Re: [asa] God disproven by science?

Hi George,

Funnily enough, I was wondering how a small "c" catholic might take this discussion...

Let me assure you that I would wish to defend prayer book Anglicans and their equivalents in other traditions against the claim that theirs is _not_ a "prayer of faith".

Personally, I consider that various ways of praying: whether they be formulaic (as per the prayer book), written (two of the deacons in my congregation ALWAYS writes out their prayers beforehand), or extempore (which, as a form of public prayer, should be more than random waffle - hence the value of written prayers) are no indication that faith is present or absent.

In that respect I agree with your last line in the paragraph below.

So why "interminable debate"? Well, mainly because I find it to be so - although perhaps it's an Australian thing? Australians take a particular delight in being anti-establishment, particularly anti-ENGLISH establishment - so perhaps questions about the legitimacy of the use of liturgical forms in general, and the Anglican prayer book in particular, is more prominent here in Oz than in the US? All I can say is (1) in my experience this debate about whether the presence of faith is consistent with the use of liturgical forms does continually arise (hence is "interminable") and (2) I originally introduced the use of the prayer book in a POSITIVE light - it was Burgy who raised the question of faith - so you'll have to talk to him!

Blessings as always,
Murray

George Murphy wrote:
> Murray -
>
> Good point about contamination. As to your 1st paragraph, I frankly
> wasn't aware that there was an "interminable debate" about what
> constitutes a "prayer of faith." Why would the prayers in the Book of
> Common Prayer, or any similar resource, not be "prayers of faith" if
> prayed by people of faith who have some degree of confidence that God
> wants us to pray and will respond to prayer? Of course such prayers can
> be rattled off by rote but that doesn't disqualify all such prayers.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] God disproven by science?
>
>
>> Hi Jon:
>>
>> Point taken about the prayer of faith vs. liturgical or rote prayer.
>> But that simply pushes us back to that interminable debate over what
>> constitutes "the prayer of faith." Presumably those who follow the
>> Anglican prayer book would claim that theirs IS a "prayer of faith"
>> whether we might agree or not. That said, I agree wholeheartedly with
>> your main point: unless we can find means of identifying the "prayer
>> of faith" then attempting scientifically to assess its veracity would
>> seem to be an impossible exercise.
>>
>> I should, by the way, have added Christian doctors and nurses to my
>> list of people who pray for patients - whether the later request it or
>> not - and that they often do so "incognito". I simply can't see how
>> prayer studies manage to avoid this sort of "contamination" of their
>> sample groups.
>>
>> Blessings,
>> Murray
>>
>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>> Hi Jon-
>>>
>>> Maybe it boils down to the ability to measure. We can't know who is
>>> praying for who, so maybe prayer can't be studied scientifically.
>>> But if we do know someone self-identifies as a Christian, we can then
>>> measure their temperament (or marriage failure rate, etc.) and report
>>> such findings, to see if there's a correlation.
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>>> On Behalf Of Jon Tandy
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:14 AM
>>> To: 'ASA'
>>> Subject: RE: [asa] God disproven by science?
>>>
>>> Murray,
>>>
>>> Probably more I'd like to say, but just briefly: the problem of
>>> prayer studies is much deeper than just the control group, as I'm
>>> sure you recognize. We aren't healed just because of liturgical
>>> prayer, or rote prayer, but the "prayer of faith" in accordance with
>>> the will of God. If science can come up with a method of measuring
>>> the quantity of faith that we possess, and quantitatively identifying
>>> God's will, then it might be capable of investigating prayer studies
>>> using methodological naturalism.
>>>
>>> However, to take the idea of "human-social science" in a practical
>>> direction, would it be possible for sociologists to study the effects
>>> of faith in an individual, or in group studies? One example could be
>>> studies which show that people of faith are more likely to give to
>>> charities than others. Another example might be that people of faith
>>> are able to survive prisoner of war experiences better (in general)
>>> than those without any professed faith. This doesn't prove what any
>>> individual in the study might do under the same circumstances, but it
>>> does reflect trends that seem to have some rational explanation.
>>> Could such studies fall in the category of science? On the other
>>> hand, if scientific studies demonstrate that fundamentalist
>>> Christians are more likely than others to be angry and intolerant
>>> toward people with whom they disagree, maybe we will decide we don't
>>> want science investigating matters of faith and personal belief. Or
>>> maybe, we should welcome such findings a
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> s !
>>> a useful corrective to Christian morals and practice. Do the kinds
>>> of studies I suggest above fall in the category of "methodological
>>> naturalism", or in a different category? If they aren't MN, would
>>> they be considered "scientific" within the relevant disciplines? If
>>> they are scientific but not MN, does that show that MN is not an all
>>> encompassing to define "science"? I'm just throwing out ideas to
>>> stimulate thought. Jon Tandy
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>>> On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 6:41 AM
>>> To: ASA
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] God disproven by science?
>>>
>>> Just a couple of thoughts on this thread;
>>>
>>> First, following on from what Louise wrote:
>>>> God, as a presumably free-will agent operating through an unknown
>>>> physical (or perhaps unknowable "supernatural") mechanism can
>>>> choose to answer prayer differently even if circumstances, from our
>>>> human perspective, are practically identical for both patients and
>>>> petitioners. Or, as one of the students put it last spring, "if I
>>>> were God and people were doing a prayer study with me, I'd just mess
>>>> with them!"
>>>
>>> There is a similar sentiment from John Polkinghorne, Science and
>>> Creation: the search for understanding (London: SPCK, 1988), p.87;
>>>
>>> <cite>
>>> Another power we lose in personal encounter is the ability to
>>> predict. Only in the event itself is its meaning to be found. It
>>> cannot be laid down beforehand nor prescribed by those who are merely
>>> observers and not participants. The religious believer is ill and
>>> prays for the gift of wholeness in the experience. He may find it in
>>> physical recovery or in the acceptance of disability or death. What
>>> will happen to him cannot be predicted, nor may any but he say
>>> whether the experience, when it comes, is one of wholeness or of
>>> disintegration.
>>>
>>> Scientific knowledge is concerned with generalities, what all can
>>> find if they choose to look. In consequence it has a repeatable, and
>>> so shareable, character to it. Personal encounter is always
>>> idiosyncratic, because each individual is unique. We may find
>>> analogies in the experience of others but never identity. We all hear
>>> a Beethoven quartet differently, and we ourselves never quite hear it
>>> in the same way twice. Hence the scandal of particularity, which for
>>> Christian theology finds its most startling exemplification in the
>>> unique status claimed for Jesus Christ. While such a claim clearly
>>> calls for the most careful assessment, it is a rational possibility
>>> in the sphere of the personal that God should have made himself
>>> uniquely known in a particular man.
>>>
>>>
>>> </cite>
>>>
>>> Second, on prayer studies in hospitals, one of the greatest problems
>>> is the fact that we simply can't establish any sort of control group.
>>> We cannot stop patients praying for themselves, nor can we stop
>>> family or friends doing so. And even if patients are die-hard
>>> atheists who insist that neither they nor any of their acquaintances
>>> are praying for healing, there are still hospital chaplains and local
>>> church prayer teams. Daily prayer for all the afflicted is also set
>>> down in the Anglican prayer book as well as forming part of the
>>> liturgy of many Catholic and other traditions. In short, there's no
>>> such thing as "not being prayed for." Consequently no way, in
>>> practice, to test the claim that "prayer has no effect on healing".
>>>
>>> Blessings,
>>> Murray To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Apr 23 17:39:08 2009