Comments on: Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 1 http://www.floridafreethinkers.com/785/scientific-conclusion-prayer-doesnt-work-part-1/ Secular Floridians Speaking Out Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:26:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jon L. Weininger http://www.floridafreethinkers.com/785/scientific-conclusion-prayer-doesnt-work-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-212 Jon L. Weininger Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:48:25 +0000 http://www.floridafreethinkers.com/?p=785#comment-212 Two things: 1) I'm not sure you understand what Christian prayer is. In your hopes of speaking objectively on the topic, surely you would admit that you couldn't do that if you fundamentally misunderstood prayer. Right? 2) You raise a number of thoughtful, fascinating points. However, you seem to have a double standard. In Byrd's experiment he simply couldn't be objective because of his religious views; yet, you and other scientists who don't share his views can objectively critique him. It's important to see this argumentation method for what it is: an unfair standard which you hold Byrd to but excuse yourself from. A very reasonable question to ponder is this: if the supernatural is bogus, surely science will be eventually able to either disprove it or expose its most fundamental contradictions. I happily concede the possibility of this. However, if the supernatural is true, then science that assumed the supernatural to be false would be working in a framework of flawed assumptions--using a kind of blindness no reasonable person would respect. Would you happily concede the possibility of that? Two things:
1) I’m not sure you understand what Christian prayer is. In your hopes of speaking objectively on the topic, surely you would admit that you couldn’t do that if you fundamentally misunderstood prayer. Right?
2) You raise a number of thoughtful, fascinating points. However, you seem to have a double standard. In Byrd’s experiment he simply couldn’t be objective because of his religious views; yet, you and other scientists who don’t share his views can objectively critique him. It’s important to see this argumentation method for what it is: an unfair standard which you hold Byrd to but excuse yourself from.

A very reasonable question to ponder is this: if the supernatural is bogus, surely science will be eventually able to either disprove it or expose its most fundamental contradictions. I happily concede the possibility of this. However, if the supernatural is true, then science that assumed the supernatural to be false would be working in a framework of flawed assumptions–using a kind of blindness no reasonable person would respect. Would you happily concede the possibility of that?

]]> By: Joel http://www.floridafreethinkers.com/785/scientific-conclusion-prayer-doesnt-work-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-127 Joel Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:39:17 +0000 http://www.floridafreethinkers.com/?p=785#comment-127 Haha, going to read Pt. 2 Haha, going to read Pt. 2

]]>