Does prayer work?

Posting an exchange I had on Facebook

Peter 

Unfortunately prayer doesn’t work.

Hays

Whether prayer is ever effective can't be determined by "prayer studies". All that's required is required are examples of a naturally impossible or highly improbable turn of events synchronized with prayer.

David

Prayers work about as well as you walking into a store and buying the winning lottery ticket

Hays

That's a village atheist trope, but there are answers to prayer that resist facile naturalistic explanations. 

David

Just as soon as someone can prove that .. there is I million dollars waiting for them.

Hays

And of course the individual or organization offering the reward also plays the referee, so it's a risk-free bet. 

Ian

What fair criteria would you suggest to help prove that prayer works?

Hays

i) There can be criteria we use to establish that something actually happens or actually exists (or used to exist). Those may be more stringent criteria, and we may use the best examples to establish the claim.

ii) If it's been demonstrated that the phenomenon in question actually exists or happens, then that raises the plausibility for claims of the same kind, even if those don't meet the same stringent criteria. It lowers the burden of proof in those cases. If we already know that that sort of thing happens, it will sometimes or oftentimes happen where ideal evidence is lacking, but it would be unreasonable to automatically deny such reports. 

If, say, there are, at the same time and place, multiple sightings of ball lighting, and photographic evidence, that makes other reports of ball lighting more credible even if they are isolated and lack the same corroborative evidence. If ball lighting exists, it will be seen under various conditions. Sometimes by multiple witnesses at the same venue, but sometimes not. 

iii) A miraculous healing synchronized with prayer is strong evidence that there's a prayer-answering God. By miraculous healing, I mean a healing that's naturally impossible or inexplicable. 

iv) Another class of miracles are what are called coincidence miracles. These don't bypass natural processes. What makes them miraculous is how antecedently improbable and opportune they are. Miracles of timing that are too discriminating, too auspicious, to be reasonably explained as random events. 

Ian

I am going to push back a little here. If you have proof of fact A, it has no bearing on question B. If we have evidence that Jesus returned from the grave, that fact has no evidentiary power to the question did Lazarus of Bethany return from the grave.

Hays

It has a direct bearing on whether events of that kind happen. 

Ian

This is a fallacy of ad populum. Even if we grant that ball lighting exists, A group of people all seeing it and photographic evidence may not be sufficient evidence to logically conclude that it does.

Hays

The ad populum fallacy refers to a common belief, not a common empirical observation. Appeal to multiple eyewitnesses is not the ad populum fallacy. 

Ian

Due to an already established psychological phenomenon known as "Mass hallucination"

Hays

That's not been established. A hallucination is defined as a perception without an external stimulus. But if there's no external stimulus producing the perception, why would two or more people have the same perception? It's purely psychological, so there's no common cause to generate a common perception. 

Ian

Also regarding the above paragraph someone who is skeptical may ask how one would determine the photographic evidence was not doctored.

Hays

That's paranoid skepticism. Sure, photographic evidence can be doctored, but that's not the first explanation rational people reach for unless there's reason to believe the photographer had some inceptive to fake evidence.

Ian

Sure but again we are discussing criteria for proving prayer works. The fact that photographs can be doctored lowers their evidentiary power. If you told me you had a dog and showed me a picture I would probably believe you. If you showed me a picture of a space alien I would need more. So it is not usable as criteria to prove prayer works.

Hays

i) Actually, I'm providing hypothetical counterexamples to demonstrate that as a matter of principle, your objections are fallacious. 

ii) And your comparison between a photograph of a dog and a photograph of a space alien contradicts your contention that we should evaluate every report in isolation to the known occurrence or existence of the reported phenomenon. 

Ian

No. A "miraculous" healing synchronized with prayer is strong evidence of a heretofore unknown reason of said healing.

Hays

Now you're resorting to naturalism-of-the-gaps. 

Ian

I never claimed there was a natural explanation I said your statement gave me no way of knowing the cause of the healing. You are the one who inserted god. Also not great criteria for determining if prayer works.

Hays

You appealed to "a hitherto unknown reason". That's either going to be natural or supernatural. If, however, the medical condition is naturally incurable, then by process of elimination, it must have a supernatural cause. 

Ian

You would first need to demonstrate that A)There is an ailment and B) it is naturally impossible to heal whatever ailment C)The Unnatural exists D)The unnatural was responsible for healing E)The unnatural was god who was moved by prayer. This at least get's us closer to good criteria for proving prayer. But still a stretch.

Hays

i) It's not as if Christians are the only folks to say some medical conditions are naturally incurable. That's standard medical science.

ii) No, I don't need to first prove that "the unnatural exists". If the healing is naturally inexplicable, then the only logical alternative is a supernatural explanation.

iii) And if the cure synchronizes with prayer, then God is the best explanation.

Ian

I have seen more then my fair share of people who take the proper medication for an ailment then thank god that they are healed.

Hays

A non sequitur inasmuch as my examples were not the kinds of ailments responsive to medication. 

Your position is self-defeating. Atheists typically deny miracles because they deny that certain kinds of events are compatible  with naturalism (i.e. physicalism, causal closure). They don't say the event happened, but it has a naturalistic explanation; rather, they deny the report. Otherwise, they obliterate the distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism, if every kind of event is consistent with naturalism. In that case, naturalism ceases to demarcate categorically different kinds of events.

Ian

I acknowledge coincidences happen.

Hays

You seem to be unfamiliar with the nomenclature. A coincidence miracle is not a coincidence. Rather, the label is a term of art, where causally independent events coincide in naturally inexplicable ways.

Ian

One in a billion is still a chance regardless of how remote.

Hays

You have no criterion to distinguish a coincidence from a manipulated outcome, like beating the odds at poker though cheating. 

Ian

Unless only one or neither of the events happened then they have no bearing what so ever on each other. In the case of resurrection even if I died today and came back tomorrow it would only indicate that resurrection was possible and has no bearing on if jesus was resurrected and further, even if both myself and jesus could be proven to have been brought back to life there would still be no indication as to Lazarus. It does not effect the likely hood at all. Each claim must be investigated independently based on it's own merits or lack there of. 

Hays

Not just the possibility but the reality. Rationale people evaluate the credibility of reported claims against a general background understanding about the occurrence or nonoccurrence of certain kinds of events. If there was no evidence that chain-smoking heightens the risk of lung cancer, we wouldn't suspect smoking as a likely cause. If, however, that is known to be a carcinogen, then the explanation has much greater antecedent probability and credibility. So we don't investigate every reported event in isolation to the known occurrence or nonoccurrence of events of that kind. 

Ian

We are not discussing a situation we are firsthand witness too. we are discussing what criteria you think is fair to prove prayer.

Hays

I'm using a counterexample to demonstrate that your appeal to the ad populum fallacy is misdefines the fallacy. 

Ian

You are appealing to the opinion of a populous to form a belief that ball lightning exists or in our specific instance I should take the word of people that prayer works. This is too low a standard of evidence.

Hays

You continue to misdefine the fallacy you appeal to. If there are multiple sightings of ball-lighting by independent observers, that's probative evidence for the existence of ball lightning. That's not the ad populum fallacy because it's not a bare appeal to popular opinion but belief grounded in the empirical observation of multiple eyewitnesses. 

Ian

Hundreds of people witnessed David Copperfield vanish the statue of liberty. My point is this is not a valid criteria to prove prayer works.

Hays

A counterproductive illustration. That wasn't a hallucination, much less a mass hallucination. He's a magician who concealed the statue by using a giant screen or curtain. The inability to see an object hidden behind a barrier is hardly a hallucination. The audience couldn't see the statue because there was a physical obstruction blocking the view. So that had an external cause. It wasn't a psychological perception with nothing on the outside producing it. 

Ian

I haven't commented on my position regarding miracles. Our conversation is regarding criteria to prove prayer works.

Hays

A miraculous healing in response to prayer is an example of a veridical answer to prayer. 

Ian

But since you brought up one atheist's position I will comment. If god exists then god is natural. anything that god did would also be natural."

Hays

If you define naturalism so elastically that naturalism is consistent with any kind of thing happening, then naturalism is a vacuous idea. 

Ian

I have no reason to to believe that there is even a concept of unnatural. 

Hays

i) Naturalism is standardly defined as a combination of physicalism and causal closure (cf. SEP entry). It is certainly possible to form a concept of nonphysical entities. Abstract objects are the paradigm example. Even if you don't believe in abstract objects, they are conceivable. Moreover, some atheists are platonic realists. They believe in abstract objects, which by definition subsist outside of space and time.

ii) Likewise, the alternative to a closed system is an open system. It's certainly possible to form the concept of the universe as an open system. That's how atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie delineates the concept of miracle, in his classic monograph. 

Ian

The label is irrelevant. 'causally independent events coincide in naturally inexplicable ways' does not lead us to any rational explanation of said event.

Hays

To the contrary, it leads to an explanation that falls outside the boundaries of naturalism (i.e. physicalism, causal closure). 

Ian

Nor does it get us one step closer to the ultimate cause of said event. I cannot see how a 'Coincidence miracle' has evidentiary power to prove prayer works. Therefore I do not believe we can use it as criteria for proving prayer. 

Hays

Because it's more reasonable to explain some outcomes as the result of personal agency than dumb luck. Suppose a hacker reprograms the lottery computer so that every ticket he buys is a winning ticket, even though the lottery is supposed to be randomized so that nearly every ticket is a losing ticket. Some outcomes are too lucky to be sheer luck. 

Ian

Therefore we should discount it as evidence.

Hays

So you seem to be conceding that you have no criterion to distinguish a random outcome from a planned or engineered outcome. But that's a reductio ad absurdum of your position.  

Ian

Can you please define naturally incurable and give me an example of something that exists that is naturally incurable that standard medical science has pointed too?. 

Hays

You're not being intellectually honest.

Ian

Please give me an example of something that exists that is naturally inexplicable.

Hays

God, miracles, possession by evil spirits. That's three. 

Ian

Also can you define the supernatural for me…

Hays

I already did that in reference to Mackie. 

Ian

…and point me to one proven example of something supernatural.

Hays

Miracles, demonic possession, and postmortem apparitions are three well-documented examples. 

Ian

I did not define naturalism at all. You are the one who seems to be hung up on everything being put into little boxes.

Hays

That's because you're intellectually evasive. You want to make your position unfalsifiable by making it as vague and noncommittal.

It's not like these are just Christian boxes. These are boxes used by major atheist philosophers. 

Ian

I don't care about this definition, How does any of this help us define what criteria to use to determine that prayer works?

Hays

Because answers to prayers require supernatural agency.

Ian

In other words imaginary.

Hays

i) Once again, abstract objects are a paradigm example of nonphysical objects that aren't imaginary.

ii) And there's multiple lines of evidence that causal closure is false.

Ian

I would rely on evidence to distinguish a planned from random out come.

Hays

Which includes evidence for answered prayer.

Ian

In the absence of evidence I would acknowledge that I don't know. I am not so self important as to think that I have all the answers and assert my opinion as fact.

Hays

You're a secular fideist. You defend atheism by taking refuge in anti-intellectualism. Pretending that this is about lack of evidence. Refusing to let yourself be pinned down on standard categories and logical alternatives. This is not a constructive dialogue.