> I believe we spent some time pondering the brain-boggling aspects > of this one. Along with a selection of letters, including, I'm > pleased to say, mine, the author replies. I would characterize > his response as enigmatic, particularly in relation to the > question whether this is a real study or a constructed > provocation. > > But perhaps someone else on this list has a better idea of what > the author is trying to tell us. At: > http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7344/1037
Not me. I'm not sure what the author is trying to "prove." Congratulations on getting your reply included. As always, you express yourself well. Though, I hope you don't mind a few comments(and I'm not trying to instigate another religious debate). >Applying the Talmudic method (which seems appropriate here), either this study >of Leibovici shows God's intervention or it does not.1 Well, since not all prayers are equally answered, what do we define as God's intervention? Can a non-intervention still count as an intervention (the answer to a prayer being "no")? I think the either-or is way too difficult to apply over a group of individuals. >If it does not, then the experiment must be faulty. As Dace points out, the >great principle of William of Ockham leads us to prefer this explanation in >science.2 True. Huge problem with this kind of study -- to presume that God's intervention takes a certain form or shape, or always amounts to a certain action, is clearly unscientific and likely unbiblical. In other words, if we find any difference between the two groups, the "believer" can say "God did intervene because that is how God intervenes." What if the real effect is internal, especially since religion is arguably more about man's spiritual side than his intestines -- what if an intervention causes me to experience a greater sense of peace, but doesn't get my kidneys to function any better? >But suppose it does show God's intervention. The time bending aspect of this >report is not of concern, as once the supernatural is invoked, the sky's the >limit (literally). If God can intervene to promote faster recovery on request, >then He can reach back in time to do so. I missed something in this experiment. Where did the retroactive part come into play? Why should God reach back? God may live out of time, but we live in time. So even if God did reach back (which I disbelieve, and I don't know of any religious system that argues this can occur) how would we know this had occurred??? >But consider the implication of accepting what Gardner calls the superstition >of the finger, that God finds it necessary at intervals to abrogate natural >laws by injecting a finger into the universe to tinker with it.3 Who doesn't tinker with a creation, particularly when it seems especially necessary? >Charles Darwin argued against this belief The great theologian ;) >concluding that there seems be too much misery in the world to believe that >God takes such a personal and protective interest in how we live our lives.4 That's the typical man creating God in the image of his wishes -- God should not intervene in my sex life, my classroom, my government -- but when my booty is hanging out in the wind He better cover it or He just doesn't care. And if there's too much suffering in the world, maybe God is doing as much as he can to push back as much as we're trying to inflict. >But the argument against the God of the finger becomes even stronger if we >accept Leibovici's experiment. We only need to recall recent horrific eventsin >Afghanistan, in the Balkans, in Israel, and in New Yorkto realise that God is >unwilling to lift His finger to prevent great suffering and death among >innocent people and is unmoved by the many impassioned prayers that He do so. Again, this assumes that intervention is sweeping and affects all individuals in the same way. And it assumes that God isn't working against the direct effects of so many who wish to cause the violence. Maybe this raises a great point -- how many are really praying for Israel, Palestine, and other contries with so much upheaval. I've done very little and need to do more. Stephen, I think YOU have the better "experiment" -- let's all start praying more for world peace. It can't hurt, right? My tongue is not in my cheek by the way -- you're raising excellent points here and I support you to some extent. >Then why does He choose to respond when called upon by perfunctory, impersonal >prayer on behalf of long-ago events involving far lesser suffering? The >implication of Leibovici's conclusion is that God may intervene, but He does >so in a profoundly cruel, capricious, and trivial manner. Those who believe in >a just and loving God should obtain little comfort from the outcome of this >experiment. They should pray that it is not true. I have great concern about the "medicalizing" (that's not a word, is it?) of prayer. It's similar to these televangelists that promise healing by intense prayer and righteous living. It assumes there is some prayer formula one can grab onto that will effect positive change, and when it doesn't work, places responsibility on the shoulders of the victim. This causes at least two problems: 1 It teaches people to approach religion and prayer for physical, not spiritual benefit. It teaches people to approach religion and prayer to satisfy their own appetites, not to sanctify their own souls. 2 It teaches people that they can bend God's will. I cannot speak for other religions, but the bible very clearly teaches that prayer is answered according to God's will, not ours. And studies such as the above may unwillingly promote prayer and distort doctrine! Peacefully yours, Jim Guinee --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
