Re: Prayer power questioned
- From: Timberwoof <timberwoof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:45:01 -0800
In article <1143794166.401293.206310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Marc" <mbuhler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> quoted:
The question has been a contentious one among researchers. Proponents have
argued that prayer is perhaps the most deeply human response to disease, and
that it may relieve suffering by some mechanism that is not yet understood.
Skeptics have contended that studying prayer is a waste of money and that it
presupposes supernatural intervention, putting it by definition beyond the
reach of science.
Interesting wording. I might have have written the paragraph this way:
The question has been a contentious one among researchers. Proponents of the
scientifc method have contended that studying prayer is a waste of money and
that it presupposes supernatural intervention, putting it by definition
beyond the reach of science. Skeptics of science have argued that prayer is
perhaps the most deeply human response to disease, and that it may relieve
suffering by some mechanism that is not yet understood.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Prayer power questioned
- From: Dale
- Re: Prayer power questioned
- References:
- Prayer power questioned
- From: Marc
- Prayer power questioned
- Prev by Date: Re: News: Scientists Debate Dinosaur Demise
- Next by Date: Re: Has talk.origins convinced any creationists?
- Previous by thread: Re: Prayer power questioned
- Next by thread: Re: Prayer power questioned
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|