OK, let me tell you a story. A friend of mine - A - has a genetic indicator that predisposes her to breast cancer - her sisters have all had diagnoses at various times, and have had or are having treatment.
A couple of weeks ago, a lump was investigated, and a preliminary diagnosis of breast cancer was made, which was very difficult for her, and for us her friends. Naturally, as a home group, we prayer for her and the family, prior to more extensive tests and a planned removal of the lumps.
After her next visit, I received the news that she was actually clear - it had been a 1% chance false positive. The plan is to remove the lumps anyway, just in case, but she is technically clear of cancer as of now.
So did the prayer make a difference? Was the prayer for healing answered?
The answer is not simple. The thing is, there was a 1% chance of a false positive, and one can argue that A was simply one of these 1%. Now, of course, this means nothing. If all of the 1% were prayed for, it might indicate that the prayer had an effect, but it would still be a case of a 1% unexplained false positive. In itself, it does not prove that the prayer made a difference.
It might also be that her genetic predisposition was a factor in getting the positive. I have no idea about this, whether this is an likelihood, but it might throw the results. There could also be a range of other peculiarities that skew these results and explain her inclusion in the 1%.
Scientifically, this is a small error factor that is an acceptable variability in the test results. It does not invalidate the results, or the tests. Every test - every scientific experiment has a possibility of error, and one of the important aspects of being a scientist is to understand what this means, how to control it, and when it is significant.
So there is a line of argument that the prayer was irrelevant. As with any medical test, there is a chance of false results, however small. That one particular person falls into this category should be considered anything other than a minor scientific anomaly.
But, of course, in this case, A was prayed for, despite have a high propensity for cancer, and having had a positive test, and the results changed.
Except they didn't. The results stayed the same - she never had cancer. It is just that the more accurate and detailed results showed this clearly. The prayer didn't change the result - they provided support and care for A during a difficult time. That is not insignificant. That is one critical aspect of prayer.
But maybe there is more. One of the fascinating aspects of the world as we are trying to understand it is that observation is crucial - observing an event (at any level) makes a difference to the event. The old question of "if a tree falls in a forest and there is no-one to hear it, does it make any noise" can be extended to argue that if a tree falls in a forest and is not observed, does it actually fall? More, if I do not observe it, has it, for me, fallen? Once I observe - directly or indirectly - it has fallen.
Peculiar though this sounds, the fallenness of the tree is actually irrelevant to me, until it impacts me. If it falls in the Amazon, there is a brief time when I can have no knowledge of that event, and so it cannot impact me. But there is a longer time when it does not impact me, that the fallenness of the tree is meaningless. When I know about it, its fallenness then becomes significant.
And yes, I know that this principle of quantum physics applies as such only to the quantum level. But the reality is that everything is driven by events at the quantum level. Bringing this up to the macro level introduces the oddity of the infamous Schroedingers Cat - which was precisely to illustrate the quantum at the macro level - and does not directly work. At the same time, recent research does indicate that the world is always more surreal than we could ever believe. The idea that reality is only defined when it is observed may seem not to make sense, but then most of the quantum ideas don't make "sense" in that way.
Have I lost you yet? Maybe the prayer impacts the not-yet-observed cancer, to make it never have existed. Once it is observed and verified, it exists, but maybe prayer can impact unobserved events. Maybe it can have an impact, it can make a difference.
So does prayer work? It does help to support and comfort people - whatever else it does, this is a positive and helpful aspect of prayer. And I wonder whether it can also impact events, in particular events that are not yet properly observed.
I could, of course, be talking drivel. But I will continue to pray for people, because I believe it does some good. And I will continue to pray for A because it is a supporting thing to do.
Showing posts with label prayer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prayer. Show all posts
Saturday, 5 April 2014
Friday, 18 October 2013
Cyclists
I have been accused of not liking cyclists. This is odd, because a) I have been a cyclist and b) I know lots of cyclists, and they are all lovely people. And yet, what I have seen from them, from their experiences of cycling (especially in London), I think cyclists are very poorly treated overall.
I should point out, for the record, that I used to cycle to work each day, and I did that for a couple of years. In London, in the peak hours.
I should also point out that I do try to give cyclists room and consideration when I am driving. I try to give them space to pass and when I pass them.
Cycling in London is very difficult. There is a lot of traffic all busy, some of it fast, and it is traveling on roads that are not always wide enough for the load. It requires a lot of bravery (or something). There are cycle paths in some places, but the system is woefully inadequate, and, as the news reports have shown of late, they are not safe cycling routes. Sometimes they seem just to direct cyclists into busy junctions, and abandon them there - the Bow roundabout being one example.
When traffic systems are being looked at, development made, most of the time the cyclists are not given priority, and any provision is often a last-minute hack to stave off criticism. Even outside London, where some of the problems are eased, cycling provision on some of the major commuting routes is inadequate, making cycling along these (usually busy) roads dangerous.
Of course, the other side to this is that cyclists do not always do themselves any favours. I see cyclists running red lights, cycling across pavements, ignoring zebra crossings, using pedestrian lights while still on their bikes. These are all dangerous. Now people point out to me that cyclists jumping red lights is not as dangerous as a car jumping a red light - as if that made it acceptable. It is true, and it is also the case that cars jump red lights sometimes. However as a pedestrian, a bike jumping a red light is usually harder to see than a car doing the same. I can see a car from some distance away, but a bike may have just been weaving its way through the cars, and might charge into me suddenly. And usually with some disdain that I am getting in their way.
The injuries that a bike hitting a pedestrian can cause should not be underestimated. They can be serious and even fatal. I have been at the top of Greys Inn Road in London, as a busy crossroads, when the lights have gone red for traffic, and seen dozens of bikes zipping across the junction in all directions. We are not talking about a very few bad eggs, but a significant number of cyclists, especially in London, but not exclusively.
So not I don't hate cyclists. I have a lot of sympathy for them, and do not envy anyone who cycles in London. But they must accept that they are part of the road traffic, and should follow the accepted rules of the road (not precisely the same as the written rules). I don't mind when they pass me to move to the front of a queue at the lights - it is the safest place for them, and they are narrow enough to pass other vehicles. I do object when they them cycle straight through the lights when they are on red. And yes, cars should abide by the accepted rules of the road too. But just because some members of one group break the rules is no excuse for members of another group to also break the rules. That is madness.
Can I find some spiritual or Christian message in this? Not a great one, just that rules are there for a purpose. The purpose is not that we should not break them under any circumstances - that is the pharasitical approach. They are there to guide us, to point out the way, to indicate the direction.
If we break the rules there are consequences. That does not mean we should not break the rules, just that we should accept the consequences.
And mostly, the message I get is that when I was cycling, it was then that I most contemplated my eternal future, because, many times, I felt that it was due to begin shortly. Cycling does wonders for your prayer life. But rather less for your nerves.
I should point out, for the record, that I used to cycle to work each day, and I did that for a couple of years. In London, in the peak hours.
I should also point out that I do try to give cyclists room and consideration when I am driving. I try to give them space to pass and when I pass them.
Cycling in London is very difficult. There is a lot of traffic all busy, some of it fast, and it is traveling on roads that are not always wide enough for the load. It requires a lot of bravery (or something). There are cycle paths in some places, but the system is woefully inadequate, and, as the news reports have shown of late, they are not safe cycling routes. Sometimes they seem just to direct cyclists into busy junctions, and abandon them there - the Bow roundabout being one example.
When traffic systems are being looked at, development made, most of the time the cyclists are not given priority, and any provision is often a last-minute hack to stave off criticism. Even outside London, where some of the problems are eased, cycling provision on some of the major commuting routes is inadequate, making cycling along these (usually busy) roads dangerous.
Of course, the other side to this is that cyclists do not always do themselves any favours. I see cyclists running red lights, cycling across pavements, ignoring zebra crossings, using pedestrian lights while still on their bikes. These are all dangerous. Now people point out to me that cyclists jumping red lights is not as dangerous as a car jumping a red light - as if that made it acceptable. It is true, and it is also the case that cars jump red lights sometimes. However as a pedestrian, a bike jumping a red light is usually harder to see than a car doing the same. I can see a car from some distance away, but a bike may have just been weaving its way through the cars, and might charge into me suddenly. And usually with some disdain that I am getting in their way.
The injuries that a bike hitting a pedestrian can cause should not be underestimated. They can be serious and even fatal. I have been at the top of Greys Inn Road in London, as a busy crossroads, when the lights have gone red for traffic, and seen dozens of bikes zipping across the junction in all directions. We are not talking about a very few bad eggs, but a significant number of cyclists, especially in London, but not exclusively.
So not I don't hate cyclists. I have a lot of sympathy for them, and do not envy anyone who cycles in London. But they must accept that they are part of the road traffic, and should follow the accepted rules of the road (not precisely the same as the written rules). I don't mind when they pass me to move to the front of a queue at the lights - it is the safest place for them, and they are narrow enough to pass other vehicles. I do object when they them cycle straight through the lights when they are on red. And yes, cars should abide by the accepted rules of the road too. But just because some members of one group break the rules is no excuse for members of another group to also break the rules. That is madness.
Can I find some spiritual or Christian message in this? Not a great one, just that rules are there for a purpose. The purpose is not that we should not break them under any circumstances - that is the pharasitical approach. They are there to guide us, to point out the way, to indicate the direction.
If we break the rules there are consequences. That does not mean we should not break the rules, just that we should accept the consequences.
And mostly, the message I get is that when I was cycling, it was then that I most contemplated my eternal future, because, many times, I felt that it was due to begin shortly. Cycling does wonders for your prayer life. But rather less for your nerves.
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Malcolm Bowden
Some of you may have heard Malcolm Bowdens 4thought.tv slot this last week, where he claims that depression, and other mental illnesses, are the choice of the individual who suffers from them.
He says that a "true" Christian can never be depressed, because it is incompatible with their faith.
He says, on his website, that he has been involved in counseling many people, with what he calls "True Biblical Counseling".
There is so much I could say about him, but I would pick up a few for now. Firstly, he seems to have a real thing about "True" Christians, as opposed, I guess, to "False" ones. This always sounds alarms for me, because, in the end, what he means is Christians who agree with him. It means that people who don't agree, or - more significantly - people who are not helped by his "counseling" are not "True" Christians.
That will really help someone if they are already suffering from depression or self-esteem problems, to be then told that they are not really a Christian either.
The other problem I have though is far wider than this. My problem is that he given Christianity a bad name. Now most people I know will happily acknowledge that his opinions are not representative, but people I don't know may assume that this is a representation of evangelical Christianity.
And what bugs me most is this quick-fix approach to mental illness. Actually, I see it in other places, although this is a particularly bad form of it, where the assumption is that some short term counseling, or a few prayers sessions, can cure everything. The real challenge for the church communities, for evangelical Christians as a whole, is can they live with, work with, and support people who have mental illness over years. Can we provide the long-term care and concern that people need? Can we get away from the quick-fix mentality that is so common in society, and pray with people, spend time with people, support people over the years they may need it?
I hope so. And I hope that Malcolm Bowden and his like are seen as a dangerous and minority extreme, and not the genuine, real, caring side of Christianity.
He says that a "true" Christian can never be depressed, because it is incompatible with their faith.
He says, on his website, that he has been involved in counseling many people, with what he calls "True Biblical Counseling".
There is so much I could say about him, but I would pick up a few for now. Firstly, he seems to have a real thing about "True" Christians, as opposed, I guess, to "False" ones. This always sounds alarms for me, because, in the end, what he means is Christians who agree with him. It means that people who don't agree, or - more significantly - people who are not helped by his "counseling" are not "True" Christians.
That will really help someone if they are already suffering from depression or self-esteem problems, to be then told that they are not really a Christian either.
The other problem I have though is far wider than this. My problem is that he given Christianity a bad name. Now most people I know will happily acknowledge that his opinions are not representative, but people I don't know may assume that this is a representation of evangelical Christianity.
And what bugs me most is this quick-fix approach to mental illness. Actually, I see it in other places, although this is a particularly bad form of it, where the assumption is that some short term counseling, or a few prayers sessions, can cure everything. The real challenge for the church communities, for evangelical Christians as a whole, is can they live with, work with, and support people who have mental illness over years. Can we provide the long-term care and concern that people need? Can we get away from the quick-fix mentality that is so common in society, and pray with people, spend time with people, support people over the years they may need it?
I hope so. And I hope that Malcolm Bowden and his like are seen as a dangerous and minority extreme, and not the genuine, real, caring side of Christianity.
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Fabrice Muamba
Last week, Fabrice Muamba collapsed during a football game, with a cardiac arrest. He was dead for 78 minutes, but was rushed to hospital, and is now recovering well, sitting up and talking. All of which is very good for him, and clearly shown the importance of getting treatment urgently.
However, there has been, since that point, calls to Pray for Muamba, by the family initially, and others since. It shows something else, I think. There has also been criticism of this too, at the very least because there are more important things for God and prayer to do.
Surveys in this country indicate declining belief in God, declining church attendance, a general declining level of defined spirituality. But the Pray for Muamba campaign seems to have taken off and been seen on football players shirts and on the front page of the Sun.
I think this is cool. Because I think that, whatever else we believe or don't believe in this country, we still think that prayer has an effect. His incredible recovery might seem to indicate that it actually works.
Actually, prayer works, and it works in all sorts of ways. It does, I believe, encourage God to intervene. But it also encourages us to do something, to change, to act to fulfill our prayers. And real prayer is about listening to God, and hearing what he has to say too - that will change us.
We are a nation who will pray, and prayer works. But prayer works as much to change us as anything. To listen to Gods desires and priorities. To drive us to make a difference. It may be illegal to advertise that God can heal, but God answers prayers. Just not always in the way we want.
Sorry I have been slow in blogging, BTW. I have been working on getting my book ( see side menu ) published. It is called Bubbles, and is written by Schroedinger. It is currently available in e-book format, on kindle, and in good old-fashioned paper.
However, there has been, since that point, calls to Pray for Muamba, by the family initially, and others since. It shows something else, I think. There has also been criticism of this too, at the very least because there are more important things for God and prayer to do.
Surveys in this country indicate declining belief in God, declining church attendance, a general declining level of defined spirituality. But the Pray for Muamba campaign seems to have taken off and been seen on football players shirts and on the front page of the Sun.
I think this is cool. Because I think that, whatever else we believe or don't believe in this country, we still think that prayer has an effect. His incredible recovery might seem to indicate that it actually works.
Actually, prayer works, and it works in all sorts of ways. It does, I believe, encourage God to intervene. But it also encourages us to do something, to change, to act to fulfill our prayers. And real prayer is about listening to God, and hearing what he has to say too - that will change us.
We are a nation who will pray, and prayer works. But prayer works as much to change us as anything. To listen to Gods desires and priorities. To drive us to make a difference. It may be illegal to advertise that God can heal, but God answers prayers. Just not always in the way we want.
Sorry I have been slow in blogging, BTW. I have been working on getting my book ( see side menu ) published. It is called Bubbles, and is written by Schroedinger. It is currently available in e-book format, on kindle, and in good old-fashioned paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)