Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Talking to God (actually, on prayer)
Message-ID: <449@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 14:23:03 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.449
Posted: Fri Apr  5 14:23:03 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 18:06:19 EST
References: <1304@shark.UUCP> <436@cybvax0.UUCP> <4537@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: na
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 53
Xref: pepe net.religion:1678 net.religion.christian:629


In article <4537@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) presents
a nice discussion of whether prayer corroborates religious experience.

I have only a few comments.  First, Hutchison was the one who (ironically)
suggested experimentation as an objective procedure for corroboration.

I've grown used to people not knowing how to pronounce my name, but it's
pronounced as if it were spelt Hugh'benz.  If I ever get married, I will
certainly take my wife's name.

I feel that a scientific approach to attempting to confirm the value of
prayer is valid: it was merely Hutchison's experimental design which was
bad.  However, I'm fairly confident that the scientific approach will
produce as much evidence as it has for ESP: none.

The vertical and horizontal response to prayer is a good idea, though I
would consider them opposite ends of a spectrum of response times.  We
should be able to measure responses (if they exist) within some range of
time from seconds to decades.

> It seems to me that, if you want to disallow theistic explanations of the
> world, you must claim one of the following statements:
> 
>   (1) Science is the only worthwhile method for explaining the universe.
> 
>   (2) Religion is so important that only science is trustworthy enough to
>       explore it.
> 
> I think the first position is without merit.  It denies the utility of the
> emotions, and it begs the question of on what basis the principle is stated.
> The second statement is, I think, worthy of further discussion.

There is an assumption implicit in both those statements that I don't agree
with: that science is the only reason one might have to disallow theistic
explanations.  Any system that includes Occam's razor would also have
cause.

I agree that the first position is without merit, even though science is
my method of choice (where I can apply it.)

The second position is also without merit.  "Religion" is a term that
encompasses a great many things.  Such as morality, worship, theology,
explanations, and a host of other subdivisions.  Not all are important,
and I feel that some are better treated empirically or scientifically.

In my hierarchy of understanding (ugh, clumsy terminology), important
practical questions can receive scientific or empirical treatment.
Questions like "how" and moral questions.  I don't see the importance
of whether god(s) exist or how to worship them.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh