In regard to the first three stipulations that you offer in support of your view, we can respond with "facts" of our own.
You claim that :
- It does not matter who prays.-It does not matter if we pray to God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra or any other human god.-It does not matter what we pray about.
I won't dispute the given designations in your second point since I see all of the offered names as possible names for God, depending on where and when the person lived, how they had been trained in Spirituality, and the particular environment they were/are surrounded by. It is much more important to me to know if these people were/are sincere in their search for a higher power, and less important what names they may refer to that Power as. But I certainly disagree with your unsubstantiated claim that it doesn't matter, as though you are simply negating all those possibilities out of hand. How could you, as an unbeliever, know what would, or would not matter, since you are incapable of offering a prayer to any of them? Without any genuine experience, just what is your claim based on?
Your first and third stipulations, on the other hand, I would dispute, if I hadn't already spent over a hundred manuscript pages doing just that, and clearly showing that it does indeed matter who is praying, as well as what they pray about. There is no reason to re-examine the same matters all over again. If you are uncertain what I'm talking about, just re-read the section above which is headed "The Non-Supporting Scriptures". So once again, the questions remain, "On just what facts are you basing these arrogant statements, and how could you possibly know that nothing has happened in response to any prayer prayed anywhere?". For an individual who claims not to believe in a higher power, you certainly are trying very hard to prove your own omniscience, a concept I'm just not buying.
The next paragraph in your argument is yet another striking instance (despite its general redundancy) of how you try to substitute your own personal opinion, and examples that lack any sense of certainty, for what you then claim as "proof", or "fact" in your articles. I will include an excerpt of this paragraph, so that anyone reading this has no need (after an initial verification) to keep flipping back and forth between our pages.
"If we perform scientific, double-blind tests on prayer, and if the prayers involve something concrete and measurable (for example, healing people with cancer), we know that there is zero effect from prayer. Every single "answered prayer" is nothing more than a coincidence. Both scientific experiments and your everyday observations of the world show this to be the case every single time."
Since, as I stated earlier, I have already answered the argument you offer, yet once again, in the first part of this paragraph, we can begin with the statement you make at the end of the first sentence, "we know that there is zero effect from prayer". And you would know this...how? I mean, your statement is quite clear. "We know" is another way of saying, "we possess the knowledge", and "zero effect" is another way of saying "no effect" which implies "anywhere, in any way, of any kind". Wow, if I was to take that as stated, then you know more than any other human being that ever lived, past or present. Truly, you are the omniscient one, and I have finally met the god that I have been searching for, for so long now. Of course, this brings your "proof" crashing down around your omnipotent ankles, since your argument is not that you are a god, but that there isn't any God.
In any scientific experiment that I have heard of, that is even remotely similar to the ones you suggest a little further on in your argument, the practitioners realize, even if you don't, that they have to allow for an error of roughly 5% (even more in many cases), in order that the placebo effect can be accounted for. Since you claim that you have absolute knowledge that the experiments you mention were 100% accurate in proving that "answered prayer" was a myth, then I have to conclude, that in the absence of any answered prayers at all, what those experiments actually seem to prove, is the existence of a Being of such magnitude and amazing power, that he could mask His existence at will, in absolutely every case where it may be called into question. It would seem that what your statements prove, is that God exists , but that He was just unaware that He should have allowed for the placebo effect. I suppose that would be because even though God could create an entire universe by speaking, He still wouldn't understand modern medicine. Lol.
Well, I can't verify, or disprove the first example that you supply. This is simply because your "link" merely takes me to a page where I could actually read the article in question only if I was willing to subscribe to, or purchase from, the "Boston Globe", the piece that you refer to. I am not prepared to do either, but neither am I willing to accept your word for anything that you can't verify in a more acceptable manner.
The second "article" that you provide a link to, returns a 404 error, which means that no article of that nature exists at the location given. At this point, I must admit to being quite disappointed in the supposed supports for your already indefensible position.
Now in your third attempt at providing support, there actually does exist, the article by which you choose to do so. That is a good start. However, the first comment you make is blatantly false, and I am left wondering if you thought that any Christian who might read this would be just too stupid to notice. Here is your comment:
"In this article we find an amazing quote where theologians and religious leaders declare that prayer has no actual effect:"
I have highlighted the part of your comment with which I take exception, and a quick look at the paragraph that you are quoting will show us why:
"Religious leaders will breathe a sigh of relief at the news that so-called intercessory prayer is medically ineffective. In a large and much touted scientific study, one group of patients was told that strangers would pray for them, a second group was told strangers might or might not pray for them, and a third group was not prayed for at all. The $2.4 million study found that the strangers' prayers did not help patients' recovery."
You will notice that nowhere in this paragraph given above do we see anything about religious leaders declaring that prayer has no actual effect. What the paragraph does state is that the writer of the article "feels" that religious leaders will breath a sigh of relief, when they discover that prayer is "medically ineffective", a statement that is in itself refuted later in the same article where it states:"The news from science will not lead religious people to stop praying for others. Prayers are expressions of empathy that strengthen a caring community and bring comfort to those who are suffering. Comfort in this context undoubtedly has therapeutic health benefits." (Emphasis mine.)
And maybe, it is this "comfort" that they receive, which is the very answer to prayer that you say doesn't exist. I would be interested to know how you feel such a "spiritual" benefit could ever be tested for through scientific means that are designed to work only with the physical realm. Let me save you the trouble of such mental exertion by telling you here and now that it just isn't possible, which is why your entire suggestion that we "statistically analyze prayer" simply, does not hold water.
It will also serve to prove your error, in citing this article as support for your position, if we take a look at the last paragraph in the piece you refer to. Obviously the writer is demonstrating his own sense of the "limitations" of science when he writes:
"We should note that the impetus for this recent research has come almost entirely from scientists, not from religious leaders. It seems that no credible theologian has been involved in planning, directing or even consulting on such studies. But scientists who conduct research on religious practice should at least consult reputable theologians. Had they done so to begin with a considerable amount of money could have been saved. Scientists who undertake the work of theologians are as reckless as theologians who pretend to be scientists." (Emphasis mine.)
The entire next paragraph in your "proof" is simply a restating of that which you have already claimed, and which we have proven to be in error."This is a remarkable example of "positive spin" -- religious leaders are "breathing a sigh of relief" because prayer has been shown to be meaningless. The fact that prayer is a total waste of time does not matter to them. It does not matter that all of Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible have been proven completely false." (Emphasis mine.)
Each of the three items I have highlighted above are examples of gross exaggeration at best, and deliberate attempts at deception at worst. And even the statement about religious leaders "breathing a sigh of relief" is nothing more than the writer's opinion, since as the article itself makes quite clear, no reputable theologians were consulted during this "experiment". So how could he possibly know for certain that theologians were in any way relieved by the results of a study that they never took part in? It appears that up to this point at least, all we have are exaggeration and opinion, but no solid proof of any kind. Maybe we will find some when we resume tomorrow.
