I'm have a no-thinky kind of week, or maybe my brain is just mush because of the rest of the email I've been dealing with, but I received this from my theist penpal and I know there's shit wrong with it but I can't exactly put my finger on it yet.

The topic being discussed here is how you know when something constitutes an "actual" answered prayer.

Then penpal's answer is as follows with the part making my brain hurt being italicized (by me):

Quote:- If there's something I want and the answer is 'no' then my emotions probably didn't interfere. 
- Conversely, if it's something I don't want and the answer is 'yes', then my emotions can safely be ruled out
- If there's something I want and the answer is 'yes' then I have to be more careful and I usually ask multiple times in different ways
- Ditto with something I don't want and the answer is 'no'
- If I don't get an answer, I know I didn't put enough study into the matter and I have to repeat the process or it is something that I don't need an answer for.

My thought as it currently stands is that this amounts to an argument against self-interest: "It has to be answered prayer otherwise I would have gotten the answer I wanted!" but to the best of my (admitted drained) abilities right now, I can't figure out if that's a fallacy or not.

My other thought is that it's some kind of round about Begging the Question fallacy wherein the suppressed premise is something like "I want a particular answer" and the conclusion is "because I didn't get the answer I wanted, God must be real!"

Thoughts?

Ug, my brain hurts.

It seems to me that the thing he prays for is attainable and he keeps praying until it happens.

This would appear to be just "stuff happening". and when it conforms to what he wanted he goes "yay god".

Confirmation bias at it's finest.

(April 23, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Ug, my brain hurts.

Your brain should hurt when you're dealing with stupid. If stupid were more painful, there would be far fewer faithers.

that kind of reminds me of the King in the Little Prince, only commanding things that would happen anyway

that's a neat way of deceiving yourself, it's kind of sad actually

The first premises imply that if you want something and you don't get it or you don't want something but it happens then your emotions (wishful thinking and imagination, delusions, etc.) can be ruled out - This makes sense the first time you read it but I would like to question why your emotions don't play a part in not getting something you want or vice versa - Our emotions play a part in our daily lives unless you are a psychopath, this looks like a special pleading, but I'm not sure.

Quote:If there's something I want and the answer is 'yes' then I have to be more careful and I usually ask multiple times in different ways

I would start by questioning the premise. The fact you want something and manage to achieve it says absolutely nothing about the possibility of a prayer being answered. I could argue that the fact my cancer was cured (I don't have cancer, this is just an hypothetical scenario) was because I prayed to god and thus god cured me trough divine intervention (AKA miracle) - But it could have been by any other reason. This constitutes a false cause or post hoc fallacy because there is an assumption that because someone prayed and asked god for help then god did the dirty work for them. When people claim miracles it can easily be explained by science, whether it's psychology, biology, sociology, neurology or psychoanalysis - And when we can't explain it yet appealing to divine intervention is once again a post hoc.

Here's why praying is stupid:

God has a plan, and has all of our best interests worked out.

But wait! Johnny has an idea. "Wouldn't it be better if this happened God?"

"Oh yeah! Duh! You're right, that's better than my plan."

Quote:Thoughts?

He's a putz.

observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses.

I believe that's a bias rather than a fallacy.

ETA: I'm not sure I understand that correctly.

Quote:This is that effect of suddenly noticing things we didn't notice that much before — but we wrongly assume that the frequency has increased. A perfect example is what happens after we buy a new car and we inexplicably start to see the same car virtually everywhere. A similar effect happens to pregnant women who suddenly notice a lot of other pregnant women around them. Or it could be a unique number or song. It's not that these things are appearing more frequently, it's that we've (for whatever reason) selected the item in our mind, and in turn, are noticing it more often. Trouble is, most people don't recognize this as a selectional bias, and actually believe these items or events are happening with increased frequency — which can be a very disconcerting feeling. It's also a cognitive bias that contributes to the feeling that the appearance of certain things or events couldn't possibly be a coincidence (even though it is).

http://io9.com/5974468/the-most-common-c...g-rational

(April 23, 2015 at 2:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Thoughts?

He's a putz.

He is a she, actually.

(April 23, 2015 at 1:05 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: It seems to me that the thing he prays for is attainable and he keeps praying until it happens.
This would appear to be just "stuff happening". and when it conforms to what he wanted he goes "yay god".
Confirmation bias at it's finest.

I have a quite stunning admission of confirmation bias from her in this email that about knocked me on my ass by it being so flagrant.
I also have a pretty fantastic admission of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc that's equally stunning.

(April 23, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Dystopia Wrote: The first premises imply that if you want something and you don't get it or you don't want something but it happens then your emotions (wishful thinking and imagination, delusions, etc.) can be ruled out - This makes sense the first time you read it but I would like to question why your emotions don't play a part in not getting something you want or vice versa

---

- Our emotions play a part in our daily lives unless you are a psychopath, this looks like a special pleading, but I'm not sure.

Quote:If there's something I want and the answer is 'yes' then I have to be more careful and I usually ask multiple times in different ways

I would start by questioning the premise. The fact you want something and manage to achieve it says absolutely nothing about the possibility of a prayer being answered. I could argue that the fact my cancer was cured (I don't have cancer, this is just an hypothetical scenario) was because I prayed to god and thus god cured me trough divine intervention (AKA miracle) - But it could have been by any other reason. This constitutes a false cause or post hoc fallacy because there is an assumption that because someone prayed and asked god for help then god did the dirty work for them. When people claim miracles it can easily be explained by science, whether it's psychology, biology, sociology, neurology or psychoanalysis - And when we can't explain it yet appealing to divine intervention is once again a post hoc.

---

Thanks, Dys.  I'm sure this will make more sense when I squish my brain back into my skull and make it work again. Same goes for Jörmungandr <-- however you pronounce that...

There are no logical fallacies in personal relationships. Getting to know your Lord and Savior is a lifelong process.