Evidence for Believing

[Belacqua]

why not simply feed the poor for instance ? How does prayer add to that if people should not expect help from ?

Yes, very reasonable questions....

As far as I know, a lot of believers think that God only is and acts through people. (Or if there are supernatural interventions, they are not anything we could count on.) So in this version, when people do good, they are embodying God. 

As far as I can tell, this is solidly in the Platonic tradition, in which the Good is an immaterial form which takes no action, but which people do their best to reflect or approach. Since at least the time of Augustine, Christianity has been largely merged with such Platonism. Remember, Nietzsche called Christianity Platonism for the people. In this view, God is the cause of things because we desire to approach his condition, not because he puts his hand down and pushes us. 

Here again, I don't see prayer in this tradition as a request to a listening person who might give you a present if he's inclined to. It is more along the lines of a "speech act," like a promise or an apology -- the act of uttering it changes the condition of the speaker. This is not supernatural (like god swoops down and changes you) but rather a commitment or relationship that you put yourself into. (Kind of the way uttering "I do" in the wedding is not so much a statement of fact as an act which changes your commitments.) If God is the "ultimate concern" as Paul Tillich says, or just the Good of Plato, it requires some act of will on our own part to align ourselves toward it, particularly if it goes against selfish inclinations. 

Anyway, this is my general sense of what the non-sky-daddy Christians say.

Out on interest do you pray, if so to which god (or gods), what do you pray for, and why ?

No, I'm not religious at all. I've made an effort to understand what people who are unlike me think about things. 

Long ago when I was desperately in love with a girl who didn't show much interest, I happened on an altar at an esoteric Buddhist temple at Miyajima that was dedicated to help with love matters. So I gave it a try. The anticlimactic (and fairly embarrassing) end of that affair is not something I can blame on any Buddha.

[Nay_Sayer]

So going by this, My lawn will cut itself but only after I've gone over it twice with my mower?

This statement baffles me, I will seek guidance from FSM in perhaps clarifying the popes and by proxy your confusing statement.

No, you have to cut the grass. 

The issue is whether prayer is a request for wish-granting sky-daddy to do it for you. The Pope's statement will seem baffling to people who assume that prayer is necessarily a request for wish-granting sky-daddy to give them something.

Well that'd how prayer works for me, I ask and I always receive.

Maybe you're doing it wrong.

[EgoDeath]

why not simply feed the poor for instance ? How does prayer add to that if people should not expect help from ?

Yes, very reasonable questions....

As far as I know, a lot of believers think that God only is and acts through people. (Or if there are supernatural interventions, they are not anything we could count on.) So in this version, when people do good, they are embodying God. 

As far as I can tell, this is solidly in the Platonic tradition, in which the Good is an immaterial form which takes no action, but which people do their best to reflect or approach. Since at least the time of Augustine, Christianity has been largely merged with such Platonism. Remember, Nietzsche called Christianity Platonism for the people. In this view, God is the cause of things because we desire to approach his condition, not because he puts his hand down and pushes us. 

Here again, I don't see prayer in this tradition as a request to a listening person who might give you a present if he's inclined to. It is more along the lines of a "speech act," like a promise or an apology -- the act of uttering it changes the condition of the speaker. This is not supernatural (like god swoops down and changes you) but rather a commitment or relationship that you put yourself into. (Kind of the way uttering "I do" in the wedding is not so much a statement of fact as an act which changes your commitments.) If God is the "ultimate concern" as Paul Tillich says, or just the Good of Plato, it requires some act of will on our own part to align ourselves toward it, particularly if it goes against selfish inclinations. 

Anyway, this is my general sense of what the non-sky-daddy Christians say.

Out on interest do you pray, if so to which god (or gods), what do you pray for, and why ?

No, I'm not religious at all. I've made an effort to understand what people who are unlike me think about things. 

Long ago when I was desperately in love with a girl who didn't show much interest, I happened on an altar at an esoteric Buddhist temple at Miyajima that was dedicated to help with love matters. So I gave it a try. The anticlimactic (and fairly embarrassing) end of that affair is not something I can blame on any Buddha.

Aww how sad

[Inqwizitor]

What does this mean, that I have to be able to repeat a supernatural event under experimental controls so you can verify it? That's obviously begging the question.

How about the miraculous healing of Marion Carroll. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TO7PJkzcVU

What evidence is there that she was actually suffering from MS? There are a number of diseases which mimic MS for which diagnosis might not have been adequate two decades ago. What evidence is there that some form of divine intervention was involved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_s..._diagnosis

It's hereditary, and her daughter has it, so that's some strong evidence to show that she did, in fact, suffer from that disease. 

This is not proof of divine intervention — there is no such proof. It's evidence that supports the relative, rather than absolute, uniformity of nature.

[Inqwizitor]

What does this mean, that I have to be able to repeat a supernatural event under experimental controls so you can verify it? That's obviously begging the question.

How about the miraculous healing of Marion Carroll. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TO7PJkzcVU

What evidence is there that she was actually suffering from MS? There are a number of diseases which mimic MS for which diagnosis might not have been adequate two decades ago. What evidence is there that some form of divine intervention was involved?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_s..._diagnosis

I thought I replied but can't find it.

That MS is hereditary and her daughter also has it, is strong evidence to support that she did in fact suffer from that disease. 

This is not incontrovertible empirical proof of divine intervention, there is no such proof. It is evidence to support the relative, rather than absolute, uniformity of nature. That is a motive of credibility for the supernatural.

[Inqwizitor]

I'm trying to reply to the thread but can't see my posts...

As for showing you more stories of miracles, what's the point? There are many miracles that have church approval and you can Google them.

There is no "proof" of divine intervention, but incidents like Marion Carroll's healing are evidence to support the belief that physical nature is not absolutely uniform. I'm aware of Hume's approach to miracles, but it's an unnecessary commitment to uniformity. You don't have to abandon methodological empiricism to accept that nature may be open to agency that is not part of the same, material causal chain.

[Gwaithmir]

I'm trying to reply to the thread but can't see my posts...

I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. Your dark fire shall not avail you. Go back to the Shadow! You will not----PASS!!!

[GrandizerII]

I'm trying to reply to the thread but can't see my posts...

As for showing you more stories of miracles, what's the point? There are many miracles that have church approval and you can Google them.

There is no "proof" of divine intervention, but incidents like Marion Carroll's healing are evidence to support the belief that physical nature is not absolutely uniform. I'm aware of Hume's approach to miracles, but it's an unnecessary commitment to uniformity. You don't have to abandon methodological empiricism to accept that nature may be open to agency that is not part of the same, material causal chain.

It's still very weak evidence because it's not been established that the healing was because of a miracle rather than spontaneous healing for which we have potential physiological explanations. And we do need to set up something like an experiment (or similar) to establish whether miracles can happen (by observing that miracle healings significantly more frequently occur right after praying to God as opposed to not, for example ... even though we would still need to go beyond that as well to make sure). If miracles only happen very selectively, then we can't say we have conclusive evidence.

And I know you're Catholic, but many of us don't take "church approval" seriously around here. It means nothing to us.

[Inqwizitor]

I'm trying to reply to the thread but can't see my posts...

As for showing you more stories of miracles, what's the point? There are many miracles that have church approval and you can Google them.

There is no "proof" of divine intervention, but incidents like Marion Carroll's healing are evidence to support the belief that physical nature is not absolutely uniform. I'm aware of Hume's approach to miracles, but it's an unnecessary commitment to uniformity. You don't have to abandon methodological empiricism to accept that nature may be open to agency that is not part of the same, material causal chain.

It's still very weak evidence because it's not been established that the healing was because of a miracle rather than spontaneous healing for which we have potential physiological explanations. And we do need to set up something like an experiment (or similar) to establish whether miracles can happen (by observing that miracle healings significantly more frequently occur right after praying to God as opposed to not, for example ... even though we would still need to go beyond that as well to make sure). If miracles only happen very selectively, then we can't say we have conclusive evidence.

And I know you're Catholic, but many of us don't take "church approval" seriously around here. It means nothing to us.

If it was a testable, verifiable phenomenon that spontaneous remission occurred significantly more frequently during or as a result of prayer, we should look at some powerful psychosomatic (natural) cause, like perhaps another order of magnitude in the placebo effect. If something is observably repeatable within the order of empirical phenomena such that you can form an inductive conclusion from predictable data, that makes it less likely to be a miracle, not more likely.

[GrandizerII]

It's still very weak evidence because it's not been established that the healing was because of a miracle rather than spontaneous healing for which we have potential physiological explanations. And we do need to set up something like an experiment (or similar) to establish whether miracles can happen (by observing that miracle healings significantly more frequently occur right after praying to God as opposed to not, for example ... even though we would still need to go beyond that as well to make sure). If miracles only happen very selectively, then we can't say we have conclusive evidence.

And I know you're Catholic, but many of us don't take "church approval" seriously around here. It means nothing to us.

If it was a testable, verifiable phenomenon that spontaneous remission occurred significantly more frequently during or as a result of prayer, we should look at some powerful psychosomatic (natural) cause, like perhaps another order of magnitude in the placebo effect. If something is observably repeatable within the order of empirical phenomena such that you can form an inductive conclusion from predictable data, that makes it less likely to be a miracle, not more likely.

Yes, it's not an "end-all, be-all" procedure but such observations could still put us on a good starting point for seriously considering the plausibility of miracles. We would have to go beyond just this basic experiment to establish the reality of miracles of course (say different controls, e.g. "praying to rocks").

But more importantly, this seems a concession on your part of the difficulty of attaining conclusive evidence for miracles.

ETA: Nevertheless, I disagree that repeatability of observations means they can't [likely] be supernatural/divine.