prayer and use that as the basis of your argument.
Click to expand...

The condition was already set. Someone has to pray. If no one prays, just thinking that someone is praying is not the same thing. So a prayer must occur, and a result from that prayer must occur. That is the criteria set by those who claim prayer is effective. Without an actual prayer taking place, the claim is invalid. Thinking that a prayer was said is not the same thing as an actual prayer being said. The precision comes with using the word prayer. It either means a specific action or it doesn't.
 
devildavid said:
The condition was already set. Someone has to pray. If no one prays, just thinking that someone is praying is not the same thing. So a prayer must occur, and a result from that prayer must occur. That is the criteria set by those who claim prayer is effective. Without an actual prayer taking place, the claim is invalid. Thinking that a prayer was said is not the same thing as an actual prayer being said. The precision comes with using the word prayer. It either means a specific action or it doesn't.
Click to expand...

You still haven't defined a clear condition. Are we talking about a prayer said silently in one's mind with no declaration to the target of the prayer? Are we talking about a group gathering to pray over someone in church? Are we talking about telling someone you will pray for them?

Pick one of those conditions and then we can talk about whether or not prayer does anything, as per your claim that prayer "does not help the psychological well being of the person being prayed for."
 
VINLO said:
You still haven't defined a clear condition. Are we talking about a prayer said silently in one's mind with no declaration to the target of the prayer? Are we talking about a group gathering to pray over someone in church? Are we talking about telling someone you will pray for them?

Pick one of those conditions and then we can talk about whether or not prayer does anything, as per your claim that prayer "does not help the psychological well being of the person being prayed for."
Click to expand...

The conditions are quite clear. A prayer must take place. There must be a result connected directly to that prayer. Anything else is not a test of prayer, but a test of prayer with conditions attached.
 
devildavid said:
The conditions are quite clear. A prayer must take place. There must be a result connected directly to that prayer. Anything else is not a test of prayer, but a test of prayer with conditions attached.
Click to expand...

You made a very specific claim. You said that prayer does not help the psychological well being of the person being prayed for. I offered a case where it does. Your response was to change the conditions attached. You either need to revise your claim or accept that it was inaccurate.

Let me help you:

Prayer given to a person who values prayer has a positive psychological impact so long as they are aware of it.
 
VINLO said:
You made a very specific claim. You said that prayer does not help the psychological well being of the person being prayed for. I offered a case where it does. Your response was to change the conditions attached. You either need to revise your claim or accept that it was inaccurate.

Let me help you:

Prayer given to a person who values prayer has a positive psychological impact so long as they are aware of it.
Click to expand...

I made no claim at all. Angel claimed the general efficacy of prayer. I presented one possible condition in which prayer could take place. I asked for evidence and statistics demonstrating the efficacy of prayer. Angel responded by claiming I couldn't understand because I lack a special knowledge that he has. He accused me of cynicism. I conceded that there could be psychological benefit from thinking that prayers are being said for you. But that is not the same as claiming that the prayer itself is efficacious. Angel set the condition. He made the general claim that prayer is efficacious. He didn't set any special conditions. Even if someone thinks they are being prayed for, it is not evidence the the prayer itself is having any effect at all. The same results could occur even if no one actually prayed at all. The focus is on prayer itself, not what people think of it.
 
devildavid said:
I made no claim at all. Angel claimed the general efficacy of prayer. I presented one possible condition in which prayer could take place. I asked for evidence and statistics demonstrating the efficacy of prayer. Angel responded by claiming I couldn't understand because I lack a special knowledge that he has. He accused me of cynicism. I conceded that there could be psychological benefit from thinking that prayers are being said for you. But that is not the same as claiming that the prayer itself is efficacious. Angel set the condition. He made the general claim that prayer is efficacious. He didn't set any special conditions. Even if someone thinks they are being prayed for, it is not evidence the the prayer itself is having any effect at all. The same results could occur even if no one actually prayed at all. The focus is on prayer itself, not what people think of it.
Click to expand...

Look. At. Your. Words:

devildavid said:
Prayer does not literally cause to happen the thing that is being prayed for. It also does not help the psychological well being of the person being prayed for. My silent prayer can of comfort anyone's pain and suffering. If prayer only helps the one praying, it is a selfish act that does not accomplish its intended goal.
Click to expand...

(bold emphasis mine) How could you possibly expect someone reading what you wrote to interpret your words as meaning anything other than what they said? You very specifically declared that prayer cannot help the subject's psychological well-being. You attached no caveats to that statement. It was a blanket statement.

There are situations where prayer is efficacious to the person being prayed for, and situations where it is not efficacious for anyone except the person praying. I don't see anywhere where Angel or anyone here claimed that prayer itself is efficacious towards the subject of prayer in every single circumstance.
 
Angel said:
You really have a problem with reading comprehension. Perhaps the following post will get through to you:



The efficacy and the importance of prayer lie in the praying itself. Get it?
Now you may have no idea what I'm talking about, and this for the cynical disorder mentioned in my earliest post quoted above, if not for the reading comprehension business suggested in this reply, but you've been answered. Did you catch that? Your question has been answered.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
You seem to have a rather shallow understanding of prayer, and as a result a rather shallow view of the efficacy of prayer.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
The efficacy of prayer has chiefly to do with the process of prayer, with the mind and heart of the pray-er, not with outcomes or results in the outside world.
Click to expand...

VINLO said:
Look. At. Your. Words:



(bold emphasis mine) How could you possibly expect someone reading what you wrote to interpret your words as meaning anything other than what they said? You very specifically declared that prayer cannot help the subject's psychological well-being. You attached no caveats to that statement. It was a blanket statement.

There are situations where prayer is efficacious to the person being prayed for, and situations where it is not efficacious for anyone except the person praying. I don't see anywhere where Angel or anyone here claimed that prayer itself is efficacious towards the subject of prayer in every single circumstance.
Click to expand...

Angel made a broad claim and I challenged it. His response was that prayer was always efficacious no matter what I think. What does efficacy mean?
 
devildavid said:
Angel made a broad claim and I challenged it. His response was that prayer was always efficacious no matter what I think. What does efficacy mean?
Click to expand...

I don't see that Angel is claiming prayer is always efficacious in providing the fulfillment of the prayer's request. He is arguing that the real importance of prayer is in its benefits besides just 'having the prayer answered'.

Prayer is typically said with the intent and belief that the specific request in the prayer will come to pass. Often that is not the case, and so I agree with your assessment that prayer is not totally efficacious absent its intended request. However, one component of prayer's intent is to help in a broader sense, even if the precise request is not answered, and so in that sense, prayer is efficacious.

Nevertheless, you countered his broad statement with an equally broad (and erroneous) statement, and then when I called you on it, you just changed the conditions instead of modifying the claim.
 
VINLO said:
I don't see that Angel is claiming prayer is always efficacious in providing the fulfillment of the prayer's request. He is arguing that the real importance of prayer is in its benefits besides just 'having the prayer answered'.

Prayer is typically said with the intent and belief that the specific request in the prayer will come to pass. Often that is not the case, and so I agree with your assessment that prayer is not totally efficacious absent its intended request. However, one component of prayer's intent is to help in a broader sense, even if the precise request is not answered, and so in that sense, prayer is efficacious.

Nevertheless, you countered his broad statement with an equally broad (and erroneous) statement, and then when I called you on it, you just changed the conditions instead of modifying the claim.
Click to expand...

No, my claim was not erroneous. Angel claimed that prayer always had what he calls "spiritual efficacy". I didn't change any conditions. In your case, you can't demonstrate that the prayer itself caused the psychological benefit, which was always my claim. I conceded the possibility of psychological benefit of believing you are being prayed for, even without actual prayers taking place. Angel insists that prayer always has a positive result by its very nature. My point is that whether or not an actual prayer takes place does not matter. In other words, prayer is not special nor does it carry any special benefits. I guess this all depends on what you think actual prayer is.
 
devildavid said:
No, my claim was not erroneous. Angel claimed that prayer always had what he calls "spiritual efficacy".
Click to expand...

And you took not a single moment to clarify what he meant, but instead leapt into a claim you couldn't actually support based on a definition of your own construction.

Angel's argument of the "spiritual efficacy" of prayer is that one of prayer's intentions is to become a more spiritually connected person. Therefore, practicing prayer in almost any format will accomplish this goal, and it is efficacious for that reason. Personally I think that's a little bit too broad and needs some reigning in, namely that prayer is often for specific things to happen that do not come to pass, and not purely for spiritual connectivity, so prayer can't be totally efficacious, but his point stands nonetheless.

devildavid said:
I didn't change any conditions. In your case, you can't demonstrate that the prayer itself caused the psychological benefit, which was always my claim. I conceded the possibility of psychological benefit of believing you are being prayed for, even without actual prayers taking place.
Click to expand...

I gave you a very specific example where prayer causes great psychological benefit, one that I've seen myself: prayer groups in a church. People are actually praying for each other in that situation. That act of prayer brings groups closer together, provides psychological comfort and support, and imparts peace upon the recipient.

devildavid said:
Angel insists that prayer always has a positive result by its very nature.
Click to expand...

You wasted no time jumping right past his point and tacking on meaning of your own. Prayer always has a positive result because one of its purposes is to be (or feel) spiritually connected, and prayer accomplishes that purpose when prayer takes place, therefore prayer is in at least one aspect efficacious.

devildavid said:
My point is that whether or not an actual prayer takes place does not matter. In other words, prayer is not special nor does it carry any special benefits. I guess this all depends on what you think actual prayer is.
Click to expand...

bold emphasis mine Perhaps you should have clarified that before responding and wasting everyone's time by running in circles.
 
VINLO said:
And you took not a single moment to clarify what he meant, but instead leapt into a claim you couldn't actually support based on a definition of your own construction.

Angel's argument of the "spiritual efficacy" of prayer is that one of prayer's intentions is to become a more spiritually connected person. Therefore, practicing prayer in almost any format will accomplish this goal, and it is efficacious for that reason. Personally I think that's a little bit too broad and needs some reigning in, namely that prayer is often for specific things to happen that do not come to pass, and not purely for spiritual connectivity, so prayer can't be totally efficacious, but his point stands nonetheless.



I gave you a very specific example where prayer causes great psychological benefit, one that I've seen myself: prayer groups in a church. People are actually praying for each other in that situation. That act of prayer brings groups closer together, provides psychological comfort and support, and imparts peace upon the recipient.



You wasted no time jumping right past his point and tacking on meaning of your own. Prayer always has a positive result because one of its purposes is to be (or feel) spiritually connected, and prayer accomplishes that purpose when prayer takes place, therefore prayer is in at least one aspect efficacious.



bold emphasis mine Perhaps you should have clarified that before responding and wasting everyone's time by running in circles.
Click to expand...

So you need to explain both what spiritual and prayer mean and avoid using words like psychological, which have nothing to do with either one. Claiming that prayer always works is in effect trying to make that part of the definition of prayer, but it is not providing evidence of particular things called prayer and spirituality, and explaining what they are and how they function.
 
devildavid said:
So you need to explain both what spiritual and prayer mean and avoid using words like psychological, which have nothing to do with either one. Claiming that prayer always works is in effect trying to make that part of the definition of prayer, but it is not providing evidence of particular things called prayer and spirituality, and explaining what they are and how they function.
Click to expand...

Prayer helps the praying person, albeit in superficial ways. For example, a feeling of helplessness can be diverted through prayer. Suddenly he who prays feels they are not alone, and thus no longer helpless. But sending prayers via the Internet does not help anyone else in the least bit unless the person the prayers are sent to believes said prayers will benefit them. If they do, then I guess it does.
 
calamity said:
Prayer helps the praying person, albeit in superficial ways. For example, a feeling of helplessness can be diverted through prayer. Suddenly he who prays feels they are not alone, and thus no longer helpless. But sending prayers via the Internet does not help anyone else in the least bit unless the person the prayers are sent to believes said prayers will benefit them. If they do, then I guess it does.
Click to expand...

What is prayer?
 
devildavid said:
What is prayer?
Click to expand...

Talking to one's hands. :)


Seriously: prayers are literally a prayer: a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship. We throw then out hoping that something which gives a damn hears us.
 
devildavid said:
So you need to explain both what spiritual and prayer mean and avoid using words like psychological, which have nothing to do with either one.
Click to expand...

You claimed that prayer has no psychological benefit. I offered an example where it does. You were the one who introduced psychological impact into the discussion. Your claim was provably wrong.

devildavid said:
Claiming that prayer always works is in effect trying to make that part of the definition of prayer, but it is not providing evidence of particular things called prayer and spirituality, and explaining what they are and how they function.
Click to expand...

Spirituality: a realm pertaining to or effecting the human soul or spirit or divine nature as opposed to physical nature.
Prayer: deliberate communication, invocation, or act intended to develop harmony and rapport with a spiritual object of worship; a solemn request for help or expression of thanks to said object of worship.

Now, before you get hung up on whether a spiritual realm exists, when it comes to measuring prayer's efficacy, it doesn't matter. We're not talking about whether a spiritual realm is real and even provable, we're talking about whether or not prayer does anything. Here are the two questions we can use to measure prayer: Does it do work? Does it do its intended work (is it efficacious)?

Now, prayer comes in many forms, just like exercise. Some of those forms will do more work than other forms, just like exercise. Praying in my mind alone and telling nobody does do work; many people who pray report prayer bringing them peace, clarity, or insight. So something is happening. Is it the intended work? Well, if I pray, I am building rapport with my object of worship, which is prayer's primary intent, so yes, it is in that part efficacious. Now, if my prayer is a specific request for my object of worship to enact change in the world, then no, statistically speaking there is no evidence that prayer, by itself, enacts change through divine intervention.

They key there is prayer enacting change through divine intervention. If someone is sick with cancer and I come to their hospital bed every day and pray with then, there is no reliable evidence that God is going to hear me and heal them as I request. However, prayer can still enact change through its own impact on individuals. Me coming and praying with that person helps them feel more connected to me and their object of worship, and provides a form of social and emotional contact that only prayer can offer. All of this reduces stress in very measurable ways. The action of prayer reducing the cancer patient's stress also enables their healing process. They may get better, they may not-- but prayer is certainly helping in that case, not hurting.

Is it efficacious in the sense that God is stepping in and healing them? No. Is prayer's intent to help? Yes. Is it helping with the healing process precisely as intended? No. Is it helping? Yes. Is it building rapport with the object of worship? Yes. Are prayer's effects measurable? Yes.

I hope that provides sufficient clarity for you.
 
VINLO said:
You claimed that prayer has no psychological benefit. I offered an example where it does. You were the one who introduced psychological impact into the discussion. Your claim was provably wrong.



Spirituality: a realm pertaining to or effecting the human soul or spirit or divine nature as opposed to physical nature.
Prayer: deliberate communication, invocation, or act intended to develop harmony and rapport with a spiritual object of worship; a solemn request for help or expression of thanks to said object of worship.

Now, before you get hung up on whether a spiritual realm exists, when it comes to measuring prayer's efficacy, it doesn't matter. We're not talking about whether a spiritual realm is real and even provable, we're talking about whether or not prayer does anything. Here are the two questions we can use to measure prayer: Does it do work? Does it do its intended work (is it efficacious)?

Now, prayer comes in many forms, just like exercise. Some of those forms will do more work than other forms, just like exercise. Praying in my mind alone and telling nobody does do work; many people who pray report prayer bringing them peace, clarity, or insight. So something is happening. Is it the intended work? Well, if I pray, I am building rapport with my object of worship, which is prayer's primary intent, so yes, it is in that part efficacious. Now, if my prayer is a specific request for my object of worship to enact change in the world, then no, statistically speaking there is no evidence that prayer, by itself, enacts change through divine intervention.

They key there is prayer enacting change through divine intervention. If someone is sick with cancer and I come to their hospital bed every day and pray with then, there is no reliable evidence that God is going to hear me and heal them as I request. However, prayer can still enact change through its own impact on individuals. Me coming and praying with that person helps them feel more connected to me and their object of worship, and provides a form of social and emotional contact that only prayer can offer. All of this reduces stress in very measurable ways. The action of prayer reducing the cancer patient's stress also enables their healing process. They may get better, they may not-- but prayer is certainly helping in that case, not hurting.

Is it efficacious in the sense that God is stepping in and healing them? No. Is prayer's intent to help? Yes. Is it helping with the healing process precisely as intended? No. Is it helping? Yes. Is it building rapport with the object of worship? Yes. Are prayer's effects measurable? Yes.

I hope that provides sufficient clarity for you.
Click to expand...

No clarity, just made up nonsense. Prayer's effects are not measurable in any way because there is no way to establish a causal link between prayer and results. I am talking about prayer by itself, not human interaction.
 
devildavid said:
No clarity, just made up nonsense. Prayer's effects are not measurable in any way because there is no way to establish a causal link between prayer and results. I am talking about prayer by itself, not human interaction.
Click to expand...

Did you read ANY of what VINLO said?

There doesn't need to be any causal link with results in order for prayer to have a powerful effect on someone... Just the mere ACT of praying can produce powerful and positive results, whether there is a God hearing them or not...
 
Angel said:
What do you think? I don't think so. Remember the long rutabaga business between CharisRose and him?
Click to expand...

I sure do; that was great stuff... painful, but great.

Hopefully my comment got read; I kept it much shorter than VINLO did.
 
gfm7175 said:
Did you read ANY of what VINLO said?

There doesn't need to be any causal link with results in order for prayer to have a powerful effect on someone... Just the mere ACT of praying can produce powerful and positive results, whether there is a God hearing them or not...
Click to expand...

Yes, to demonstrate the efficacy of prayer there does need to be a causal link between two things: an actual prayer and an actual result. You present a claim with no evidence or definitions. Show me what the ACT of praying is and show me the powerful and positive results and demonstrate that it is the prayer itself that caused the results. Also show that it is unique to this thing you call the ACT of prayer.
 
devildavid said:
Yes, to demonstrate the efficacy of prayer there does need to be a causal link between two things: an actual prayer and an actual result.
Click to expand...
A 'result' doesn't have to be a "yes" response... A 'result' doesn't even have to be a response at all... The comfort that praying brings someone can be a 'result'... It results in them being more calm and collected.

devildavid said:
You present a claim with no evidence or definitions. Show me what the ACT of praying is
Click to expand...
One typically gets taught to put their hands together, bow their head, and communicate with God, but those actions aren't even necessary. One need only direct their thoughts towards God to pray. There are more specifics as to how one ought to pray, but that's not important here.

devildavid said:
and show me the powerful and positive results and demonstrate that it is the prayer itself that caused the results. Also show that it is unique to this thing you call the ACT of prayer.
Click to expand...
Your request is impossible. Religion doesn't make use of proofs. It only makes use of supporting evidence, and is faith based. The supporting evidence for the power of prayer is there, however, you don't find it to be convincing. The supporting evidence for prayer being complete hooey is also there, and that's the evidence that you find to be convincing.
 
devildavid said:
Yes, to demonstrate the efficacy of prayer there does need to be a causal link between two things: an actual prayer and an actual result. You present a claim with no evidence or definitions. Show me what the ACT of praying is and show me the powerful and positive results and demonstrate that it is the prayer itself that caused the results. Also show that it is unique to this thing you call the ACT of prayer.
Click to expand...

Proving prayer "works" is easy because those goal posts are on wheels. Take the obvious. God cannot make limbs grow back. But, yet, with enough prayer--I say that tongue in cheek--he can create enough electro-mechanical geniuses to design artificial limbs which function nearly as well as the real thing.

And, that is the problem with the whole goddidit argument. If I wanted to, I could argue god did it all, including rehabilitate raping Ben so that he could beat dancing Cam on national TV.
 
gfm7175 said:
A 'result' doesn't have to be a "yes" response... A 'result' doesn't even have to be a response at all... The comfort that praying brings someone can be a 'result'... It results in them being more calm and collected.


One typically gets taught to put their hands together, bow their head, and communicate with God, but those actions aren't even necessary. One need only direct their thoughts towards God to pray. There are more specifics as to how one ought to pray, but that's not important here.


Your request is impossible. Religion doesn't make use of proofs. It only makes use of supporting evidence, and is faith based. The supporting evidence for the power of prayer is there, however, you don't find it to be convincing. The supporting evidence for prayer being complete hooey is also there, and that's the evidence that you find to be convincing.
Click to expand...

Evidence is all about causal links. A happens and causes B. There is no evidence of this thing you call prayer as something which effects something. There is evidence of something called temperature that effects the structure of water molecules. See the difference? There is zero evidence for prayer.
 
devildavid said:
Evidence is all about causal links. A happens and causes B. There is no evidence of this thing you call prayer as something which effects something. There is evidence of something called temperature that effects the structure of water molecules. See the difference? There is zero evidence for prayer.
Click to expand...

I found the bold below to be interesting.

The largest study, from the 2006 STEP project, found no significant differences in patients recovering from heart surgery whether the patients were prayed for or not. The patients who knew they were receiving prayers did experience slightly higher recovery complications, possibly due to chance and the added anxiety or pressure caused from the expectations from the prayers. However, one of the authors of the study emphasized that this study did not say anything about the power of prayer itself.[5] Dr. Fred Rosner, an authority on Jewish medical ethics, and others have expressed doubt that prayer could ever be subject to empirical analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom