Classics and the Western Canon discussion
James, Var Religious Experience
>
James, Week 2, Lectures 3,4, & 5
On lectio divina...Here is a link which pretty much sums up how I was introduced to it. In my previous post I messed up the order a bit...
http://ocarm.org/en/content/lectio/wh...
From what I knew, lectio divina goes back to Benedict of Nursia, the 6th century abbot who also wrote what is known as the "The Rule of Saint Benedict." ...then I looked on Wikipedia and here is more than you ever wanted to know ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_...
What I find fascinating here, is that they mention Origen. He lived before the canons of the Bible were codified, so he must have used the numerous sacred texts in circulation at the time.
Lily wrote: "Janice(JG) wrote: "As I understand it, they are very much alike, but meditation calls for an emptying with perhaps an envisioning of light but with no focal subject or object, whereas contemplation..."Great background information on both, thanks Lily. I do both meditation and contemplation, but started with contemplation within some contemplative circles that I joined for a time (very productive!). My brother has been teaching meditation for 20 years, and we explained the differences between the two to each other : )
They are the same, and they are not, but it's not too hard a stretch to unify them. Most people don't realize that they do some sort of meditation naturally when they are engaged in certain kinds of activities. Also, unlike contemplation, some types of meditation can be very physically active.
As for lectio divina, I haven't had an opportunity to practice it with a group, so some of the steps were eliminated, but I was able to read, meditate, and do contemplative writing on the books of Genesis and Matthew. I would read a verse, or a few verses, and sometimes a chapter, ponder it, then do a freewrite of the reading. Each book took over a year to complete, but it was some of the most rewarding, enlightening, and meaningful time I have ever spent with Biblical scripture.
Both are great books, but I have to say, Genesis blew my mind. I'm very excited that I've finally decided to read Thomas Mann's Joseph and His Brothers, which allows me to revisit Genesis from Mann's fascinating point of view.
Rex wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Rex wrote: "I have to say, if Christianity is supposed to make me happy, at least in the short term, it's not working.... But that is not, so to speak, why I'm here."I have to know. ..."
Would it be ok to substitute the word "order" for "beauty" in your worldview?
Whenever I consider the Teleological Argument (also known as the argument from design), and how the natural world seems so logically well designed it cannnot be an accident, I am, unfortunately, also reminded of the poem Design by Robert Frost:
I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth--
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches’ broth--
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.
What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?--
If design govern in a thing so small.
Theresa wrote: "Would it be ok to substitute the word "order" for "beauty" in your worldview?"Possibly, but not in the sense of inferred "design." I should also note that while I think the argument from beauty a strong one, at least in some of its formulations, I am here not referring to an argument at all. It is not an accidental feature of things but rather the truth of them that I am after. The perception of beauty is the perception of something primally and undeniably good. Materialism empties this perception of meaning by stripping the cosmos of depth and value, but theism affirms it and recognizes it as literally essential, an aspect of the essence.
Rex wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Rex wrote: "I have to say, if Christianity is supposed to make me happy, at least in the short term, it's not working.... But that is not, so to speak, why I'm here."I have to know. ..."
Rex, thank you very much for a candid and thoughtful reply. I had a sense of your theological position from your previous posts. My question is not so much why you believe, but why or how you pursue Christianity. In other words, what do you see as the end goal of your religious pursuit. If your faith in Christianity were lost, what would you do differently.
Jumped out at me:
"If one who has never made any systematic effort to lift and control the thought forces will, for a single month, earnestly pursue the course here suggested, he will be surprised and delighted at the result..." (111).
I've read/heard more than once that to change a habit, the desired habit must be practiced every single day for 21 days.
From The Power of Habit:
"Alcoholism, of course, is more than a habit. It's a physical addiction w psychological and perhaps genetic roots. What's interesting about AA, however, is that the program doesn't directly attack many of the psychiatric or biochemical issues [...] What AA provides instead is a method for attacking the HABITS that surround alcohol use" (p 68).
Might not that fall under the category of Mind-Cure?
"If one who has never made any systematic effort to lift and control the thought forces will, for a single month, earnestly pursue the course here suggested, he will be surprised and delighted at the result..." (111).
I've read/heard more than once that to change a habit, the desired habit must be practiced every single day for 21 days.
From The Power of Habit:
"Alcoholism, of course, is more than a habit. It's a physical addiction w psychological and perhaps genetic roots. What's interesting about AA, however, is that the program doesn't directly attack many of the psychiatric or biochemical issues [...] What AA provides instead is a method for attacking the HABITS that surround alcohol use" (p 68).
Might not that fall under the category of Mind-Cure?
Thanks to all who shared their thoughts on the definition and practice of meditation and contemplation.When I experimented with meditation in the manner of Eastern religions, i.e., "emptying one's mind", I ended up falling asleep. So I prefer the Jewish definition of meditation, i.e., "talking within/to one's soul", if I understood correctly.
Adelle wrote: " What AA provides instead is a method for attacking the HABITS that surround alcohol use" (p 68).Might not that fall under the category of Mind-Cure? .."
Mind-cure is an inside-out approach, in other words, cure the mind, cure the body, where as AA is outside-in, fix the habit, fix the mind. Both rely on the inter-relation between mind and body, a two-way street, so to speak.
Nemo wrote: "Mind-cure is an inside-out approach, in other words, cure the mind, cure the body, where as AA is outside-in, fix the habit, fix the mind...."
You're probably correct. You usually seem to be ;-)
I kinda see what you are saying... but I kinda see it differently as well.
Yes, first "cure" the mind, and then the body will heal. But the resolve to "cure" the mind is a resolution, no? And with AA, too, even though one is changing outside habits... wouldn't the individual himself have to make an inner resolution to do so? Just putting someone in a different environment wouldn't in and of itself "fix" the alcoholics inner self. The low success rates of interventions.
Isn't mind-cure, too, a habit? If one is not one of the happy once-born by way of inclination from birth... wouldn't mind-cure be a habit? To cure the mind... takes resolve and the acquiring and commitment to new habits, yes?
"Systematic healthy-mindedness, conceiving good as the essential and universal aspect of being, deliberately excludes evil from its field of vision..." (86).
It can grow, says James, "into a deliberate religious policy" (87).
"It is the ruling of your thoughts which proves to be your principal concern" (87).
"And thus our resolution not to indulge in misery, beginning at a comparatively small point within ourselves, may not stop until it has brought the entire frame of reality under a systematic conception optimistic enough to be congenial with its needs" (88).
James brings up Mind-Cure specifically on page 91: "It is a deliberately optimistic scheme of life..." in which one "may learn to live more habitually" (93).
James then turns to concrete examples: One woman wrote of how she learned "the fact that we must be in absolutely constant relation or mental touch ... [that this must be done] consciously" (99).
Another wrote of how, each day, she would resolve to eat a little food, "constantly saying to myself: ....." (100).
"High, healthful, pure thinking can be encourage, promoted, and strengthened. Its current can be turned upon grand ideals until it forms a habit and wears a channel" (110).
And... I remember that the founder of AA said he got the ideas for him program from reading The Varieties.
I do like your two-way street analogy (once one determines the correct street and resolves to take it).
:-) Thanks for the nice hour this morning.
You're probably correct. You usually seem to be ;-)
I kinda see what you are saying... but I kinda see it differently as well.
Yes, first "cure" the mind, and then the body will heal. But the resolve to "cure" the mind is a resolution, no? And with AA, too, even though one is changing outside habits... wouldn't the individual himself have to make an inner resolution to do so? Just putting someone in a different environment wouldn't in and of itself "fix" the alcoholics inner self. The low success rates of interventions.
Isn't mind-cure, too, a habit? If one is not one of the happy once-born by way of inclination from birth... wouldn't mind-cure be a habit? To cure the mind... takes resolve and the acquiring and commitment to new habits, yes?
"Systematic healthy-mindedness, conceiving good as the essential and universal aspect of being, deliberately excludes evil from its field of vision..." (86).
It can grow, says James, "into a deliberate religious policy" (87).
"It is the ruling of your thoughts which proves to be your principal concern" (87).
"And thus our resolution not to indulge in misery, beginning at a comparatively small point within ourselves, may not stop until it has brought the entire frame of reality under a systematic conception optimistic enough to be congenial with its needs" (88).
James brings up Mind-Cure specifically on page 91: "It is a deliberately optimistic scheme of life..." in which one "may learn to live more habitually" (93).
James then turns to concrete examples: One woman wrote of how she learned "the fact that we must be in absolutely constant relation or mental touch ... [that this must be done] consciously" (99).
Another wrote of how, each day, she would resolve to eat a little food, "constantly saying to myself: ....." (100).
"High, healthful, pure thinking can be encourage, promoted, and strengthened. Its current can be turned upon grand ideals until it forms a habit and wears a channel" (110).
And... I remember that the founder of AA said he got the ideas for him program from reading The Varieties.
I do like your two-way street analogy (once one determines the correct street and resolves to take it).
:-) Thanks for the nice hour this morning.
I'm reminded of a saying attributed to Tolstoy, whom James psycho-analyzed in his book, "If you want to be happy, be". For some people, happiness is a "voluntary" choice, not an innate character trait. James suggests that Whitman is of this sort. One can choose to be happy, no matter how dire the circumstances, but this is not a natural response to pain, suffering or death. That's why the first sound we hear from a new born baby is his/her cry.
Nemo wrote: " but this is not a natural response to pain, suffering or death. That's why the first sound we hear from a new born baby is his/her cry. ..."I guess birth is a kind of death for the newborn. Still it is sobering to think that we humans are born into a state of suffering and pain. This doesn't resonate with healthy mindedness, but I don't suppose humans were ever at their healthiest in their earliest days. Infant sicknesses has always been a great threat that has only recently been gotten under control.
Adelle wrote: "Jumped out at me: "If one who has never made any systematic effort to lift and control the thought forces will, for a single month, earnestly pursue the course here suggested, he will be surprise..."
I had a quick read of that book earlier this year, the concept of "keystone habits" was quite the "aha" moment for me. Most of what is in the book can be picked up in an article or review (or try the Blinkist reading app free trial if you don't have access to the book. Most of the main points are there.). In reference to religion, and the religious experience, I would surmise that rites, rituals, and prayer have traditionally been used to entrench the religious experience into the believer's habitual way of thinking. Honestly, I am hardly a very religious person but I can rarely help myself from praying every time the plane takes off and just before it lands. It feels almost hardwired into me.
This is a bit of an aside, but speaking of planes, and Nemo, and travel and airports...there is a wonderful moment in any travel experience (usually best experienced in an aeroplane) when after long miserable waits in the airport, more tense, stressful waiting on the runway (especially if you are not flying 1st class but are forced to walk through 1st class to get to economy)...there is that moment when the plane is beginning to accelerate toward takeoff and you know there is no turning back, when a sense of trepedition mixed with relief just becomes overwhelming to the point that when the wheels leave the ground you want to hear the choir sing out "Glory Glory Hallelujah!" ;-)Well, for me, that is one of the many many varieties of everyday 21st century religious experiences that I have had the pleasure of living through.
:-) I leave the house worrying "Are the windows closed? Did I forget anything?" As the plane accelerates and the wheels are off the ground. ... I stop looking back. :-)
Rex wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Rex wrote: "I have to say, if Christianity is supposed to make me happy, at least in the short term, it's not working.... But that is not, so to speak, why I'm here."I have to know. ..."
I would have never been able to describe my faith in that way. I think I lack the ability to express or contemplate on my faith. I guess I'm the more instinctive 'animal' kind of believer. Would that be a bad thing? I feel like I need more meditation/contemplation but I find it hard to concentrate on anything these days.
The Mind-Cure movement reminded me of an essay by a breast cancer patient I read in May where she visits this 'healer' that tells her to 'believe' in order to be cured. In the end, she loses her faith and gets a relapse and this 'healer' tells her that she got the disease back because she didn't believe in him. I see lots of cancer patients who fall for these kinds of hoaxes and although I don't think the original Mind-Cure wasn't meant that way, it might have the potential to evolve into a harmful and threatening manipulation. Could that have been the 'sinister' theology that David pointed out? I also am reminded of the people who don't take their sick children to the hospital and try to heal them with their prayers instead. I know it's not a hoax in that case and they may have been motivated by their faith, but would an absolute belief in the mind-over-body and ignore-the-pain theology be potentially destructive?
Borum wrote: "I guess I'm the more instinctive 'animal' kind of believer. Would that be a bad thing? I feel like I need more meditation/contemplation but I find it hard to concentrate on anything these days."I don't think it's a bad thing. I am driven to understand my faith rationally, but this doesn't constitute the essence of my faith. There's a lot to be said for "common," instinctive religious feeling; for many people, it is enough, and they grow old and luminous with grace by it. And I'm in the same boat as regards meditation/contemplation: I know it's good for me, it's usually rewarding when I try, but I don't have the discipline at present to do it regularly.
Nemo wrote: "My question is not so much why you believe, but why or how you pursue Christianity. In other words, what do you see as the end goal of your religious pursuit. If your faith in Christianity were lost, what would you do differently."
Heh, I'm not sure that question is any easier. I see the end goal of religion as God, seeing him and entering union with him. According to Christianity, this is achieved through the work of the indwelling Spirit in concord with the sacraments of the Church. It is also the end for which human beings were created. So I pursue God through study, praying often, and persisting in the communion of the Church.
Now, supposing I lost faith in the divinity of Christ and hence the efficacy of the Church's sacraments, God would still be the end goal. The Incarnation is not a dogma I can just shrug off, though. I would have to reformulate my view of the relationship between God and mankind. I would keep reading and meditating as I find myself able, and stay open to unexpected encounters with the divine.
Is that what you are looking for?
Borum wrote: "The Mind-Cure movement reminded me of an essay by a breast cancer patient I read in May where she visits this 'healer' that tells her to 'believe' in order to be cured. In the end, she loses her fa..."I find the philosophy behind MC inconsistent. If divinity is immanent in all things, then both mind and body are divine, whether you believe it or not. It also follows that there are no such things as sickness and death, and there is no need for cure of any kind. The world is perfect as is.
But, even the MC advocates must acknowledge the existence of sickness, both of the mind and of the body. So one has to conclude that divinity Is not immanent in all things in the manner they claim, and their cure is, ultimately, a quack.
The toned down mind-over-body philosophy has some therapeutic value, to the extent that mind is itself healthy and can detect and cure the sickness of the body that is subject to It. But even he who is so deluded as to believe that his soul is perfectly healthy and has complete control over his body wil inevitably be refuted by death itself.
Theresa wrote: "there is that moment when the plane is beginning to accelerate toward takeoff and you know there is no turning back, when a sense of trepedition mixed with relief just becomes overwhelming to the point that when the wheels leave the ground you want to hear the choir sing out "Glory Glory Hallelujah!" ;-)..."I call that moment the 'E' ride : )
Nemo wrote: "When I experimented with meditation in the manner of Eastern religions, i.e., "emptying one's mind", I ended up falling asleep. So I prefer the Jewish definition of meditation, i.e., "talking within/to one's soul", if I understood correctly. "The Eastern "emptying of the mind" is not practiced in Christianity as it was explained to me by a priest. And from what you write not part of Judaism, either. "Emptying of the mind" is really not possible, our minds are always active and prone to wander. In meditation we seek union with God, and when the mind wanders off, we simply go back to the original focus and don't worry too much where it had "run off to."
Nemo wrote: "I find the philosophy behind MC inconsistent. If divinity is immanent in all things, then both mind and body are divine, whether you believe it or not. It also follows that there are no such things as sickness and death, and there is no need for cure of any kind. The world is perfect as is. But, even the MC advocates must acknowledge the existence of sickness, both of the mind and of the body. So one has to conclude that divinity Is not immanent in all things in the manner they claim, and their cure is, ultimately, a quack...."
I don't know if the existence of sickness necessarily negates that divinity is immanent in all things. It could just mean that humans have lost the knowledge of that fact. Besides, it seems so much easier to fall to the programming of fear, just watch the evening news to see what we prefer. And there's that free will thing...
Rex wrote: "Ultimately, I suspect, this beauty is the only thing worth pursuing, even if my rational mind cannot process it,and if Christ is truly Truth, Goodness, and Beauty Itself, then the riches of the Christian way are inexhaustible."
Wow!
I find Beauty draws me in time and again. Yes, Truth and Goodness are right there as well, but it is Beauty which is truly sublime.
Janice(JG) wrote: "I don't know if the existence of sickness necessarily negates that divinity is immanent in all things. It could just mean that humans have lost the knowledge of that fact.."If what is divine does not become sick nor die, and humans get sick and die, they are not divine. It is that simple. :) I don't see how anyone can lose knowledge of divinity, if he is divine by nature, it's like saying a human being can lose knowledge of being alive.
Kerstin wrote: "Rex wrote: "Ultimately, I suspect, this beauty is the only thing worth pursuing, even if my rational mind cannot process it,and if Christ is truly Truth, Goodness, and Beauty Itself, then the ric..."
Platonists also seek Truth, Goodness and Beauty, but what sets Christianity apart is how Love is manifested in the concrete, imo.
Nemo wrote: "If what is divine does not become sick nor die, and humans get sick and die, they are not divine. It is that simple. :) I don't see how anyone can lose knowledge of divinity, if he is divine by nature, it's like saying a human being can lose knowledge of being alive.."Then what does a "sick soul" as James uses it imply?
Nemo wrote: "Platonists also seek Truth, Goodness and Beauty, but what sets Christianity apart is how Love is manifested in the concrete, imo. "Good point :)
I have yet to read Plato...
David wrote: "Nemo wrote: "If what is divine does not become sick nor die, and humans get sick and die, they are not divine. It is that simple. :) I don't see how anyone can lose knowledge of divinity, if he is ..."I'm not sure I follow your question. As far as I can tell, the "sick souls", whom James also refers to as "psychopaths", are those who fixate on the negative aspects of reality, which has no relation to the divine.
Nemo wrote: "I'm not sure I follow your question. As far as I can tell, the "sick souls", whom James also refers to as "psychopaths", are those who fixate on the negative aspects of reality, which has no relation to the divine. "It comes from the confusion about souls I was questioning about earlier. How does James mean soul? Why does he contrast healthy-mindedness to sick souls? Why not healthy souls and sick-minded? I think today we would consider a psychopath as a mental condition, not a soul condition. Most religions consider a soul immortal or at least the part of a person that lives on after death of the body. If a soul is immortal, how can it become sick? If it can become sick, can it die? How can we say anything about the soul that is not pure and custom speculation?
David wrote: "It comes from the confusion about souls I was questioning about earlier. How does James mean soul? ..."I'm not sure James believed there is such a thing as soul,
"For my own part I confess that the moment I become metaphysical and try to define the more, I find the notion of some sort of an anima mundi thinking in all of us to be a more promising hypothesis, in spite of all its difficulties, than that of a lot of absolutely individual souls. Meanwhile, as psychologists, we need not be metaphysical at all...http://www.survivalafterdeath.info/ar...
I therefore feel entirely free to discard the word Soul from the rest of this book. If I ever use it, it will be in the vaguest and most popular way. The reader who finds any comfort in the idea of the Soul is, however, perfectly free to continue to believe in it; for our reasonings have not established the non-existence of the Soul; they have only proved its superfluity for scientific purposes." James, "Principles of Psychology" (1890)
Wasn't it considered common use in the past to refer to people as "souls," in other words, as according to Webster, in the place of the use of the term "person" or "persons" or as a personification (ie "not a soul in sight" or "she is the soul of integrity").
David wrote: "How does James mean soul?"On the one hand, James wants to avoid the metaphysical notion of individual immortal souls, as Janice suggested, on the other hand, he wants to steer clear of a purely materialistic definition of "person" and stress the transcendental aspect. I think that's what he means by "soul".
Why does he contrast healthy-mindedness to sick souls? Why not healthy souls and sick-minded? "
Part of the reason is perhaps that there are no healthy souls. As James himself put it, "We are all helpless failures". The healthy-minded has the right aim, but not the right ingredients of life, so to speak.
If a soul is immortal, how can it become sick? If it can become sick, can it die?
Even if we set aside the notion of an immortal soul, the question still remains, "How does a soul become sick?" James describes the symptoms of sick souls, but can't diagnose the cause.
Janice(JG) wrote: "[James wrote:] "For my own part I confess that the moment I become metaphysical and try to define the more, I find the notion of some sort of an anima mundi thinking in all of us to be a more promising hypothesis, in spite of all its difficulties, than that of a lot of absolutely individual souls. Meanwhile, as psychologists, we need not be metaphysical at all...""A typical academician: hiding one term ("soul") in another still more esoteric (animae mundi)? ;-0
ani·mae mundi
: a vital force or principle conceived of as permeating the world — compare archeus, world soul
(Online M-W)
Incidentally, J-G, thanks for the quotation from another James's writing.
ar·che·us: the vital principle that according to Paracelsians directs and maintains the growth and continuation of living beings Tracing "archeus" one step further brought me here:
Par·a·cel·sian
: of, relating to, or conforming to the practice or theories of Paracelsus according to whose teachings the activities of the human body are chemical, health depends on the proper chemical composition of the organs and fluids, and the object of chemistry is to prepare medicines [certain Paracelsian medical and alchemical texts — W. A. Murray]
Origin of PARACELSIAN
Philippus Aureolus Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim) †1541 Swiss alchemist and physician + English -ian
All from Online M-W, subscription
So we are at the meaning to ascribe to "vital principle"?
Borum wrote: "The Mind-Cure movement reminded me of an essay by a breast cancer patient I read in May where she visits this 'healer' that tells her to 'believe' in order to be cured. In the end, she loses her fa..."A similar story, the death of child of Christian Science practitioners who refused to take the child for medical care, was one of the reasons my father oft cited for eschewing church affiliation. Prayer clearly "didn't work" as far as his mind/judgement was concerned.
Personally, I haven't encountered a blind study of the efficacy of prayers for healing of others that I have found convincing, but I certainly have encountered many cases where being part of a community that shared prayers has offered substantial support to people walking through difficult times, whether of health, grief, or otherwise.
Nemo wrote: "...James describes the symptoms of sick souls, but can't diagnose the cause. ..."Have just been reading the new memoir of Anderson Cooper and his mother Gloria Vanderbilt tonight ( The Rainbow Comes and Goes: A Mother and Son On Life, Love, and Loss ). One way of reading parts of their story is that loss of hope can be a cause of a sick soul.
One line I'll quote here: "As I've said, I am not an optimist, but it is in my nature to be hopeful; there is a huge difference between the two. It's some sort of gene I was born with, and though it has not always served me well, I would not want to be any other way." G.V., p 275 This seemed to be one way of speaking of the vital life force that animated her tumultuous life. (She writes here at ninety-one.)
The primacy of "hope" seems not entirely unlike stories that come out of concentration camp experiences.
Lily wrote: "The primacy of "hope" seems not entirely unlike stories that come out of concentration camp experiences. ."Does hope have an object?
Lily wrote: "Prayer clearly "didn't work" as far as his mind/judgement was concerned."I remember praying for my own healing once when I felt some physical discomfort/pain, and was promptly told that I paid too much attention to my health. The pain never came back.
Personally, I haven't encountered a blind study of the efficacy of prayers for healing of others that I have found convincing,
If prayer is a way of accessing an impersonal power source, then its efficacy would depend on the capacity of the people who pray; If prayer is a petition to a deity, the efficacy would depend on both the people and the deity. In either case, a blind study won't work, imo.
Lily wrote: "JA typical academician: hiding one term ("soul") in another still more esoteric (animae mundi)? ;-0ani·mae mundi
: a vital force or principle conceived of as permeating the world — compare archeus, world soul"
Thanks Lily, I was intrigued by the term too. Since the group recently read some Emerson works, and James seems to reference him more frequently than some others, I also thought of Emerson's "oversoul"
In the transcendentalism of Ralph Waldo Emerson, a spiritual essence or vital force in the universe in which all souls participate and that therefore transcends individual consciousness.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "The primacy of "hope" seems not entirely unlike stories that come out of concentration camp experiences. ."Does hope have an object?"
Sorry, don't understand your question, Nemo?
Nemo wrote: "...In either case, a blind study won't work, imo..."But some rather fascinating sounding ones have been tried, although I can't cite one for you at the moment, Nemo, and am not interested in going looking.
Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "...In either case, a blind study won't work, imo..."Largest Study of Third-Party Prayer Suggests Such Prayer Not Effective In Reducing Complications Following Heart Surgery
Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "The primacy of "hope" seems not entirely unlike stories that come out of concentration camp experiences. ."Does hope have an object?"
Sorry, don't understand your question, Nemo?"
When people say they are hopeful, is there always something specific that they hope for?
I'm also reminded of the myth of Pandora's box, from which all the evils were unleashed into the world, but only Hope remained locked inside...
David wrote: "Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "...In either case, a blind study won't work, imo..."Largest Study of Third-Party Prayer Suggests Such Prayer Not Effective In Reducing Complications Following Heart Surgery"
This study certainly makes one think. Should one pray, just because it's taught in our religion, even if it shows no effects in double-blind experiments?
But what is double-blind prayer? From the report: "STEP investigators imposed limitations on the usual way prayer-givers would normally provide prayer. The researchers standardized the start and duration of prayers and provided only the patients' first name and last initial. Prayers began on the eve or day of surgery and continued daily for 14 days. Everyone prayed for received the same standardized prayer." Under such constraints, are people really praying for a person, or just mouthing some words that they are assured refer to someone?
Roger wrote: "Under such constraints, are people really praying for a person, or just mouthing some words that they are assured refer to someone? ""Vain repetitions"? I suppose your question is still valid outside of any controlled experiments.
Roger wrote: "Everyone prayed for received the same standardized prayer." Under such constraints, are people really praying for a person, or just mouthing some words that they are assured refer to someone?..."Well that's not going to work. There's nothing prayerful about it. Besides, who knows when or how prayers are answered? Prayers of petition (which is what we are talking about) may seem to be straightforward, but who knows what a person has to go through, or has to do, before they are in position to be able to receive the answer to their prayer. Timing is a huge factor, and human linear time is not the same as prayer time.
Besides, it has been my experience that I've always gotten more than I prayed for, and in a manner that I would never have imagined and would never have thought to ask for.
The criticisms of the prayer study seem to boil down to not praying properly and God answers in mysterious ways. Who knew there were so many rules? ;)Nobody mentioned the biggest problem with the study was one the study mentioned itself:
"One caveat is that with so many individuals receiving prayer from friends and family, as well as personal prayer, it may be impossible to disentangle the effects of study prayer from background prayer," said co-author Manoj Jain, Baptist Memorial Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.Of course one would assume those prayers outside of the control of the study were submitted in a more proper way fulfilling all the requirements of sincerity, seriousness and gravity which James would recommend to skew the study in favor of the efficacy of prayer, which it did not. With respect for those patients the prayers did not help, I am amused that the John Templeton Foundation literally tossed a coin funding this one and lost.
I am reminded of some comic relief from Mr. Twain on the efficacy of prayers.
Report from the Recording Angel
Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "The primacy of "hope" seems not entirely unlike stories that come out of concentration camp experiences. ."Does hope have an object?"
I think James would say that the objective of hope is closely tied to his claim that:
How to gain, how to keep, how to recover happiness, is in fact for most men at all times the secret motive of all they do, and of all they are willing to endure.
James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature (p. 66). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
David wrote: "The criticisms of the prayer study seem to boil down to not praying properly and God answers in mysterious ways. Who knew there were so many rules? ;)Nobody mentioned the biggest problem with the..."
Speaking of background prayer, we haven't even touched upon "the intercession of the saints" yet.
The biggest problem in this type of experiments is the establishment of control. Because of the general lack of understanding of the nature of prayer, it is quite unrealistic to assume that we can control what we do not know.
Nemo wrote: "When people say they are hopeful, is there always something specific that they hope for?I'm also reminded of the myth of Pandora's box, from which all the evils were unleashed into the world, but only Hope remained locked inside......"
I don't think hope always has some specific object or objective. It is often more just a feeling that stands in contrast to hopelessness or despair.
(Sure one often hopes for specific things, whether for oneself or for others, whether health or escape or to be alive when dawn comes again or to die without pain or .... But that seems different than hope simply in the sense of desire or expectation of something "positive.")
Say more about what point from the Pandora's Box myth you are making?
Nemo wrote: "Because of the general lack of understanding of the nature of prayer, it is quite unrealistic to assume that we can control what we do not know. "I would agree there is a lack of understanding of the nature of prayer. I would add there is also a lack of consensus which makes it even more difficult to pin down. Catholics say yes to intercession of the saints, Protestants say no and both cite scripture to back their positions up. I would also agree that it is unrealistic to assume we can control what we do not know with extra emphasis on, "we do not know". However, the criticisms of the study that claim the prayers were not done properly imply that some people do claim to have knowledge of how prayer works when in fact they or nobody else can know how it works. Even James is limited to his hypothesis that it must somehow work through the subliminal.
What if the biggest problem with these types of experiments is not the establishment of control, but that they are testing for something that indeed, does not work? The results would be the same and one of these biggest problems is a much simpler explanation for the results than the other.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Rainbow Comes and Goes: A Mother and Son on Life, Love, and Loss (other topics)Joseph and His Brothers (other topics)
A Course in Miracles: Combined Volume (other topics)
The Science of Mind (other topics)
The Science of Mind (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Henri J.M. Nouwen (other topics)John Dominic Crossan (other topics)
Marshall B. Rosenberg (other topics)
Ah, thanks for the explanation, Chris. I've been pretty well trained to listen to another person, so while I've not above trying to get my two cents in, as these boards will amply demonstrate, for me the much harder problem is to be silent and listen to or for the Divine. I am more likely to jabber on with concerns and petitions.