Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

Long story short, prayer is definitely not required for health.

Long story short, it is not possible to determine anything on the matter by experimentally testing it. Hence, you believe it or you don't. I have simply pointed out that if you don't believe it, then it will obviously not work. But then again, that is also true for running the 100 meters in less than 10 seconds. If you do not believe that you can do it, then you will obviously not be able to do it. Mere scepticism will not be particularly helpful in that case.

Nice bluff attempt, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus if you are going to throw out a radical comment such as prayer is REQUIRED for health, then YOU (not I) need to prove it.

[heracleitos]

Belief may have some impact on performance -- but not as much as herfacleitos suggests.

Well, please, explain that to the corporate world because they seem to be addicted to the notion of belief impacting performance:

Top 15 Employee Motivation Tips and Benefits

Employee motivation is defined as the level of energy, commitment, persistence, and creativity that workers bring to their jobs. It goes without saying that higher employee motivation leads to better engagement and productivity. Unsurprisingly, employee motivation has become one of the top priorities for most businesses.

Moreover, employee engagement almost always leads to higher productivity.

For that reason, it is not a surprise that organizations put more effort into answering the question: how to continuously motivate employees?

If you are wondering how to motivate your employees and want to better understand the impact of employee motivation on business success, check out these stats.

The main problem for corporations is, however, that they need to mislead the employee into believing that making other people wealthier should be the goal of his life. So, they need people who are smart enough to do useful work but not smart enough to see through their manipulative and deceptive ploys.

Ultimately, by joining a corporation, the employee is joining a consensus that is as false as the one in which the ruling mafia tries to corral him: spending effort and money to the benefit of some oligarchy.

A real, functioning consensus is one that has a purely abstract goal. For example, people in the free and open source software community may spend decades working on something that will never make them one dollar but that instead tries to idealistically reach a higher goal.

In my opinion, the business world is certainly right that faith matters tremendously. However, it must be directed to transcendental ideals.

Therefore, even with the best people managers in the world, a corporation will never motivate as much or as deeply as religion. It is clearly religion that generates the highest and strongest motivation of all.

[heracleitos]

Nice bluff attempt, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus if you are going to throw out a radical comment such as prayer is REQUIRED for health, then YOU (not I) need to prove it.

I have rather pointed out an epistemic problem.

When it is not possible to justify a claim by:

- experimental testing ("science")
- syntactic entailment ("math/logic")
- witness depositions ("history")

At that point, we run out of objective methods of justification for which the justification could possibly be verified mechanically.

In that case, what do we do with the claim?

This kind of claims are certainly not uncommon. For example:

Is a yield curve inversion a sign that there is a recession ahead?

There is absolutely no way to experimentally test that claim or to support it through synctactic entailment. That does not detract from the fact that there are trillions of dollars at stake in getting the answer right.

If you ever listened to Bloomberg financial news, you would easily understand that absolutely nothing they say, is backed by epistemically sound justification. On the contrary, at least half of it, are rumors and gossip. Billions of dollars get made and lost by believing or disbelieving it.

Believing that prayer is required for health, is absolutely not outlandish. I believe it and you don't. That is absolutely fine.

People who shift around billions in finance, have to believe or disbelieve claims that epistemically even more problematic. Concerning yield inversion, you could believe it while I don't, or the other way around. The New York-based Blackrock asset manager will have to believe the one or the other, and manage 10 trillion dollars accordingly.

[LuckyR]

Nice bluff attempt, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus if you are going to throw out a radical comment such as prayer is REQUIRED for health, then YOU (not I) need to prove it.

I have rather pointed out an epistemic problem.

When it is not possible to justify a claim by:

- experimental testing ("science")
- syntactic entailment ("math/logic")
- witness depositions ("history")

At that point, we run out of objective methods of justification for which the justification could possibly be verified mechanically.

In that case, what do we do with the claim?

This kind of claims are certainly not uncommon. For example:

Is a yield curve inversion a sign that there is a recession ahead?

There is absolutely no way to experimentally test that claim or to support it through synctactic entailment. That does not detract from the fact that there are trillions of dollars at stake in getting the answer right.

If you ever listened to Bloomberg financial news, you would easily understand that absolutely nothing they say, is backed by epistemically sound justification. On the contrary, at least half of it, are rumors and gossip. Billions of dollars get made and lost by believing or disbelieving it.

Believing that prayer is required for health, is absolutely not outlandish. I believe it and you don't. That is absolutely fine.

People who shift around billions in finance, have to believe or disbelieve claims that epistemically even more problematic. Concerning yield inversion, you could believe it while I don't, or the other way around. The New York-based Blackrock asset manager will have to believe the one or the other, and manage 10 trillion dollars accordingly.

Let's keep on topic. It is a trivial proof that prayer is not REQUIRED for health, since healthy people exist in the absence of prayer.

Your comments don't acknowledge this reality. They are more consistent with a claim such as: prayer is BENEFICIAL to health (what the meta-analysis YOU cited was trying to address and concluded that there was no compelling evidence of).

As to the fact that some gamble large sums on Wall Street instead of the race track, doesn't mean Bloomberg is any more objective than the racing form. It's just a difference in marketing.

[GE Morton]

The main problem for corporations is, however, that they need to mislead the employee into believing that making other people wealthier should be the goal of his life.

Huh? What corporation does that, and what employees believe that? What motivates employees is:

1. Money;

2. Pride of workmanship;

3. Peer respect and professional recognition;

4. The prospect of promotions or more lucrative job offers.

Whether other people make money from the work is utterly irrelevant.

In my opinion, the business world is certainly right that faith matters tremendously. However, it must be directed to transcendental ideals.

"Faith" (in supernatural entities) doesn't matter a whit in the business world. Nor is such faith equivalent to motivation.

Therefore, even with the best people managers in the world, a corporation will never motivate as much or as deeply as religion. It is clearly religion that generates the highest and strongest motivation of all.

That is no doubt true for some people, although nonsensical political ideologies inspire comparable fanaticisms. But not for most.

[heracleitos]

It is a trivial proof that prayer is not REQUIRED for health, since healthy people exist in the absence of prayer.

It will work until it doesn't anymore.

[LuckyR]

It is a trivial proof that prayer is not REQUIRED for health, since healthy people exist in the absence of prayer.

It will work until it doesn't anymore.

Post back at that time. The prediction thread is over yonder.

[Ecurb]

Belief may have some impact on performance -- but not as much as herfacleitos suggests.

Well, please, explain that to the corporate world because they seem to be addicted to the notion of belief impacting performance:

Top 15 Employee Motivation Tips and Benefits

Employee motivation is defined as the level of energy, commitment, persistence, and creativity that workers bring to their jobs. It goes without saying that higher employee motivation leads to better engagement and productivity. Unsurprisingly, employee motivation has become one of the top priorities for most businesses.

Moreover, employee engagement almost always leads to higher productivity.

For that reason, it is not a surprise that organizations put more effort into answering the question: how to continuously motivate employees?

If you are wondering how to motivate your employees and want to better understand the impact of employee motivation on business success, check out these stats.

What are you going on about? Of course motivation will probably improve performance, but "belief" and "motivation" are not synonyms. The sprinter who doesn't believe he can break ten seconds may be more motivated to train hard than the one who does. This is obvious.

[Xenophon]

Long story short, it is not possible to determine anything on the matter by experimentally testing it. Hence, you believe it or you don't. I have simply pointed out that if you don't believe it, then it will obviously not work. But then again, that is also true for running the 100 meters in less than 10 seconds. If you do not believe that you can do it, then you will obviously not be able to do it. Mere scepticism will not be particularly helpful in that case.

The poker player who needs to draw an ace "believes" he will draw an ace only if he is a moron. So he doesn't believe. Nonetheless, sometimes he does draw an ace.

The athlete who doesn't believe he can win sometimes does win.

The notion that "If you do not believe that you can do it, then you will obviously not be able to do it" is incorrect. So is the inverse ("If you believe you can do it, then you can do it.") Belief may have some impact on performance -- but not as much as herfacleitos suggests.

In competition that depends mostly on skill, not believing one can do X is generally a game-breaker. I've been on more than one crappy team and we verified the maxim every Saturday. The athlete who does not believe he can win will not win often enough much to matter. That's why some players and coaches get (justly) tarred as losers. Your way of thinking will maybe get you an A in the sophomore Eristic Rhetoric seminar. It'll all get yo' a** torn to shreds walkin' home down, say, Tagliaferro Ave. in dear ol' Shreveport.