The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[blue triangle]

It is not necessary to abandon reason to volunteer at a homeless shelter, conquer alcohol addiction or give money to the poor. There are good reasons to do all those things.

Who said religious people have to abandon reason? Where is all this nonsense coming from?

Reason has its place - just don't make an idol of it.

There are no good reasons to kill people who believe something slightly different to you. There are no good reasons to destroy mankind's cultural heritage. There are no good reasons to prevent girls getting an education. These are all the result of unverifiable dogmatic belief.

Yes, religion has its pathological forms. You would tar all religions and forms of spirituality with that same brush? You would compare us all with some regressive Islamic sect? We've seen atheist states before, and they weren't utopias. Moreover they often tried (unsuccesfully) to exterminate religion, because it was the only real threat to their totalitarian agenda.

 

[blue triangle]

By Gödel you strike-down reason: fain dare with its bones to assemble some nameless alternative.

Remember, as you wallow in the shadow of the corpse of reason; building randomly; praising your god in disordered octaves; being carelessly precise, now folly enfolds: that russet set to the darkling air is irony — there is not one thought that can stand 'pon another without the intrusion of reason!

Comes down to the personal, this. Abandon reason, you say; here is a panacea, you say; simply spurn sense, you say. I recoil! Keep your poison! Tender this unto your tendentious lord: Howl now, you lost dog of the wastes; we are coming for your throat, one tool at a time!

Who said reason should be abandoned? I say it has its place, beside and a little below faith, because even your precious reason rests on that, as does all of science.

By quasi-shakespearean verse you give your pompous drivel a patina of credibility it doesn't take a Godel to demolish. One little breath and the entire shoddy structure keels over, like some ancient, mouldering ruin.
.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't understand why prayer is necessary.

Surely God is supposed to know everything - so he already knows what you are about to pray for.

Much prayer is supplication, asking that the laws of the Universe be altered to benefit the petitioner, admittedly unworthy.

(With a nod to Ambrose Bierce)

Also, especially in the Protestant denominations, prayer is a form of worship and serves to establish and maintain the personal relationship you have with God.

You don't have to be asking for anything when you pray.

 

[Peregrinus]

and you cannot reason someone into the understanding that a life guided by reason alone is a dead end.

So many logical fallacies in so brief a space! Impressive!

 

[Sherman Bay]

You don't have to be asking for anything when you pray.

Which makes it all the easier to say "it works."

I talked to God,
Called Him up on the phone.
But he put me on hold,
Don't go away, I was told,
I said, "For God's sake, I won't!"

-- Dick Monda

 

[stanfr]

Reason can't even establish its own authority, as Godel showed. Yes, people can go astray when reason is abandoned, but they can also be given meaning and purpose. Far from throwing their life away they win it back again. Your use of the word 'usually' shows some bias, I'm afraid, and is a slight on everyone who ever volunteered at a homeless shelter, conquered alcohol addiction after a conversion or gave money to the poor - and there are far more of them than there are jihadists.

So, you're offended by my question--fine, I understand why. You should know that despite being agnostic, I am on record numerous times defending the Christian viewpoint (this forum is a public record) that I grew up with--I've had more insults hurled at me for taking that stand than you have in your short time here. But I take this as a tacit admission that you know that, fundamentally, there is no difference between your faith and that of the radicals--they interpret their Koran and find meaning, you interpret your bible--but ultimately it comes down to "personal revelation" You have stated as much right here, so don't deny it. Without science to bring some objectivity to the table, you must admit that your belief is as flimsy as theirs.

 

[Pixel42]

Who said religious people have to abandon reason? Where is all this nonsense coming from?

You said that it was necessary to abandon reason in order to do good deeds. At least, that is how I (and apparently other posters) interpreted this exchange:

I'll stick to reason, it's been a pretty good guide so far, and those who abandon it usually go astray, often to their own (or someone else's) detriment.

Your use of the word 'usually' shows some bias, I'm afraid, and is a slight on everyone who ever volunteered at a homeless shelter, conquered alcohol addiction after a conversion or gave money to the poor - and there are far more of them than there are jihadists.

If that is not what you meant, please explain what you did mean when you accused me of slighting people who do good deeds by saying that those who abandon reason usually go astray.

Yes, religion has its pathological forms. You would tar all religions and forms of spirituality with that same brush? You would compare us all with some regressive Islamic sect?

Once you accept that it is possible to receive communication from God via unverifiable revelations (your own, or those recorded in your scripture) you open a very dangerous door. You have no grounds for saying that the person who is moved to volunteer at a homeless shelter by a religious experience received a valid communication, but the person who is moved to strap themselves into a suicide vest and detonate it in a crowded place did not. Either all such revelations are sufficient justification to believe and act on the information received or none are. I'm sticking with none. So does the law, which is why "God told me to do it" is not a valid defence.

 

[stanfr]

You said that it was necessary to abandon reason in order to do good deeds. At least, that is how I (and apparently other posters) interpreted this exchange:




If that is not what you meant, please explain what you did mean when you accused me of slighting people who do good deeds by saying that those who abandon reason usually go astray.


Once you accept that it is possible to receive communication from God via unverifiable revelations (your own, or those recorded in your scripture) you open a very dangerous door. You have no grounds for saying that the person who is moved to volunteer at a homeless shelter by a religious experience received a valid communication, but the person who is moved to strap themselves into a suicide vest and detonate it in a crowded place did not. Either all such revelations are sufficient justification to believe and act on the information received or none are. I'm sticking with none. So does the law, which is why "God told me to do it" is not a valid defence.

Exactly! Which was my point. I can guess BT's response--he finds 'objective' "evidence" in his interpretation of scripture. But the problem is, he has no scientific way to back it up, and he knows that, which is why ultimately he resorts to anecdotes about mediums and dreams, which we have heard many, many times before, and they are easily explainable to anyone with an open mind. Ironic that he considers ours 'closed'.

 

[arthwollipot]

Which makes it all the easier to say "it works."

Depends what you mean by "works". Those who do believe in intercessory prayer will say that it works when they get what they asked for. But when you're not asking for anything, what criteria do you use to judge success?

 

[stanfr]

Depends what you mean by "works". Those who do believe in intercessory prayer will say that it works when they get what they asked for. But when you're not asking for anything, what criteria do you use to judge success?

I believe he meant it is self fulfilling--if prayer is, as you said, a way to maintain a personal relationship with God, then simply by praying you are fulfilling that role. All the better if something 'talks' back to you, but not really necessary!

 

[Minoosh]

I pray sometimes. Not for things, but sometimes for strength, patience, acceptance or guidance. It works, if afterward I feel stronger, more patient etc.

The problem is that folks like Osama bin Laden also pray, perhaps sincerely, and come up with completely different answers. It's certainly no surefire path to better behavior.

 

[blue triangle]

You said that it was necessary to abandon reason in order to do good deeds. At least, that is how I (and apparently other posters) interpreted this exchange:

The 'appeal to the people' fallacy. I'm not repeating what I said before about reason.

If that is not what you meant, please explain what you did mean when you accused me of slighting people who do good deeds by saying that those who abandon reason usually go astray.

First of all (again) I never said that people of faith have abandoned reason. It's been obvious throughout your posts that you regard people of faith as having abandoned reason. You've said as much before, as have several others (hence your fallacious appeal). You then equate that with going astray, which at least is logical given your opinion on the matter of faith. You lost your own faith when you realised that your prayers weren't working (for you). Of course, you still have faith - but now it's faith in reason. You may find it makes a good servant but a tyrannical master.

Once you accept that it is possible to receive communication from God via unverifiable revelations (your own, or those recorded in your scripture) you open a very dangerous door.

There is no alternative, other than to live in a self-made shell (or is it 'hell'?), cut off from the flow of life. Life IS dangerous, but to close the door on a meaningful life is to substitute 'dangerous' for 'hopeless'.

You have no grounds for saying that the person who is moved to volunteer at a homeless shelter by a religious experience received a valid communication, but the person who is moved to strap themselves into a suicide vest and detonate it in a crowded place did not.

People generally strap bombs to themselves for political reasons, according to McGrath (who quotes the latest scholarly analyses to support that statement, although it wasn't hard to guess) although they may use a particular reading of their scriptures to justify it. The truth is, people very often do what they want, whether religious or not, then if religious abuse their own scriptures to justify it. That is how human beings behave at their worst. Incidentally, the Wahhabi sect that came out of Saudi Arabia and is allegedly responsible for much of the suicide bombings and city attacks is NOT representative of Islam. And let's not forget the long and dishonourable role of the USA, that evil empire, in the creation of the disaster that is the middle east today, most recently, their role in the creation of ISIS. So lets not hear any more soundbites about 'suicide bombers'. We all created them.

Either all such revelations are sufficient justification to believe and act on the information received or none are. I'm sticking with none. So does the law, which is why "God told me to do it" is not a valid defence.

Suicide bombers act because they are asked to do it as part of the campaign their organisation wages. The implication that someone received a 'revelation' that he was to go out and blow up a shopping precinct is a fantasy concocted in your head, and (re your argumentum ad populum), the heads of many people who really just hate and fear Muslims - or religion in general - and have little inclination to really understand the forces that operate in our world. That's not to say that someone couldn't receive such a revelation. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the motivation for suicide bombings and the like is primarily political.

 

[John Nowak]

My question for Blue Triangle (which he likely won't answer, since he didn't in the other thread...) is how is your prayer/belief any different than the beliefs and prayers of jihadists who strap bombs to themselves and then go kill innocent people in the name of Allah? You're basing your belief on personal experience, revelation, visions etc--so are they...so what's the difference?

In Blue Triangle's defense, I think there's an enormous difference between "I believe X and will argue if you don't" and "I believe X and will kill you if you don't." I don't think conflating the two does anyone good.

 

[Donn]

In Blue Triangle's defense, I think there's an enormous difference between "I believe X and will argue if you don't" and "I believe X and will kill you if you don't." I don't think conflating the two does anyone good.

The only difference is the part after the "if you don't". All manner of acts are exonerated by appeal to the first.

The criss-crossing of the border between "I believe" and "if you don't" is the performance that blue triangle is giving. It comprises chiefly of equal parts welcoming and shunning reason, depending on the terrain.

 

[Agatha]

The posts referring to 9/11 have been sent to AAH; we have a whole section (here) for discussing what did or didn't happen on that day. Please keep this thread on topic rather than derailing it, thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Donn]

Who said religious people have to abandon reason? Where is all this nonsense coming from?

Who said reason should be abandoned? I say it has its place, beside and a little below faith, because even your precious reason rests on that, as does all of science.

Thee, my heedless equilateral bluebird; it comes from thee.

You see, reason is an acid. It corrodes frippery. Where you most resist it, there it will burn the more: thus you seek to dull its strength by dilution. Sad, for the world, how the wishy washy prosper.

By quasi-shakespearean verse you give your pompous drivel a patina of credibility it doesn't take a Godel to demolish. One little breath and the entire shoddy structure keels over, like some ancient, mouldering ruin.

I do try, thank you.

 

[John Nowak]

The only difference is the part after the "if you don't". All manner of acts are exonerated by appeal to the first.

Er... yes. And?

 

[IanS]

Who said reason should be abandoned? I say it has its place, beside and a little below faith, because even your precious reason rests on that, as does all of science. .

The fact that you think science depends on "faith" , shows how completely deluded you are.

When the word "faith" is used in the context of religious belief, it means belief without credible evidence. In fact, nowadays, it means in almost every case, belief in complete contradiction to all known evidence.

Whereas the whole point about science, since it's first beginnings around the time of Galileo, is that it removed the un-evidenced "faith" that had previously been the cornerstone of theistic and philosophical explanations for everything, and began instead to use physically observable, measurable, reproducible and testable evidence.

The result turned out to be astounding. Whereas those earlier methods of theism and philosophy had actually failed for thousands of years ever to really discover or properly explain anything, suddenly when evidential science was used, hundreds and then thousands of discoveries and correct explanations were quickly obtained.

The difference really was (and is) one of objective honesty in the approach. The earlier approaches of religion and philosophy were actually fundamentally dishonest, in so far as they had simply assumed that correct answers and explanations could be obtained simply by "educated" people (almost always at that time, highly religious people) deciding in their mind what they believed should be the correct answers or what they wished to be the correct answers. Whereas science removed that false and quite self-indulgent belief that educated theists and philosophers could determine what was actually true or false merely by pure intellectual "reason" alone ... "reason" that at the time was almost always very heavily influenced by thousands of years of ancient religious faith and un-evidenced philosophical beliefs.

 

[Donn]

Er... yes. And?

I was agreeing with you, in the main, while failing to point out that belief supports all actions, no matter how vile, equally.

i.e. Belief that causes conversation, and belief that causes terrorism; both sharing belief.

 

[SusanB-M1]

IanS

Well said, as usual. Blue triangle's suggestion that reason should be equivalent with faith is bad enough, but then to say it should be given a slightly lower grade is sad and backward thinking.
I feel so sorry for the hundreds of thousands or more children who are being taught to believe this stuff.