----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:38 PM Subject: Re: Praying for the Poor RE: Christian insanity.
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:34:52PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > My contention is that the unspoken attitude of people affects other > > people but not cars, neutron, Higgs bosons, etc. > > > > Your contention appears to be that it doesn't and that I'm also > > unscientific to think it is. > > Once again, you have completely missed the point. That nasty mental > block again, I guess. That is NOT my contention, and I stated before > that it is not. But, every example you gave had nothing to do with the attitude of one person towards another. You specifically chose random effects, having nothing at all to do with interpresonal relationships. I guess I might have been more prescise: the attitude of one person towards another will have no more effect than a random event, like a pebble in a shoe or sucking on candy. If that isn't your point, what is? Why did you chose random events? Even though I'm careless with spelling and pasting from time to time, I tend to work hard to chose examples that are support my points. I assumed you did too. > > IMHO, what we are really arguing about is whether people's attitudes > > matter. > > I'm not arguing that at all. > > > The examples you cite are inanimate objects. I'll agree that > > computers, cars, virtual partons, etc. are not affected by our > > attitude. But, I do think people are. You appear to say that's mere > > superstition, and I'm opposed to science and logic when I contend > > this. > > > > Dan M. > > > > What in the world do you think my contention was? I repeatedly stated > > that I was considering mundane effects only; that I didn't consider > > the action of God changing because of the prayer in my analysis, etc. > > When you state that prayer has an effect, it is just silly to even > mention unless you a referring to a direct effect. No, it is not. You made a false statement, I countered it. And, I was very clear in my first post. The exchange was: "> But it is silly to claim that praying for them will help them. No, it is not. There are reasons why that do not involve God answering prayers by intervening on the behalf of the person praying. " Does anyone else think that I was arguing for direct action by God as the way the person is helped? Lord knows, an author's prose may be clear to the author but no one else...so if that isn't clear, I would truely appreciate someone pointing out why. Also, if that is not what you meant by direct action, Erik, I'd appreciate a clarification of what direct action is. >So that is what I assumed you meant. Why did you assume it when I specifically excluded it? > I pointed out a few of the infinite number of other > things that can have an indirect effect just as much as prayer. Was it just coincidence that all of your examples had nothing to do with the attitude of people towards one another, while I specifically adressed that? I could to stochastic analysis of the process to see the probability of that being just random. :-) But, off the top of my head, its not particularly high. >It is silly to single out prayer and say it has an effect and not the > millions of other things that have such an indirect effect. Again, you trivialize the idea that attitude matters, burying it among a million random variables. So, let me state it real explictly. I think that attitude matters a great deal more than a pebble in a shoe, a piece of candy, or any one of a million random factors. I think we convey our attitude in many different ways. I think we can convey our attitude without always realizing that we are doing it. >It is not good science, not even good social science. Really? You are definitely the first person I've ever come across who argued that the concept that attitude matters more than random factors in human relationship is bad science. No hard feelings Erik, but your posts make you appear to me to be, to put in in PC terms "interpersonal relationship differently enabled." Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
