‘Let me put this another way: You pick up your child from daycare, and she has a bandage on her arm. You ask what happened, and are told she cut herself badly on the playground. The daycare counselor then tells you, “I prayed for guidance on my actions, and gawd told me to take her to a hospital.”

Yes, right answer, but does that make you feel more comfortable with someone who couldn’t resort to common sense in such a case?’

That pinpoints what is so frightening about this jury. A sane parent would not trust his/her child to the whims of that daycare worker any more than any sane citizen should trust justice to the whims of such a jury. It would have been totally different if the daycare worker had said “The accident was horrifying and I had to spend a moment praying for calm before I could remember my first aid training. After doing what I could I then took her to the hospital, which did a better job of bandaging the arm and said she would be OK.”

Perhaps I was not clear. I will try again.

I have never contended that the prayer itself directly affected the verdict of the trial. Never.

The prayer was a symptom. It was an indicator that there was a problem. It was a warning flag that there was potentially a religious bias within the jury, a bias that could lead them to base their final decision on factors other than or in addition to reason and logic, specifically religious factors. This is an unacceptable bias in a U.S. courtroom.

And by the way, no, we can not measure the effect of this bias because we HAVE NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO. We have no control. We can’t run the trial again and tell them not to pray this time and see what happens. Again, I am not talking about measuring the affect of prayer, I am talking about the impact of religious bias in the case, of which the prayer was just a symptom. We will never fully know how much the religious views of the jury influenced their decision. We just know that religion was important to this jury because they felt the need to pray about their decision. Religion was undeniably there in an overt, inappropriate role and we have no objective way of determining how much influence this bias had over the ruling.

J.J. Ramsey says, “No one has shown how prayer here has been anything but a Mostly Harmless(TM) waste of a few minutes.”

Yes, “here”. Yes, “Mostly Harmless”. Mostly. Yes, “waste”.

There. THAT one. Over THERE. Point to it. Make SURE others see the distinctions you like. All others must check theirs at the hat room. Rules are important. Especially yours, when you bring your bat and ball.

Trouble is, everyone is already playing with their own FOOTBALLS or BASKETBALLS or HOCKEY PUCKS.

Okay, I’ll play a bit of fast-pitch with you. The defendant’s life was being decided by a jury that, it is implied, found the available evidence insufficient to convict or acquit. So, they prayed, as if that would assist them in doing the right thing. But wait: they DID find the evidence sufficient to characterize it as a tragic accident that cannot have been avoided, and they DID acquit the bus driver based on that evidence, however wanting it may have been.

They didn’t pray for guidance. They prayed to feel better. The harm IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE isn’t in the fact that this jury happened to pray. Nobody with any sense is suggesting this. The harm is in the larger implication that can stem from this: that many people will presume that the jury arrived at a correct decision by praying, not because they weighed the available evidence. That prayer is a legitimate means of arriving at truth. That it might even REPLACE evidence as a source of it. You know, like all superstitious nonsense aspires to.

Is everything okay now? Can you now see the many potential facets of harm? Or will you continue to focus on your limiting distinctions?

No one here has actually offered a coherent account of how the prayer could have actually affected the verdict, given what we know from the contents of the article (or any other pertinent source).

If any or all of the jurors made the decision by listening to an imaginary voice in their head that they believed to be God, then the verdict was affected.

If any or all of the jurors considered any of the evidence differently as a result of imagining that they now had divine guidance, then the verdict was affected.

If any of the jurors felt uncomfortable, harassed, out of place or compelled to participate in the prayer such feelings could have impacted that person’s analysis of the evidence and thereby affect the verdict.

From the article, one can posit that any or all of those three things are not only possible, but some of them even likely to have occurred.

Except that’s not what we’re debating. We’re debating whether the prayer displaced evidence-based deliberation and thus had a material effect on the verdict. It would be trivial to argue that the prayer indicates a religious bias, but that hardly indicates whether the effect of the bias amounted to much.

No, my point is that the prominent discussion of prayer to some invisible friend casts doubt on the the quality of the verdict rendered.

I’m not saying they absolutely did not reach a reasoned decision. I am saying that there is doubt, and the doubt is sufficient to give the appearance of a miscarriage of justice. That the potential miscarriage went in the defendant’s favour does not render it any less of a miscarriage of justice. Maybe they did reach a reasoned decision based solely on the evidence presented – that’s definitely a possibility, and indeed, it is their duty to do so. However, they talk about praying for guidance, and that suggests otherwise.

I’m also saying that if they’d mentioned some other imaginary friend than “God”, there would be loud and boisterous howling in the justice system, and I am suggesting that God be given the same treatment as Cthulhu, Satan, or the wisdom of an OT-7 and whatever Thetans he’s in communication with.

So what? I talked about prayer, then about lots of prayer. I didn’t talk about the jury. I talked about prayer. “Mere” and “obsessive”. You make a snide distinction that isn’t there.

You say it “does not improve your credibility” in response to my discovery of a kidney stone in my soup. Well, then, fine. I suppose you like kidney stone soup. No accounting for taste…or the ability to make effective distinctions.

So what? I talked about prayer, then about lots of prayer. I didn’t talk about the jury. I talked about prayer. “mere” and “obsessive”. You make a snide distinction that isn’t there.

You say it “does not improve your credibility” in response to my discovery of a kidney stone in my soup. Well, then, fine. I suppose you like kidney stone soup. No accounting for taste…or the ability to make effective distinctions.

I disagree. You can measure it, for example, by looking at the jurors’ actions, some of the other things the jurors said about the evidence, and the response to the verdict. I have pointed to the first two things multiple times in the comments.

LCR: “Many here have offered such scenarios, including me. We can not be faulted if you refuse to acknowledge them.”

No, you have not. No one here has actually offered a coherent account of how the prayer could have actually affected the verdict, given what we know from the contents of the article (or any other pertinent source). I’ve seen indignation, comparisons to other forms of woo that ignore the jurors’ other actions, and handwaving about religious bias. No one has shown how prayer here has been anything but a Mostly Harmless(TM) waste of a few minutes.

What criteria are you using when you decide what you do and do not believe from this article?

J.J Ramsey: “We’re debating whether the prayer displaced evidence-based deliberation and thus had a material effect on the verdict.”

Fine. And you are contending that it did not, but so far you offer nothing but your opinion and the words in this article that this is the case. That is not enough to support your argument.

J.J. Ramsey: “It would be trivial to argue that the prayer indicates a religious bias…”

Really? How so? It would not be trivial to me and to many of us on this thread.

J.J. Ramsey: “…but that hardly indicates whether the effect of the bias amounted to much.”

But that’s the point. There is no way to measure what the effect was. That, however, does not give leave for you to assume the effect was negligible. You have nothing to support that assumption. It is just as likely (and some would argue, given the influence of religion, that it is more likely) that there was a significant effect.

J.J. Ramsey: “If you really think that prayer had a material effect, show me a plausible scenario that would indicate how it had such an effect instead of ranting about the stupidity of theists.”

Excuse me, but I have not be ranting about the stupidity of theists. And I have explained how the prayer could have indicated an existing and effective bias in my earlier posts.

J.J. Ramsey: “Really, I don’t see a plausible scenario that would fit the facts as we have them.”

I realize that. Arguement from incredulity. That does not mean that such a scenerio doesn’t exist beyond your comprehension. You are not infallible. Many here have offered such scenarios, including me. We can not be faulted if you refuse to acknowledge them.

J.J. Ramsey: “If the jurors really relied on prayer, we would likely see a mistrial, since each juror would have different ideas on what God had told each of them and would not be able to agree on a verdict.”

Again, you have not read my posts. I never said that the jury relied upon prayer for a verdict. I’m saying that the fact that they turned to prayer at all indicates that their decision may have been BIASED by issues of faith (e.g., religion of the defendent) rather than depending upon pure reason to determine guilt or innocence. Evidence is supposed to be evaluated through reason and, ideally, without bias due to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The act of prayer by this jury opens the door to the possibility there was a bias due to religion. That is all that is needed to throw this decision in doubt. In my opinion, that should have been sufficient for a mistrial.

Remember that we have multiple jurors here. If they were interpreting the evidence according to their gut feelings, we’d probably have a mistrial, since those feelings would go every which way. Over four hours of deliberation also suggests more than a reliance on gut feeling.

Blake Stacey: “Introducing invocations of invisible pink unicorns into an otherwise evidence-based process is, at best, adding a source of random noise.”

The random noise in this case does not seem to be even close enough to drowning out the signal.

The juror[s] based their decision on evidence, but still prayed? Why bother?

Introducing invocations of invisible pink unicorns into an otherwise evidence-based process is, at best, adding a source of random noise.

Branko Collin: “And I read Blake Stacey’s reply as “(looking at evidence) times (asking the invisible pink unicorn) equals (makeing a non-evidence-based decision)””

I don’t see what’s so silly about that. If you look at the evidence, and then put yourself through a process of interpreting the evidence using your gut feelings, you’re not making an evidence-based decision. When step 2 of your decision-making process is to step outside the world of evidence and keep only those data which are in accord with your inner warm fuzziness, the whole algorithm is faulty.

Obviously not. I don’t believe that the jurors really got guidance from God as they said they did.

LCR: “The problem you refuse to recognize is that the prayer itself is evidence that a religious bias existed.”

Except that’s not what we’re debating. We’re debating whether the prayer displaced evidence-based deliberation and thus had a material effect on the verdict. It would be trivial to argue that the prayer indicates a religious bias, but that hardly indicates whether the effect of the bias amounted to much.

If you really think that prayer had a material effect, show me a plausible scenario that would indicate how it had such an effect instead of ranting about the stupidity of theists. Really, I don’t see a plausible scenario that would fit the facts as we have them. If the jurors really relied on prayer, we would likely see a mistrial, since each juror would have different ideas on what God had told each of them and would not be able to agree on a verdict. We also would not likely see the appeals to the evidence. Judging from the article and my previous experience with Christians, the prayers in question probably were some rephrasing of “God, give us guidance,” which really doesn’t provide much actual guidance but is vague enough that any collective decision of the jurors would be considered a fulfillment of that prayer.

…and within the Christian religion, God himself has been interpreted to “have markedly different personalities”, depending upon the interpreter. So which version of God did they pray to? And, more importantly, why does this make a difference? The problem is the use of prayer and the religious bias this potentially introduces into the process.

Again, J.J. Ramsey: “That said, you still have the same problem: The article indicates that the jury did produce a reasoned decision, even though they credited that decision to some benevolent imaginary being.”

So, you believe everything you read? This article is unbiased? The author of this article had enough knowledge of the thinking of the group to know that there was no religious bias involved in the jury’s interpretation of the evidence?

You can argue all you want that we have no evidence that the prayer resulted in a faulty, biased decision on the part of this jury. The problem you refuse to recognize is that the prayer itself is evidence that a religious bias existed. And you have no evidence at all, other than this potentially biased article, that the prayer did NOT influence the verdict one way or the other. The doubt in the decision remains.

I noticed that you switched from talking about mere prayer to talking about obsessive prayer, but the evidence would be against the jury engaging in obsessive prayer:

“Kissam declined to talk about the decisions made in the jury room except to say that he was impressed with his fellow jurors. He said there was no other discussion about religion, and he didn’t know the religious beliefs of any other juror.”

Arnosium Upinarum: “Yeah, but i found it in my kidney soup. No point missed.”

This does not improve your credibility.

Yeah, but i found it in my kidney soup. No point missed.

Of course.

“I realize my position of ‘walking the middle line’ and trying to make peace between the difference stances is not appreciated by most, especially in a place like this. I’m sorry for any feathers I’ve ruffled with my previous comment, or this one.”

Why torture yourself? What’s to appreciate in a stance that stares in horror at contending belief systems and finds “walking a middle line” more important than acknowledging your own honest opinion?

I can certainly appreciate, however, your need for the equilbrium of peace. We all need that. But that’s not an effective way to make peace in the very real storm of intellectual discord surrounding you. Its just being scared to be you.

Join in the fun. Just be you. Say what YOU think, not what you think others might regard as some “neutral position”, which is really not an opinion at all. Don’t worry about whether your opinion offends anybody. Its YOUR opinion, and that’s what’s really important. Nobody gets hurt unless they unecessarily, as Chet says, “internalizes” it.

Come on out. Its alright. It really is okay if somebody disagrees with you. Promise.

“Atheism led us to make the right decision…”?

Great post and good discussion.

IF, as you say, prayer serves to “concentrate people’s attention on the significance of their actions” there would be no harm.

IF.

Actually, there is much more evidence that it DISTRACTS people from concentrating their attentions onto the facts. Obsessive prayer even appears to diminish a person’s ability to think rationally and tends to undermine their sense of free will and personal responsibility.

Its not that prayer “doesn’t work” as advertised. That’s been experimentally demonstrated countless times. (The jury might as well have rubbed their bellies and patted themselves on the head to as little effect toward concentrating their attentions). Its that prayer works to sustain an unhealthy and superstitious belief in supernaturality.

To the society within which we all have to live and work together and in its ability to deal rationally with natural real-world issues, that, sir, IS harmful. We see the consequences every day.

Prayer, in fact, doesn’t work. But that doesn’t mean its not harmless.

Apparently.

Errm, only three out of the four quotes are even roughly equivalent, since Cthulhu, Satan, and God are purported persons, while Scientology training is not. There is also the matter that Cthulhu and Satan have markedly different personalities from the one that God is usually purported to have. That said, you still have the same problem: The article indicates that the jury did produce a reasoned decision, even though they credited that decision to some benevolent imaginary being. That is hardly grounds for appeal, and this would be true regardless of what name was slapped on the being.

The problem is, there’s no presentation of an argument against the efficacy and positivity of religion that religionists like yourself won’t perceive as “mocking,” “condescending”, and “arrogant.”

It’s a double standard that you’ve completely internalized. Any statement of atheism that isn’t ridiculously deferent to the sensibilities of the religious is an “unbalanced, militant screed.”