brazil84 comments on Undiscriminating Skepticism - Less Wrong

97 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 14 March 2010 11:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (1329)
Tags: skepticism contrarianism

Comments (1329)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: brazil84 20 March 2010 06:52:12PM *  1 point [-]

Ok, in that case just take the supernatural part out of the definition. Define God as some entity who did essentially what is ascribed to God in the Hebrew Bible. i.e. He created the Heavens and the Earth, etc.

Comment author: cupholder 20 March 2010 07:35:13PM -1 points [-]

I don't have a paper copy of the Bible so I used this. I tried to read it from the beginning, but it didn't make any sense. At first I thought 'God' must have been Hebrew for 'Big Bang,' but that didn't fit. I can't really work out what this 'God' would even be if it existed - it's like trying to deduce what the Jabberwock is. So I guess God is about as likely to exist as slithy toves.

Comment author: brazil84 20 March 2010 09:34:36PM 0 points [-]

I'm confused again. Are you telling me you are an atheist?

Comment author: cupholder 20 March 2010 09:39:59PM -1 points [-]

About Hebrew Bible God? Of course! Unless you can think of some sensible way to interpret Genesis (and the rest of it) that hasn't occurred to me and lets you salvage a God.

Comment author: brazil84 21 March 2010 11:08:55AM 0 points [-]

Do you understand that in the West, when people say they believe in God, they are normally referring to the God of Abraham?

And do you agree that there exists weak evidence for the existence of God?

Comment author: cupholder 21 March 2010 08:59:36PM -1 points [-]

Do you understand that in the West, when people say they believe in God, they are normally referring to the God of Abraham?

That is what I thought when I was younger. In practice I've found that when talking to people in depth about their idea of God, they often have a slightly different idea of what God is supposed to be than other people I've spoken to.

And do you agree that there exists weak evidence for the existence of God?

Yes: a lot of people claim to have experienced God directly, which is weak evidence for God's existence. (Assuming they're all talking about essentially the same thing when they say 'God,' anyway.)

Comment author: brazil84 22 March 2010 09:04:15AM 0 points [-]

Yes: a lot of people claim to have experienced God directly

Sure; also there is hearsay documentary evidence (the Bible) and apparently even some scientific studies which supposedly demonstrate the power of prayer.

But by what standard do you reject such evidence?

Comment author: ata 22 March 2010 09:23:26AM 0 points [-]

apparently even some scientific studies which supposedly demonstrate the power of prayer.

If I recall correctly, there are studies that demonstrate the power of believing one is being prayed for, whether or not one actually is. In studies where the people being prayed for don't know about it, there is no significant difference.

Comment author: mattnewport 22 March 2010 11:43:47AM 0 points [-]

The largest study I know of found the opposite effect: people who knew they were being prayed for had slightly worse health outcomes.

Comment author: brazil84 23 March 2010 01:37:38AM *  0 points [-]

I did a google search and found this, among other things:

One of the most cited studies in prayer literature was conducted by the physician Randolph Byrd in 1988. Byrd looked at the effects of prayer in the Judeo-Christian tradition in a coronary care unit (CCU) population. Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU were randomly assigned to a treatment group that would receive distant prayers, or a control group that would receive no prayers.

Three to seven people prayed daily for the rapid recovery, and prevention of complications or death, for a single patient in the treatment group. The end result was that statistically significantly fewer patients in the prayer group required ventilation, antibiotics, had cardiopulmonary arrests, developed pneumonia, or required diuretics.

http://scientificinquiry.suite101.com/article.cfm/pray-for-me

Comment author: cupholder 23 March 2010 10:30:13AM 0 points [-]

Rejecting an interpretation of the evidence != rejecting evidence.

(Incidentally, I tried pulling up meta-analyses on the effect of prayer and found this Cochrane meta-analysis which finds no consistent effect of being prayed for on ill health.)

Comment author: brazil84 23 March 2010 12:21:53PM 0 points [-]

Rejecting an interpretation of the evidence != rejecting evidence.

:shrug: By what standard do you evaluate this evidence so as to reach your atheistic conclusion notwithstanding this evidence for the existence of God?

Comment author: cupholder 23 March 2010 01:26:56PM 0 points [-]

The same standard I use to reach an a-homeopathic conclusion notwithstanding the evidence for homeopathy working, or an a-alien-abduction conclusion notwithstanding the evidence for people being beamed up and anally probed by aliens.

Namely, can I fit the idea of God existing/homeopathy working/alien abduction into my broader understanding of the world, or would it require overturning practically my whole understanding of how reality works?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit