Critiquing: #016 Tom answers questions on prayer

June 18, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Prayer Purpose — Petitionary Prayer — Prayer Habits — Kingdom Come Initiative — God’s Will

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The content appears factually accurate, with Tom Wright providing insights based on theological perspectives and personal experiences. However, some statements are subjective and based on personal belief, making them less verifiable.
Degree of Coherence	A	The podcast is logically coherent, with well-structured arguments and clear connections between the topics discussed. Tom Wright addresses listener questions methodically, providing thoughtful and relevant answers.
Absence of Fallacies	B-	While most of the arguments are logically sound, there are occasional lapses into subjective reasoning and personal anecdotes that do not strictly adhere to logical principles. For instance, the correlation between prayer and perceived outcomes might not hold up to rigorous scrutiny.
Degree of Evidence	C	The podcast relies heavily on personal testimony and anecdotal evidence rather than empirical data or scholarly references. While this is typical for a theological discussion, it limits the ability to substantiate claims with concrete evidence.
Degree of Testability	C-	Many claims about the efficacy of prayer and divine intervention are inherently difficult to test scientifically. The subjective nature of religious experiences and the lack of measurable outcomes make these claims challenging to verify.
Rational Confidence	B	The confidence expressed in the theological concepts is high, but it is important to recognize the reliance on faith and personal belief systems. The rational confidence in the context of empirical validation would be lower due to the subjective nature of the content.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Absence of Empirical Evidence

The episode lacks empirical evidence to support the claims made about the efficacy of prayer and divine intervention. This reliance on anecdotal evidence and personal testimony limits the ability to substantiate the arguments presented.

“When you pray specifically about one particular thing…God quietly is doing something else over here.”

This statement exemplifies the subjective nature of the discussion, making it difficult to verify the claims through empirical means.

2. Logical Fallacies

There are occasional lapses into subjective reasoning and logical fallacies. For example, the correlation between prayer and outcomes is often presented without acknowledging potential alternative explanations or the role of coincidence.

“When I pray, coincidences happen, and when I stop praying, the coincidences stop happening.”

This statement by William Temple, quoted by Tom Wright, suggests a causal relationship without sufficient evidence to rule out other factors.

---

Syllogistic Formulation of Major Arguments:

Argument 1: The Purpose of Prayer

Premises:

1. If God knows our needs, then He does not need us to tell Him through prayer.
2. Prayer is not just for informing God but for building a relationship with Him.
3. Building a relationship with God is valuable.

Conclusion:
Therefore, prayer is valuable because it builds a relationship with God, not because it informs Him of our needs.

Counter-Argument:
The premise that prayer builds a relationship with God assumes the existence of God and His desire for a relationship. This assumption is not universally accepted and lacks empirical evidence. An alternative view could be that prayer provides psychological benefits to the individual, which can be achieved through other meditative practices without invoking a deity. Additionally, if an omniscient deity exists, the necessity of prayer for relationship-building becomes questionable, as an all-knowing being would already fully understand and engage with the individual’s intentions and desires without the need for verbal communication.

Argument 2: The Efficacy of Petitionary Prayer

Premises:

1. Petitionary prayer is a practice where individuals ask God for specific outcomes.
2. Many people believe that their prayers have been answered in specific ways.
3. If prayers are answered, then petitionary prayer is effective.

Conclusion:
Therefore, petitionary prayer is effective.

Counter-Argument:
The argument for the efficacy of petitionary prayer is based on anecdotal evidence and subjective experiences, which are inherently unreliable. Psychological factors such as confirmation bias can lead individuals to perceive correlations where none exist. The scientific method, which relies on repeatable and measurable evidence, does not support the efficacy of petitionary prayer in influencing external events. Moreover, the assertion that “when I pray, coincidences happen” fails to account for the numerous instances where prayers go unanswered or outcomes occur independently of prayer. Thus, without empirical evidence, the effectiveness of petitionary prayer remains speculative.

Argument 3: God’s Will and Human Agency

Premises:

1. God has given humans the agency to act in the world.
2. Human actions and prayers are part of how God accomplishes His will.
3. If humans act and pray, they align with God’s will.

Conclusion:
Therefore, human actions and prayers are integral to the accomplishment of God’s will.

Counter-Argument:
This argument assumes the existence of a specific type of deity who grants agency and whose will aligns with human actions. The existence of such a deity is a premise that cannot be empirically verified. Additionally, the variability in outcomes of human actions and prayers suggests that attributing them to divine will introduces significant ambiguity. If God’s will is accomplished regardless of human actions, then the necessity of prayer and human agency becomes unclear. Furthermore, the concept of free will conflicts with divine omniscience and omnipotence, raising philosophical questions about the nature of agency and determinism.

◉ Addressing Argument #2:

Examining the Efficacy of Prayer Through Statistical Evidence

Argument #2 is based on the premise that prayer works. Given the number of Christians for whom prayer allegedly works, there should be clear statistical evidence for the efficacy of prayer. It would take only a clear statistical reduction in, say, COVID infections and deaths among Christians for the world to start noticing the efficacy of prayer, but this is not what we see.

The proposition that prayer is effective is a significant claim requiring rigorous investigation. If prayer has a tangible impact, especially in the context of a global pandemic like COVID-19, then we should expect to see a noticeable difference in infection rates and mortality among those who pray regularly compared to those who do not. This essay outlines a potential methodology to test this claim, highlighting the parameters, structure, and methods necessary for a scientifically sound study.

Parameters and Structure for Testing the Efficacy of Prayer

Parameters and Structure for Testing the Efficacy of Prayer

Study Design:

1. Population Selection:
   • Two large and demographically similar groups are needed: one consisting of Christians who regularly engage in prayer (test group) and another consisting of non-Christians or secular individuals who do not engage in prayer (control group).
   • The groups should be matched on variables such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, health status, and geographic location to minimize confounding factors.
2. Sample Size:
   • A statistically significant sample size is essential to ensure the reliability of the results. This might involve thousands of participants to account for variability and ensure the power of the study.
3. Data Collection:
   • Collect baseline data on COVID-19 infection rates, severity, and mortality within both groups.
   • Ensure that data collection methods are consistent and that participants’ prayer habits are accurately recorded and verified.

Methods:

1. Longitudinal Approach:
   • A longitudinal study design, following participants over an extended period, will help capture the effects of prayer over time.
   • Regular updates on participants’ health status, infection rates, and prayer activities will be necessary.
2. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs):
   • While challenging to implement for prayer studies, RCTs could involve randomly assigning individuals to engage in specific prayer practices while others engage in non-religious reflective activities.
   • This would help isolate the effect of prayer from other variables.
3. Data Analysis:
   • Use statistical methods to compare infection rates, recovery rates, and mortality between the prayer group and the control group.
   • Adjust for any confounding variables using multivariate analysis techniques.
4. Ethical Considerations:
   • Ensure informed consent from all participants, clearly explaining the study’s purpose and methods.
   • Maintain confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

Potential Challenges and Considerations

Measurement of Prayer:

• Quantifying prayer is inherently difficult due to its personal and subjective nature. Self-reported data might be biased, and the quality and sincerity of prayer are challenging to assess objectively.

Confounding Factors:

• Various external factors, such as adherence to public health guidelines, access to healthcare, and individual health behaviors, could influence the outcomes independently of prayer.

Placebo Effect:

• The psychological benefits of prayer, such as reduced stress and increased hope, might contribute to improved health outcomes. This placebo effect needs to be accounted for to isolate the specific impact of prayer.

Conclusion

While the proposition that prayer works can be easily tested through rigorous scientific methods, it remains unproven primarily due to the reliance on personal testimonies and the difficulty in controlling for numerous variables. To substantiate the efficacy of prayer, we need clear statistical evidence derived from well-designed, large-scale studies. Until such evidence is provided, claims of answered prayer will continue to rely on anecdotal accounts rather than empirical validation.

Addressing the efficacy of prayer through a structured, scientifically sound approach will either validate or falsify the premise, contributing to a clearer understanding of the role of prayer in health and well-being.