I read Trey Hoffman’s response with amusement and disbelief. He either didn’t get the main points and should have said so, or he did and committed sophistry to divert the attention of other readers from the subject discussed.

The main points therein are: folks in the scientific community, in the religious community, in the medical community, etc., hold cherished beliefs which may turn out to be true or false; only careful and thoughtful scrutiny or deliberate experimentation can determine which.

I could have, instead, mentioned cherished beliefs currently held about health and nutrition that are completely bogus.

Example: Recently the natural food supplements glucosamine and chondroitin, used by folks with joint problems, were shown to be totally ineffectual; only competent experimentation could have determined that.

Trey Hoffman’s references to Jesus Christ in his article seem bizarre and off the point. If he believes the eyewitness accounts about Jesus Christ, then he should give equal credence to the eyewitness accounts about the Prophet Mohammed’s ascent into heaven from a mountaintop and the claims of any other religious cult with lots of eyewitnesses to unnatural events.

But, as good defense attorneys know, eyewitness accounts aren’t worth much. They would prefer DNA samples or undoctored video instead as evidence, products of modern science.

What about Hoffman’s strange reference to my birth! (Sophistry at its best, or is it, at its worst.) Does he really believe that: if you can’t reproduce an event, then you can’t understand its genesis? If so, cosmologists, astronomers, historians, etc., better look for different work.

Trey Hoffman said, “Not that I am against the scientific method and the power of man’s reason to discern truth.” So, I guess Hoffman would embrace the results of good experiments even when they clash with his beliefs. I assume, therefore, Hoffman would acknowledge the conclusion of the experiment: prayers don’t help the sick.

But, Trey Hoffman wants it both ways; he wrote, “We are similarly able to use our reason to understand religious truths, which are different from scientific ones in that they are NOT provable by experiment, ...” Who says they are different and not provable by experiment? In fact, the experiment did shed light on “religious” truths, but didn’t give Trey Hoffman the answer he wishes.

Unlike Trey Hoffman and Pepper Adams, who would defend cherished religious beliefs even when demonstrably wrong, I delight in the discovery of new truths by experiment.

I would have been awe-inspired if the experiment showed that prayers did indeed help the sick; how wonderful that would have been; what new vistas of research and knowledge that would have engendered.

Alas the experiment didn’t. Truth is a hard taskmaster, and we must seek other ways to help the sick.

Peter Duran
Fayetteville, Ga.

login to post comments