Bishop says Catholic Church sex abuse inquiry 'not needed'

[D1B]

People behave because life is generally easier when you do. Done.

How does it make life easier?

Wouldn't life be easier if I didn't care for anyone else and just looked out for myself, didn't have to forgive others who wronged me, didn't volunteer my time or money, didn't attend church every Sunday, didn't to follow the teachings of the Bible, etc...?

No it wouldn't Hen. For most people, the love of family and friends is more desired than the products of selfishness. I was sick last night and a friend came over with medicine and ice cream, I didn't ask for that. If I treated her like shit, she wouldn't care about me. If you dont care for your children properly, they will fuck you over in old age. For many people, giving back and helping others gives them pleasure and helps create a harmonious community to live in.

We're a social species and individuals rely on others in order to prosper and survive. Therefore we need to behave. This is not a product of your dickhead god, its a product of evolution.

[JoltinJoe]

Someone once said to me that he believed your afterlife will be what you believe it will be.

You know, I've considered your position, and it intuitively strikes me as wrong. If you are right, there is really no reason for sacrifice, caring about others, etc. We should just max out on what pleases us until we drop. But such a lifestyle inevitably causes on to be unhappy, because it seems we are called to something greater, to live in community, to share, to care about others. Where does that come from?

One of the more interesting developments in the study of the human brain is that scientists have confirmed that thoughts about God trigger higher-function, abstract brain activity in humans (which is interesting, because I've always said and noted since my college days that, when discussing God, the atheists I have encountered always seem incapable of carrying out the discussion on an abstract level -- at the point the discussion gets philosophical, the atheist resorts to punch lines which either diminish the concept of God (i.e, like the Tooth Fairy in the Sky) or attacks the intelligence of the believer (like Christopher Hitchens).

http://www.livescience.com/3366-scienti ... brain.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, man is a highly-evolved creature and the most intelligent of the creatures. If God and faith in God were but myths, you would think that man, as a highly-evolved creature, would have evolved past this so-called remnant of an age when he relied on myth and superstition. But it seems as if we (or at least most of us) are "programmed" to respond to the thought of God and indeed move into higher-brain functions when the subject comes up. It certainly is a curious thing.

Bullshit boilerplate christian argument.

For the record, this is the point where the discussion stepped up to the abstract ...

[Col Hogan]

Got it. Neither do you, but that's a whole different story.

I don't **** kids. I don't help people who do **** kids, **** more kids. I don't make excuses for people who **** kids. I don't have people who **** kids working for me. I don't threaten parents of kids who have been ****. I don't Joltin Joe up and go after families of kids who have been **** to keep them silent about people who have **** their kids.

I've got more credibility in my ass hairs than the catholic church.

I believe you...you just support killing kids...

[D1B]

I don't **** kids. I don't help people who do **** kids, **** more kids. I don't make excuses for people who **** kids. I don't have people who **** kids working for me. I don't threaten parents of kids who have been ****. I don't Joltin Joe up and go after families of kids who have been **** to keep them silent about people who have **** their kids.

I've got more credibility in my ass hairs than the catholic church.

I believe you...you just support killing kids...

Fuck you Hogan. Your cult slaughters children and fans the flames of overpopulation, genocide and mass starvation.

Hogan, quit wasting your time with that church. It does you no good. There is no god, no Jesus, no heaven, no salvation, no paradise. Deal with it, save your money and time and spend it on your family, or dope and liquor for me.

[D1B]

Bullshit boilerplate christian argument.

For the record, this is the point where the discussion stepped up to the abstract ...

Yeah, sure Joe. Bottom line though is I can explain why we are the way we are with facts. You cannot.

Jesus and your god don't exist, except in your fucking head. It's simple self deception, nothing more nothing less. One of thousands.

We have nothing more to talk about, unless your church fucks up again.

[catamount man]

Unlike D1B, I still believe, just not a follower of the RCC.

[D1B]

Unlike D1B, I still believe, just not a follower of the RCC.

Strip away the good feeling you get from self deception; the buzz of thinking you have a special friend in jesus you really believe in utter nonsense.

The christian god does not exist.

[catamount man]

we'll agree to disagree but it's okay.

[D1B]

we'll agree to disagree but it's okay.

Absolutely. I'm just trying to save you money and time. On your deathbed, there will be one thought racing through your head: Why the fuck did I waste so much effort on religion?

The christian god is absurd and does not exist.

[D1B]

we'll agree to disagree but it's okay.

[Col Hogan]

I believe you...you just support killing kids...

**** you Hogan. Your cult slaughters children and fans the flames of overpopulation, genocide and mass starvation.

Hogan, quit wasting your time with that church. It does you no good. There is no god, no Jesus, no heaven, no salvation, no paradise. Deal with it, save your money and time and spend it on your family, or dope and liquor for me.

But you still support killing babies...

[JohnStOnge]

We're a social species and individuals rely on others in order to prosper and survive. Therefore we need to behave.

It's true that we are a social species and cooperation is necessary for the survival of the species. But that doesn't mean the idea that a justification for individual morality is offered by that principle.

I know atheists try to synthesize a basis of morality from a "self interest" argument where it is in the general "self interest" if everyone adheres to a certain morality. But it just doesn't work because achieving the highest level of average well being in a population is not necessarily the same thing as achieving the highest level of well being for a particular individual. It's quite possible for someone to be really bad and flourish at the expense of others. Stalin is an example I've often used in the past.

Plus, as I've often written before, there is nothing supporting the idea that maximizing general well being is intrinsically "good" without the idea of something outside of ourselves that says that's so. Whether we flourish as a species for another million years or go extinct tomorrow doesn't matter. Nor does it matter if 99% of the members of our species live through horrible lives with much suffering. Whatever is just is and no condition is intrinsically better than another.

Sure, people know that if they are nice to others that may buy them some good will in return. But there is nothing to stop a person from identifying circumstances in which they perceive their own well being as being served by injuring the well being of others. And if they are confident that they can get away with it without adverse consequences there is nothing to stop them from doing it.

We even see it in our day to day lives. Like when you're driving on the interstate and a lane is blocked up ahead creating a traffic jam. If everyone moved to the open lane as soon as they realized what was going on traffic would slow down some but it would continue to flow smoothly. On "average" drivers would lose less time. But there are always people staying in the blocked lane as long as they can so they can move to the front and cut in. They are not acting in the general interest. All they care about is THEM getting through as fast as possible. The ironic thing is that even they would probably have moved through the entire area more quickly if nobody was doing what they're doing. But a lot of people don't think like that.

A small thing but an example of human nature. Doesn't say anything about whether there is a God or not. But it does say something about why a belief in God is important. Appealing to self interest just can't work if people don't believe that there is a 100% chance that they're going to be held accountable for how they live their lives. If those who wish to or successful in banishing belief in God or some other outside entity that sets the rules. more and more people will realize that there is really no intrinsic right or wrong. And if they act strictly in what they perceive as their own self-interest they will see many, many situation in which acting "imorally" will be the best way to reach their objectives.

[JohnStOnge]

I came to the realization that what I just descrsibed is true on my own but I've also heard Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias do a good job of articulating the principle. Just heard him do it yesterday (I frequently listen to a segment he has on the radio on the way to work). He travels around to universities and such and fields questions from audiences. Yesterday the segment included a woman (presumably a student) asking the age old question of why a loving God would let bad things happen.

And of course he started his response by pointing out that a key premise of the question is that there is such a thing as good and bad. He noted that one can't support the idea of intrinsic good or bad in the context of a purely "naturalistic" world view. So, he noted, the person asking the question may not have realized it but a conrnerstone premise of her question implied the existence of something beyond the "natural" that establishes good and bad.

And he was right. As soon as you say there is nothing outside of us you've given up any argument that there is such a thing as intrinsic good or bad or right or wrong. You can kid yourself all you want. You can try stuff about societal self interest, etc. But none of it really works because it can always be pointed out that there is nothing intrisically good or bad or right or wrong about whatever it is you are tryinig to achieve with the system of morality you posit.

[89Hen]

What a fucking joke.

[D1B]

We're a social species and individuals rely on others in order to prosper and survive. Therefore we need to behave.

It's true that we are a social species and cooperation is necessary for the survival of the species. But that doesn't mean the idea that a justification for individual morality is offered by that principle.

I know atheists try to synthesize a basis of morality from a "self interest" argument where it is in the general "self interest" if everyone adheres to a certain morality. But it just doesn't work because achieving the highest level of average well being in a population is not necessarily the same thing as achieving the highest level of well being for a particular individual. It's quite possible for someone to be really bad and flourish at the expense of others. Stalin is an example I've often used in the past.

Plus, as I've often written before, there is nothing supporting the idea that maximizing general well being is intrinsically "good" without the idea of something outside of ourselves that says that's so. Whether we flourish as a species for another million years or go extinct tomorrow doesn't matter. Nor does it matter if 99% of the members of our species live through horrible lives with much suffering. Whatever is just is and no condition is intrinsically better than another.

Sure, people know that if they are nice to others that may buy them some good will in return. But there is nothing to stop a person from identifying circumstances in which they perceive their own well being as being served by injuring the well being of others. And if they are confident that they can get away with it without adverse consequences there is nothing to stop them from doing it.

We even see it in our day to day lives. Like when you're driving on the interstate and a lane is blocked up ahead creating a traffic jam. If everyone moved to the open lane as soon as they realized what was going on traffic would slow down some but it would continue to flow smoothly. On "average" drivers would lose less time. But there are always people staying in the blocked lane as long as they can so they can move to the front and cut in. They are not acting in the general interest. All they care about is THEM getting through as fast as possible. The ironic thing is that even they would probably have moved through the entire area more quickly if nobody was doing what they're doing. But a lot of people don't think like that.

A small thing but an example of human nature. Doesn't say anything about whether there is a God or not. But it does say something about why a belief in God is important. Appealing to self interest just can't work if people don't believe that there is a 100% chance that they're going to be held accountable for how they live their lives. If those who wish to or successful in banishing belief in God or some other outside entity that sets the rules. more and more people will realize that there is really no intrinsic right or wrong. And if they act strictly in what they perceive as their own self-interest they will see many, many situation in which acting "imorally" will be the best way to reach their objectives.

Oh bullshit.

[catamount man]

Proof God cares, from Lutheran Hour Ministries.

http://www.lhm.org/dailydevotions.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

**** you Hogan. Your cult slaughters children and fans the flames of overpopulation, genocide and mass starvation.

Hogan, quit wasting your time with that church. It does you no good. There is no god, no Jesus, no heaven, no salvation, no paradise. Deal with it, save your money and time and spend it on your family, or dope and liquor for me.

But you still support killing babies...

How so, Hogan?

*Nice transition from killing "kids" to killing "babies".

[D1B]

I came to the realization that what I just descrsibed is true on my own but I've also heard Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias do a good job of articulating the principle. Just heard him do it yesterday (I frequently listen to a segment he has on the radio on the way to work). He travels around to universities and such and fields questions from audiences. Yesterday the segment included a woman (presumably a student) asking the age old question of why a loving God would let bad things happen.

And of course he started his response by pointing out that a key premise of the question is that there is such a thing as good and bad. He noted that one can't support the idea of intrinsic good or bad in the context of a purely "naturalistic" world view. So, he noted, the person asking the question may not have realized it but a conrnerstone premise of her question implied the existence of something beyond the "natural" that establishes good and bad.

And he was right. As soon as you say there is nothing outside of us you've given up any argument that there is such a thing as intrinsic good or bad or right or wrong. You can kid yourself all you want. You can try stuff about societal self interest, etc. But none of it really works because it can always be pointed out that there is nothing intrisically good or bad or right or wrong about whatever it is you are tryinig to achieve with the system of morality you posit.

If you require the dog trainer or middle man to explain good behavior, fine. If you want to attribute good behavior to god, fine.

Keep in mind the man created god. We've created thousands of gods, all with different sets of values and "commandments".

We will continue to create gods for as long as we inhabit this planet.

[D1B]

Proof God cares, from Lutheran Hour Ministries.

http://www.lhm.org/dailydevotions.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Proof #48 - Compare prayer to a lucky horseshoe

The dictionary defines the word "superstition" in this way:

An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

We have all seen plenty of superstitions. There are the superstitions that a rabbit's foot or a four-leaf clover bring good luck. There are the superstitions that breaking a mirror or seeing a black cat bring bad luck. And we all know that these superstitions are silly. A rabbit's foot or a broken mirror has no good or bad influence on the course of events. This is obvious to any intelligent person.

So let's imagine the following situation. Let's say that you have cancer. You are lying in the hospital after a round of chemo and you feel terrible. A person pops into your room with a bright smile on his face and a horseshoe in his hand. He says to you, "This is an amazing and lucky horseshoe. If you touch this horseshoe, it will cure your cancer. But I need to charge you $100 to touch it."

Would you pay the man $100?

Of course not. We all know that touching the horseshoe will have zero effect on cancer. The belief in lucky horseshoes is pure superstition.

It is also very easy to scientifically prove that the horseshoe has no effect on cancer (or anything else). The way we would do it is simple: we would take 1,000 cancer patients and split them randomly into two groups of 500. We would let 500 of the cancer patients touch the lucky horseshoe and we would leave the other 500 alone in a double-blind way. Then we would look at cancer remission rates between the two groups. What we would find is zero benefit from the horseshoe. We would see no statistical difference between the remission rates in the two groups of 500 patients.

Prayer

Now let us imagine another situation. You have cancer, you have just finished a round of chemo and you feel terrible. This time, a person pops into your room with a bright smile on his face and a bible in his hand. He says to you, "There is a being named God who is the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe. I am his representative on earth. If you will allow me to pray to God on your behalf, God will cure your cancer."

You agree to the prayer, and the man prays over you for 10 minutes. He invokes all the healing powers of God, beseeching him, reciting verses of scripture and so forth. Afterwards, as he is getting ready to leave, the man says, "Oh, and by the way, God says that you should tithe 10% of your income to the church. Would you consider making a tax-deductible donation today?"

The question is: Is there any difference between the two men? Will the prayer have any effect greater than the horseshoe?

The answer is: No. The belief in prayer is just as superstitious as the belief in lucky horseshoes.

The fascinating thing is that we can prove that prayer has no effect in exactly the same way that we can prove that horseshoes have no effect. We take 1,000 cancer patients. We pray over 500 of them and we leave the other 500 alone. Then we look at cancer remission rates between the two groups. What we find is that prayers have zero benefit. We would see no statistical difference between the remission rates in the two groups of 500 patients.

In other words, we can prove that the belief in prayer is pure superstition. The belief in the power of prayer is no different from the belief in the power of lucky horseshoes.

These experiments have been performed many times, and they always return the same results.

godisimaginary.com

[D1B]

I came to the realization that what I just descrsibed is true on my own but I've also heard Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias do a good job of articulating the principle. Just heard him do it yesterday (I frequently listen to a segment he has on the radio on the way to work). He travels around to universities and such and fields questions from audiences. Yesterday the segment included a woman (presumably a student) asking the age old question of why a loving God would let bad things happen.

And of course he started his response by pointing out that a key premise of the question is that there is such a thing as good and bad. He noted that one can't support the idea of intrinsic good or bad in the context of a purely "naturalistic" world view. So, he noted, the person asking the question may not have realized it but a conrnerstone premise of her question implied the existence of something beyond the "natural" that establishes good and bad.

And he was right. As soon as you say there is nothing outside of us you've given up any argument that there is such a thing as intrinsic good or bad or right or wrong. You can kid yourself all you want. You can try stuff about societal self interest, etc. But none of it really works because it can always be pointed out that there is nothing intrisically good or bad or right or wrong about whatever it is you are tryinig to achieve with the system of morality you posit.

If you require the dog trainer or middle man to explain good behavior, fine. If you want to attribute good behavior to god, fine.

Keep in mind, man created god. We've created thousands of gods, all with different sets of values and "commandments".

We will continue to create gods for as long as we inhabit this planet.

[JohnStOnge]

Actually the "lucky horseshoe" thing might show an effect. What people think is happening can have an effect. That's why they use placebos in clinical trials. They have to make sure both the experimental subjects and the controls don't know whether they're getting the real medication or a sugar pill.

The "placebo effect" is well known. Here is an article on it:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-the-mind" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Same with prayer. If you were to do a controlled experiment where experimental subjects have a group of people come stand around them and pray every day vs. controls who don't have people come pray for them you might see a "significant" difference because at least some of the experimental subjects believe in the power of prayer.

So you'd have to do something like have both experimental subjects and controls have some people stand around them and bow their heads. You'd tell the people bowing their heads that when they are standing around the experimental subjects they really pray but when they are standing around the controls they think about football or something.

Another thing you could do would be not to tell either the experimental subjects or the controls anything. You just have some group of people pray for them in another room or something so that experimental subjects don't even know that's going on.

And there has been at least one study that included something like that. You can see that abstract at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16023511" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I have the full study on my hard drive and had an e mail exchange with the lead author. I'm sure you'll be pleased to find that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that off site prayer had an effect.

However, that should not be construed as showing that prayer had no effect. One reason for that is described in the discussion portion of the paper. It actually has to do with a possible "placebo effect" they coudn't eliminate. Here is a quote:

"Off-protocol prayer in the study population could have important effects on the study power. In both the study by Aviles and colleagues and MANTRA II, treatment effects of 25–30% were used for power calculations, and both studies aimed to enrol 750–800 patients. Aviles and coworkers observed a 13% difference in their primary endpoint, but the study was underpowered to demonstrate significance at that level, and the researchers could only speculate on the frequency of offprotocol prayer or placebo effect in their cohort. In our feasibility pilot population, the basis for power calculations for MANTRA II, 39% of patients were aware of off-protocol prayer on their behalf at study entry. In MANTRA II, 89% knew of off-protocol prayer, and twothirds of patients not assigned protocol prayer believed that they were. Generally, such off-protocol features might be offset by randomisation, but the presence of placebo effect in 67% and off-protocol prayer in almost 90% of the study cohort could have substantially limited the ability to detect incremental treatment effect in MANTRA II."

As you'd expect the media presented it as debunking the "power of prayer." But during my e mail exchange with the lead author he said it should not be interpreted at way. The correct way to look at it is that if it HAD shown a prayer effect that would've been something but it NOT showing a prayer effect just leaves the question unanswered.

That's kind of how statistics works anyway. You can never infer the null hypothesis (no effect in this case). All you can do is say you either did or did not infer the alternative hypothesis (effect) at some pre-selected confidence level. It is not really possible to infer, with statistical hypothesis testing, that something has no effect. You see it stated that way all the time but it's not really correct to do that."

[D1B]

Actually the "lucky horseshoe" thing might show an effect. What people think is happening can have an effect. That's why they use placebos in clinical trials. They have to make sure both the experimental subjects and the controls don't know whether they're getting the real medication or a sugar pill.

The "placebo effect" is well known. Here is an article on it:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... n-the-mind" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Same with prayer. If you were to do a controlled experiment where experimental subjects have a group of people come stand around them and pray every day vs. controls who don't have people come pray for them you might see a "significant" difference because at least some of the experimental subjects believe in the power of prayer.

So you'd have to do something like have both experimental subjects and controls have some people stand around them and bow their heads. You'd tell the people bowing their heads that when they are standing around the experimental subjects they really pray but when they are standing around the controls they think about football or something.

Another thing you could do would be not to tell either the experimental subjects or the controls anything. You just have some group of people pray for them in another room or something so that experimental subjects don't even know that's going on.

And there has been at least one study that included something like that. You can see that abstract at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16023511" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I have the full study on my hard drive and had an e mail exchange with the lead author. I'm sure you'll be pleased to find that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that off site prayer had an effect.

However, that should not be construed as showing that prayer had no effect. One reason for that is described in the discussion portion of the paper. It actually has to do with a possible "placebo effect" they coudn't eliminate. Here is a quote:

"Off-protocol prayer in the study population could have important effects on the study power. In both the study by Aviles and colleagues and MANTRA II, treatment effects of 25–30% were used for power calculations, and both studies aimed to enrol 750–800 patients. Aviles and coworkers observed a 13% difference in their primary endpoint, but the study was underpowered to demonstrate significance at that level, and the researchers could only speculate on the frequency of offprotocol prayer or placebo effect in their cohort. In our feasibility pilot population, the basis for power calculations for MANTRA II, 39% of patients were aware of off-protocol prayer on their behalf at study entry. In MANTRA II, 89% knew of off-protocol prayer, and twothirds of patients not assigned protocol prayer believed that they were. Generally, such off-protocol features might be offset by randomisation, but the presence of placebo effect in 67% and off-protocol prayer in almost 90% of the study cohort could have substantially limited the ability to detect incremental treatment effect in MANTRA II."

As you'd expect the media presented it as debunking the "power of prayer." But during my e mail exchange with the lead author he said it should not be interpreted at way. The correct way to look at it is that if it HAD shown a prayer effect that would've been something but it NOT showing a prayer effect just leaves the question unanswered.

That's kind of how statistics works anyway. You can never infer the null hypothesis (no effect in this case). All you can do is say you either did or did not infer the alternative hypothesis (effect) at some pre-selected confidence level. It is not really possible to infer, with statistical hypothesis testing, that something has no effect. You see it stated that way all the time but it's not really correct to do that."

Yawn...prayers are bullshit, no better/worse than a rabbits foot or lucky bowling shirt.

John, we invent the gods that make the rules, therefore we make the rules.

[JohnStOnge]

D, one thing I recommend to you, if actually convincing people of anything is one of your goals, is not to refer people to sites like the one you mentioned above (godisimaginary.com) for support. You may wish to use such sites as your own starting point but I think you'd do better if you avoid actually linking it as a source because it has an obvious dog in the fight. It is a propaganda site. Not saying propaganda can't be true but it's propaganda by definition and people can see that.

I might come across a site like this one:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ealth.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But if I were trying to argue that prayer has an effect I certainly wouldn't refer them to that site. Instead, I would try to look up the studies cited and assess them. Then I might refer people directly to the studies.

Why? Because as soon as somebody goes to that site they're going to see that it has an agenda. It is a propaganda site. If they are already discinclined to agree with me they're not going to believe anything that site has to say. Same kind of thing is going to happen when you refer people to sites devoted to convincing people that religion is mythology, etc.

[JohnStOnge]

I took a look at godisimaginary.com. The first article link I clicked on at the site site took me to this Boston Globe article:

http://altmednews.info/data/cache43.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(actually it took me to a place where I'd have had to pay to read the whole article so I had to find it somewhere else)

As it happens it is referring to the study I have a copy of that I just described above. The godisimaginary.com site presents it as one of a series of studies showing that "...we know that there is zero effect from prayer." I provided a quote from the actual paper in my earlier post clearly indicating that it would not be correct to interpret the results of that study as "proving" that prayer has no effect.

In fairness the study authors did make the statement "Neither masked prayer nor MIT therapy significantly improved clinical outcome after elective catheterisation or percutaneous coronary intervention." To keep people from misinterpreting what they were saying in the abstract maybe they should've said something like, "The study did not yield sufficient evidence, at the 95 percent confidence level, to conclude that either masked prayer or MIT therapy significantly improved clinical outcome..." That's basically what you're saying when you say that a treatment tested in a statistical experiment did not result in a "significant" outcome. It's not the same as saying, as the Globe article author did, "...found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments.*

But, either way, the study does not support the godisimaginary.com claim that is supports the statement "...we know that there is zero effect from prayer."

*As an aside, those who were subject to the prayer "treatment" in the study did have slightly lower rates of complications. Because of that, in fact, the same study is ALSO cited on the other propaganda site (the pro prayer has an effect site) I linked in my post above. It's just that the differences in rates were not anywhere close to large enough to approach being "significant" at 95 percent confidence.

[JohnStOnge]

Yawn...prayers are bullshit, no better/worse than a rabbits foot or lucky bowling shirt..

Well, you believe that. And that's fine. But that is not something that has been "shown by science."

Nor is it likely that it could ever be shown. One big problem is that there is no way to ensure that "control" subjects don't get the "treatment." With a drug you can give experimental subjects the real drug and control subjects a placebo. You can make sure the control subjects don't get exposed to the drug.

But with prayer you can't do that. You can't create a situation in which you can say you know nobody prayed for a control. And that's what you'd have to be able to do in order to conduct a truely controlled experiment.

Then there's that over-arching problem I mentioned above. Statistical experiments can never show that something has no effect. So it's really a waste of time to attempt to argue that science has shown that prayer has no effect. Pretty much can't be done.