₦airaland Forum

@huxley,

huxley:
Pardon me, but you are making an elementary philosophical mistake. Firstly, I did not say evolution implies atheism. The Theory of Evolution (TTE) is a scientific theory that explains the observed changes in lifeforms. Atheism is a philosophical position - it is the lack of a belief in god. You are doing strawmen arguments - mischaracterising my position and then trying to shoot the strawman down.

It is usually the cop-out for atheists to cover with the cry of strawmen, but such cliches are now redundant. Dawkins uses this silly antics so well when he finds his arguements untennable. The whole strain of argument so far has been simply to try and use the same atheistic philosophy to "prove" the assumption that theism is a negative worldview - and that is what I have dealt with: so no strawmen there.

huxley:
Lets make it clear, TTE does NOT imply atheism. If it were so, the Catholic Church, Church of England, etc would not have endorse it.

This is your mistake - the Catholic Church and Church of England are not endorsing the atheistic arguments built around TTE - that should be made clear from the onset. Hint again: earlier, I noted that theists do not argue against changes in living organism - what is philosophically untennable is to hold therefore that TTE "disproves" theistic core values. That, my dear, is what many people who shlepp this idea have been doing.

huxley:
It is simply a scientific theory that makes not appeal to the metaphysical.

And yet, the metaphysical is not an "inferior" field of study.

huxley:
I have read a number of books in evolution theory, none of which make no mention of the existence of god (except to say that it was once believed that lifeforms was created by god)

. . . which ideology has been unhealthily driven to such proportions today to make it sound as if TTE "disproves" theism.

huxley:
Further, no were in this post have I advance an argument for atheism. Atheism draws from many philosophical and scienctific positions. In fact, it is the convergence of the different lines scientific evidence, as these conflict with the theistic narrative, that makes the position for atheism so strong. To be sure, arguments for atheism had existed long before TTE, and TTE only made it a stronger philosophical position.

So who's been doing the brainwashing. . . and upon what basis? Pardon me, huxley, I see this reaction as rather laughable. Atheism, no matter where it draws from, does not "disprove" theism - and the gist of this thread made a case against Christianity on "brainwashing" - please tell me if that is a rational attitude.

huxley:
Now, why don't you take umbrage at cosmology and the theory of gravity. Remember that these theories too were once rejected by the church, with the persecution of Galileo, Copernicus and the burning of Bruno.

You assume a very weak presumption when discussing with people, huxley - and I don't find that kind of prejudice ethical or healthy. The "church" may have persecuted Galileo and others - and the case may be made that rationalists are still in the business of berating whatever views are not in consonance with their position. To put up a clenched fist with such indicators does not mean that theists are averse to intelligent enquiries.

huxley:
But do the theories of cosmology imply atheism? If not,why not. Why single out TTE?

I haven't migrated to other theories for the simple reason that the TTE was one of the basic points of reference in your idea of a campaign of this brainwashing. It does not mean that I am not aware of several other theories, and to be frantically throwing words all over the place suggests to me that you still do not have your water together.

huxley:
To repeat, I am not making an argument to atheism here, but was challenging the view that learning about evolution amounted to brainwashing.

That is precisely what I have been trying to point out all along. Dear huxley, ask yourself once again: WHY did you set up this thread, if it was for any other reason than to castigate theists as "brainwashing" the public? Reading through your strain of argument points to just one fact: a push for atheism by the attempt to represent Christianity in bad light. If you had no intentions whatsoever as such, WHY this thread?

huxley:
If it is brainwashing, so would learning about gravity, cosmology, germs, geology, etc, etc.

Lol. . . in what terms do you compare those with these:

so teaching kids at school about evolution isnt brain washing?
telling kids that its ok to be gay isnt brainwashing?
telling your kids huxley,  that God (or in your case god) doesnt exist isnt brainwashing?

huxley:
BTW, the discovery of cosmology radically contradicted the narrative provided in the bible. The bible presents an earth-centre view of the universe, with the earth as the central abode for god's beloved creatures. Copernicus and Galileo radically overturned this view, to the chagrin of the churches. So if learning about TTE is brainwashing, so too must be cosmology.

Please kindly outline how the Bible presents what you allege, thank you.

huxley:
I take it, from your highlighted comments above that you accept TTE as the best explanation for the observed change, correct?

Don't be too fast there, huxleylol. The TTE is a model for change in living organisms; however, my concern is simply this: is it an adequate model to explain the origin of those organisms? There's a reason why I ask this question - subsequently I shall point it out to you.

@Africankel,

I'm not so sure that the many ideas emanating from your group is actually sound. As earlier, I may not agree with some, but that doesn't give me a licence to disparage anyone. However, in sharing my views, here's what I'm persuaded may not actually hold true:

Africankel:
Get rid of some of those so called Christians songs… they sound like what God would say…the question is…Did God really say them?

Songs reflect what we say to God, not what God sings to man. There's no reason why we should be unduely burdened with an idea as to whether God said anything in our songs.

Africankel:
The dove should not be used to symbolise the Holy Spirit, it is an insult on His personality,

The Holy Spirit Himself inspired the Scriptures - in it He told us that He came as a dove. There should be no quarrels in the fact that He used the dove as a symbol of Himself when He descended upon Christ (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22 and John 1:32). To argue that the dove is an insult to His Personality is petty and childish. If He used the dove as His symbol in Scripture, what is the biff with that?

Africankel:
Songs: Because a song sounds nice doesn’t make it true, Listen, Christianity is more than show business, Christianity is a life of the supernatural, A life we chart with the confession of our lips.
Let’s look at one of these songs, I SURRENDER ALL. By Judson W. Van DeVenter
All to Jesus I surrender, All to Him I freely give:
I will ever love and trust Him, In His presence daily live.
I surrender all.

This is a very nice song, but I tell you, it's not a song for Christians, It a song for someone who is about to give his life to Christ.
For a Christian singing this song, he is declaring himself a rebel.

Lol. . . That song by Judson W. Van DeVenter did not make him a rebel. Let's not be over-reactive and interprete issues they way they were never intended. This is the sort of thing that produces damage to knowledge instead of contributing to factual knowledge. Imagine how many people would have heard such a conclusion and gone away with the idea that the composer was a rebel when the Spirit of God birthed that song in his heart. What could be further from the truth?

It pays to be balanced when we hold certain views. Polarized assumptions only does more damage to a person's cause.

@m_nwankow,

Appreciate your clarifications. I just wondered if I was reading you wrongly somewhere - and I'm sure some will have a few comments to make after perusing your entries.

Thanks again.

Calm down. When you read isues, try to lay aside any prejudices and you'll see my point. let me help:

bawomolo:
personal opinion unsupported by facts.

Okay, that's what many people are now recognizing about atheistic evolutionary thinkers (which I clearly stated earlier). But I need to add something for clarity: not all atheists are dogmatic ^{(*sheena, clear now?)}

bawomolo:
investigate and interprete what using a 2000 yr old bible? or what theist philosophies are we talking about here.

Lol. . . did you take the time to read what I stated? Here again:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=171358.msg2802820#msg2802820 date=1221465215]We note that theism is not science as well, but rather a worldview that tries to investigate, understand and interprete experiences in our world which most scientific models of enquiry are unable to decipher.[/quote]The key word there is "experiences". Please understand that in view of theism being discussed here as a worldview, it meets with other worldviews in trying to understand experiences within our world. If you had to invite other worldviews on this question of experience, what would they say?

Let me give you a few examples: Naturalism, Rationalism and Humanism - all expressions of atheistic thinking. In the question of knowledge by experience, we know that theism provides an open readiness to seek to understand reality in investigating the experiences of man. But does Rationalism welcome such openness and model for such investigations? No. How is that possible? Because the very core understanding of Rationalism immediately disqualifies that worldview from this kind of enquiry.

So, what is Rationalism? As there is a philosophical dimension to theism (The Philosophy of Religion), it is only fair to seek a philosophical definition of Rationalism. Here are a few:

Rationalism:

[list][list][li]Dictionary.com - "the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience"[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]YourDictionary.com - "the doctrine that knowledge comes from the intellect in itself without aid from the senses; intellectualism"[/li][/list][/list]

There are other definitions as well, undoubtedly - I urge you to look them up and see if there is any significant departure from the above. However, because these worldviews (Rationalism, Humanism and Naturalism) are not interested in knowledge involving experiences in the real world, do they provide a better model in this enquiry?

huxley:
BTW, some of the best evolutionary biologist have been theists. Believing in evolution is NOT mutually exclusive with theism. Check out these guys;

Dr. Francis Colins
Kenneth Miller
Daniel Fairbanks


and many more.

Actually, I appreciate the offer even though I'm quite familiar with those names (can't miss them if you had to sit in a Philosophy of Science class). However, I'm one stubborn girl who argues yet again that the theory of evolution does not "prove" either theism or atheism. Whatever core values are appended to either of those worldviews, what can be said with some degree of confidence is that neither theism nor atheism is science. The theory of evolution and other theories may be used to explain the phenomena of our observable world; but I haven't found any argument in the market place that convinces me of the idea that either worldviews is "proven" by any theory.

huxley:
How do you think thet are able to accept the theory of evolution and still maintain a theistic belief?

Humbly, I cannot judge them based on whatever reasons helped them to maintain their cconvictions. My explanations above as to properly understanding either worldviews in their context highlights accentuates very point.

huxley:

My preciction is that you will not offer any answers to my questions above. If that is the case, it will not be because you do not know, or are unable to answer them. It will almost invariably be because it will cause a dissonance in your worldview. It is not untypical for people facing such dissonance to completely avoid the issues. I KNOW thatt this is what will happen to you, alas. BUT I woud love to be wrong.

And so you are wrong. I initially wanted to let your passions go unnoticed; but so you don't mistake that for any inability on my part to answer your questions, that is why I had to oblige you and set things in their proper contexts.

Shalom.

@huxley,

huxley:
Since you did not get i, the point I was making was that evolution is a well attested scientic fact, as much as plate tectonic, gravity, germ theory of disease, etc. So if you call the teaching of the theory of evolution brainwashing, so too is the teaching of Newtonian gravity, germ theory of disease, geology etc.

You missed it yet again, lol. None of those disciplines are to be interpreted as "atheism". Since you're fiercely polarized against the core values of theism (particularly the Christian faith), would it make sense to argue that atheism should be taught to anyone? Atheism is not science - rationalists who get these issues mixed up have many times assumed this mirage and that is why they are so restless in their campaigns against theism. To argue for atheism is clearly on par with the brainwashing you deploy.

huxley:
Many people (not only creationist) do not really understand the meaning of he word theory in the scientific sense. Simply said, a theory is an explantion of an observed fact.

Agreed, and we should understand that a theory does not necessarily pass for a fact. This distinction is what is often missed by those who allude that the "theory of evolution is a fact"; on the contrary, it is only an "explanation" of a set of principles.

huxley:
So the theory of evolution explains the observed facts of generational change in living things. That there is and have been change is indisputable. Now how would you explain the change?

Lol. . . huxley, you are mixing issues up here. No one is arguing here about "change". The point rather is that some people have built arguments round the theory of evolution to make it synonymous with atheism! That is the core issue here. When you pursue the implication of either worldviews (theism and atheism), you find that Christian theism does not argue against change in living organisms; whereas, we have often heard people argue that the theory of evolution "proves" the non-existence of God! That is the "brainwashing" that needs to be evaluated.

huxley:
OK, let me challenge you. let me ask you the following questions;

1) Do you know what dinosaurs are and what became of them?

2) Do you know what fossils are? What is the geological column?

3) Can you explain why the fossils of modern mammals are never found in the same rocks as those of dinosaurs

4) How come there are no fossils of multicellular animals before about 500 million years ago?

The answers to these questions are facts which are indisputable in the scientific community. Just like the facts of gravity, germs causing disease etc are not disputed.

I would not be so polarized if I were you. Just the 4th question already presents a huge problem for the atheistically inclined thinker - and that is: where did life come from?

However, rather than project answers which are held by some majority among scientists, it would wiser to understand two things:

(a) geological data are variously interpreted and there is no singularly held opinion across board on that;
(b) the arguments at the end of the day does not present atheism - rather, it leaves a basic question that rationalism has not answered: the question of creation - where did matter come from?

huxley:
So to explain these facts, scientist formulate a hypothesis and tes the hypothesis against the facts. If the hypohesis continuously passes the test, then it is taken as a theory. Hence, the theory of evolution (or the theory of the change of lifeforms)

Evolution is not to be mistaken for atheism. I constantly need to make that point very clear so that one may now understand why your highlighted query still mixes issues here:

huxley:
OK, my challenge to you is this - Can you devise a theory that if tested against the facts (change of lifeform) would pass without a single violation?

The facts do not "prove" atheism. If it does, then I'll give you my own model - well tested and something you may never have considered.

huxley:
Could we collaborate and write a scientific paper, refuting or amending the existing theory?

Possibly. Why? For the simple reason that these theories have often been amended. Let me drop you a few hints:

In the philosophy of evolutionary science(s), we all know that Darwin is today a household name in that field of enquiry. However, he was not the first to hold the evolutionary model of explaining our observable world. Meanwhile, several names were are worth mentioning as progenitors of the Darwinian model - people like Sir Julian Sorell Huxley. What is common among this school of evolutionary thinkers is the mechanism by which evolution is to be explained. That mechanism is kown as "natural selection".

However, there were also evolutionary biologists who had a different mechanism - an example is Richard Benedict Goldschmidt who was more inclined to advocate a model known as evolution by "saltation". Of course, his name rings a bell for his advanced model of macroevolution through macromutations that is popularly known as the "Hopeful Monster" hypothesis.

My dear huxley, I do not mean to pit these gentlemen against one another. But it is over to you now: which model are we going to argue for between these two:

* the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection?
* the Hopeful Monster hypothesis?

I only mentioned this to hint that theories are not facts. The facts may remain, and it is the theories that are often being amended. So, one cannot be so brash as to assume that one model is the same thing as a "fact" - theories should never be viewed as a "fact", but rather as models of explanations that can be amended as need be. Yes? Yes.

olabowale:
The reality is different, because human knowledge and the design of nature as god has made to work so that human mind can appreciate it, are completely against this silly concept!

Amen. I left Islam, will never come back - and your attitude is strongly confirming why that was the very best choice I made.

@m_nwankwo,

I'm sure there are lots of things to appreciate in your piece. However, there is something yet which I'm sure a lot of readers will find very quizzical:

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=159623.msg2805080#msg2805080 date=1221492896]The power of God in all creations is neither good or evil but stands above these concepts. One can say that the power of God is neutral in its nature.[/quote]Having tried to carefully follow your context before making a reply, it seems that to posit a "neutral" power of God between these two qualities ('good' and 'evil') is to misrepresent that Power. Why? Because I believe then that the "neutrality" eliminates any reference to evaluating what is "good" as distinguished from what is "evil".

How is it that a power that is neutral to both qualities of good and evil will at the same time be qualified to know what those qualities mean? One cannot posit a neutrality in divine power and expect that neutrality to be properly qualified to know the meaning of either of those qualities. Could you consider this point carefully?

Cheers.

@Backslider,

I understand you. However, it was just an advice that it would be more Christ-like to share whatever truth we think we have and leave the unfortunate name-calling for the Lord to deal with. Let me illustrate:

Supposing someone argues that Christian women are to wear 'scarf' in Church, while another feels that the hair is suficient as a covering? Well, if I disagreed with the first person, the better way to share my persuasion is point out from God's Word why I don't agree with her. At the end of the day, I should have a tender heart towards God to teach me if I am indeed wrong (even though I might've strongly believed I was "right". If I cannot wait upon the Lord in humility, it would not be long before I cross the threshold and begin to call people unhealthy names simply because they see things differently.

I used to be like that before I became a Christian. Even after my conversion, it took me a while to begin to appreciate humility. I have since learned to let such delicate issues be in the hands of the Lord. Can I share a few verses that constantly come to mind in this regard? Here --

[list][list] Romans 14:4 & 10

Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?
to his own master he standeth or falleth.
Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set
at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before
the judgment seat of Christ.[/list][/list]

Well, those two verses have helped me guard my tongue more carefully. Since Pastor Chris was not called by me, he is not answerable to me but rather to Him that called him. Do I agree with him some times? Yes. Are there instances where I do not agree with him? Absolutely so. Should I berate him as a result? Christ did not commission me to do so. I should remember a day is coming when I shall give account of how I used my tongue in these matters.

Just some concern from a learning disciple. God bless you.

Dear Olabowale,

olabowale:
How old are you now? And such a tender age, you have experienced what majority of the muslims have never experienced. I have a man who is 96 in Morocco. The father of a friend. This man had never heart anyone calling Muhammad (AS), lord! No wonder yo left islam, because you were with the wrong company. In all my years in Nigeria annd other places, including America, I have not heard anyone called Muhammad (AS) their lord. There master, yes. Every Prophet and knowledgeable person is called Master (sayidina). The Only True master is God. And that is why in Salah you can not call anyone master, except the True Master, Allah!

Please keep your tales by moonlight. You often tender this redundant exculpation of "age" when you have nothing else to bleach your presumptions.

olabowale:
I am almost thinking that your dubious material where you claim that a muslim called Muhammad (AS) lord is that they may have referred to him as sayidina, and your magicians, the christians whom you copied the material from their website changed sayidina (master) to lord (rabb)! Please show us the arabic text! I read Arabic and you don't! There are many muslims on Nairaland who can read arabic better than me. We want you to us the arabic text, now and not some far away date and time! (And you are using "L" in the lord! I guess you are trying to see if it will stick? No. It will not stick!).

Is it such a hard thing for your to check those websites and see that it is actually muslims who have posted those documents? Are you so desperate to demonize your own people just because they happen to be doing the very thing you categorically denied on Nairaland? Your attitude is very shameful, to see the very least!

I made a simple request, not ask for tales. Please see again:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=171407.msg2803709#msg2803709 date=1221478460]If you want to discuss with people, please do so. If you have nothing more than the sort of vexations that is now your second nature to pour everywhere, we can simply smile benignly when you "manifest". Enjoy. [/quote]

@Tasma,

Tasma:
Interesting post pilgrim.1, I must ask a question or two though. If scientific knowledge reveals that a widely accepted Biblical "fact" is wrong how ready is the Church to accept that it was wrong. Issues like Darwin's evolutionary theory are not the first and will not be the last to be raised about Biblical ideas and theories. Furthermore in accepting the views of people like Darwin is the Church ready to admit that the stories in the Bible are wrong or do they simply put it down to interpretation of the relevant verses. Would love to hear your views on this issues.

Thanks for that insightful question. I'll take time and come back to flesh up my answers. But suffice to say at the moment that it all depends on how people interprete any set of data. I believe that science does not "prove" the message of the Bible wrong - that, unfortunately, is what atheistic evolutionary thinkers have maintained. However, my simple question is this: why are such thinkers so dogmatic even when it is clear that the many conclusions they draw are incorrect?

Is that evil?

Jesus loves you/

All the same/

@Olabowale,

olabowale:
And I have no need to align mysef with deviants.

That's okay, nobody is forcing you otherwise. My concern is that some Muslims are quite too hasty to denounce their own brethren simply because they do not agree with them.

olabowale:
So I will close my eyes and ignore the noise coming from anyone who says he/she has a lord, god, patron other than God Almighty Allah. Will I be surprise to see a person saying he is a muslim, but does not make salah, but reads the bible instead of Qur'an and wears a big cross around the neck!

Again, the simple point was that your assertion earlier that Muslims never refer to Muhammad as "Lord" was contrary to the facts on ground. They have been doing so - even while I was still a muslimah, I knew Imams who unashamedly did that very thing; and that was why I was concerned as to why Muslims are accusing Christians with restlessness for the very same things that is widley practised in many mosques and Muslim councils.

olabowale:
People label themselves whatever they want.

Leave it to them - at least, the people you accused have never called you names such as a "deviant".

olabowale:
Allah the Almighty has set forth the criterion of knowing what is Right, away from what is Wrong! I am very satisfied with it!

Good, so just leave it at that and don't try to force your own vexations and restlessness over others. Enjoy.

Lol. . . I'm sure that's not where the discussion was leading. Freewill is not an illusion: we only need to try and understand how it applies in reality rather than merely hypothetical cases.

simmy:
answered 4 me

Lol. . . you already gave the answer: I was only reminding him just incase he might've missed it. Blessings bro.

olabowale:
I am going to bed. This is so boring.

About time - please do.

Dear Olabowale,

The attitude of trying to always follow Christian posts with your vexations does not bring any blessing to you personally, and it only helps to further ridicule Islam. If you have anything worthwhile to share, you can do so as simply as makes good sense. If you cannot do so, you further give people like me the confirmation that leaving Islam was indeed the best decision I could ever make. And I am mightily thankful to God for that.

If you want to discuss with people, please do so. If you have nothing more than the sort of vexations that is now your second nature to pour everywhere, we can simply smile benignly when you "manifest". Enjoy.

Tasma:
I think the analogy about the robot actually stands because the robot has the freewill to turn right or left. It just happens that turning left is a bad decision. The question is if I know turning left is bad why do I make the robot capable of turning left? Okay so you say it's because I want my robot to have freewill. However being all knowing I already know my creation will abuse this freewill and do bad a lot of the time. So it seems like I actually want my creation to do bad, at least sometimes. Am I right or is this just faulty logic?

I would rather see it as a faulty logic for reasons I've tried to enunciate above. For one, the "robot" is an automaton - and man is not.

Second, man has a conscience, whereas robots do not have such.

Third, robots do not make decisions for themselves to deliberately make choices between "good" and "evil" - man does.

Fourth, man cannot escape responsibility and consequences for the choices he makes - do robots take responsibility for their actions?

It is easy to eliminate these factors and arrive at laying the blame on the Creator. The point here is that such logic comes to a dead-end when the factors enunciated above are called to play.

@Chrisbenogor,

In most points, your prognostications about my persuasions are correct - and I'll outline them.

Chrisbenogor:
"God is not to be held liable for man's actions" am I right? While for me I am saying a designer has to take some responsiblity for the actions of his creation.

That God cannot be liable for man's actions is my persuasion. The reason is simple: God's sovereignty. The moment I forget that particular element in all the ideas one may hold about this discussions, then we shift to an entirely different ground of reference. In as much as God did not make choices for man, he is responsible and accountable for his actions - in just the same way that man did not formulate God's sovereignty.

Chrisbenogor:
I will try one last attempt to explain my position,
I have designed so many computer algorithms and there are statements known as decision statements where the program has to choose which way to go depending on circumstances that are either random or depend on other circumstances. I like to look at man like that, everyday we are faced with the choices and the ability to choose whether good or bad is already coded in us and that is the relationship with the creator.

I appreciate this illustration and applaud it as more genial than the earlier one about the robot.

However, the problem here again arises on the basis of responsibility and sovereignty. I apologise in advance to maintain these two things, but the reason for doing so will be come apparent as we move on. The problem with the computer algorithms and man's decision making is that the computer is unable to recognize what is "good" as distinct from what is "evil". Man on the other hand is able to discern between what is good and what is evil; and when he is faced with decisions between alternatives, the question of conscience and implications come into play.

Now, by extension we see how the whole mystery begins to unfold by calling into play these various elements:

[list][list][li]God's sovereignty[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]man's responsibility[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]relationships between the Creator and man[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]the questions of conscience[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]implications of decisions for either "good" or "evil"[/li][/list][/list]
[list][list][li]man's liability for his own actions[/li][/list][/list]

The reason why it's difficult for me to take anything less than this is because hypotheses that to eliminate these elements will further take us far from reality rather than bring us closer to reality in man's experiences. This is why I do not mind whatever analogies could be proferred in explication of this issue; but we would have to tessellate such analogies with whatever models are presented and see how they fit reality. If they do not quite fit the real events, then the inferences will be weak and untennable.

Chrisbenogor:
I also got a sense that you are trying to say man was perfect before the fall am I right?

Close enough. The verse already quoted reminds us about that: Ecclesiastes 7:29.

Regards.

Somebody shout Halleluyah!

Jesus - the Life.

Jesus - the Truth.

Jesus - the Way.

Jesus - Our Intercessor.

Jesus is Redeemer.

Salvation in Christ.

Jesus is Lord.

@huxley,

huxley:
Why would this be a sad study?

For the simple reason that it bears very little import on reality. Anyone can claim to have engaged in a "study" and then arrived at very narrow results - and the sad thing is that people who don't know any better are very adept at gullibly promoting such narrow results as the widely accepted norm. This is why I hinted that such inference as you made actually does not tessellate with the fact that there are known cases where prayers and intercessions have actually produced huge results. The one thing people like to do is reject such facts and run to so-called reports of "studies" claiming the opposite.

huxley:
Interesting how you make claims and yet provide little or no substantive evidence as to why it would be "sad".

I just gave an explanation above. As I said earlier on the previous page, statistics do not interest me that much these days especially when people are often polarized to quote them in support of jaundiced opinions.

However, just to appeal to your curiosity for 'substantive evidence' for my opinions, please see the following examples:


[list][list][li]Does God Answer Prayer? Researcher Says 'Yes'
[color=Grey]ScienceDaily (Mar. 15, 2007)[/color] — Does God or some other type of transcendent entity answer prayer?

The answer, according to a new Arizona State University study published in the March journal Research on Social Work Practice, is "yes." David R. Hodge, an assistant professor of social work in the College of Human Services at Arizona State University, conducted a comprehensive analysis of 17 major studies on the effects of intercessory prayer -- or prayer that is offered for the benefit of another person -- among people with psychological or medical problems. He found a positive effect.
<snip>
"Overall, the meta-analysis indicates that prayer is effective. Is it effective enough to meet the standards of the American Psychological Association's Division 12 for empirically validated interventions? No. Thus, we should not be treating clients suffering with depression, for example, only with prayer. To treat depression, standard treatments, such as cognitive therapy, should be used as the primary method of treatment."
source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070314195638.htm[/li][/list][/list]

----------------------------------------------------------


[list][list][li]Praying Online Helps Cancer Patients, Study Suggests

[color=Grey]ScienceDaily (Jan. 4, 2007)[/color] — Breast cancer patients who pray in online support groups can obtain mental health benefits, according to a new study conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center of Excellence in Cancer Communications Research that was funded by the National Cancer Institute.

We know that many cancer patients pray in online support groups to help them cope with their illness. This is the first study we are aware of that examines the psychological effects of this behavior," says Bret Shaw, an associate scientist in UW-Madison's College of Engineering and lead author of the study.
<snip>
The results of the study are published in an advance issue of the journal PsychoOncology.
source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070103201245.htm[/li][/list][/list]

----------------------------------------------------------

[list][list][li]Spirituality Is Important To Eye Patients, Report Finds

[color=Grey]ScienceDaily (Sep. 8, 2008)[/color] — Patients visiting an ophthalmologist report that prayer is important to their well-being and that God plays a positive role in illness, according to a new report.
<snip>
This study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Dr. Magyar-Russell).
source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080908185226.htm[/li][/list][/list]

----------------------------------------------------------


Like I said, anyone can quote statistics or reports to favour their preconceived notions; but from a subjective and experimental basis, reports that deny the benefits and positive results of prayers and intercessions are simply that: denials. They do not effectively account for other cases were positive results have been established in analytical studies.

huxley:
It is through studies of this type that a great deal of the diseases that afflict us are being tamed. There is no doubt that there is a psychological component to many illness and to this end modern medicine is taking steps to instruct medical practitioners as to how best to deliver care to the sick. Percieved cures from prayers are indistinguishable from such ordinary psychosomatic sures.

The statement that "perceived cures from prayer" are indistinguishable is bland. How do such "studies" account for the researches that prove concretely that prayers are effective?

huxley:
I did nOT said that. Of course human goodness (badness) is NOT a function of whether they believe or not in the existence of gods. I think there is more magnanimity in being good simply out of human goodness. Goodness delivered in the hope of heaven rewards is simply of an inferior nature.

The attitude of rationalists trying to offer statistics about atheists who are philanthropists or have done goodwill is a weathered tool of intelligent argument. This is why it does not come as a surprise that you made the inference above and arrived at the idea therefore that religious convictions are "inferior". It is a simplistic and unrealistic way of understanding the persuasions for theism - and that is why I offered earlier that many people who shlepp on to this weathered idea are still unable to grapple with the real questions of the reality of our human existence and experiences.

MP007:
Which one is the most effective, prayer or praise?

All depends on the particular situation. There are times when prayer is undoubtedly the engagement; other times praise works just as effectively.