site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   2400 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 8, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But it is no magic bullet

That's what we started with, remember? No magic. So we are in agreement here.

While there are a lot of addicts who find salvation to be the way out, I have to imagine there are many pounds of dead bodies who tried it and found it lacking

Yes, sure, it was just an analogy, designed to address your argument that "if only affects the user, so it doesn't matter". I am showing there are a lot of things that affect the user and matter a lot. That's just one aspect, so once we're done with that aspect, the analogy does not extend further.

Tell that to the Creation Research Society,

Why should I tell them anything? They want to win studies, fine. Maybe they are bad at winning studies, that's fine with me too - a lot of people are bad at doing something they try to do, why should it bother me? I am not responsible for how they find their path to faith - even if that path looks completely wrong to you and me, and they are really bad at convincing people that there's an empirical evidence for Old Earth theory, why should it be a problem for me, to tell them anything?

Obviously some winning studies would be exceptionally helpful to the faith.

That's debatable. If it was about winning studies, then it'd be the Unseen University, not faith. For some people, probably, faith is just a technology. But it can't be just that, because then there's no point in having a separate category called "faith" anymore. If there's some aspect that is not covered by technology, then winning studies won't help much for that aspect, because that aspect does not rely on studies.

Most Christians are tired of losing the battle against science by now.

Are they? I'm not a Christian, so I don't know, but it doesn't seem like they are tired that much - and in fact, many of them don't even see it as a battle. Why there must be a battle? Who said good Christian must yearn to destroy science, or good scientist must yearn to destroy Christianity - or any other religion for that matter?

I can't say I get anything out of knowing that prayer has no material effect on outcomes outside of yourself.

Didn't we just establish it isn't true? And didn't I just demonstrate even if it were true it wasn't a problem at all? I'm also not sure which theory you are trying so valiantly to disprove here. We already agreed there's no magic. So which other "plainly false" thing you are disproving? That there are many studies that show prayers are magic? Ok, there aren't. Anything else?

That's what we started with, remember? No magic. So we are in agreement here.

No, that's actually not what we started with. Did you read this thread in its entirety? I'm not convinced we really disagree with each other, I was assuming you came in here in defense of Tenaz's writings.

Tenaz writes:

I don't believe prayer is guaranteed to achieve results--for that to happen I'd need a perfect understanding of who God is, rather than a pretty good one. I just think it raises the odds, basically proportional to how good my understanding of God is (and reality, too).

Furthermore, he writes regarding the probability of your lost dog coming back:

Human reasoning isn't perfect but I do think it's capable of overcoming this sort of error with enough study. The dog will probably come back eventually, so if you want to use [dog comes back] as your test of prayer then it probably needs to be focused on timing. How long does the dog normally take to come back? How long did it take to come back when you prayed for it? A few of my desired outcomes were this sort of test (though a bit less trivial).

And in this separate comment he linked:

Recently my (quite remote) ward was broadcasting stake conference. There were 3 2-hour sessions to be broadcast, including 2 which would contain highly-anticipated talks (sermons) from a church higher-up. Unfortunately, the broadcast wasn't working. So the wonderful members of my ward sat through 5 hours of screechy whines, the words of the talks only very rarely intelligible at all, and even then only for a second or two at a time. At this point there's only an hour left, everyone looks quite grumpy as they sit and bask in the sound of unholy microphone screeching, and I feel impressed to suggest that we pray for the sound quality to improve... ...So, the congregation thankfully went along with the suggestion, and the static immediately cleared up completely.

This is the magic I'm arguing against that I presumed you were arguing for. You think this is not correct, right? Does it make you an asshole who thinks people are stupid to disbelieve this and straight up tell him there was no correlation?

OK, at least from my POV the magic implied there is not how it works, so I think we agree on that. I don't think people who believe otherwise are stupid, and I don't think this warrants a conclusion "prayer does nothing". I don't even think it's really my business to convince them otherwise, beyond sharing my reasons why I think so. But I don't think "if your AV system is not working, just pray and it will fix itself" is how it works. I mean, as a professional programmer that deals with stuff mysteriously not working despite my best effort literally every day, I wish I could pray and those things just fix themselves. But unfortunately that's not what I expect to happen.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats