Updates:
The Singapore 2001 album now has captions and a Austin '02-'03 section is forthcoming to a browser near you.
*****
I don't understand the scientific "value" of such a study. To me prayer is a personal, spiritual act, and whether or not prayers from an anonymous set of Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Muslims (where are the Hindus, the Zoroastrians?) benefit random patients is totally irrelevant.
First of all, trying to measure the effect of prayers on other people is missing the point. The entire purpose of prayer is to make a personal connection with God, or whatever higher power you believe exists. It's not even important that you fully believe God can affect events on Earth. It's an act of trust and submission. Prayer makes me feel better, more at ease. Once you realize that certain things in this crazy, crazy world are out of your control, it's sometimes comforting to leave everything in the hands of the divine. Equally, when someone else is praying for you, it gives you strength and hope to know someone cares for you enough to pray. Prayer is all about personal connections between you and the divine and your loved ones, it has nothing to do with science.
Secondly, by attempting to measure faith and the effects of prayer, the Duke researchers are ascribing human characteristics to something that is supposed to be beyond human ways of understanding. Well if you can't understand God on human terms, how are you supposed to understand him? You don't. That's the point. At least, it is for me. If you have enough faith to pray in the first place, you should realize that there is a fundamental difference between the measurable, earthly world of science and the world of divinity. You can only understand what you believe to be true, and if your faith is strong enough to pray, you shouldn't need numbers to confirm that your prayers are working.
*****
What I can't stop listening to:
We're A Happy Family - A Tribute to the Ramones - I usually don't like tribute albums, but this one is a revelation. Green Day, Rancid and the Offspring offer their homage in true punk form, while U2, Metallica, Tom Waits and Pete Yorn give their brilliant and exciting takes on Ramones' staples. The most fun, and I hate to admit this, comes from Kiss' anthemic makeover of "Do You Remember Rock n' Roll Radio?" For a more well written piece on why this tribute album is different from others, read the liner notes by Stephen King.
Deliverance - Bubba Sparxxx - Two years ago he was a novelty. A fat, white Southern rapper spitting slightly funny rhymes over Timbaland's signature quirky bounce. This time around Timba swaps the synths and beat-boxes for harmonicas, banjos and fiddles and the result is one of the most innovative and enjoyable hip-hop releases in a long time. Bubba rides the country beats with an assured drawl and a confident, if not terribly remarkable, flow. Throw in some psychadelic-funk-rock beats by Atlanta's Organized Noize (think Aquemini-Stankonia era Outkast) and you have some of the best music I've heard this year.
Here Comes the Fuzz - Mark Ronson - My musical wet dream. This will get a longer pizzle treatment one day if I ever get around to updating the Spins, Flicks and Words section, but for now suffice to say that it is a sweeping, genre-bending, head-bobbing, funky ride into how satisfying blending musical tastes and styles can be. It reaffirms my long-standing belief that all music is one. Except music that sucks.
*****
"I'm not becoming them Maggie, I am them."
----Johnny Depp as Donnie Brasco
"If you have enough faith to pray in the first place, you should realize that there is a fundamental difference between the measurable, earthly world of science and the world of divinity. You can only understand what you believe to be true, and if your faith is strong enough to pray, you shouldn't need numbers to confirm that your prayers are working."
I think a LOT of people who pray don't get this.
People incorrectly assign cause/effect relationships for *many* things other than prayer. Any semblance of a correlation between two things is enough to make people think there is a direct cause effect relationship, which is possibly one of the worst things you can do in science.
Is it worth the money to tell to get your point across to all those people who don't understand what you are saying? That prayer and the real world aren't related in the cause/effect way that people think they are. That it's about personal faith. That prayer is about you and God and not whether your lottery number is going to come up.
Keep in mind I agree with just about everything you say except for the fact that the researchers are missing the point/wasting money. If some people out there see that prayer isn't a earthly thing, isn't that good? To people inside the church it probably seems silly, because they already know what the study is saying, but I think a lot of people don't.
Posted by: Ram at October 17, 2003 10:58 AMits a waste of money because one, that research money could've gone to something more "medical" and worthwhile in nature, like an AIDS study and two, my point about people's beliefs, science won't really convince people either way.
well maybe...i remember Hunter arguing sophomore year about some guy who went around proving the historical authenticity of Jesus' life. it seemed to strengthen his faith...kinda sad really.
Posted by: sheelpi at October 17, 2003 03:36 PMConvincing someone that something is true often has little to do with the validity of the statement.
I have a hard time saying that almost any research is a waste of money. If you learn something (which they did, in some people's minds), it has value. Like akash posting about the cookie crumbling research. He said it was a waste, when in fact it was totally not a waste. Cookie manufactures will be able to improve their processes with that information. Just because it doesn't initially sound useful doesn't mean that it isn't. And someone just might stop asking God for earthly results if they believe in science and think that's how God works.
Posted by: Ram at October 18, 2003 01:21 AMit's a waste in the sense that the medical community and humanity in general would be much better served if science stayed out of faith and those resources were used on cancer or aids research. maybe not a "waste" but not the best use of Duke's money.
Posted by: sheelpi at October 18, 2003 01:01 PMI went back and reread the article. It struck me that the headline--"'No health benefit' from prayer" reads more like it's The Onion than a real BBC report.
In the sense that prayer is not about changing this world, it's about making some peace with being in it, I agree that the researchers were asking an invalid question.
But I still think it would have been a lot of fun if, for example, the Islamic prayers had scored enormous health benefits ahead of, say, the Southern Baptists.
Posted by: Sonia at October 24, 2003 01:07 AM