[hamdani yusuf]

Just started watching. I see they have episode 5 called "Prayers Might Work".

We already have studies which show that placebo effect does work. We also know that people are susceptible to confirmation bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
 

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or strengthens one's prior personal beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply-entrenched beliefs.

People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. However, even scientists and intelligent people can be prone to confirmation bias.[2]

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political, organizational and scientific contexts.[3][4]. For example, confirmation bias produces systematic errors in research based on inductive reasoning.

When prayer doesn't work, they tend to forget it. But when it does work, they strengthen their believe to the power of their prayer. Hence, no matter how low the probability of their prayer to work, they tend to strengthen their believe to the power of their prayer.

[alancalverd]

a recognition of the limitations of science.

So far, science has been the only thing working in our favour. A medic diagnosed the disease and was promptly silenced by a government more interested in conformity than common sense - just like the Pope in former times.

[Bored chemist]

Crisis requires people to examine even the most basic of daily routines. I was told that in the SA army in the bush war troops were given 1 sheet of toilet paper a day.

They were not the only ones.
Fortunately the daily written orders came to the rescue.
In doing so, they coined a new word for useless information.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+bumph&oq=define++bumph&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.5229j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Just started watching. I see they have episode 5 called "Prayers Might Work".

Well, if that's true, the Bible's wrong.
Have a nice day.

[CliveG]

When prayer doesn't work, they tend to forget it. But when it does work, they strengthen their believe to the power of their prayer. Hence, no matter how low the probability of their prayer to work, they tend to strengthen their believe to the power of their prayer.

There are times I pray hard for certain little favors and I get them. I have (used to have an even better) excellent memory. I remember most occasions. Mine works most of the time - too many times for randomness.

Just because confirmation bias exists and can be used to explain a number of beliefs does not negate the fact that something works - irrespective of the bias in memory.

My late wife ran therapy courses for ex-combatants which changed hardened criminals into productive integrated citizens. She also used a belief in a higher power. Day one was when everyone spoke of their expectations. Many skeptical and with low expectations. Day two was the 24 hour solo bush immersion. Day 3 was speaking of the experiences. When one heard of the amazing things that happened and saw the changes in people, one did not need confirmation bias. She achieved about 85 per cent success.

One woman would not go into the bush because she was scared of snakes. They let her sit in front of the fence on the property in sight of assistants. Darned if a cobra did not come and lie in front of her. She was frozen, then turned slowly, only to find a second one behind her. They stayed the whole day. She came to accept that her ancestors had visited her in that form to protect her and she used the time to meditate about what she wanted in life.

You can use all the scientific theories you like and apply them to all sorts of situations. It does not make you right. You have to first assume the experiences are false and that makes your assumptions correct.

If you had even one-tenth the experiences I have had you would be arguing that you did not have confirmation bias.

[CliveG]

Have a nice day.

Thanks for your thoughts and prayers. Very nice of you to think of me.

[Bored chemist]

I have (used to have an even better) excellent memory. I remember most occasions. Mine works most of the time - too many times for randomness.

Post a diary.
That will unequivocally show which side is right.

[CliveG]

I have (used to have an even better) excellent memory. I remember most occasions. Mine works most of the time - too many times for randomness.

Post a diary.
That will unequivocally show which side is right.

I had to double check who the poster was. Such a logical common sense post.

Interestingly, I have been doing that for about 9 years in an informal way. I am terrible at routine so it ebbs and flows. The results are very good. At the moment with my health I am even worse at disciplined routine and very disinclined to present a proof which will not be accepted anyway because of a lack of controls. I will be accused of making the diary up.

It struck me that the Alcoholics Anonymous requirement for faith in a Higher Power is one example of the statistical method to prove God exists. The latest result is also an example of where I say the results of polls and statistical analysis depends on the framing of the questions and also the filtering that is done. It is interesting to note the change of heart of the people doing the tests. It seemed that they were possibly influenced by seeing how faith is a force for good.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that God does not exist and the results are some kind of placebo effect. A placebo effect that is far more powerful than the placebo effect of going to a scientific clinic where they impress people with their knowledge. That is a force for good. Why try to destroy religion by emphasizing the negatives? The Pascal Wager applies. One is better off making a bet on the unprovable by taking it on faith that God exists and that prayer can help. One has the double assurance of the teachings of the great prophets. People here have the assurance of a ordinary (but intelligent and grounded) person affirming what works and what does not, and how it all works as a whole.

Will even one person change as a result of my postings? Doubt it. But once the world goes into social breakdown on a material basis, then a lot of people here will have time to sit at home and reassess their beliefs. And if they see people dying slowing around them and that science is helpless then a further reassessment may take place.

However, my message about cooperation and the need for religious updates is going to go nowhere on this forum. All I am doing is refining the message. If God exists and if indeed I am supposed to spread a message then it will happen somehow. I accept I could be wrong. I am not a very good example of a believer in that I have not been totally convinced. My health is really preventing me from doing much and seems to be getting worse. But I retain hope.

[CliveG]

Humans having a innate sense of good and bad is illustrated in the latest Dilbert cartoon.

Dogbert:  Now that I am managing the cloud it is time to make some social changes. I will transfer any remaining money from the low-income people to the rich.
Dilbert: That feels wrong.
Dogbert: I am just adding efficiency to the inevitable.

Dogbert is right. Without the social upheavals of the past, the rich get richer for a number of reasons. One is that they influence the government to do things to benefit them. I used to be a conservative Republican who was a committed capitalist. I now see that while there are benefits to capitalism, governments need to regulate to remove the inequities. They also need to limit pollution, climate change and over-population. They cannot do this in good times. Hopefully they have the leadership to do it in bad times.

One simple regulation. Do away with computer trading. It is the mechanism that does indeed do wealth transfer and nothing else. There should be a rule that one has to hold stock for at least a week, and give a weeks notice of intention to sell. Or something similar. It would decimate the financial sector but it would provide stability. How many times do the experts say "Take a long term view. Do not panic sell". The rich are informed and make tactical decisions. They sell ahead of the curve and then wait for the bottom to buy. They may even control the public sentiment to choose their moment. The rich have the assets to do so and some get very rich with market collapses.

[CliveG]

While on the topic of what is the best type of government, my research into religion also took me into research on types of government.

Interestingly, one really good one is Fascism. The concept comes from the Italian for "bundle". The reasoning is that a bundle of sticks is far stronger than a individual sticks. The initial Italian concept of Fascism was that there were two classes in society. The workers and the bureaucrats. The workers produced goods and services and the bureaucrats ensured that systems were balanced and worked in harmony. It achieved a great economic result. The problem was that military pressure by Germany moved Italy away from the basic concepts, and Fascism got a bad name.

The USA (and other supposedly democratic countries) are not really democratic. The rich influence the elections and one cannot become a candidate if one has certain views. AIPAC is one organization with so  much financial and political clout that they must be "wooed" in order that they do not destroy a candidate. The African countries get a president and ruling party and they just rig the elections. A benevolent dictatorship would be the best, but the problem is where to get a good one and how to support it.

A Great Die-Off may solve some of these problems IF leadership is forced to act cooperatively and key people can do what is good and right. This is what I mean about "a group of wise men/women" who know what is just and equitable. They will have no authority unless they invoke the backing of God (and major religions). And I presume that God will indeed back them. The snake oil salesmen and frauds may spring up like weeds but will wither and die.

[Bored chemist]

It struck me that the Alcoholics Anonymous requirement for faith in a Higher Power is one example of the statistical method to prove God exists.

Then you need to re-read the stuff about confirmation bias.

Dogbert is right. Without the social upheavals of the past, the rich get richer for a number of reasons.

One such social upheaval is is the reduction of the influence of the churches.
If their scriptures still held sway, we would still have slaves and witch burning.

They also need to limit pollution, climate change and over-population. They cannot do this in good times. Hopefully they have the leadership to do it in bad times.

You have that the wrong way round.

You seem to be suggesting that we need to wait until it is raining before we fix the roof.

Even the bible recognised the importance of storing goods during the 7 fat years to tide them over in the 7 lean years.

While on the topic of what is the best type of government, my research into religion also took me into research on types of government.

Interestingly, one really good one is Fascism.

And there goes any remaining credibility you may have had.

[CliveG]

from: CliveG on Today at 07:52:53

    It struck me that the Alcoholics Anonymous requirement for faith in a Higher Power is one example of the statistical method to prove God exists.

Then you need to re-read the stuff about confirmation bias.

You need to re-read my post. You are saying that any statistically proven evidence of God HAS to be confirmation bias (or another brain malfunction) BECAUSE science has proven that there is no God. Am I correct that you are saying that science has proven there is no God? You keep using that in your logic.

You are so convinced that there is no God that you put all your faith in logical fallacies such as confirmation bias, faulty memories, pareidolia, hallucination and plain human imagination. What do you call your absolute faith in these explanations that leave not the slightest possibility for God or spirit as a possible explanation?

Could I claim that your logic and objectives (destroy religion) are proof that Satan exists - ergo God? (Once more - tongue in cheek  )

Maybe some-one could reduce your argument to a series of logical statements and see if I am correct that you incorporate the non-existence of God into your logic to arrive at the conclusions you do?

[Bored chemist]

I am saying that the effect of confirmation bias is so large (and impossible to measure independently) that it would mask any effect from God's intervention.

ou are saying that any statistically proven evidence of God HAS to be confirmation bias (or another brain malfunction) BECAUSE science has proven that there is no God

No.
I never said that.

Am I correct that you are saying that science has proven there is no God?

No you are , as usual, wrong..

You keep using that in your logic.

No
I have never used it.

You are so convinced that there is no God that you put all your faith in logical fallacies such as confirmation bias, faulty memories, pareidolia, hallucination and plain human imagination. What do you call your absolute faith in these explanations that leave not the slightest possibility for God or spirit as a possible explanation?

No.
I'm using Occam's razor.
Given that we can explain the observed data without invoking God's existence, it makes no sense to claim that he exists (on the basis of the data).

You seem to forget that (at least on a science web page) the burden of proof is on you.

[Bored chemist]

Maybe some-one could reduce your argument to a series of logical statements and see if I am correct that you incorporate the non-existence of God into your logic to arrive at the conclusions you do?

No, they could not.
Because I'm not starting from God's non existence.
I'm starting from the position that there are other explanations for the observations and thus no need to assume some God's existence.

[CliveG]

Quote from: CliveG on Today at 08:08:14

    Dogbert is right. Without the social upheavals of the past, the rich get richer for a number of reasons.

One such social upheaval is is the reduction of the influence of the churches.
If their scriptures still held sway, we would still have slaves and witch burning.

People have believed in evil forces and people who do evil long before organized religion. In Zimbabawe, only a few decades ago the tribes would put a group of people (men, woman and children) into a hut and burn it down in order to remove the evil that was causing their crops to fail.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?s=bibles&q=witch
The worship and seeking of supernatural powers other than God has been around since the beginning. Satan has used witchcraft to prevent people from finding holy spirituality in God alone. He uses witchcraft such as mediums, horoscopes, and games to entice people away from God and toward a power that gives self enlightenment. The Bible speaks often of the consequences of following false idols and falsehood. Read the Scripture verses below to better understand the importance of seeking God alone.

I ask God to guide me when I engage in contact with the spirit world using various methodologies including Tarot cards. So I pass the test of not using witchcraft. The key is also truth versus falsehoods. I connect to truth, and I speak the truth.

Exodus {22:18} Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

This is one of the Commandments handed out by Moses. These commandments are part of the Five Books of the Torah and not the New Testament. Many of these "laws" are acknowledged as out dated. How many times do I have to say that the religions need updating  - and that many laws followed by religions are indeed in need of updating - and that society has some of the practices as part of their cultural beliefs irrespective of any direction from religion. The term witch applies to some-one using the supernatural for evil. The punishment in those days was death. We have done away (mostly) with death penalty but why would you want an evil person to live next to you when they put evil curses upon people?

Deutoronomy {18:9}  When  thou  art  come  into  the  land  which  the LORD  thy  God  giveth  thee,  thou  shalt  not  learn  to  do  afterthe  abominations  of  those  nations.  {18:10}  There  shall  not be  found  among  you  [any  one]  that  maketh  his  son  or  his daughter  to  pass  through  the  fire,  or  that  useth  divination,[or]  an  observer  of  times,  or  an  enchanter,  or  a  witch,{18:11} Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, ora  wizard,  or  a  necromancer.
... {18:15}  The  LORD  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a Prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  unto me;  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken;
...{18:21} And  if  thou  say  in  thine  heart,  How  shall we  know  the  word  which  the  LORD  hath  not  spoken?{18:22}   When   a   prophet   speaketh   in   the   name   of   the LORD,  if  the  thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass,  that  [is]the  thing  which  the  LORD  hath  not  spoken,  [but]  the prophet  hath  spoken  it  presumptuously:  thou  shalt  not  be afraid of him.

This part deals with false prophets as well as contact with the spirit world. Note that miracles and messages from God ARE allowed as long as the prophet can demonstrate credentials. Moses was trying to move a group of people away from superstition and the from the influence of people who may have been contacting evil spirits.

I already said that when I asked a clairvoyant if she knew whether she was connecting with good or bad spirits she said she had no idea, nor did she limit her contact with only good. I know the rules and the rules are that contact done with the help of God is good and allowed. Once more - some update to the Old Testament and also to the teachings of the Christian church. I do not deny that the priesthood has egos that sometimes get in the way. They want the Bible to be the only inerrant word of God so as not to be challenged. But the time has come to challenge and for the Churches (and other religions) to take notice).

In SA, there are good witchdoctors (Sangomas) and bad witchdoctors. The bad ones kill people for body parts and they get paid to cast evil spells on others. There is a very definite need to separate the good from the bad. But why throw the baby out with the bathwater and stop good ones from practicing? Even if you do away with religion you will not do away with the need for people to seek supernatural help. Unfortunately the area is ripe for frauds and they are as numerous as the internet scam artists.

[CliveG]

You seem to forget that (at least on a science web page) the burden of proof is on you.

And I gave you a statistical scientific study that appears to prove that faith in God works. Is it not statistically possible that God does exist?

The burden of proof is now on you to prove that the study is in someway flawed - and the faith element is NOT due to the existence of God. All you have done is suggest another mechanism. Prove it is the only mechanism - and not God.

[Bored chemist]

And I gave you a statistical scientific study that appears to prove that faith in God works.

remind me- where did you think you had done that?

[Bored chemist]

Many of these "laws" are acknowledged as out dated.

Christ didn't.
He said they were here until the end of time.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

People have believed in evil forces and people who do evil long before organized religion. In Zimbabwe, only a few decades ago the tribes would put a group of people (men, woman and children) into a hut and burn it down in order to remove the evil that was causing their crops to fail.

You seem not to realise that those beliefs- that burning the people in the hut will help - are religion.
It's especially ironic given this

You do it with God and you do it with the Christian and Muslim religions. The others you give a pass for various reasons.

Well that's exactly my point.
I treat all the religions the same.
You pretend that some are "good" and others aren't " organized religion".

The burden of proof is now on you to prove that the study is in someway flawed - and the faith element is NOT due to the existence of God. All you have done is suggest another mechanism. Prove it is the only mechanism - and not God.

That's absurd.
If I said " Pixies did it - prove I'm wrong" you would recognise that it's not your job to explain away my fantastic idea.

[CliveG]

Many of these "laws" are acknowledged as out dated.

Christ didn't.
He said they were here until the end of time.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-18.htm

First let me confirm my statement that some of the "Laws" are acknowledged as outdated.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/541686/jewish/How-Many-of-the-Torahs-Commandments-Still-Apply.htm
While many of us know that there are 613 mitzvot, (248 do's, and 365 don'ts) it is less widely known just how many mitzvot we can actively apply in our time, outside of Israel, when the Temple (Beit HaMikdash) no longer stands. For example, all the various sacrificial offerings are no longer able to be brought.

Of the 248 positive commands, only 126 are currently applicable. And of the 365 negative commands, only 243 are still applicable. So in total, nowadays, 369 mitzvot are still operative.

I never said that the Bible and therefore sayings attributed to Christ were inerrant. Christ was only raised to the status of God by the Nicaean bishops. When you look at the entirety of the Matthew verse you quote I note that Jesus goes on to be explicit about the interpretation of the laws and does not detail the minor ones. I see no problem with his interpretation of the various laws. He does not speak kindly of false prophets. Rather than nit-pick one should look at the whole of what he said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
The Nicene Creed of 325 explicitly affirms the co-essential divinity of the Son, applying to him the term "consubstantial". ... The earlier Apostles' Creed does not explicitly affirm the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but in the view of many who use it, this doctrine is implicit in it.

By the way, I never studied the Bible, having been a confirmed atheist from age 12 to 17 and then a confirmed agnostic from 18 to about 50 or 60. The way I learned about the Nicaea was that we had an electrical cable explode and I went to a person two houses away. We got to talking and he told he had written a book about Jesus not being God. He gave me a copy of his book. He used to teach Christianity. Once more God created an event to teach me something very important. That Jesus is not God.

[CliveG]

People have believed in evil forces and people who do evil long before organized religion. In Zimbabwe, only a few decades ago the tribes would put a group of people (men, woman and children) into a hut and burn it down in order to remove the evil that was causing their crops to fail.

You seem not to realise that those beliefs- that burning the people in the hut will help - are religion.
It's especially ironic given this

You do it with God and you do it with the Christian and Muslim religions. The others you give a pass for various reasons.

Well that's exactly my point.
I treat all the religions the same.
You pretend that some are "good" and others aren't " organized religion".

You treat all religions (and the supernatural) the same as in "they are all bad". A blanket dismissal for the sake of your atheistic beliefs.

I do not think that a belief in the supernatural is a religion.

While one cannot have religion without a belief in the supernatural I do think one can have a belief in the supernatural without a belief in religion or God. Although I was a confirmed atheist I took it as "natural" that ghosts, mental telepathy, clairvoyance and the like existed. They were part of the world I was brought up in.

Many African tribes believed in ancestor worship. The tribes is South Africa and Zimbabwe had no Gods that I am aware of. The witchdoctor was all-powerful and feared. He communicated with the spirits and knew which ones were good and which ones were evil. Evil spirits could infect and inhabit people and the cure was death (same as the Old Testament).

I have experienced demons in others, and heard them try to compel me to do something evil. Not quite a voice in my head but certainly an outside thought intruding in commanding an action. Only about 4 distinct occasions. I suspect that many people who commit suicide or do something really strange may have been commanded to do so by demons.

When Christianity came to Southern Africa, they accepted Jesus and God, but kept their ancestor and spirit beliefs. They did learn that one can cast out demons, and I know a person (named John) who does just that. So there was no need to kill the "witches". An update of their religion.

[CliveG]

The burden of proof is now on you to prove that the study is in someway flawed - and the faith element is NOT due to the existence of God. All you have done is suggest another mechanism. Prove it is the only mechanism - and not God.

That's absurd.
If I said " Pixies did it - prove I'm wrong" you would recognise that it's not your job to explain away my fantastic idea.

Break it down to the basics. There are two methodologies to "cure" alcoholics. One insists on a belief in a Higher Power (God for all intents and purposes), and the secular scientific way. Both have a placebo effect.

But the first has a very clear statistical success rate. The second studies the first and tries to emulate them and their methods but does away with the faith requirement.

It is clear that faith and prayer are the differential. The question you are faced with is "Is a belief in a non-existent God just as powerful as a belief in an existent God?"

Now you have to first explain why belief alone is so powerful, especially when a belief in science does not give the same result. Then you have to show that your explanation applies to the AA.

Scoffing and dismissal are not very scientific.

Your straw-man of Pixies is another atheist tactic. Just why do you keep equating God to a mythical creature clearly invented to entertain children? Oh, maybe you think God is a mythical creature invented to control the masses. Just because both religion and science had various "myths" and both have improved their understanding does not mean that religion is totally wrong and science is totally right.

If you told me a Pixie had created the universe I would certainly scoff because we all know Pixies are an imaginary creature. If you told me that the universe and its laws arose from nothing I would also scoff because we all know nothing comes from nothing.