DescentBB

So do you think an experiment demonstrating the healing power of prayer is possible? If so, then how would you design it? If not, then that's why scientists would shun prayer as an explanation.

I don't think prayer itself has healing powers, not to split hairs too fine. God is the one being petitioned to act on their behalf. But if you're going to discount prayer for healing just because it cannot be put to your impersonal test, what kind of a scientist are you? And still there is a great deal of written record on healings through prayer.

I'll bottom line it, for your sake. When the ultimate plans/goals of scientists and God coincide, I expect to see scientific proof of miraculous healings. Science and discovery as ideas are not at odds with God's purposes, but the implementation of both is in the hands of people who are in rebellion against God.

ST wrote:But if you're going to discount prayer for healing just because it cannot be put to your impersonal test, what kind of a scientist are you? And still there is a great deal of written record on healings through prayer.

The healing power of prayer hasn't been scientifically measured. Yes, I personally believe that the reason why it hasn't been measured is the simplest explanation--that it doesn't exist. I'm not denying that other explanations aren't possible, but if you think, for instance, that its effectiveness could be demonstrated with a different experiment, then let's hear about it!

I'll reiterate, since I love doing so... You, and whoever else came up with the idea of testing the "healing power of prayer" (an ignorant phrase), are content to treat an obvious interpersonal transaction as an impersonal cause-and-effect. If I didn't give you credit for sincerity, I'd swear you were just out to smear the idea of miraculous healing by any means necessary while giving it a scientific facade. = You're doing it wrong.

Sergeant Thorne concisely wrote:I'll bottom line it, for your sake. When the ultimate plans/goals of scientists and God coincide, I expect to see scientific proof of miraculous healings. Science and discovery as ideas are not at odds with God's purposes, but the implementation of both is in the hands of people who are in rebellion against God.

My question is very specific: how would you go about improving upon the experiments that have already been performed? I already know you don't like the previous ones, which is why I'm asking this question, and I already know you think scientists are in rebellion against God, which is why I'm asking this question to you.

I believe I would have to go in the direction of investigative study. I don't believe it's likely to determine an experimental scenario which when artificially set up should be expected to yield any positive results, based on a fair working knowledge of the Bible, and a little bit of knowledge about the God you hypothetically plan on poking with the stick of science in hopes of observing the reaction.

That’s actually one of the best retorts I’ve heard in a long time.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I believe I would have to go in the direction of investigative study. I don't believe it's likely to determine an experimental scenario which when artificially set up should be expected to yield any positive results, based on a fair working knowledge of the Bible, and a little bit of knowledge about the God you hypothetically plan on poking with the stick of science in hopes of observing the reaction.

This is what I mean when I say that the supernatural (as explained by most religions) isn't easily testable. Physical laws don't "mind" being tested, whereas you believe that God does.

I don't know if there have been any observational studies attempted on prayer, but studies like this are difficult because of correlations. A study a while ago showed that people who go to church are more likely to be healthy, but a lot of people think this says more about the type of people who go to church or the nonreligious benefits of going to church rather than anything religious. These kinds of studies can be difficult to interpret.

Jeff250 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I believe I would have to go in the direction of investigative study. I don't believe it's likely to determine an experimental scenario which when artificially set up should be expected to yield any positive results, based on a fair working knowledge of the Bible, and a little bit of knowledge about the God you hypothetically plan on poking with the stick of science in hopes of observing the reaction.

This is what I mean when I say that the supernatural (as explained by most religions) isn't easily testable. Physical laws don't "mind" being tested, whereas you believe that God does.

I don't know if there have been any observational studies attempted on prayer, but studies like this are difficult because of correlations. A study a while ago showed that people who go to church are more likely to be healthy, but a lot of people think this says more about the type of people who go to church or the nonreligious benefits of going to church rather than anything religious. These kinds of studies can be difficult to interpret.

I'd be tempted to define all of the supernatural as untestable. I don't know if that's 100% true, but I'd say it's close...

snoopy wrote:I'd be tempted to define all of the supernatural as untestable. I don't know if that's 100% true, but I'd say it's close...

Honestly, I think that's a cop-out. If there are measurable effects of the supernatural (e.g. a healing, where disease is gone after being observed), then it is testable. As Jeff pointed out, interpretations of the result may be difficult, but it's still testable.

viewed from another angle, Foil......doesn't a belief system start to fall apart when one requires 'proof'? In other words, most religious/supernatural models require the absolute belief of the faithful, which eliminates the element of doubt upon which any rigorous testing protocol would rest.

I would say where the supernatural touches on the natural it is evident, and can certainly be tested. Prophecy is a good example. Manipulating the supernatural, and God in particular, is another matter entirely.

We're talking about the God of the Bible, in the context of the supernatural, specifically. Anyone who can walk away from reading the Bible believing that it is dependent on the absence of proof obviously didn't pay attention to the words on the page. I've learned that faith is actually a necessity for limited minds trying to grasp that which is unlimited, but real faith must be well-founded. The Bible says that people are without excuse...

Romans 1 wrote:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I don't believe it's likely to determine an experimental scenario which when artificially set up should be expected to yield any positive results...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I would say where the supernatural touches on the natural it is evident, and can certainly be tested. Prophecy is a good example.

I'm not following you here.

You seem to be saying that the evidence is measurable, but no experiment could ever show results of that evidence...

ST, isn't your position that the supernatural cannot be tested as an experimental science but that it could be as an observational one?

Foil wrote:

snoopy wrote:I'd be tempted to define all of the supernatural as untestable. I don't know if that's 100% true, but I'd say it's close...

Honestly, I think that's a cop-out. If there are measurable effects of the supernatural (e.g. a healing, where disease is gone after being observed), then it is testable. As Jeff pointed out, interpretations of the result may be difficult, but it's still testable.

I think I would agree with Jeff that the supernatural could only be tested observationally (not experimentally). I also think that it would be very hard to even come up with an observational test that would be predictably achievable. If we ignore demons for the moment, I believe that God's driving motivation is His own glory on the grand scale - which is played out in very different ways across individuals and situations. I think it's literally impossible to know a-priori what God's specific, immediate, physical response will be to any test that you might devise - be it experimental or observational. I think that maybe if we were omniscient and could account for all variables over all of eternity we could know God's response, but in that case we'd be God. So, I think my answer is that I do think it's testable in a strictly theoretical realm. In the practical realm, there are too many variables with no way to pair them down to yield anything close to a predictable test that would amount to anything more than conjecture.

Just to throw a few wrenches in the mix:
1. I think God's primary concern is people's hearts, and their physical situation is really of quite minor consequence to Him, so tests maybe would need to center around observing what's genuinely in people's hearts and attitudes. (good luck)
2. I also think that God picks some people for salvation and others to be left to their sinful devices... so God's concern with hearts and His desire to change hearts doesn't mean that He will change all hearts.
3. The idea of a double-blind test doesn't work because in this case the acting agent has a volition, and by definition can't be made blind. Thus, ultimately the supernatural being has the power to set the outcome how ever He likes... by a myriad of means.

snoopy wrote: 2. I also think that God picks some people for salvation and others to be left to their sinful devices... so God's concern with hearts and His desire to change hearts doesn't mean that He will change all hearts.
.

Calvinism?

Yeah.

Didn't grow up that way, but my wife's Presbyterian background got me there...

The Bible says...

1 Timothy 2 wrote:... 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

With regard to the testability of the supernatural, I meant that when things which are supernatural effect the natural world, the fact that the cause is not natural ought to be testable. Certain sicknesses do not simply go away, it's impossible to know the future, ... However when you talk about experimenting on the supernatural you presume a degree of ability to control or at least initiate action from that which is supernatural. In your example, Jeff, what would make them think that closing their eyes and talking to a being who wasn't there should make people well? The answer is the Bible, and the problem is they didn't take into account the entire message before embarking on this experiment. If they had, the very same text which told them to pray for the sick would have indicated why this experiment would not work. It was an experiment in testing the rules of the Bible to see if they produced the promised effect, and they left a lot of rules out. You might as well test the Bible by breaking bread in half to see if it will multiply, ignoring the rest of the account.

Also, Snoopy, if God's primary concern is our heart, why can't our bodies be his secondary concern (I'm open to something else coming second, if there is anything)? God seemed pretty interested in making people well in the New Testament, it's just that it was always done in light of the kingdom of God.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The Bible says...

1 Timothy 2 wrote:... 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

.....

Also, Snoopy, if God's primary concern is our heart, why can't our bodies be his secondary concern (I'm open to something else coming second, if there is anything)? God seemed pretty interested in making people well in the New Testament, it's just that it was always done in light of the kingdom of God.

The Bible also contains Romans 9. I don't think that our bodies are ever really a concern of God's in-and-of themselves. I guess I'm saying that I think there's always more to it then just the state of our bodies... ultimately there's God's glory which is connected.

snoopy wrote:Yeah.

Didn't grow up that way, but my wife's Presbyterian background got me there...

Well I'll have to disagree with you there


There are too many scriptures that say that he wishes that NONE should perish.
Pure Calvinism begs the question even if you do believe. Has God chosen you, and will you be saved.

Fyi I don't believe in pure Arminianism either, I feel its a combo of both. You are "chosen" but you have freedom to accept or decline

Ahh but Cuda, remember that none can come to God of his/her own accord. And God does indded mention the "elect".

And we know that not all will be saved. I think Jesus mentioned that.

Would you as a father not choose for your child to be saved?

Your saying that God will choose who is saved and who is not saved ahead of time condeming certain people to an eternity in hell just because.


That is totally contradictory to why Christ came, and to God's nature.

It says "So God so loved the world" It doesn't say "So God so loved just a few of the world and the rest of them can go to hell"

Snoopy wrote:I don't think that our bodies are ever really a concern of God's in-and-of themselves.

If you could separate our bodies from our person, I would agree with you, but you can't. If you can separate our bodies from our life, we can end this disagreement right now.

John 10 wrote:10 The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

The Bible clearly shows the precedence of the spirit over the flesh, after all our spirits are eternal, and our flesh is temporal.

1 Cor 5 wrote:5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

That's established--I'm not trying to take away from that, but why does God go to so much trouble to heal our bodies if they're not a concern? Jesus went around healing people, not just converting them, and he had his disciples do the same. God even makes provision for it in the church. You can't go so far as to separate the glory of God from the good of his creation. That's why I say second priority--because after the first is in line, what's stopping physical healing? Is God too busy? Where is the glory of God in infirmity, physical oppression, and suffering? Paul endured it, but we're told that was a special situation--to ensure the security of the first priority.

CUDA wrote:It says "So God so loved the world" It doesn't say "So God so loved just a few of the world and the rest of them can go to hell"

Well.. you know as well as I do that ultimately it's not our job to figure out who's written in the book of Life.

We were told to go out into all nations and make disciples. period.

Only one person can crack the seals on that book and it isn't any of us.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:However when you talk about experimenting on the supernatural you presume a degree of ability to control or at least initiate action from that which is supernatural. In your example, Jeff, what would make them think that closing their eyes and talking to a being who wasn't there should make people well?

That's not what they do. In the study I'm familiar with, they asked Christian churches to pray for the patients.

But in any case, you're the one who wants to argue that the supernatural *is* testable, right?

So, Foil... Atheist yet?

Jeff250 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:However when you talk about experimenting on the supernatural you presume a degree of ability to control or at least initiate action from that which is supernatural. In your example, Jeff, what would make them think that closing their eyes and talking to a being who wasn't there should make people well?

That's not what they do. In the study I'm familiar with, they asked Christian churches to pray for the patients.

But in any case, you're the one who wants to argue that the supernatural *is* testable, right?

I was assuming it was a church doing it. Makes no difference.

I would say the supernatural should hold up to scrutiny. It's just not easy to scrutinize, which is why I suggested an investigative study being the only plausible way, Biblically speaking.

Actually isn't it "repeatable" and not necessarily "testable"?

Has always worked for me:)

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I was assuming it was a church doing it. Makes no difference.

So was your point then that we shouldn't expect the experiment to have worked because, although the people praying believed in God, the *scientists* may not have?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I would say the supernatural should hold up to scrutiny. It's just not easy to scrutinize, which is why I suggested an investigative study being the only plausible way, Biblically speaking.

Do you believe that if we looked at enough past patients, their outcomes, the extent to which they were prayed for, and did a magnificent job at removing all confounding variables, then we would find that prayer is associated with better patient outcomes?

Jeff250 wrote:Do you believe that if we looked at enough past patients, their outcomes, the extent to which they were prayed for, and did a magnificent job at removing all confounding variables, then we would find that prayer is associated with better patient outcomes?

I'd say no. I think we'd find basically no evidence of correlation. I also don't conclude that prayer is then meaningless - because I don't think the main point of prayer is outward, physical results.

CUDA wrote:Would you as a father not choose for your child to be saved?

Your saying that God will choose who is saved and who is not saved ahead of time condeming certain people to an eternity in hell just because.


That is totally contradictory to why Christ came, and to God's nature.

I think that's a fairly close summary of Romans 9. "Just because" - for His glory.

Are you sure that's contradictory to the nature of God?

Jeff250 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I was assuming it was a church doing it. Makes no difference.

So was your point then that we shouldn't expect the experiment to have worked because, although the people praying believed in God, the *scientists* may not have?

No, I was simply saying that it doesn't matter if it was a church doing it, this isn't magic--if they're operating in ignorance of the will of God, and specifically the plain words of scripture, and praying for people who are not right with God, or are not right with God themselves, then outside of some special exception it isn't going to happen. This is not my opinion--it's right there in the Bible. I know of instances where people have prayed, or been prayed for, for healing, and they weren't healed until they repented from something they were involved in, or got rid of something in their possession. There's nothing automatic about salvation, spiritual or physical.

Jeff250 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I would say the supernatural should hold up to scrutiny. It's just not easy to scrutinize, which is why I suggested an investigative study being the only plausible way, Biblically speaking.

Do you believe that if we looked at enough past patients, their outcomes, the extent to which they were prayed for, and did a magnificent job at removing all confounding variables, then we would find that prayer is associated with better patient outcomes?

I like your use of the phrase "confounding variables". It depends entirely on who's praying, and also on who is being prayed for. I believe that instances of clear miraculous healings have been and would be found, but in our generation they're going to be very few and far between in general. Church-goers like to talk about miracles that happen under the doctor's scalpel--I don't put much stock in that for a number of reasons. I believe God has mercy, but in general people in the hospital are already getting the help they're going to get from the people they went to get it from.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's established--I'm not trying to take away from that, but why does God go to so much trouble to heal our bodies if they're not a concern? Jesus went around healing people, not just converting them, and he had his disciples do the same. God even makes provision for it in the church. You can't go so far as to separate the glory of God from the good of his creation. That's why I say second priority--because after the first is in line, what's stopping physical healing? Is God too busy? Where is the glory of God in infirmity, physical oppression, and suffering? Paul endured it, but we're told that was a special situation--to ensure the security of the first priority.

Hrm. You make me think of a couple sides to the coin:

On one hand (and the tact that I was taking before): I think that the healing that we see in the New Testament pretty much always serves a larger purpose than simply making the person's body feel better - the primary purposes I can readily identify are validating the witness of Christ, and bringing people (both the saved and the witnesses) to belief in Christ.

On the other hand, God's ultimate goal is to cleanse the world of the sin and its effects - and part of that will be the restoration and perfection of our bodies. To that end, acts of healing serve as a little picture of the way that God intends to eventually do away with all sickness and pain.

My main point is that today's pain and trouble is trivial and passing in light of eternity. Think of the blind man in John 9 - In the perspective that God chose to cause this man to be blind for his whole life for that one moment where he'd be working in people's hearts, it says to me that God's priorities don't center around our afflictions for the day.

You ask where the glory of God is in infirmity, physical oppression, suffering? On one side - sometimes we see beautiful glimpses of God's provision and peace in the midst of it (I.E. Horatio Spafford). On the other side - back to Romans 9: "22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?"

Bottom line: I think I've seen a lot more people stumble over an over-emphasis on today's feeling, pains, struggles. I see a lot of people rejecting God because of trivial pains for today while ignoring the fact that Christ bore the eternal wrath of God so we wouldn't have to. When it comes to the healing of infirmities, I conclude that there are always more important factors at play, which I never would expect to practically remove. To put it another way, if I was trying to make sense of a system to when spiritual healing does and doesn't occur, whether the person was prayed for or not would be one of the earlier variables removed; not the last one remaining.