Prayer and Science
Monday, January 29th, 2007
Well, it seems as of late I have been reading quite a bit about so-called "empirical" minds criticizing prayer for it's lack of scientific efficacy.
To be honest, it's a bit misleading, IMO.
Here is the problem. Prayer is, at it's simplest, a request. It is not necessarily a request made of a deity, but that is the word we have colloquially attributed to asking God for things.
But, and this is important, it is a request.
Is ANY request scientifically verifiable?
Whenever someone claims that a prayer has been answered, there is always some schmo who says "Well, that would have happened anyways".
And perhaps they're right.
But that could easily be applied to any granted request.
Perhaps I was going to get the book I wanted for Christmas whether I said anything or not to my wife, and perhaps I wasn't.
Also, what it seems some people are looking for with prayer is some sort of repeatable, observable phenomenon, when there is not any other interpersonal request that we ask for that.
I can write a letter to Bill Gates asking for a million dollars, and I could send this letter to him a million times, and I may get a million nos. Or I could get 1 yes.
But would I ever get 2 yes's?
And would this lack of repeatable, observable phenomenon somehow prove that Bill Gates doesn't exist, or that asking is pointless, or has no effect?
Like with
ANY requests made, each one is unique for a variety of reasons, and to try to apply science to yet another problem outside of it's realm is incredibly narrow-minded to an almost autistic extreme.
Again, this is not trying to prove that prayer works, but rather to say that it is empirically impossible to judge.
Yet that lack of empirical impossibility does not disprove anything.
And
THIS is the problem I have with most of the morons out there who judge everything through a scientific lens.
Science does not explain everything. It cannot. It's tool set is too ill-equipped, and it's craftsmen too inept.
There are immeasurable realities.
And accepting that does not impede scientific progress, but rather gives it more power, as does properly wielding any tool.
But measuring a distance with a hammer does not make the hammer or the measurer more powerful, but more limited because the exploration for a better tool is stopped.
And when science refuses to accept it's limitations, it impedes the progress to finding the proper and right tools for the job.
Wow, that was a bit of a ramble.
» Nate Cavanaugh @ 11:16 pm
These 6 people have opinions
Terry said:
Good point Nate. I enjoyed your rambling and I couldn't agree more. Science itself is very limited - I don't think that there will ever be a scientific answer for everything. BTW, I am looking at expanse with interest.
Alex said:
Honestly? You're an idiot.
Kaneda said:
Once again, well written, but i mostly disagree.
Science IS an ill equiped tool set, however that tool set is growing.
Scott said:
Well, kudos to Kaneda for being nicer about this than Alex, but the point is taken. Seriously, Nate, I hope for your sake this level of poor thinking you're showing here is not found in your products.
Respiro, the logo design guy said:
When scientists starts searching for scientific proofs for Christianity or, in this case, for prayer, I stop being interested in them. Christianity and belief needs no proof.
Giovanna Maguina said:
There is something more that our minds; we have to listen inside to our souls. No scientific prove is required for that…we only need to be in calm.