Pages: 1
Science does not disprove prayer, atheist scientists do.
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Torchbearer
The Great Prayer Experiment.
It is most important to take out all the dirty washing of atheist scientists out for public airing! In this case the way Prayer experiments have been conducted is nothing but an outrage. Prayer is supposedly “scientifically tested” for its healing effects and it appears, from the conclusions made, dishonesty was the order of the day. For the following two reasons!
1. Researchers claimed that for the experiments to be done “properly” it must comply with the “double blind standard”. NO EXPERIMENT MUST COMPLY WITH ANY STANDARD! Experiments are freely devised and in a manner that allows the full exploration of whatever it is that we wish to observe. To be scientific a control experiment is conducted, in which the object of observation is not included but everything else is kept the same, to verify that what is seen is real and not some spurious effect. True science is the unprejudiced seeking of knowledge. Double blinds here is not merely prejudice but sabotage.
2. The results that the scientists claimed, both the a nil and more particularly the negative result is cunningly fabricated and indeed indicates that there has to be evil people involved to do this sort of thing.
How are these results achieved?
To get a nil result even the placebo effect of prayer must be destroyed (which is the least case because prayer is much more than placebo). This of course is done by the use of double blinds. Double blinds are used to relationally distance the parties in a drug trial for the very reason that they want to disrupt the patient’s insightful perception, which comes with relationship. This is clearly seen in single blinded drug trials. The use of double blinds to destroy relationship in a prayer experiment is sabotage because insightfulness is necessary.
The loss of insightfulness is what double ‘blinding’ is all about. In a drug trial they want to render the patient ignorant of what they are given. In a prayer experiment this is totally inappropriate because here you do not want to have the patient ignorant of the prayer and the good will and beliefs for healing that it carries. In the giving of a prayer a “believer” (ie., truly good person) the patient will benefit and at the very least out of a placebo effect because they will gain the benefit of the believers confidence in healing.
In the concealing of the prayer, there is already a reduction in the prayer’s effectiveness, which is the first blind.
However in creating relational distance, by the use of a second blind, the crucial factor of insightfulness is reduced to near zero, if not zero. Thus two crucial elements of prayer are removed. These elements are certainly not the whole of prayer but they are key ingredient. Thus double blinding renders the prayer and the prayer giving useless. And let me add here that the nil effect cannot be put down to the prayer-giver’s doubt because for that to affect the prayer giving there must of necessity be an existing relationship and not blinding; for the patient must have become insightful of the doubt in a prayer-giver.
The negative result.
For scientists to get a negative result for prayer, so that the patients get worse, a sinister scenario has got to be played out. Only a “prayer” that is really a nocebo can give a negative result. A nocebo is a will to harm. And not anyone supposedly acting as a blind but who really know both sides will do to get a ‘negative result’. If these people were in no other way qualified then there ought to be some positive result as well. There was not. So the choice of a second blind, who is really related to both sides, is a deliberate choice and aimed to make the patient insightful of harm. The reason is as follows. Some of the people chosen as second blinds may be qualified to be gross materialists and people who are anti-religion and who additionally want to discredit prayer in favour of drugs. And these people must also be in positions of power over the patient to get a negative result. Thus they are able not only to discredit prayer but to make it appear detrimental. These people may say the right words but the thoughts they entertain are not simply doubtful but harmful. However they must also have it in their power to potentially do harm, in order to get a negative result. The motive appears to try and promote materialism and atheism as being supported by science, and at the same time to discredit religion and cast prayer in the worst possible light. In fact if the truth be known science supports the existence of a non-physical or spiritual realm. However there is also another sinister reason. Toxic individuals are well acquainted with the effects of relational entanglement and the resulting insightfulness that ensures. Relational entanglement and insightfulness are publicly discredited through science, and deliberately exploited privately to gain power and influence over other people. It is the exact opposite to prayer. It is done by someone who is not only in relationship with another but who, further to that relationship is either in a position of authority over that other person or through foul play obtains a position of authority. If blinding is used in all cases then no negative effect ought to be seen. Accepting a prayer for the sake of research does not contain any dangerous element or any dangerous situation to a patient. If anxiety is to be claimed as an explanation then to be scientific they need to inquire of the patient in a general sounding questionnaire (that is questioning without leading the patient) whether the patient felt any anxiety or had any negative ideas about accepting a prayer made on their behalf and for their benefit as a part of an experiment on prayer. This does not appear to be done so any conclusion made with respect to anxiety is only speculation.
So how can a negative result be obtained?
The creation of a nocebo effect, necessarily requires 3 basic elements:
· a trusted relationship and relational entanglement,
· the potential to do harm and
· ill intent or ill will,
all of which cannot be proved or disproved by any independent party. How convenient!
HOWEVER the fact that they are needed to get a negative result CAN BE PROVED through scientific experimentation which group of people can do!
1. The first element, that of a trusted relationship and relational entanglement can be achieved by a medical person who knows the patients and is trusted by the patient, have the patient sight the prayer-giver at a distance, as a stranger. In this way the double blinding is cunningly removed and the patients become sighted again.
2. The second element is the potential to do harm. This means that the medico and /or the prayer-giver or someone associated with them has the potential to harm the patient, which means they have access to some aspect of the patient’s treatment or personal life AND is in a close or trusted relationship with the patient.
3. Once the two elements above are in place the third element, the ill intent can be made to have a potent negative effect.
The ill intent depends on what is upheld in the mind of the "prayer-giver" and not the wording of the prayer. Wording that sounds benign must create a nocebo effect. So even if the prayer is verbal and even said in the presence of the patient and made to sound good, it can still have a negative effect because as I said above all of the three elements are not visible, nor obvious of themselves. Let me give you some examples of the wording of a prayer that aids the ill intent (mentally made) as to make the prayer a nocebo.
The prayer words of:
“Let’s pray for you” does not say to what end. Are they praying for you to live or die?
“We’ll fix you” does not say in what way.
To ‘fix’ someone can just as easily mean to harm or kill them as to make them well again!
“May your progress go well” again does not give sufficient meaning. The words “your progress” may refer to the progress of the disease and not the progress towards health.
ALL OF WHAT IS SPOKEN therefore depends on the mental meaning attributed to those words by the prayer-giver as to whether progress means getting well or leading to death! There are many ways a prayer can be worded but it is the intent that is not visible and which is held in mind that gives the words meaning. And the mind is NOT in the brain but is spiritual. If the prayer-giver is relationally entangled with the patient and is the agent of someone who is in position of trust such as a toxic doctor, who could potentially do harm, then the ill will gains not only meaning but also grounding, sufficient to really do harm. Then yes indeed a negative result… is guaranteed! The proof of the pudding, as it is said, is in the eating! If a patient gets worse as a result of a prayer given in an experiment, then no matter what is visible or not visible, right there in the negative result is the evidence. The only way to get a negative result is for the “prayer” to be the vehicle for administrating a nocebo. The nocebo can lead to the manifestation of disease in an unsuspecting person and with serious consequences. In dramatic colors it can be shown that cancer can be the order of the day owing to the person’s mental and somatic reactions.
Even a well person can be made to display a fear reaction relevant to the danger that is posed, but danger that is not apparent. How much less is needed to produce a negative effect in a patient who is already suffering from some serious illness. Likewise the prayer-giver in the Great Prayer Experiment who gets a negative result is someone who has a real potential to do harm and who is in addition someone who carries a deliberate harmful intent and far from being a real double blind is instead relationally entangled with the patient! These are then the reasons why I say that while a nil result is the only outcome owing to double blinding, a negative result requires deceit and foul play, and it can be shown when experiments are repeated in the light of this knowledge.
Experiments can be done that can prove scientifically and beyond the shadow of doubt that prayer is powerful, but even at the very least it can be shown that prayer can act as powerful placebos for healing.
Posted by: Christian Commando
Very good and informative Torchbearer. And heres another thought-
Because God teaches us to pray for needs, of others, ourselves, etc. How then, can prayer be scientifically tested, under a control system you mentioned in your info, using prayer topics with no true reason for supplication of them?
Besides, there is no need for scientific testings, as there are, just with medical doctors in all fields, thousands, who have witnessed over time, God's miracles rought in patients.
I've read accts of patients testimonies how doctors had claimed they would be permanently effected by thier problem. Yet, after a healing prayer session at thier Church or Evangelistic service etc, they were healed and went back to the doctor to show them, and documented xrays and all manner of tests done proved they were healed.
The evidence is clearly there, but athiestic doctors or scientists will not accept the miraculous work of God or Christ.
God Bless!!
Posted by: guardianangel
Very good! Right on.