Science is inherently atheistic

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I will say that your current behavior strikes a familiar chord with me.  We had up until recently a theist member who was known for repeatedly, when backed into a corner, finding disingenuous excuses for abandoning the discussion.  His name was Roadrunner79.  The last he was seen, he had decided to leave the forum, along with several other theists, after some rather intense questioning on my part.  That you are, apparently, choosing to abandon discussing the issue with me unless I meet your rather arbitrary standards of evidence and argumentative support seems equally disingenuous and eerily familiar.  Are you a sock of Roadrunner79?

The manner described is indeed eerily similar to RR's.

Pandering doesn't work on me. Nice try though.

Facts on the other hand...

[Angrboda]

No, not every question needs to be answered, but if you are making a positive case for something and fail to answer relevant questions, it puts the credibility of your claims into severe doubt.  I take it, then, you are choosing to abandon your prior claims about the scientific method?

I will say that your current behavior strikes a familiar chord with me.  We had up until recently a theist member who was known for repeatedly, when backed into a corner, finding disingenuous excuses for abandoning the discussion.  His name was Roadrunner79.  The last he was seen, he had decided to leave the forum, along with several other theists, after some rather intense questioning on my part.  That you are, apparently, choosing to abandon discussing the issue with me unless I meet your rather arbitrary standards of evidence and argumentative support seems equally disingenuous and eerily familiar.  Are you a sock of Roadrunner79?

Not at all.  I gave you an option for continuing the conversation, and you still have that option. Present documentation from an accredited university or scientific institution that adheres to your belief and explains what you think is applicable to gravity. I've provided information from multiple sources, and to this point it's just you suggesting I should discount Newton.  I'm happy to have friendly conversations, but it's important for information sharing to be reciprocal. If not it's just round-n-round and I'm not interested.  Your personal doubt is inconsequential to me. 

Your contention that my arguments and supports must in some sense be a mirror to yours or else discussion will degrade into a pointless round-n-round is laughable.  The only necessary commitments that a productive discussion needs are a commitment to reason and rationality, fairness and such.  The imposition of arbitrary constraints upon discussion is a chilling dampener on free discussion and inquiry, contrary to your claim otherwise.  And I never suggested that you should discount Newton, and so now, in addition to being disingenuous and making arbitrary and self-serving demands, you are simply making up lies.  I find myself rather incredulous regarding your claim that the doubt of your interlocutors here is of no consequence to you, as it seems elementary that one of your goals in posting here and in this discussion is to argue for the credibility of your claims.  If that is not the case, then why are you here?

Regardless, I have not put Newton into doubt, but rather the logic of your position, which you seem content to rest on what is a rather weak argument from authority and insist that the only legitimate arguments or support you will accept is a likewise similar appeal to authority.  This is a patent attempt to restrict inquiry to a subset of logical resources, likely because an appeal to the larger subset of logical approaches will not go well for you.  Regardless, let me ask you this.  If a citation such as you have provided rests upon incoherent and nonsensical notions, then is it not necessary to examine the logic and coherence of such statements and assertions  prior to the acceptance of such statements as evidence and support?  Surely no authority can abet a claim or assertion that is incoherent nonsense.  So I'm asking you to, in good faith with your presentation of said authority, to defend its logical coherence prior to my accepting said evidence and support.  Otherwise it is you who is abdicating from your responsibilities, not me.

Very well, if you'd rather have a battle of dueling citations, I can play that game, too.

Several prominent scientists, philosophers, and scientific institutions have argued that science cannot test supernatural worldviews on the grounds that (1) science presupposes a naturalistic worldview (Naturalism) or that (2) claims involving supernatural phenomena are inherently beyond the scope of scientific investigation. The present paper argues that these assumptions are questionable and that indeed science can test supernatural claims. While scientific evidence may ultimately support a naturalistic worldview, science does not presuppose Naturalism as an a priori commitment, and supernatural claims are amenable to scientific evaluation. This conclusion challenges the rationale behind a recent judicial ruling in the United States concerning the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in public schools as an alternative to evolution and the official statements of two major scientific institutions that exert a substantial influence on science educational policies in the United States. Given that science does have implications concerning the probable truth of supernatural worldviews, claims should not be excluded a priori from science education simply because they might be characterized as supernatural, paranormal, or religious. Rather, claims should be excluded from science education when the evidence does not support them, regardless of whether they are designated as ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’.

Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?, Yonatan I. Fishman, Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx,USA

Studies

---

Galton

In 1872, the Victorian scientist Francis Galton made the first statistical analysis of third-party prayer. He hypothesized, partly as satire, that if prayer were effective, members of the British Royal Family would live longer than average, given that thousands prayed for their well-being every Sunday, and he prayed over randomized plots of land to see whether the plants would grow any faster, and found no correlation in either case.[4][5]

Byrd and Harris

A 1988 study by Randolph C. Byrd used 393 patients at the San Francisco General Hospital coronary care unit (CCU). Measuring 29 health outcomes using three-level (good, intermediate, or bad) scoring, the prayer group suffered fewer newly diagnosed ailments on only six of them. Byrd concluded that "Based on these data there seemed to be an effect, and that effect was presumed to be beneficial", and that "intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU."[6] The reaction from the scientific community concerning this study was mixed. Several reviewers considered Byrd’s study to be well-designed and well-executed,[7] while others remained skeptical. A criticism of Byrd's study, which also applies to most other studies, is the fact that he did not limit prayers by the friends and family of patients, hence it is unclear which prayers, if any, may have been measured.[8]

The Byrd study had an inconsistent pattern of only six positive outcomes amongst 26 specific problem conditions. A systematic review suggested this indicates possible Type I errors.[2]

A 1999 follow-up by William S. Harris et al. attempted to replicate Byrd's findings under stricter experimental conditions, noting that the original research was not completely blinded and was limited to only "prayer-receptive" individuals (57 of the 450 patients invited to participate in the study refused to give consent "for personal reasons or religious convictions").[9] Using a different, continuous weighted scoring system – which admittedly was, like Byrd's scoring, "an unvalidated measure of CCU outcomes" – Harris et al. concluded that "supplementary, remote, blinded, intercessory prayer produced a measurable improvement in the medical outcomes of critically ill patients", and suggested that "prayer be an effective adjunct to standard medical care."[10] However, when they applied Byrd’s scores to their data, they could not document an effect of prayer using his scoring method. Critics have suggested that both Byrd's and Harris's results can be explained by chance.[11] Richard P. Sloan compared the Byrd and Harris studies with the sharpshooter fallacy, "searching through the data until a significant effect is found, then drawing the bull's-eye."[12]

O'Laoire

A 1997 study by O'Laoire measured the effects on the agents performing daily prayers and reported benefits not only for the beneficiaries, but also for the agents, and the benefit levels correlated with the belief levels of agents and beneficiaries in some cases. The study measured anxiety and depression. This study used beneficiary names as well as photographs.[13]

Sicher

In 1998 Fred Sicher et al. performed a small scale double-blind randomized study of 40 patients with advanced AIDS.[14][15] The patients were in category C-3 with CD4 cell counts below 200 and each had at least one case of AIDS-defining illness.[16] The patients were randomly assigned to receive distant intercessory healing or none at all. The intercession took place by people in different parts of the United States who never had any contact with the patients. Both patients and physicians were blind to who received or did not receive intercession.[16] Six months later the prayer group had significantly fewer AIDS illnesses, less frequent doctor visits, and fewer days in the hospital.[15] However, CD4 counts and scores on other physiological tests had no significant variation between the two groups of patients.[16]
Mayo clinic

A 2001 double-blind study at the Mayo Clinic randomized 799 discharged coronary surgery patients into a control group and an intercessory prayer group, which received prayers at least once a week from 5 intercessors per patient. Analyzing "primary end points" (death, cardiac arrest, rehospitalization, etc.) after 26 weeks, the researchers concluded "intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit."[17]
The IVF-ET prayer scandal

In 2001 the Journal of Reproductive Medicine published an experimental study by three Columbia University researchers indicating that prayer for women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) resulted in a success rate (50%) of pregnancy double that of women who did not receive prayer.[18] Columbia University issued a news release saying that the study had been carefully designed to eliminate bias.[19] The most vocal skeptic was Bruce Flamm, a clinical professor of gynecology and obstetrics at the University of California at Irvine, who found that the experimental procedures were flawed.[20] One of the study's authors, Cha, responded to criticism of the study in the November 2004 issue of JRM.[21] In December 2001, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) confirmed a report by the Columbia University Health Sciences Division that one of the study’s authors, Rogerio Lobo, only learned of the study six to twelve months after the study was completed, and that he had only provided editorial assistance.[22] The name of Columbia University and Lobo were retracted from the study.[23]

Retroactive intercessory prayer

A 2001 study by Leonard Leibovici used records of 3,393 patients who had developed blood infections at the Rabin Medical Center between 1990 and 1996 to study retroactive intercessory prayer.[24] To compound the alleged miraculous power of prayer itself, the prayers were performed after the patients had already left the hospital. All 3,393 patients were those in the hospital between 1990 and 1996, and the prayers were conducted in 2000. Two of the outcomes, length of stay in the hospital and duration of fever, were found to be significantly improved in the intervention group, implying that prayer can even change events in the past. However, the "mortality rate was lower in the intervention group, but the difference between the groups was not significant." Leibovici concluded that "Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was associated with a shorter stay in hospital and a shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection." Leibovici goes on to note that in the past, people knew the way to prevent diseases (he cites scurvy) without understanding why it worked. In saying so, he suggests that if prayer truly does have a positive effect on patients in hospital, then there may be a naturalist explanation for it that we do not yet understand. After many scientists and scholars criticized this retroactive study,[25] Leibovici stated in 2002 that the "article has nothing to do with religion. I believe that prayer is a real comfort and help to a believer. I do not believe it should be tested in controlled trials."[26] The study has been summarised as being "intended lightheartedly to illustrate the importance of asking research questions that fit with scientific models."[27]

In 2003, Larry Dossey, the executive editor of the journal Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing and an advocate of faith healing[28] co-authored a paper responding to Leibovici which discussed possible mechanisms to explain the results reported.[29] Olshansky and Dossey invoked quantum mechanics to explain not only the benefits of intercessory prayer, but also how it might operate retroactively,[29] drawing strong criticisms from physicist Victor Stenger and physician Jeffrey Bishop.[27] The observer effect is regularly used to suggest that conscious control of physical reality is predicted by quantum mechanics, but this misconception "can be traced to a misinterpretation of wave-particle duality."[27] In relation to backwards causality, Stenger noted that "the results of some quantum experiments may be interpreted as evidence for events in the future affecting events in the past at the quantum level, [but] no theoretical basis exists for applying this notion on the macroscopic scale of human experience."[27] He concluded that while "the atoms in biological systems are quantum in nature ... their collective behaviour does not exhibit any quantum effects. ... What is more, even if the brain were a quantum system, that would not imply that it can break the laws of physics any more than electrons or photons, which are inarguably quanta."[27] One further point which illustrates that Dossey and Olshansky do not understand the physics they are using is seen in their invocation of quantum nonlocality in explaining backward causation, stating that "[r]etroactive prayer may be less absurd than [Leibovici] supposes, in the light of the discovery of non-local phenomena."[29] Unfortunately, the two are mutually incompatible: in allowing reverse causality in a model, the phenomenon of nonlocality ceases.[27] Dossey has written in Explore about coining the term "nonlocal mind" in 1987,[30] though quantum nonlocality goes back to a 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.[31] Olshansky and Dossey defended their work from various critics in the British Medical Journal's rapid response section[32]

Olensky and Dossey are not alone amongst alternative medicine proponents in having missed the point which Leibovici was making. In 2004, Stephen Wright described the Olshansky and Dossey contribution as a "thoughtful essay,"[33] and it was praised by an editorial in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine the same year.[34] In 2005, Olshansky and Dossey's work was included in a critical review published in Explore which concluded that "Religious activity may improve health outcomes."[35] Their work was also defended in the British Medical Journal itself in 2004.[36] Dossey authored an Explore paper defending experiments on the medical effects of prayer in 2005.[37]

The MANTRA study

A 2005 MANTRA (Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings) II study conducted a three-year clinical trial led by Duke University comparing intercessory prayer and MIT (Music, Imagery, and Touch) therapies for 748 cardiology patients. The study is regarded as the first time rigorous scientific protocols were applied on a large scale to assess the feasibility of intercessory prayer and other healing practices. The study produced null results and the authors concluded, "Neither masked prayer nor MIT therapy significantly improved clinical outcome after elective catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention."[38] Neither study specified whether photographs were used or whether belief levels were measured in the agents or those performing the prayers.

The STEP project

Harvard professor Herbert Benson performed a "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)" in 2006.[39] The STEP, commonly called the "Templeton Foundation prayer study" or "Great Prayer Experiment", used 1,802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients at six hospitals. Using double-blind protocols, patients were randomized into three groups, individual prayer receptiveness was not measured. The members of the experimental and control Groups 1 and 2 were informed they might or might not receive prayers, and only Group 1 received prayers. Group 3, which served as a test for possible psychosomatic effects, was informed they would receive prayers and subsequently did. Unlike some other studies, STEP attempted to standardize the prayer method. Only first names and last initial for patients were provided and no photographs were supplied. The congregations of three Christian churches who prayed for the patients "were allowed to pray in their own manner, but they were instructed to include the following phrase in their prayers: "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications".[40] Some participants complained that this mechanical way they were told to pray as part of the experiment was unusual for them. Complications of surgery occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). There were no statistically significant differences in major complications or thirty-day mortality. In The God Delusion, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote, "It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered additional stress in consequence: performance anxiety', as the experimenters put it. Dr Charles Bethea, one of the researchers, said, "It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?'"[41] Study co-author Jeffery Dusek stated that: "Each study builds on others, and STEP advanced the design beyond what had been previously done. The findings, however, could well be due to the study limitations."[42] Team leader Benson stated that STEP was not the last word on the effects of intercessory prayer and that questions raised by the study will require additional answers.[43]

Literature reviews

---

A meta-analysis of several studies related to distant intercessory healing was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000.[44] The authors analyzed 23 trials of 2,774 patients. Five of the trials were for prayer as the distant healing method, 11 were with noncontact touch, and 7 were other forms. Of these trials, 13 showed statistically significant beneficial treatment results, 9 showed no effect, and 1 showed a negative result. The authors concluded that it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding distant healing and suggested further studies.[44]

A 2003 levels of evidence review found "some" evidence for the hypothesis that "Being prayed for improves physical recovery from acute illness".[45] It concluded that although "a number of studies" have tested this hypothesis, "only three have sufficient rigor for review here" (Byrd 1988, Harris et al. 1999, and Sicher et al. 1998). In all three, "the strongest findings were for the variables that were evaluated most subjectively. This raises concerns about the possible inadvertent unmasking of the outcomes assessors. Moreover, the absence of a clearly plausible biological mechanism by which such a treatment could influence hard medical outcome results in the inclination to be skeptical of results." This 2003 review was performed before the 2005 MANTRA study and the 2006 STEP project, neither of which were conclusive in establishing the efficacy of prayer.

Various broader meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. For instance, a 2006 meta analysis on 14 studies concluded that "There is no scientifically discernable effect for intercessory prayer as assessed in controlled studies".[1] However, a 2007 systemic review of 17 intercessory prayer studies found "small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer" in 7 studies, but "prayer was unassociated with positive improvement in the condition of client" in the other 10, concluding that based upon the American Psychology Association's Division 12 (clinical psychology) criteria for evidence-based practice, intercessory prayer "must be classified as an experimental intervention." The review noted that the most methodologically rigorous studies had failed to produce significant findings.[2]

Wikipedia || Studies on intercessory prayer

Okay.  Now we have credible sources saying contradictory things.  How do we resolve this conflict?  If this is going to devolve into a dick waving contest, I'm afraid I'm sorely lacking in that department and ill-equipped to compete with you in such.  You likely will win there.  So we have competing claims, and apparently, according to the strictures you've placed upon our discussion, we can only resolve it by appeals to authority -- no using reason or logic to support ones position, because that would be patently silly, according to you. I expect you to provide an authoritative source claiming that studies of intercessory prayer are not scientific.

I await your posting an authoritative source that can resolve our quandary.

You'll forgive me if I rather conclude that it is you that has killed the utility of discussion with your arbitrary demands, and not I with my plea for reasoned debate.  YMMV.

Oh, and it just occurred to me, you claimed that science, in the question of gravity, does not appeal to ultimate causes. What is the requirement that science apply to only questions regarding nature but a rather clear appeal to ultimate causes, in this case natural ones? You seem to be at odds with your own source. I will expect a citation from an authoritative source that resolves this seeming inconsistency and explains how you can support both.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

From the piece you shared

"One of the reasons given for the verdict is the notion that science is limited strictly to the study of natural phenomena and therefore that ID and other claims involving supernatural phenomena are outside the proper domain of scientific investigation. While the verdict is widely viewed as correct for other reasons cited in the court’s opinion, that particular rationale upon which it is based is questionable. "

That is our discussion in a nutshell.

The verdict is held as "correct" including by the court and their annotations, but the person writing this believes it is "questionable."

That's fine. If you want to question it and he wants to question it, then nobody is telling you that you can't. Maybe there's even merit to such a pursuit. However, as it stands it is "correct" to limit scientific study to natural phenomena. I think it's fair to say, many of us aren't interested in studies about vampires, goblins, and ghouls and would rather put our focus on applying science in the natural world.

[The Grand Nudger]

Scientific study is limited to natural effects, pretty much, as a consequence of the limitations of our equipment.  If a supernatural cause has a natural effect, science is still all in on that effect.

[Angrboda]

However, as it stands it is "correct" to limit scientific study to natural phenomena.  

This is nothing more than an ipse dixit argument which flies in the face of the plentiful counter-examples of scientific studies investigating phenomena believed to have a supernatural cause which I provided. Is this what you consider reasoned debate? Simply ignoring evidence that you don't like? And what about the fact that you contradicted your own source with your claim that "knowing the root cause [of gravity] is irrelevant," which directly contradicts your source's comment that science can only study phenomenon whose root cause is metaphysically natural? Apparently you're a dialetheist and you view talking out of both sides of your mouth as right and proper. I prefer we stick with classical logic, in which case, if I accept both your statements as true, by the principle of logical explosion I can derive the truth of any statement in short order, including that "everything you say is wrong," and "you're an asshole." QED. I win.

[Rahn127]

Science is limited to the things that exist.
It's difficult to study things that don't exist.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

However, as it stands it is "correct" to limit scientific study to natural phenomena.  

This is nothing more than an ipse dixit argument which flies in the face of the plentiful counter-examples of scientific studies investigating phenomena believed to have a supernatural cause which I provided.  Is this what you consider reasoned debate?  Simply ignoring evidence that you don't like?  And what about the fact that you contradicted your own source with your claim that "knowing the root cause [of gravity] is irrelevant," which directly contradicts your source's comment that science can only study phenomenon whose root cause is metaphysically natural?  Apparently you're a dialetheist and you view talking out of both sides of your mouth as right and proper.  I prefer we stick with classical logic, in which case, if I accept both your statements as true, by the principle of logical explosion I can derive the truth of any statement in short order, including that "everything you say is wrong," and "you're an asshole."  QED.  I win.

 Yep, you win. Enjoy your vampires.

[Angrboda]

This is nothing more than an ipse dixit argument which flies in the face of the plentiful counter-examples of scientific studies investigating phenomena believed to have a supernatural cause which I provided.  Is this what you consider reasoned debate?  Simply ignoring evidence that you don't like?  And what about the fact that you contradicted your own source with your claim that "knowing the root cause [of gravity] is irrelevant," which directly contradicts your source's comment that science can only study phenomenon whose root cause is metaphysically natural?  Apparently you're a dialetheist and you view talking out of both sides of your mouth as right and proper.  I prefer we stick with classical logic, in which case, if I accept both your statements as true, by the principle of logical explosion I can derive the truth of any statement in short order, including that "everything you say is wrong," and "you're an asshole."  QED.  I win.

 Yep, you win. Enjoy your vampires.

Yeah, winning is rather easy when your opponent realizes his case and arguments are nothing but folly. Are you going to answer my prior post or is this your indication that you're going to abandon any debate in which you're not doing particularly well? I can't say I would be surprised.

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to be forgetting that they're -your- vampires, Max.  You brought them up.  Some of us are wondering why vampires aren't given the same credence that ghosts are, particularly in light of your explanation of what science could and couldn't study.

Ghosts got a pass, vampires were written off breathlessly, how, based upon the positions you've expressed?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You seem to be forgetting that they're -your- vampires, Max.  You brought them up.  Some of us are wondering why vampires aren't given the same credence that ghosts are, particularly in light of your explanation of what science could and couldn't study.

Ghosts got a pass, vampires were written off breathlessly, how, based upon the positions you've expressed?

Mentioning a supposed "creature" doesn't mean I believe it exists.  I assume they don't exist, but maybe they do.  We don't use the scientific method to make claims about vampires, goblins, and ghouls.  The counter argument was that I must apply this equally to gravity because it may have a supernatural cause.  My argument to that is "it doesn't matter" because you can't negate gravity when the effect of it is easily testable, observable, and repeatable in the natural world. It's also applied as a scientific law in the form of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  Unless Newton had law about vampires too, then no point making assumptions about testing them.  Even if they do exist, they would be considered supernatural and not bound by natural/universal laws.  Things like turning into bats, walking through walls, no reflection, and other such attributes would also be considered "supernatural."

And from that, it was determined I was being a big meanie who must lie about everything, and the other person proclaimed a "win" by default.

So yeah, there ya have it.

But hey, if the prize is a pet vampire monster, I say "No thanks."