Back in the hot, dry summer of 2017, some prominent South Dakota Jesus-nuts made a show of praying for rain. The summer remained hot and dry, as did my secular scorn.
But O! ye of little faith! Behold!
Clearly, prayer works. But clearly, when finite beings pray to a supernatural entity that transcends mortal measurements of time, prayer works on its own timeframe, one utterly unreliable and unactionable for us beasts of clay.
5 sigma means that there is about a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the result is due to a natural fluctuation (assuming Gaussian statistics).
You should see a result outside of 1 sigma about 32% of the time, and outside of 2 sigma about 5% of the time, just due to Gaussian statistics.
So probability rules, and the game is to see how often a statistical fluke could occur….like flipping 20 coins in a row and having all of them land as heads.
A 5 sigma difference would tell me that it is not a statistical fluke, so there is a cause and effect going on. A similar standard was used to assess whether we found the Higgs boson in particle physics.
Surprised you didn’t bring up climate change on this topic.
The liturgical Eighth Day of Christmas ends at sunset on New Year’s Day. As Luke reports in the second chapter of his Gospel, when eight days had passed after Christ’s birth, “His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.”
Western nations have traditionally observed the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus on the first of January, and a few Christians still do. I’m not one of them, but remembering the history seems worthwhile.
Gaussian statistics, Higgs bosun, a lesson in liturgical history, and grudznick being eloquent in his silence–less than 18 hours into 2020, this comment thread will a strong nominee for most entertaining thread of the year on December 31.
Preying for rain makes the checking account fatter. The more your prey on these kinds of absurd issues, the fatter it gets. There’s a sucker born every minute.
If we follow Al Gore, we wouldn’t have to listen to the grifters, we could start by making farming a joyful, profitable experience, while we try to save our world.
Kurt! You’re alive! How much snow did you get?
Robert, thanks for the info in the meaningfulness of that 5-sigma deviation. We can see the effect… now what’s the cause? To get serious and nail it down to those 2017 prayers, we’d have to figure out if anyone anywhere else was praying for rain. I’m betting that such prayers weren’t unique to South Dakota… which means our cause is more likely that climate change stuff that Mr. Sol thought I’d bring up.
Maybe I should pray for more ringing of the Blog Tip Jar. Then I’ll get a whole bunch of money… in 2022!
Or maybe we should all pray it quits snowing… but that means we’ll still have great sledding and skiing for another couple winters, right?
Unfortunately, you can’t go back to the lab, set some initial conditions, and try to repeat the experiment. So one tries to find correlations with other variables and their distributions, and maybe do some simulations.
The extra energy has to go somewhere. Either it leaves the earth altogether, it is stored, or it does work (powering a storm is one way the atmosphere can do “work” in the Physics sense).
I should have added that “Gaussian statistics” just means we are applying the bell curve, like teachers use to help curve the result of an exam. The area under the curve 5 standard deviations away from the mean is just tiny.
See, Bob. When you post about things you know, your credibility rises quickly. But, when you attempt to extrapolate into healthcare and hemp you sink like a penny in a puddle. Stick with the physics and lose the ulterior motive. Nukes Are For Kooks!
Cory writes:
And Palpatine, at long last, is dead.
Precisely the amount I requested from the Lord, as always.*
*(The preceding sentence isn’t true, but at least it’s on topic.)
I don’t have a measure of our snowfall in inches, but in removal hours it was just under six.
Removal hours—good measurement! More accurate than mere inches, as it takes into account density and moisture.
But wait—you requested this amount of snow? You and your deity are going to be getting hate mail….
… and drifting … and the width of the driveway.
You’re probably joking, as I was, but to be clear, I didn’t petition the Lord for snow this week. He routinely does things without asking for my opinion. :-)
I’d written:
I just remembered the Bible says, “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (Philippians 4:6).
So maybe He’s asking to hear my opinions after all.
But as I keep telling those who pray for rain, and infinite, omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being does not need our prayer and supplication to know what its mortal creations want. We would all be open books to such a creator. Prayer cannot causatively affect the knowledge or will of an infinite being. In such a cosmos, prayer can only affect the person making the prayer, not the rain falling on the pray-er’s head, the snow drifting in the pray-er’s driveway, or the crops withering in the pray-er’s droughted field.
Excellent point Cory – believing it is appropriate to use prayer to advise God of the supplicant’s desires reveals doubt that God actually is omniscient. Perhaps prayer is an unintended revelation of the supplicant’s actual lack of faith?
Indeed, since the whole idea of God’s omniscience stems from the Bible, no purported believer in Biblical inerrancy would encourage praying as a means of communicating with God.
I’ve quoted a Bible passage that explicitly instructs praying as a means of communicating with God, and “bearcreekbat” responds that “no purported believer in Biblical inerrancy would encourage praying as a means of communicating with God.”
Reminds me of one reason I took a long break from trying to communicate with people here. Sometimes it can be exhausting to endure the almost continuous barrage of transparent lies.
Cory writes:
The Bible indicates that God “works all things after the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11). It also indicates that He regularly responds to human actions. The fact that He’s ultimately caused those human actions doesn’t create a logical contradiction. It only creates a contradiction of human pride.
Cory writes:
” Prayer can only affect the person making the prayer.” No way! Ask any Vikings fan. :0)
Kurt Evans writes”
“Reminds me of one reason I took a long break from trying to communicate with people here.” Were you gone?
I’d written:
And Porter reminds me of another.
C’mon, Kurtie. I’m the only one here that even mentioned you to the group, while you were gone. Mostly because you left in such a diva spirited, drama queen fashion, claiming some band of ne’re-do-wells was out to assassinate you. I thought about you often, amigo. Glad to see you’ve rejoined the real world, again.
“…transparent lies.” Says the guy who constantly lays out quotations from a book of myth. Funny.
Kurt. BTW … I often work from 3:00 a.m. ’til around 4:20 a.m. processing photos, when there’s almost no ambient light in the room. I know you usually post late at night and if you want to argue with me more, that’s a time I’m often available. Welcome back. :)
Kurt quotes my comment expressing my opinion that:
and accuses me (and others I assume) of an “almost continuous barrage of transparent lies.”
I hope no one else took my comment as a factual declaration of anything that “would” or “would not” happen, nor as a claim to know how all believers in Biblical inerrancy would behave or have behaved. The statement was merely intended as my opinion about what I perceive as a contradiction between a belief that one should pray for desires or requests and the numerous verses of the Bible generally cited as proof that God is omniscient. See e.g., Job 37:16; Psalm 147:5; 1 Samuel 2:3; Isaiah 55:9; Job 28:24; 1 John 3:19-20; Hebrews 4:13; Isaiah 46:9; Matthew 10:30; Psalm 139:4; among others.
https://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/ten-bible-verses-god-is-omniscient/
Whether or not one disagrees with my opinion on the matter, it seems inaccurate to call such an opinion a lie. To the extent the Bible implores people to pray, as Kurt states, the inconsistency seems to be more with the Bible itself rather than those who purport to believe in the inerrant Bible, and by necessity, believers must choose which verses in the Bible to believe – that prayer is necessary to inform God of one’s desires or requests, or that God already knows the desires and requests due to God’s purported omnipotence.
Incidently, Kurt cites and quotes from “Philippians 4:6,” which if I read it correctly does not state a fact that can be correct or incorrect (i.e. inerrant or errant), but issues a command. On the other hand, the ten cited verses referencing omnipotence seems to be declarations of fact, which could be correct ot incorrect.
Finally, just to clarify, my source for this Biblical information in the current comments comes from what I have found on the Internet, which I readily achknowledge could be inaccurate, so I recommend that the thoughtful or curious reader independently investigate and/or verify this information. If I am mistaken or have misunderstood any internet source, I encourage and welcome documented corrections and clarifications.
“Every 1°F rise also allows the atmosphere to hold 4% more water vapor. So when weather patterns lead to heavy rain, there is even more moisture available for stronger downpours, increasing the risk and severity of flooding.”
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-pouring-it-on-climate-change-intensifies-heavy-rain-events
The debate is really whether we need to stop economic growth altogether and cap emissions, or facilitate economic growth by producing the requisite clean energy whenever we want it. I favor the latter approach. Until energy storage and/or carbon capture are sufficient and sustainable, we will need nuclear to deliver that bulk energy.
Porter,
I do not approve of smoking, let alone marijuana smoking…particularly when others exposed to the smoke have somehow waived their consent to avoid such exposure. They have not. If you want to make the argument that consent is no longer worthy of consideration as a retort to unwanted policy, then I wish you the best of luck on this blog in this and other matters.
If you want healthcare to be a winning issue in the next election, and you want someone other than the current occupant of the White House to win, then implementing policies that reduce or eliminate smoking will matter.
I would be fine with industrial hemp….just implement a zero-THC policy for the growth, distribution, and use of it. Let the other uses of marijuana truly stand on their own.
Bob … If I want to make that or any argument, I will. Until then, keep your brain out of my mouth. Stop making things up and attributing them to me and others.
Good advice Porter.
Sorry, but supporting the smoking of marijuana is by definition a pro-smoking policy. If you want to support edibles and address the costs for regulating that heavy metals and pesticides and other things are not being ingested, that would be a better hill for you to shout from.
It bears repeating that more smoking (be that tobacco or marijuana) ends up delivering more Radon directly to the lungs of smokers. An anti-smoking position enhances healthcare and reduces the delivery of radioisotopes to the public.
For clarification, which you’ll ignore for the umpteenth time. I don’t support the smoking of marijuana. I support the ability to choose to smoke marijuana. You’ve got a lot of German Catholic in ‘ya, don’t you Bob?. For sure you were raised around that “no choice” “my way is the only way” mindset. Don’t move away, friend. You won’t get along most places.
*Listen this time! Keep your brain out of my mouth. Stop making things up and attributing them to me and others!
Back to the religion topic – I wonder if the support of the use of thuribles in churches is by definition a pro-smoking policy?
Your position would generate the need for more healthcare, but I fail to see how it will reduce the costs of healthcare. Consequences, schmonsequences I guess. If you don’t want Democrats to win on healthcare this fall, then your approach is quite effective.
Back to rainfall for a moment….we should be building and investing in all forms of carbon free energy. This is of particular interest given recent events in Iraq to get us off of Middle East oil altogether. So if you don’t want to solve the problem for clean air, solve it to have anytime access to clean energy.
If you don’t want Democrats to … blah blah blah
If you don’t want to solve the problem … blah blah blah
Who the h*ll are you to put words in other people’s mouths? You’re not the teacher, here Bobbo. You’re just another opinionated bully, trying to force your will on others.
The burning of incense or candles for that matter both release carbon and are forms of combustion. The only good thing is that people are not directly inhaling that smoke at a close distance over and over.
The direct inhalation that occurs several times per day (if not constantly) is the bigger problem than a liturgical exposure from a distance once a week.
Likewise, the bigger problem for the climate is to avoid the burning of coal….especially around the globe. The imperative is to make the delivery of 24/7 clean energy easy for everyone….that includes the cost.
If you don’t want to solve problems so that you can continue to complain about them, well, that’s just awesome :0).
Interesting assessment of the smoke from thuribles, if I understand it: Smoking on weekends rather than every day would not be, by definition, a pro-smoking policy? And this weekend smoking would okay so long as no one had to inhale that smoke at a close distance over and over?
What about clergy that conduct multiple religious services and funerals at a close distance to the thurible – are they, by definition, engaging in a pro-smoking policy?
Smoking is the combustion of either tobacco or marijuana that is inhaled directly from device to mouth.
But smoke is smoke. Radon will adhere to it. Combustion particles do damage to lungs. The greater your exposure, the more damage there is.
So yes, those exposed to more smoke than less smoke have a greater risk. What is in the smoke and the size of the smoke particles also impact the health risk.
While I would advise not smoking at all, only smoking on the weekends reduces your health effects compared with smoking every day. But nicotine is addictive, and marijuana is apparently a “habit”, so good luck with either of those. Smoking less is better. Not smoking at all is the best.
I would not advise travel to Australia right now if good lung health is of interest. I would not advise smoking in Australia on top of that.
If you don’t want to solve problems … blah blah blah. Where’d you get that BS, Bob? From the overly stretched cortex you drag around like a kid’s full diaper? heh Ho Heh? It seems you won’t understand your foundational fault in common conversation. Personal problems are hard to own up to, huh?
Michelle is running for President. She is not going to solve any of your problems….in fact, she promises not to solve any problems at all. She is going to cause more problems than we had before. But vote for her anyway.
Really?
🏈 Who you takin’ in this game, Bob. The Titans or The Cheaters? 🏈
I should note that Australia is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, exporters of coal used in making electricity. They have the world’s largest reserves of uranium, but are not the largest producer right now.
Both Germany and Australia are having difficulties getting away from coal.
Go Titans!
Well there we have it – “smoke is smoke.” Time to outlaw thuribles under the second hand smoke philosophy. Next – barbeques!
Fire is making it’s own weather.
“On Saturday, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service (RFS) warned that a fire on the coast was generating its own weather system 287 km (178 miles) south of Sydney.
“A fire-generated thunderstorm has formed over the Currowan fire on the northern edge of the fire near Nowra. This is a very dangerous situation. Monitor the conditions around you and take appropriate action,” the RFS said on social media.
The weather conditions are the results of the formation of pyrocumulonimbus clouds. They have been recorded all over the world but as the global climate changes, they may become a more frequent occurrence for Australians, the country’s Climate Council said in a 2019 report.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-bushfires-firestorms-idUSKBN1Z3077?taid=5e10d64e48fe97000144a4df&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
BCB, You are playing the zero risk game.
If one supports zero risk regarding all things nuclear, then how can someone be fine with increasing the risk from naturally-occurring radioisotopes by smoking?
On the other hand, if one is fine with the radioactivity risk from smoking, then one cannot use fear of radiation to oppose nuclear waste management facilities that deliver a much smaller risk.
But radiation risk is not the only risk…combustion by-products are worse. Nuclear has no combustion by-products, and smoking does. Chemistry trumps radioactivity in this case.
Cost-wise, zero risk never is the cheapest option. So the more smoking reduction and cessation and avoidance occurs, the better long-term health outcomes we will achieve.
If praying works, it would be because of the butterfly effect, not because of G-d. Chaos theory posits that a small change in an initial state, perhaps the moisture increase due to the breath that is exhaled as you pray or a change in the air circulation caused by that breath, may after a period of time in the right conditions result in a large change. If you want my opinion, chaos theory is God.