The Skeptic Society’s online magazine eSkeptic has a great article about the governor of Georgia praying for rain a couple of years ago during a particularly nasty drought in 2007. I wrote about this back when it happened (here and here and here, in that order), and I’ve talked about how intercessory prayer doesn’t work, but this new article by Gary Whittenberger is a thorough and well-done piece, and it’s a very interesting read. Discuss.
[Update: I'll add a link to this without comment. Thanks to Derek for pointing it out. Sigh.]
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Some one in the first few comments does seem to make a point, in the supposed control days, someone may have been praying for it not to rain.
If I understood this correctly it was discounted because it did not rain enough? But suppose by raining to the level the analyst said it should have rained were to cause flooding problems? In theology it is stated that God will give you what you need, and maybe light rain would be what is needed.
After all a mass amount of rain just washed away,what is needed is steady fine drizzle to top up the ground water.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Also in 2007, some members of the Polish parliament participated in a mass with an intention of bringing rainfall during a drought. AFAIR, it wasn’t really effective.
It is my opinion that applying methods of scientific analysis to such nonsense is simply a waste of time. One should rather concentrate on remembering the names of the politicians involved, and remembering not to vote for them in next election.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Of course intercessory prayer doesn’t work when you don’t think there’s anyone to pray to. A d just because someone is a theist doesn’t mean they have a good handle on how it works (or doesn’t).
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“You can NOT petition the Lord with prayer”
-Jim Morrison
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Step 1: Prove that prayer grew back an amputated limb.
Then we can talk; otherwise religion is moot.
August 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I’m a bit skeptic of Skeptic Society, since Shermer is skeptic on what suits him. But I have to agree that the article was on the money.
Or someone could have done so while the group is praying for the opposite.
Why anyone religious would like to claim any of these situations is unclear, since it is tantamount to claim that prayers don’t work. (Since anyone can pray for the opposite, and we would never know, thus voiding any observable effect.)
Why? Because we learn of the very nature of supernatural claims.
Let me pull up and slightly edit a part of my comment on that article, as it is pertinent to this:
We _do_ know a lot about nature and the firm rejection of gods as explaining any of it. This is actually surprisingly easy to test after hundreds of years worth of scientific work.
The null hypothesis is that natural (scientific) theories explains nature, specifically if they pass tests consistently. The opposite and falsification of the null hypothesis would be that, say, intercessory prayers were found to work. To be on the safe side use max error in a binomial test to establish the conventional 3 sigma on physics hypotheses as “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Then AFAIU ~ 250 000 empirical tests would suffice. Scientific production is currently ~ 600 000 papers per year if I’m not mistaken; say on the safe side that a mere 1/10 makes only one actual test of a theory. Here a test can be any specific prediction of course. Then ~ 5 years worth of scientific work will tell you if the natural hypothesis that nature is fully natural is warranted. (Natural hypothesis in that it is pulling back the nature and parsimony of valid theories to the whole class of them.)
As it happens, no supernatural claims have been found to explain features of nature within this period, or more exactly they have never done it, despite being considered as above. I.e. no falsification occurred. So FWIW it is an easily demonstrable fact that gods doesn’t exist, after a falsifiable test and beyond reasonable doubt no less.
Now whether that tells us more about nature and science than of the religious state of mind is doubtful.
[The way to bet, unless I've made a mistake somewhere, is that any answer to this will be theological.]
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Well, you can’t really prove it didn’t work. Only two years later the drought was declared over. Guess our Gov. should’ve been more specific in his timeline.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
What about the 50+ Jewish rabbis and mystics that chartered the jet and spent the day flying back and forth over Israel, praying the H1N1 (they won’t say swine flu – pork, you know) out of the country?
Santa, the Easter Bunny and religion all share a common basis: control a young mind until it’s become socialized; teach a basis of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. But once the mind has developed, it should become free-thinking, but sadly, most do not.
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
What about the 50+ Jewish rabbis and mystics that chartered the jet and spent the day flying back and forth over Israel, praying the H1N1 (they won’t say swine flu – pork, you know) out of the country?
Santa, the Easter Bunny and religion all share a common basis: control a young mind until it’s become socialized; teach a basis of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. But once the mind has developed, it should become free-thinking. Sadly, most do not.
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I never really understood why your initial coverage of this event was so hostile. Prayer doesn’t really cost money, and this was little more than a meeting on the capitol grounds.
Obviously prayer doesn’t affect the weather one way or the other, so there wasn’t really a chance of anything happening, good or bad. Normally, I’d say spending time praying when there are rational steps one could take to improve your situation is harmful. However, there is not anything (that I know of) they could have done to make it rain. And during this drought the state did enact hardcore (but pragmatic) water conservation rules to address the situation.
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I guess to those here any kind of theist is anathema. I am one that believes intercessory prayer in terms of weather is rather moot. I think God is bound by laws too. However, I’m one of those demented christians who thinks God can intercede and give guildance to one personally. I’m also one who thinks that evolution is just as valid, if not more than any other method, as a way of bringing about humanity than as any other method. I think a God that does intercede can bring about logical issues.
I just don’t understand the hostility. I can understand each side thinking the other is a bunch of ignorant fools, but I guess I’m just not hostile towards either side. I liked BA until I realized that Phil can be just as boorish as the people he criticizes. None are edified when ignorance is displayed on either side. Why not just love what lies beyond our atmosphere without denigrating your fellow man?
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
That reminds me — I need to ask Gov Perdue to ask God to cool it a bit before he washes us into the Gulf of Mexico. That guy is a creature of extremes.
At least he could give us a break for the pre-DragonCon Star Party.
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I don’t have to post a lot about this. Here you go.
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
There’s a fault in the methodology though:
1. A pernicious god would make it rain anywhere in Atlanta – so why take only one site as a sample? Admittedly a pernicious god is not of any use whatsoever so this is more a technical matter than a practical one.
2. Who cares about rain at the airport? (Well, aside from pilots and the controllers.) If rain were to do any good it needs to be in fields that need water and of course the catchment areas. Rain in other areas may be attributable to a pernicious god.
The analysis is not statistically significant (or even useful) because it leaves out numerous sites which are of genuine interest and picks one site for all the wrong reasons – records at the airport are *not* necessarily better than records elsewhere although instrument down time is lower over long periods of time. If I wanted to be really mean (and useless), I’d say that lots of people pray for rain all the time.
~
So although it’s an interesting exercise, it’s a major failure as a scientific exercise.
I like the response from Alex #2 – it’s certainly practical.
August 22nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
A crafty governor, wanting to boost his popularity in a voter base known to be Biblically inclined, could easily have an anonymous flunky do some statistical legwork and determine the likelihood of rain within some number of weeks. All he has to do then is hold a conspicuously newsworthy prayer meeting on the steps.
August 22nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
DB (#11): Boorish? Well, I don’t say anything here about religion in general, or about anything other than prayer. Your thoughts on evolution and the lack of prayer’s efficacy in terms of weather are interesting, and even worthy of praise. And while we may disagree on whether God helps those who pray in their own lives, it’s not the issue here.
The issue is a man in political power spending taxpayer money on an effort that we know with definitive evidence will not have any effect at all. Imagine if he had done precisely what he did, but instead performed a voodoo ritual. Would the media have dealt with this situation the same way? Would you honestly feel the same way about this? Some people believe voodoo practices to be real just as you do about individual prayer. Or perhaps we can look at the rabbis who prayed and blew shofars on a plane recently to prevent swine flu in Israel.
Perhaps this ritual was a balm for some people, making them feel better. But we know in reality it made no difference. I think that time and effort would have been far better spent doing something practical. What that might be I don’t know, to be honest. Perhaps sponsoring a scientific study into why Georgia had this drought? I have read various articles saying it was due to bad water management. For that we don’t need prayer. We need better politicians making the rules.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Whereas the rain dance works every time, and you get a workout
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I don’t think praying for rain hurts. I do think an elected official leading such prayers crosses the line, however.
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
@DB
I don’t speak for Phil, but he didn’t seem hostile at all. In fact, he was explaining things reasonably, as he wrote above, and it was more about state waste more than anything else.
Although in my atheistic point of view, there is no point in thinking in God’s existance if we can’t even get a slightly decent observation. Because no matter how much one tries to know God’s effect on the world, people always come up with new ways in which God doesn’t seem to reveal himself. And note, even though you can’t prove God’s existance because the claim is that he is outside the universe, every religion makes a list of what God can and can’t do. Those claims can be observed or tested. There are reasonable ways to tests those ideas, but they always end up empty handed. So, if God exists, God is not in any way anything like the way religions describe him. Since any attempt to probe him doesn’t come up with anything,he might as well not exists. Just as the way a ghost probe, no matter how sophsiticated you get, you don’t get anything and it is explained away with convoluted explanations. So a ghost might as well not exist, even if it can’t be proven.
That is my reasoning, doesn’t seem that hostile, right? ^_^
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
@DB: re: hostility and boorishness.
It’s only seen as hostility and boorishness when the skepticism is turned your way. Why should the irrational aspects of religious beliefs exempted from criticism? I am sure creationists feel just as stung by skepticism (and endless ridicule) expressed over their preposterous belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Should we step back from that and show respect for their beliefs? There is about as much scientific evidence that intercessory prayer as there is for creationism — i.e. none at all.
People seem to want to cast a protective halo around religious beliefs as if they are quantifiably different from other beliefs based on faith and not evidence. I fully understand why that is, and I certainly don’t go barreling into conversations with friends and relatives who are religious and try to belittle their beliefs (far from it) but there is no reason to expect Phil, who is after all the president of one of the foremost organizations of skeptics in America, to exempt religion from criticism where it is warranted.
Looking back at my journey from faith (albeit never a very strong one) to atheism, I well remember the point where I finally realized that there was no reason to treat religious beliefs any differently from other beliefs that I had already long been skeptical of — ghosts, aliens, ESP, etc. There is always a time and a place for expressing such skepticism (yes, it can get you killed in many parts of the world, and ostracized in others) but if you take such offense to such views being expressed on the blog of a prominent skeptic, then perhaps you are the one in the wrong place.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I only disagree with you because of the politics of the matter. He was securing his job by doing that. I’m pretty sure he knew that it wasn’t going to do a bit of good, but he did it anyways to win over voters. Politicians have to make a LOT of decisions that might affect their political careers. This is one that only a slight group of people (Scientists and non-Christians, and let’s be serious it’s GA, so it’s just scientists. No disrespect, I live in MS) would disagree with.
Yeah, it’s silly, but it made people feel better (which was the point) If the problem isn’t fixable, why not try to make the public feel better? They’ll be more productive, knowing the government at least KNOWS what they’re dealing with. Plus, if you are in the government it shows (in a political sense) that there’s nothing they can do about it, so they won’t get blamed for bad numbers come election time.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:28 am
“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
This was the KJV.
I just wonder how talking about it in an international medium (anything published online is international…) is keeping it between himself and “God”.
I don’t know how to push this to his office, but I’d like to see someone do that, and post a blog about it.
August 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 am
My problem with religion is that the belief in a heaven cheapens the value of human life. So what if thousands of people die in suicide bombings ? Their existence hasn’t been terminated, they have just moved on to meet god.
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:11 am
If god is omniscient and omnipotent, then the only possible state for the universe is “Exactly the way god wants it to be.”
So intercessory prayer is essentially an attempt to persuade god that what you want is better than what he wants. Good luck with that.
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 am
“Prayer doesn’t really cost money,… “
Sure it does. Each year, your Federal servants are encouraged to participate in the National Day of Prayer. At Savannah River Site – just one Federally-owned location – this means you paid about $60,000 for people to leave their desks and field jobs to go beg an invisible entity to do something undefined, in wording such as “pray for our leaders”. Oh? To do what? Get a clue? If you had a clue, would you be standing around a flagpole murmuring?
And don’t start with the “freedom of religion” nonsense. Stand by a flagpole out here on the NDoP and recite anything but the KJV and you’ll brand yourself. We have a fair amount of foreign-born engineers, and they don’t go.
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 am
DB,
Speaking personally, my own hostility comes from the fact that religious leaders are trying to dismantle the foundations of my country’s government. If they will stick to spiritual matters and leave politics alone (or at least pay taxes—the admission fee the rest of us have to pay), I will be a lot less hostile.
The “why are you picking on us?” argument is ridiculous as long as the religious keep trying to legislate their nonsense on the rest of us.
On the subject of prayer itself, any priest, rabbi, mullah, or whatever, will tell you that your prayer works unless what you are praying for doesn’t fit with God’s plan. In other words, he will do whatever he was going to do in the first place. So what’s the point?
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:00 am
DB,
Bear in mind that Georgia has a large population of global warming deniers (and also some local efforts to force ID into public high school classrooms, but that’s another matter). Not that I can connect the dots between global warming and any particular drought (no one can), but I suggest that time and effort spent on a scientific explanation looks like a better course of action than prayer. As for hostility, yes, people who attack science without attempting to understand its principles or practices then substitute prayer in place of constructive activity when something goes wrong do engender some hostility from me. I’m trapped on this planet with a bunch of lunatics whose actions contribute to some very serious problems. Their behaviors either originate from their religion or they use their religion to justify these behaviors. Denounce these behaviors and you’re “attacking their religion.” Oy. And then you wonder why there’s hostility?
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:03 am
As an Atlantan somewhat affected by the drought I can tell you why this was such a collossal waste of time. The whole thing was a publicity stunt to take away from the fact that this water crisis had been looming for thirty years! Studies and plans uncovered by the Atlanta Journal Constitution show that the elected leaders knew that the city of Atlanta did not have the infrastructure to support a given population. So while they dumped tax money into the city to attract business and promote growth they completely ignored the basic infrastructure to support that growth. Things like roads, water, rail, public transportation, sewage, etc. So while everyone was ringing their hands and hoping, praying, wishing for rain Gov. Perdue held a cross faith prayer vigil as a media stunt to take the blame off of himself and past administrations.
After hearing about this all I could say was,”Pray for rain? Hell, we need to pray for leadership.”
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
As opposed to the rational aspects… oh wait…
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“Studies and plans uncovered by the Atlanta Journal Constitution show that the elected leaders knew that the city of Atlanta did not have the infrastructure to support a given population. So while they dumped tax money into the city to attract business and promote growth they completely ignored the basic infrastructure to support that growth.”
California is doing the exact same thing.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I would hate to live in the American Southwest in about 30 years – if things keep going in the current direction, it will be impossible to support even the current population with water – much lessw a much expanded population that is expected.
And, I’m not against Religion – I’m against someone else trying to tell me what to believe. Fact is fact, religion is belief – there is the biggest difference between Science and Religion.
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
no one has addressed the major flaw in Whittenberger’s analysis.
he assumed that the effectiveness of the prayer correlated with the amount of rain fall. He even said that, based on his P-test, he would need to see a 2800% increase in rainfall. That’s an average of 1.5″ of rain per day over a 48 day period. Surely enough to cause massive flooding damage. Its pretty clear that this was not the intended outcome of the prayer (either mundane or supernatural)
how does this invalid assumption not invalidate his whole analysis?
(disclaimer: I don’t think the governor’s prayer changed the weather)
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Santa, the Easter Bunny and religion all share a common basis: control a young mind until it’s become socialized; teach a basis of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.
Quick! Which one does not belong?
Santa’s making a list he’ll be checking twice, and many religions have some sort of judgement day, but the Easter Bunny? What, does he egg the houses of evildoers?
(bafflement)
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
However, there is not anything (that I know of) they could have done to make it rain.
If you fire a high power UV laser pulse through a storm cloud, you can trigger lightning.
…
I know that’s not exactly weather control, but it *is* really really cool.
I dunno… HAARP could do something maybe?
August 23rd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
They may be able to make it rain, but I can project us all into the future. You don’t think I can do it? Let me show you how. I developed future projection when I was flying to Vietnam. I visualized myself flying home, and projected myself to that point in time. Of course it took me a year in time and many adventures to get there…or, was it just an instant? Given eternity our lives are but an instant. And, a year is a small part of that instant. Future projection works great when you are waiting in a dentists office. Visualize yourself going home and project yourself to that point in time. Be careful not to try too hard though. If you push yourself too hard you will project right back to where you started from. That usually happens while you are waiting at a time clock to go home. Before you know it you are back punching in again. You projected too hard. If you look closely, you will see my words starting to fade out. Already we are projecting into the future. Look closely. Soon I will be gone and you will realize that I have projected us all into the future. Are my words getting fainter? Look closely. Soon you will say:”Damn! He really did it!” Look closely….
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Hi! I came back to warn you. If you don’t future project hard enough it is very dangerous. If your projection slows down , and you completely stop projecting into the future, you are most likely dead.
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:06 pm
@ 34. Quiet Desperation Says:
However, there is not anything (that I know of) they could have done to make it rain.
Cloud seeding? Maybe? But I think you need to have the clouds there first …
If you fire a high power UV laser pulse through a storm cloud, you can trigger lightning. I know that’s not exactly weather control, but it *is* really really cool.
Neat! I didn’t know that, thanks.
But in this specific case again, I think you’d need a storm cloud there to begin with.
I dunno… HAARP could do something maybe?
& HAARP = ??? Sorry, I’m not sure who that refers to.
@ 31. Lawrence Says:
I would hate to live in the American Southwest in about 30 years – if things keep going in the current direction, it will be impossible to support even the current population with water – much less a much expanded population that is expected.
Too true. I agree entirely – & in Adelaide and much of Australia we have a similar situation.
There is an “elephant in the room” here regarding the need to control the overly large and ever growing human population & the long-term unsustainability of an economic system that pretends otherwise. Earth is a finite planet with finite resources. To deny this reality (which we do) is leading us into a very bad future.
At some point the Human population will crash – it is up to us as to whether that happens in a controlled manner using education, birth control, etc .. by our choice or by the traditional natural method of mass death through starvation, war, disease epidemics etc .. with major consequences for the rest of the planet – even more than the mass extinction and ecosystem destructions that Humans are already causing.
Religion here (at least much religion if not all & esp. the fundamentalist forms of Judaism, Christianity & Islam.)
- with its irrational arguably misogynist obsession over women’s bodies and sexuality,
- its hateful intolerance of homosexuals,
- its inability to give people the right we happily grant our pets to good deaths rather than compulsion to die in lingering and humilating agony,
- its mind-warping indoctrination druming into children that “Adam & Eve” were given total domination of this planet and the right to exploit it until “Armageddon & the Second Coming occurs”,
- its opposition to birth control incl. abortion, ad nauseam.
All amounts to a religious insistence on unrestrained, ill-considered population growth which ultimately is ecologically suicidal for everyone.
Intercessory prayer is a waste of time that here is clearly being used for political purposes :
1) Isn’t it breeching Church /State separation?
2) Isn’t it just a “feel-good” diversion from the fact that this problem has been at least partly created by the govt(s) policies to begin with?
3) Isn’t it kind of presumptous in a religious sense if you are a believer to be telling god what to do &/or not assuming god already knows and is doing something?
Personally, I think the answer to those three qu. is ‘yes’.
Okay, believers have the right to disagree with us and pray & hope – but I really reckon they should do it in their own time and NOT as a publicity stunt with political overtones.
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
@Plutonium being from Pluto
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haarp
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
as long as we’re pretending to be scientifically minded skeptics here, then everyone’s personal opinions on just how evil, ridiculous or juvenile religion is, are completely irrelevant.
The real question at hand is whether or not Whittenberger’s analysis is valid.
This is important because we skeptics use analysis like this as a club beat people who are foolish enough to disagree with us into submission. (with varying degrees of success)
My description sounds harsh, but its exactly what I do when I’m sure of my results, and I think its fair as long as the analysis is sound.
…but there’s the kicker, isn’t it? We need to be sure these studies are sound before we go bludgeoning people with them.
I hold that Whittenberger’s analysis is insufficient to support the claims he makes:
“However, no evidence was found for a causal relationship between the prayer and the increase in rain. The Governor did not produce the increase, despite the claims of many that he did!”
anyone care to disagree with me?
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
@ 38 Shane – Thanks!
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 pm
This whole intercessory prayer business reminds me of a scene in the SF TV show ‘Jeremiah’ which is set in a post-apocalyptic world specifically episode 4 :
“…And the Ground, Sown With Salt”
(Written by : J. Michael Straczynski* Directed By: Peter Deluise)
See :
http://www.jeremiahportal.com/jeremiahfaq.php
for more. (Warning – Spoilers there in case that’s an issue for anyone.)
In this episode, ‘Michael’, a tough-ass dictator type figure who has taken over the old army base at Cranston** (complete with supply of “Daisy-cutter” bombs and other weaponry but that’s another part of that same story) has captured the heroes incl. the eponymous main character, Jeremiah, & is trying to force them to tell him their base’s location.
Michael lines up a bunch of four prisoners at gunpoint making Jeremiah watch.
Michael goes up & talks to the first prisoner, a scared boy called Jeff.
Introduces himself then demands “Do you believe in the efficacy of prayer?’
Jeff: “Huh? What .. I ..”
Michael :[Yells] “That it works!”
J: “Uh, I dunno, I guess so…”
M : “Try it now. Pray to God to get you out of this alive.”
J : {Praying} “Please Jesus save me!”
M: “Who?”
J : “Jesus?”
M : [gestures to a henchmen who instantly shoots Jeff through the head. Michael turns to the next prisoner] “And you?”
Prisoner : “I don’t believe in God.”
M: [glances a henchman, who executes that 2nd prisoner instantly.]
Jeremiah : {shouting interjection.] “You son of a b—! What are you doing?
Michael : {holds up his hand} “Just wait, you’ll see”
then turns to next prisoner – introductory talk – her name’s Lisa
M : “..& you?”
Lisa : “Yes, I pray to you, Michael, spare my life.”
M : Makes a religious hand gesture, blessing-thingy on her forehead “And so I shall.”
[Michael turns to the last prisoner, a scared teenage boy named Red.
Red : “I pray to you Michael, spare my life, please I beg you Michael my god!”
M: {Holds up hand, looks across at Jeremiah} “Where’s your base?
Jeremiah : {silence, I’m not telling.}
M: Moves hand away from “blessing position”, looks at guards, “What did you god answers every prayer?” Bang. Red is executed too.
****
Its a powerful, memorable scene & one that makes you think as well.
Now, of course, this “Michael-god” guy is
a) entirely fictional,
b) clearly NOT god but just someone who thinks he is,
c) utterly evil.
Still, it makes you wonder at the whole “intercessory prayer” business a bit doesn’t it?
Whenever I hear the phrase “do you believe in prayer” or intercessory prayer -this scene from that SF show is something that springs to mind.
—–
* For those who don’t know already that’s the same guy that created ‘Babylon-5′, in my opinion the finest SF TV show ever. ‘Jeremiah’ overall, was not as good although it did have its moments of awesomeness – that scene being one – & I didn’t think it was as bad as some folks seem to think it was.
** A real place or fictional too? I’m not sure.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
@ken.mcloud
The very next bit after your quote goes on to say,
Whittenberger’s analysis is that amount and timing of the rain wasn’t particularly unusual or extraordinary and from that you can surmise that there does not appear to be a causal link between prayer and rain.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Michael : Moves hand away from “blessing position”, looks at guards, “What did you think god answers every prayer?” Bang. Red is executed too.
… is what I meant to write there. There’s a few other minor typos, too sorry.
(Need more correction time. Sigh.)
While that example is fictional it does raise some questions over the whole prayer notion :
Eg.
* gods whims, why one prayer answered & not another?
* is it really just about power over people /entities?
* who is trying to control who with it; ie. are the pray-ers trying to get god doing their bidding or is god trying to get us to pray to him?
* is a god that demands prayer instead of acting positively w/o needing it arguably ‘evil’ or ‘unreliable’ or something?
etc..
Really there’s a whole philosophical/ theological minefield in that whole “god answers prayers” concept which makes for some interesting discussions and debates.
Scientifically though I think the evidence strongly suggests no working prayers & no god.
Which I guess makes me that “second prisoner” there.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
@shane-
your very own statement:
“Whittenberger’s analysis is that amount and timing of the rain wasn’t particularly unusual or extraordinary and from that you can surmise that there does not appear to be a causal link”
assumes that if prayer had a causal effect on the weather, the result would be extraordinary.
what is the justification for this assumption?
I personally don’t think he does, but who ever said that if god WERE controlling the weather, he would do so in a way which is inconsistent with his previous behavior?
There are really two issues at hand which many commenters (skeptics?) seem to mix up:
1) Do you think supernatural forces are at work ?
and
2)Does this particular analysis prove that supernatural forces are NOT at work?
The second question does not depend on the first, but is still very important
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Posts like #28 and #30 illustrate well how much of a sideshow this rain prayer is. The problem isn’t some useless kumbaya moment, the problem is mismanagement of public resources by incompetent politicians. Getting worked up over this rain prayer entirely circumvents the larger issue of politicians’ mismanagement of water resources.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Am I the only cynic here wondering if the Governor checked the weather stats and satellite weather map predictions before scheduling the date of the “Pray for Rain” schindig?
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 pm
@ken.mcloud
I think the analysis shows that there is nothing going on that can’t be explained mundanely. That is, the simplest explanation is best. The onus is on the claimants to prove that their claim is extraordinary and prove then prove that goddidit.
No one can prove that god, supernatural forces, didn’t do it. Nor can we prove that a native American rain spirit didn’t do it either or the FSM. What Whittenberger’s analysis shows is that the rain behaviour was not inconsistent with historical patterns. Therefore supernatural explanations are not required.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:54 am
# 41. Asimov Fan Says:
In this episode, ‘Michael’, a tough-ass dictator type figure who has taken over the old army base at Cranston**
—–
** A real place or fictional too? I’m not sure.
There is a Cranston, Rhode Island…formerly Pawtuxet, but there’s no mention of a nearby Army base.
Also from Family Guy, the fictional town of Quahog, Rhode Island is modeled after Cranston
J/P=?
Thanks to Firefox multiple tabs, Google and Wikipedia.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:01 am
@ 48 John Paradox : Thanks.
If it helps the town in that ep was Cranston, the army base was the McLaren army base.
Another theme of the ep was that the adults (who had all died) had left all these deadly military stockpiles behind incl.the daisy-cutters used to destroy another town and eventually the base itself.
Ironically too, in the case of at least one of the prisoners (Lisa) prayer actually worked only because it wasn’t *god* being prayed to but instead a mad guy who thought he was (or actually had replaced) god. Having taken the role via the power of the gun.
Of course a strong element of religion and public prayer comes down to power & control over peoples (& communities) lives and deaths.
While “Michael-god” in the ‘Jeremiah’ ep was fictional, history contains a number of cases where christian crusaders & Mohammed’s forces used pretty similar “convert to & believe in us – or die” type tactics to spread religion by the sword & the gun – a fact referenced by Michael in the ep.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:59 am
The assumption the author makes is that you always get what you want with prayer – not so. Any saint will tell you that you get what you need.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:41 am
I once pointed out to a Christian friend, that the number of cases in which individual prayers are clearly not “answered” is far greater than the number – entirely consistent with the laws of probability – in which they apparently are. He replied, “All prayers are answered, but often the answer is ‘No’.”
How’s that for a hypothesis which is totally untestable!!
No. 24: “If God is omniscient and omnipotent…”
That statement is, in itself, the most effective proof that God doesn’t exist! Or at least, that an entity with the supposed attributes of the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God can’t possibly exist.
Think about it… It’s a logical impossibility for any entity – even a supposed “supernatural” one – to be both omniscient and omnipotent, as these two attributes are mutually exclusive.
If he is truly “omniscient”, i.e. he knows everything that it’s possible to know, then he must know in advance everything that will ever happen, in the future of the Universe. Therefore, he can’t change his mind at will, and change the course of future events.
Conversely, if he is truly “omnipotent”, i.e. he can do whatever he chooses, when he chooses, then he can’t possibly know in advance everything that will ever happen.
So, if he’s omniscient, he can’t be omnipotent, and vice versa.
Ergo, God does not exist.
QED.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:46 am
Ha, I can’t believe someone actually analyzed Purdue’s rain dance thing. I just remember facepalming and feeling even less happy about being in Georgia. Let’s not do anything to add more water for future droughts or change some of the regulations that make Georgia release needed water. Let’s just pray! Sigh….
August 24th, 2009 at 7:19 am
I thought Purdue did a chicken dance.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:29 am
@Shane
There are a couple holes in your argument.
First, your statement about the burden of proof being on the claimant is entirely accurate in an intellectual or academic setting. But that’s really not whats going on here is it? You have a group of evil/gullible/juvenile people daring to make a claim that we disagree with, a fair percentage of them probably could not spell “statistics” let alone critique Whittenberger’s analysis. In this case, they are not participating in an intellectual debate, instead, we are trying to use this analysis to beat them into submission. Therefore, in cases like this, the moral burden is on us be sure that our club is sound before we go beating people with it.
Second, the fact that you call the prayer-believers “claimants” brings up the major flaw in the analysis again. The claim that the claimants are making is:
“the Governor’s prayer produced more rain than their otherwise would have been”
Whittenberger tested the claim:
“The Governor’s prayer produced an amount of rain entirely inconsistent historical weather patterns”
The two claims are not the same. You cannot infer the validity of the first by testing the second. It would be like you claiming “I can make 90% of my lay-ups” and me asserting that your statement is false by running a study and showing that you only make 20% of your three point shots. There was nothing wrong with my study, I just can’t use it to make statements about the validity of your claim, that’s whats going on with Whittenberger’s analysis.
Third, you seem to be defending against the standard “god of the gaps” claim by saying:
“the analysis shows that there is nothing going on that can’t be explained mundanely. That is, the simplest explanation is best”
The claimant never claimed that the weather pattern would be inconsistent with normal patterns. Your wrapping yourself up in the “god of the gaps” defense because its warm and fuzzy and feels good, but it doesn’t apply here.
The “god of the gaps” defense works when someone is making a god of the gaps claim, but you cannot prove that something happened naturally simply because there is a natural explanation for it.
For example, we know that forest fires can have natural causes, primarily lightning strikes. So, using your own argument we would say that forest fires can be explained by natural means, therefore there is no reason to believe that artificial causes played a role in any given forest fire. Yet, almost every forest fire undergoes an intensive investigation looking for human causes. Why? because we know that even though there is a natural explanation, it is also possible for the fire to be started artificially.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:14 am
& HAARP = ??? Sorry, I’m not sure who that refers to.
It’s the High Frequency Active Auroral Research program in Alaska. It’s a military project doing ionospheric research. Just Google HAARP. People still use that Google thing, yes? Wikipedia has an entry as well.
It figures prominently in a number of goofy conspiracy theories about the government’s SpookyEvil[tm] plans to control global weather. Although according to the Wiki article, some otherwise rational folks have got their feathers ruffled as well. The Russkies were worried it might be a giant zap gun or something, and some physicists were concerned a military research project might have (gasp!) weaponry applications.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I’ve never understood this aspect of “religion.” Supposedly, God has this plan for how things are supposed to go… and he knows everything that is happening here on Earth (He even knows the number of hairs on your head at any given time.) Yet, somehow, if we all put our hands together, and asked him nicely, he’ll put that plan aside, and change everything for the sake of a few…
How odd. How very, very odd.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:13 am
@Asimov Fan
Did a quick Google of McLaren, and found an interesting site dealing with Jeremiah, the link below (‘dotted’ to bypass moderation) is about that specific episode (and JMS is in the comments!)
http://abyss(dot)hubbe(dot)net/jeremiah/eps/s1/04.html
J/P=?
August 24th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I’ve never understood this aspect of “religion.” Supposedly, God has this plan for how things are supposed to go… and he knows everything that is happening here on Earth (He even knows the number of hairs on your head at any given time.) Yet, somehow, if we all put our hands together, and asked him nicely, he’ll put that plan aside, and change everything for the sake of a few…
I am absolutely not religious, but *I* don’t understand arguments like this. There’s a zillion different religious viewpoints, not just one. You have everything from hard core fundamentalists to causal “I’m sort of spiritual” types. There’s plenty of ways to argue against religion, but picking and choosing contradictory cherries from the general amorphous religio-cloud isn’t the way to do it. Man, that was a weird sentence.
Also, religious beliefs that claim that God (or whatever) has things planned down to the atomic level seem rare. That sounds more like a theological version of hard determinism- metaphysical determinism I think it’s called. Plenty of folks have argued religion as a deterministic world view, but it never seemed to jive for me. One of the points of theology (IMHO) is that there is something- a soul, let’s say- that has a definitely non-deterministic influence on the physical universe. For one thing, determinism negates the concept of sin. A mechanical universe where everything was set into fully predictable motion by some primal first cause obviates a sentient creator. Unless that’s what the hypothetical creator wanted. Hmm.
Anyway, nothing personal. Just a random philosophical mini-ramble.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
As Ive said prayer should be left to religion and not science. persionaly I pray only in pirvet and in church most are for the forgivnes of my sins . I don’t pray in public because my prayers are betwine me and God and Im not trying to put on a show . As for praying for rain well it can’t hurt but I’ve rarely prayed for a change in the weather ( I did’nt during this bad winter) I just put up with it .
August 24th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Mike #59 has the right idea about prayer. This is exactly what jesus taught. And for those who question why God would change the world for one or a few. The answer is because our God is a compassionate father. How many times have you who are parents changed a plan you and your family had made to accomodate your child or because the needs of your child (emrgency room visit) came before a pre-planned event (family outing). It is not for us to understand God; only for us to understand what he has tried to teach us through his son Jesus the Christ. No, it is not scientific and it is not subject to skepticism. It is a matter of faith and if you cannot have faith you cannot know God’s presence in our universe or our your life.
I realize you will say the argument cannot be supported by evidence and sets up an unprovable hypothesis. I will say again, it is not Science nor is it meant to be proven. I am believer in God and always will be. I am also a believer in the laws of nature and always will be. The two are not mutually exclusive.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Faith is believing in something for which you have no evidence. I get that. What I don’t get is why that is regarded as a good thing.
I have no quarrel with people’s religion (no matter what it is, not just Christianity), I really don’t. But I do mind VERY MUCH when they try to legislate that religion into government. That way lies tyranny and atrocities of the worst kind. So get them to stop doing that and I, for one, will leave the entire subject alone. Fair enough?
August 24th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
@ 57. John Paradox :
Thanks! I didn’t know about that site & its a great ‘un. Much appreciated.
August 25th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Hey, anyone who calls themselves “Asimov fan” is OK by me…..
J/P=?
August 25th, 2009 at 2:47 am
@ken.mcloud
The burden of proof is always on the claimant, academic setting or not. Whether they choose to play or not is another issue.
Continuing your basketball analogy, they’re claiming more 3 pointers than usual. All Whittenberger has done is showed that the number of 3 pointers they’re hitting ain’t extraordinary. He can not prove something supernatural is not going on but he can show that what is occurring is not extraordinary. Again, he has shown that the supernatural is not needed to explain what is going on here. We can not prove that the supernatural was not involved. I get that but we don’t have to.
“The “god of the gaps” defense works when someone is making a god of the gaps claim”
Huh? The “god of the gaps” argument is that there is some gap in the understanding of some aspect of the natural world so the explanation must be supernatural.
“but you cannot prove that something happened naturally simply because there is a natural explanation for it”
You could say that about anything and frankly it is a little specious. I know I can not prove it was not supernatural. I also can’t prove there isn’t a leprechaun typing this for me. Most likely it is me or someone pretending to be me that is a real person. It could be a leprechaun but so what? The burden of proof is still on the claimant, me, to prove otherwise (the leprechaun thing that is). But for someone else to argue that it could be a leprechaun typing for me is just silly when a perfectly natural explanation will suffice.
BTW, as far as bushfires go a man made fire is still naturalistic and is as likely as any other natural cause. Investigators don’t go looking for supernatural causes. Like Whittenberger, they don’t have to.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:00 am
In related news, I heard our governor (in Florida) writes a prayer for the Wailing Wall every year to keep the hurricanes away. *rolls eyes*
November 12th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Jesus said, these thing I do, you will do and more. Try praying, it’s more that asking for forgiveness – or asking for things – it’s spending time with the Lord. He does and can answer back. Praying for weather, it does work, I’ve prayed in the past – it does work.
Anyway just a few words – there is power in prayer – if you know the Lord.