Health and Prayer II - Why God still can't lose

I had a reply posted to a blog I wrote some time ago that I didn't feel I could do justice to in just the comments, so here's the full on reply.

The original post was one I made about the myth that prayer heals, and how patently ridiculous such an assertion is in the face of our need for modern evidence based medicine, you can find that here. The comment came here. I'll call the commenter littleinions in reference to the pseudonym they entered there.

The comment is, I think, a perfect example of what I was referring to in the original post - the "God can't lose" concept. That is to say, the seemingly miraculous is attributed to God and he gets all the credit for it, even in the face of the suffering that may have occurred. For example, God gets credit for saving one person in a plane crash and is praised for his miracle, but doesn't take the blame for the 250 other people who died in the same crash. If saving one is to God's credit, what is letting the others die? God can't lose because the majority of believers will then say they weren't meant to be saved, didn't pray hard enough or it wasn't part of the plan etc - God can't lose because only the good stuff is attributed to him - the bad stuff is rationalized away, but whatever the rationalization is, it is not God.

Carry this into health care though, and we often have people attribute someone's recovery from ill health to God and prayer or miracles - not to medical treatment and care, misdiagnosis or spontaneous remission. Yet, as I point out in the original post, if prayer really worked in the way that the religious claim we wouldn't have need of hospitals or evidence based medical care for two main reasons:

1. Nobody prays to become sick. People pray for good health and a long life - they don't pray to have a serious accident or incurable disease. If prayer worked no one would ever be sick - except I suppose the non-religious or non-devout, who either don't pray at all or don't pray enough (whatever that limit is).
2. If people were sick or injured then if prayer worked those illnesses or injuries would be immediately rectified or cured upon those people praying - nobody prays to continue to be sick or injured, they pray to be cured or to recover. If prayer worked they would not therefore need medical treatment and in countries where the religious are present in great numbers hospitals need not exist. This is demonstrably not true.

Further to these two points is the obvious one that the website Why Won't God Heal Amputees? makes. People who lose limbs, or who are born without them, never have those limbs come back despite praying for exactly that to happen. If prayer works, then why won't God heal amputees?

In which I respond to my first raving "pro"-lifer

I admit it took longer than I thought it would to attract my first truly raving "pro"-lifer to my post on the personhood movement, but it finally happened. An anonymous commenter left two responses that I thought required a more detailed response than that which can be provided in a simple comment, so I decided I would write a new post in reply to them.

One request though, please read and understand the original post before reading this, which is certainly more than our anonymous commenter did. Our intrepid "pro"-lifer merely repeats things I dismiss in the original post (as if repeating something shown to be stupid somehow makes it right the second time) or parrots all the usual talking points that they have heard from their pastor, priest, right wing radio host, right wing website, right wing friends. Nothing new or exciting, except the incoming Godwin, which I admit to hearing for the first time in the context of the abortion rights argument.

One further warning to our anonymous friend - pick a nickname/psuedonym to post under. Any subsequent anonymous comments will be deleted, not because you are right, not because I cannot respond, not because I'm afraid of the truth etc etc. So many comments get made by anonymous drive by commenters that having a name associated to your comment means I can respond to the right people. It's easy to do, you don't even have to register anywhere - just select 'Name/URL' from the drop down box labelled 'Comment As' underneath the text box you type your comment in, then pick a name, anything as long as it can be used to direct replies to.

For the purpose of this post, I will refer to the anonymous commenter as Gloria. In honour of renowned feminist and pro-abortion rights activist Gloria Steinem.

Why the personhood movement is wrong

Conservative 'pro-life' groups in the USA have always been looking for ways to overturn Roe v Wade and ban abortions of any form performed for any reason ever since the ruling was handed down, and their latest high profile strategy has been the attempted introduction of so called 'personhood' amendments in several US states. These amendments usually center around one principle - define life as beginning at fertilization, thereby granting full human rights to the newly formed combination of two gametes. Amendments that attempted this have already been rejected by voters in Colorado, Alaska and Mississippi. And this is a good thing. In fact, a very good thing. For one very good reason:

Defining human life as beginning at fertilization is arbitrary and stupid.

However, the national GOP would love to introduce a federal level personhood amendment - and this act of religious dogma dressed up as human rights concern needs to be fought and finally, utterly, defeated.

Don't talk bollocks, cancer isn't 'man made' and did exist in the ancient world

Every now and then when I'm looking for something to write about I come across or I'm sent something so spectacularly stupid that really a new word needs to be invented to describe it, and this article on a study published in Nature Review: Cancer is no exception. I am fairly certain that just by reading it a portion of my intelligence was sucked away, So thanks to my brother David and his friend Clare for making me stupiderer.

Mike Adams and like minded woos - Liars or ignorant fools?

So, via Orac over at Respectful Insolence, I saw that Mike Adams is still a clueless buffoon when it comes to discussing medicine and health care. I don't have much to add to what Orac has said or what has been said about Mike Adams and his need to lie about skeptics and health care.

But I do want to mention something that I find repeatedly when woos start to talk about science based medicine - it seems they have never experienced it. One of the most common lies that woos like to spread about science based medicine is that doctors ignore things like exercise and nutrition and just want to pump pills down your throat because they are, after all, just tools of Big Pharma. Adams is a good example of this, as you'll see if you read Orac's takedown.

The anthropic principle and Intelligent Design. And some other stuff

Careful - put the kettle on and get a brew, this is going to be a big one!

So, recently an anonymous commenter (that had better change - pick a name and use that to post with) has come by to defend Intelligent Design and offer up their evidence for it.

Nothing new or that hasn't been seen before, and the usual tactics employed I'm afraid. Since there is a lot to reply though I thought I'd write a new post dealing with it rather than spread a response over several comments on the original thread - and I'll probably use this tactic from now on whenever someone suggests some evidence in the ID post - I'll separate it into a post purely dealing with that evidence and link to it from the ID post.

Since our anonymous commenter didn't give themselves a name I'll pick one.

Acupuncture and infection

Remember how all those alternative medicine advocates like to complain about the side effects and dangers of modern medicine? Remember how they either imply or flat out claim that there are no such dangers from alternative medicine? Well, not surprisingly, it turns out that when people look at this kind of claim critically and scientifically the alties are not exactly correct.

Non-critical critical thinking - the G-Spot

At least, in my opinion anyway.

First, you may have seen in the news that a study is due to be released that purports to show the G-Spot may not actually exist. The G-Spot has long been controversial since it was 'discovered'. Many women claim to have experienced it (just as many claim not to), researchers have claimed to show it exists and yet no physical characteristics have actually ever been shown to exist beyond scientific doubt - from what I can tell some of the claimed scientific evidence is questionable or debated and most of the other evidence is entirely subjective and anecdotal.

No really. Your thoughts don't guide, control or create the Universe

There are people out there who think that astronomical objects control or create their destiny and/or personalities. There are people out there who think their thoughts shape the Universe. There are people out there who think that what they experience is created (not 'percieved' or 'interpreted', 'created') by their thoughts. There are people out there who think that their thoughts somehow guide or control what happens in the Universe. There are even people who think that the Universe will align with their thoughts and desires and give them what they want. There are people out there who treat the Universe like it is some sort of sentient being that pays attention to them. There are people out there that think a combination or variation of all of these things. Most of them can be found believing in any form of astrology, The Secret or the Law of Attraction, or all of them, or something resembling any of them.

They're all idiots. Well alright. I'll concede that some of them might just be nuts. Fine, I might even concede that some of them might just be really uninformed. Maybe even just guilty of lacking imagination.

Intelligent Design evidence?

OK. So, supporters of Intelligent Design and Creationism are (at least in their own minds) chock full of reasons why they think evolution by natural selection doesn't explain the possible origins and the subsequent development of life on Earth. If you've spent any time at all reading skeptical, scientific or atheist blogs you will have no doubt heard all sorts of tripe from ID proponents and Creationists about the missing link, transitional fossils, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, geological folding, evolution not being able to create information, natural selection being random, natural selection not explaining X (when usually it does, and very well), the eye can't have evolved, irreducible complexity, ID is not Creationism, ID is not religion but science, objects being designed if they look like they could have been designed, evolution is a faith, there is no evidence for evolution, the Big Bang and evolution are the same theory. And that's just a small dose of the usual canards that they roll out.

What you almost certainly will not hear from your average Intelligent Design proponent or Creationist is what the evidence for Intelligent Design or Creationism is.

You'll hear that real peer reviewed science for ID is just around the corner. You'll hear that mainstream science is repressing and covering up the science behind ID. You'll hear assertions that only ID can explain certain things that evolution cannot. You'll hear lots of poorly argued examples of what evolution allegedly can't explain (most of which rely heavily on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of evolution anyway), you'll have a whole host of quote mines thrown your way to make it look like some famous person or another disagreed with evolution or thought it wrong. Amongst other things.

So, here's a challenge for any ID proponent or Creationist who runs across this blog:

Cite the evidence for your theory. Arguments against evolution do not count as arguments for your theory. I want clearly explained evidence and conclusions. I want to know what your theory explains that cannot be explained by another alternative theory. I want to know what predictions your theory makes. I want to know how your theory can be falsified. I want to know what evidence would convince you that your theory was wrong. I want to know what your theory tells us about life. I want to know how your theory can be applied in medicine or biology. Where your theory contradicts known evidence or current theories I want to know why and how your theory trumps these things.

Here's a list of arguments or rhetorical techniques that you should avoid using or assuming, as well as some things you should avoid doing if you want to be taken seriously:

1. Evolution does not equal Big Bang theory - don't conflate the two.
2. EDITED 29th June 2010 to add: Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution are not the same thing, don't confuse them. 
3. Assertions are not evidence, don't pretend they are.
4. If evolution does not explain X the only alternative is not automatically your theory - there could be many alternatives that we aren't even aware of yet.
5. Evidence against one theory is not automatically evidence for another.
6. Biblical citations are not evidence for a scientific theory.
7. Quote mining is the same as lying - that's a sin, remember?
8. Don't misrepresent evolutionary theory - you should understand what you are talking about.
9. Avoid logical fallacies.
10. Threatening me with damnation is not evidence for your theory.
11. Well known hoaxes or fakes cited as evidence will get you laughed at and mocked - don't use them.

Put your money where your mouth is - if I shouldn't accept evolutionary theory why should I accept Intelligent Design or Creationism?

What's your evidence?