Reply #35: So that means your not agnostic, then?

[varkam]

At least not when it comes to science examining theological claims. Perhaps I'm misreading "science is not something you measure or an object you can observe - IMHO". The design was decent, perhaps the conceptual framework of the study was stupid - that seems to be more or less what you're objecting to, at least from what I'm taking to be your meaning.

And, not to say that you're at all wrong, but those of us who are interested in science are also interested in alternative explanations - and more specifically, ruling those out. A good scientist is one who always accepts the null hypothesis (there is no effect) before ample evidence to the contrary presents itself. For example, you say that there are many instances in your life when prayers have been answered - perhaps it's that you remember the times when you prayed for something that came true and do not remember the times you prayed for something and nothing at all happened. Selective memory is a powerful thing - it's why we generally think all old people are slow and why we think people do crazy things on full moons. We see an old person paying in pennies at the supermarket and that reinforces our schema, or world-view. I think it could be similar with prayer - we pray for things that sometimes get answered. If we believe prayer does result in beneficial results, then when those do eventually happen (and by the law of probability, they will if you pray enough) those results will reinforce our view that prayer works. Again, not to say you're wrong, just offering a possible alternative explanation.

I do not feel that this was a "great" experiment. I don't think it was "very poorly designed" either. Perhaps the subject material is a bit silly, but I figure if theological claims can in no way manifest themselves in our physical universe, then perhaps it's a bit silly to believe in them. That's why I like to take the stance that religion and theological claims should be subject to the same standards as any other claim.

Additionally, I don't think that this experiment "proved" anything. I think this experiment is evidence to the notion that there might not be anyone on the other end of the line, so to speak. It takes numerous scientific studies to bolster a claim to the point where it is generally accepted, and even then all it takes is one study that fails to replicate those results to call the theory back into question. If every study done on the topic showed that prayer had no effect whatsoever, then I'd say there's pretty good evidence that no one is listening - but I still wouldn't say anything was "proved".