Prayer and power

[RandFan]

I think when discuss that sort of belief in prayer, you fall against Bri's argument that few, if any, people actually believe that prayer will achieve those kinds of results every time. No one I ever known beleived that.

Beth, people do believe that it is possible for God to work miracles. People believe that God can heal people. If you don't believe that then that is fine.

Here, watch this video and tell me that people don't believe that God can grant miracles.

Beth, I can show you many videos of ministers promising miracles. These ministers make hundreds of millions of dollars and they all tell their followers that the followers must have faith in Jesus Christ and they can be healed.

I don't accept the notion that Christians don't believe that God performs miracles. That prayer is simply a feel good exercise. You say otherwise, that's fine. That is just anecdotal. I can show you people who do believe that God grants miracles. That God does answer these kinds of prayers.

No, not every prayer. I have never said that. I'm frustrated with Bri for insisting on that strawman.

 

[RandFan]

they are clearly acknowledging that God does not grant every prayer.

This is not the argument. No one is arguing that Christians believe that God grants every prayer. That is a really tired strawman.

 

[slingblade]

Whatever reason they may give for why prayer failed - be it lack of faith, god's mysterious ways, whatever - they are clearly acknowledging that God does not grant every prayer. Your anecdotes actually reinforces my view of what most Christians believe about prayer and doesn't support your claim that many Christians believe prayers will always be answered.

Nup, I never said always. But I can't prove any. I don't know anyone who can prove any that can't be otherwise explained.

I never said always, though.

 

[Beth]

Beth, people do believe that it is possible for God to work miracles. People believe that God can heal people. If you don't believe that then that is fine.

Yes, I'm not arguing that point. My take on the thread is that you were making the claim it is irrational to believe in prayer. Apparently, you are willing to grant the non-supernatural beneficial effects of prayer. Seems to me that if prayer works - whether because God intervenes or for purely non-supernatural reasons - then it's rational to believe in it.

Since no one actually believes that prayer always works (it seemed to me slingblade was making that claim, but maybe I misunderstood), I don't think you can ascibe rational/irrational to beliefs based on anything other than the truth/falsity of the belief. For most people, they way they conceive of god intervening - i.e. that God might heal by granting their loved ones a spontanious remission of cancer but that he will never help them regrow and amputated limb - is an entirely rational belief in terms of what they pray for and what they expect to receive. Sometimes, a spontaneous remission occur and their faith in God is reinforced. Sometimes, their loved one dies, and they find comfort in their faith. In both those cases, prayer has been successful - it has "worked" for those people. Thus, it's entirely rational for them to believe in prayer.

Now, sometimes when their loved one dies a person will lose their faith in God and prayer. And that's entirely rational too. Why or how prayer works is irrevelant for deciding whether or not it does work. Why they believe it works is irrelevant to the rationality of the belief.

No, not every prayer. I have never said that. I'm frustrated with Bri for insisting on that strawman.

I don't think she's insisting on that strawman. I think my take on it is the same as hers. I would agree that someone who holds that belief isn't rational. (Bri has also stated that.)

I think we both feel that someone who believes that God answers some prayers sometimes is entirely rational to beleive that. Look at it this way - it's as good an explanation as any regarding why some people experience spontaneous remissions. Science doesn't know why sometimes such things happen, only that they occasionally do. Further, if there's any truth to the idea that one factor in such remissions is the individual's personal belief that it's possible, it becomes not only rational, but advantageous to hold that belief.

 

[Beth]

Nup, I never said always. But I can't prove any. I don't know anyone who can prove any that can't be otherwise explained.

I never said always, though.

I'm sorry, this is too terse for me to understand. But if I've misunderstood your position, I apologise.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I'm not arguing that point. My take on the thread is that you were making the claim it is irrational to believe in prayer.

No, clearly not. I have been very careful to be very precise. Though I have stated my opinion that prayer is irrational I have focused on the miracle aspect of prayer.

Apparently, you are willing to grant the non-supernatural beneficial effects of prayer. Seems to me that if prayer works - whether because God intervenes or for purely non-supernatural reasons - then it's rational to believe in it.

I think that it is irrational. If I believe that putting mayonnaise on my elbow is the reason I feel good, it might work (coincidentally) but it is not rational. But I'm perfectly happy to let those who believe that putting mayonnaise on their elbow will make them feel better, believe that it is rational. It's not but that is not the subject of this discussion.

Since no one actually believes that prayer always works ... I don't think you can ascibe rational/irrational to beliefs based on anything other than the truth/falsity of the belief.

I don't quite follow your logic. In any event, believing that an act (prayer) can influence unrelated events is by definition irrational. There really is no getting around that fact.

For most people, they way they conceive of god intervening - i.e. that God might heal by granting their loved ones a spontanious remission of cancer but that he will never help them regrow and amputated limb - is an entirely rational belief in terms of what they pray for and what they expect to receive.

We'll, you certainly can believe that but there is no basis for this belief. The notion that an unrelated act can influence events is not rational.

Sometimes, a spontaneous remission occur and their faith in God is reinforced.

And when people knock on wood and their beliefs are confirmed it reinforces their belief in that superstition.

Sometimes, their loved one dies, and they find comfort in their faith. In both those cases, prayer has been successful - it has "worked" for those people. Thus, it's entirely rational for them to believe in prayer.

Based on what theory? Your argument is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that simply because their actions make them feel good it is rational.

Why or how prayer works is irrevelant for deciding whether or not it does work. Why they believe it works is irrelevant to the rationality of the belief.

By your logic, why or how a four-leaf clover works is irrelevant for deciding whether a four leaf clover works. By your logic, why a person believes a four-leaf clover works is irrelevant to the rationality of the belief. I'm sorry but that is spurious logic.

I don't think she's insisting on that strawman.

You are free to believe what you want. Please don't make the strawman.

I think we both feel that someone who believes that God answers some prayers sometimes is entirely rational to beleive that.

Based on what theory? I have yet to hear a single argument that demonstrates that such a belief is rational.

Look at it this way - it's as good an explanation as any regarding why some people experience spontaneous remissions.

And if a person relies on a horseshoe?
And if a person relies on a four-leaf clover?
And if a person relies on any other superstitious belief?

Are those as good an explanation as any? Wouldn't chance be a better an more rational explanation?

Science doesn't know why sometimes such things happen, only that they occasionally do. Further, if there's any truth to the idea that one factor in such remissions is the individual's personal belief that it's possible, it becomes not only rational, but advantageous to hold that belief.

So, if I believe that sacrificing a virgin will bring rain and sometimes such things happen then it is not only rational but advantageous to hold that belief?

 

[slingblade]

I'm sorry, this is too terse for me to understand. But if I've misunderstood your position, I apologise.

Okay, sorry.

Apparently, the Bible contains promises, made by God/Christ, that state whatever you pray for, you'll receive from God. Some of these verses contain conditions, such as "in Christ's name" or "believing," but all of them promise that whatever is asked for, is granted.

I maintain that my personal experience shows these promises are not kept. Even when the conditions are met, they are not kept. People who pray do not always get what they ask for, nor do they often get what they ask for.

There. I said "always," or rather, "not always." But I said it.
Now, should they always get what they ask for? The promises say they will. I'm not talking about practicality here, or necessity, or fairness, or feasibility. I'm saying that the promises say whatever you ask for, provided the conditions are met, you'll receive.

And I'm asking: why does that not seem to be true? It should be true: it was promised. Maybe the conditions weren't properly met after all, though, because that is a requirement, right? But how are you to know, except by the fact that you don't get what you asked for? What if you never get whatever it is you asked for, from material thing to emotional state? What if all you asked for was comfort from God (not from other people doing his will, but God, himself), and you didn't get any? Why continue to be a believer, since it is obvious you are not pleasing to God, and can't even manage to muster enough belief to get a simple prayer granted? Isn't the fact that your prayers go unanswered enough proof that you actually don't believe in God, even though you apparently thought you did?

It seems that when most prayers are answered/granted, the answer could be explained by other things. Impossible prayers (impossible for humans, but not for a god) never seem to get the desired response.

God is, supposedly, a god. Not a person: a god. If a god makes promises, it is shameful for the god to renege. I don't want to worship, can't worship, a god who can't keep his own promises, not even one time.

So that's why I am both saying and not saying "always." The bible tells me it should be always, but I'd be happy if one--just one--amputee prayed for his leg to grow back, and I could watch it grow back right before my eyes.

Just one.

 

[elliotfc]

Gene, just so in future you don't make the same mistake, a little information. A "sock puppet" is an extra account set up by an existing forum member, used to post in support of the existing member's arguments, pretending to be a separate individual. It is not a person who agrees with another.

If you don't know what a term means, either

1) don't use it at all or, better,
2) look it up before using it.

I wish I had a sock puppet. Or several.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Regarding superstition...

I think we can agree that, by definition, superstition is irrational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

Here's a quote culled from the above link...

"The Roman Catholic Church considers superstition to be sinful in the sense that it denotes a lack of trust in the divine providence of God and, as such, is a violation of the first of the Ten Commandments."

Now. You can insist that the Church is full of it, and fails to recognize that prayer is in fact a superstition. But examine the caveat: "a lack of trust in the divine providence of God".

This is what I mean when I say that prayer is not *necessarily* superstitious, though it can be and perhaps often is. If you pray and put your trust in God, you are not being superstitious, for you are open to any and all results, either readily apparent or not easily discernible.

I see that many people here are not interested in a nuanced approach to prayer, or a complete understanding of the totality of what Christian prayer is all about, and thus this post will come across as meaningless to many.

The important thing is...the ability to label other people. Yeah! That'll show 'em!

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Maybe I would say (she weaseled expertly ) that prayer is at present a superstition, until and unless (or if and only if?) there is evidence prayer functions in a definable and observable way.

But prayer does function in a definable and observable way. You've never seen two or three gathered in His Name, praying together?

The earth was "factually" flat, in a sense, though not in actuality flat, at a certain point in history. That we now know it is not flat makes that belief...well, not a superstition, but definitely not a fact. Those who hold the belief that the earth is flat, in spite of evidence to the contrary, are irrational, yes?

I'd say that such people are relatively right, and objectively wrong. The belief (I wouldn't call it irrational personally, but I'll give it to you for the moment) is irrational, but I don't think the people are.

Can we, ought we, hold prayer as a superstition until and unless?
Or is the concept valid, but under another name? If it isn't superstition, and it isn't fact, what is it, and are we rational if we believe something that hasn't yet, but could some day be, proven as fact?

I think that prayer is prayer, and the key is the understanding of the person/people engaged in the praying. If your understanding of what they are doing is different from their understanding of what they are doing, then you're not understanding each other, and it's a shame that labels of irrational irrational irrational have to follow from that.

I'll give you that some praying can be irrational...and I'll say that the *understanding* behind such prayers is the reason for that.

I'd have to go, tentatively, with: we are not irrational to hold the possibility of prayer, but we may be irrational to hold it as a fact without proof, or in the face of "negative proof." i.e. I've done this over and over and over, and nothing ever happens that I can see. If I can't see it, is it real, or does it even matter?

You're talking about the results of prayer. I think that's an entirely different thing from the exercise of prayer. I've already said many times that singular expectations as necessary results of prayer goes against the Christian understanding of prayer. In fact, I'd call *that* superstitious, as it doesn't put trust in God's will but in our own will (this follows from the Catholic Church's understanding of superstition, with which you probably don't agree).

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The problem with that definition is that there are many things for which there is little or no evidence that we don't classify as "superstition" or "irrational." Some would take offense if you insisted that, for example, the opinion that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is an irrational belief.

Or intelligent life on this planet!

I agree, it would be irrational to hold the possibility of prayer as fact. It is clearly not fact.

When you say possibility of prayer do you mean...well, you tell me!

If you believed that something should work every time, but when you tried it repeatedly it never worked (or worked only as much as chance would dictate), your continued belief might be irrational. But believers in prayer don't tend to expect it to work every time.

I disagree with this. I say that believers in prayer believe that the exercise of prayer inherently works, in and of itself, and completely independent of specific results. They also believe that all prayers are answered, but in manifold ways, many/most of which have nothing to do with the things that we'd agree to be "evidence".

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

It is my opinion that all prayer is irrational. However that is not now nor has that ever been the point of this discusion and I'm not trying to debate that point. My argument is and has been that any prayer with the expectation of influencing the outcome of events is, by definition, irrational.

Rand, I actually agree with your argument! It's your opinion that I disagree with...but as you say, that isn't the point of this discussion!

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

There are many such things, but they don't all fall under the heading of "wishful thinking." Prayer does. I think that makes a difference.

I think that *any belief* can be placed under the heading of wishful thinking.

I also think it makes a difference if you're talking about something we have enough evidence to suspect might exist, but know we simply lack the science to discover.

Yeah, like God.

It's not so rational to say they abducted you and put you back in bed, and yet no one else saw them, but it could still be possible. Just not probable.

It might be irrational to expect most people to take you seriously when you say such a thing, but I don't think there is anything rational or irrational on simply saying something. The key being *expectations*, right? Sticking with a point that I think we can come to some agreement on.

Prayer's a hard one because it is wishful thinking, and because it isn't falsifiable. There's no real way to prove your prayer wasn't answered with a "no."

I think some would disagree with you on this, but I'm not one of them.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

No. That is not correct. A belief that there is intelligent life outside of the solar system is based on evidence, logic and inference.

Hey, you know what? God also falls under the category of "intelligent life outside of the solar system". Take that fiend!

And you have done it again. By this logic there is no such thing as phobias. Demons could be living under your bed. The government might be out to get you so get worried.

Demons *might* be living under my bed (I personally think there's one sleeping in your bed RandFan arf arf), but that is independent of having a phobia of that.

That something could be true doesn't mean we should believe that it is true.

Agreed. This is how I view atheism.

There should be some reason, besides faith, that it is true.

Really? Why? Who decides should? Is should objective, or subjective?

Take intelligent life outside of our solar system. There are far more likely reasons to believe that it is true than prayer.

Let's tighten up the language. PRAYER HAPPENS. All the time. To this extent, prayer is true. Bad analogy. Say the singular expected result of prayer instead, I insist that's necessary.

Belief in prayer relies on faith and confirmation bias.

I agree that only people with faith have any use for prayer.

Belief in intelligent life outside of our solar system relies on observation of our earth. An understanding of science, abiogenesis, evolution, observations of the solar system, logical inference and many other rational and objective criteria.

Abiogenesis? Help me out on that one RandFan, since you bring it up.

Belief in prayer simply does not equate with a belief in intelligent life outside of our solar system. One relies on blind faith the other on science and probability.

No, of course they don't completely equate.

So you do admit that there are *types* of faith. That's good, I'll settle for that.

I agree that science is not necessary for belief in God, and not capable of proving God. All human disciplines are inherently flawed.

As for probability, I would point out that we lack the data for such claims, but you're welcome to prove me wrong. I've read varying reports on probablity estimates on intelligent life outside of our own planet, and the common thread is a lack of data. I've taken too much statsitical analysis to be impressed by your claim of probablity. Let's do the math if you want though, I'm up for it.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I dunno......seems as if this is saying that prayer could possibly be just sending good vibes out into the world.

Anyone got any stuides on the known effects of "good vibes?"

Studies? Try asking women who are into good vibes, I'm sure there are sex toys forums out there.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

If someone shows me a written promise that states you can "ask for anything, and you shall have it," and I ask and don't get it--I ask for many different things of varying importance, for myself, and for others, and nothing happens--I'm going to call that promise a lie.

My previous post responding to this phrase (several pages ago) was not responded to, so I'll try again.

Read John 15:7. The whole verse. Not just the part you give.

I agree that if you present the phrase you put in quotes as a snippet of John 15:7, you in fact *are* promulgating a lie.

And if that lie was written thousands of years ago by a person, on behalf of an invisible Omni-God, I'm going to strongly doubt, or even totally deny, the existence of said invisible being.

I agree that if that phrase, a fragment of a sentence, is taken on its own, and every other of the dozens of other gospel passages regarding prayer are ignored, then yes, I too would deny the existence of said God.

I believe that to say "God, I pray that you would restore my leg," is exactly the same as saying "I wish my leg would grow back," and has exactly the same results.

God will restore all things to all those who believe in him.

Eventually.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Thanks Beth,

I don't have a problem with prayer per se. I don't deny that it is benificial. On the contrary, in another thread on this forum I argue that prayer can be a very effective coping mechanism.

Sure. All exercises and all methodologies can, and are, effective coping mechanisms.

What is irrational is to believe that prayer can change the course of events that could not otherwise be changed without prayer.

I disagree in general, but agree in the specific.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Honey, all we're doing is swapping anecdotes, because everyone I've ever known has believed just that, if they believe in prayer at all.

If they believe in prayer at all? That's an interesting caveat. Why the need for the caveat, and what does the caveat mean exactly?

And sling, a good thing about this forum is that it's a way to meet other people. So you're wrong, because you're met me now, and I don't believe, as you say, "just that".

Preachers get all red-faced and sweaty, screaming at you from the pulpit over and over that god can heal, god can personally help you, god can do anything you ask, and will, if you'll only believe. Then, when it doesn't happen, they say you didn't really believe. Not enough. Not like you should.

And that explains the caveat. Well, there are many preachers out there I guess, the type you're familiar with, and the types I'm familiar with. Let's just say I'm glad you no longer hang with that crowd.

Sorry, but I spent a good 30 years listening to that. Wherever you guys are from who say No True Scots--er, Christian really believes that, you can't have been anywhere near a bible-Thumpin', Holy-Rollin', southern church.

They're out there, and they ain't a handful.

So let's agree to avoid them!

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Beth, people do believe that it is possible for God to work miracles. People believe that God can heal people. If you don't believe that then that is fine.

Here, watch this video and tell me that people don't believe that God can grant miracles.

Beth, I can show you many videos of ministers promising miracles. These ministers make hundreds of millions of dollars and they all tell their followers that the followers must have faith in Jesus Christ and they can be healed.

Exactly! These are PEOPLE promising miracles. God's word is in the Bible, you don't need to see a preacher charging hundreds and thousands of dollars to hear God's word. People who give hundreds and thousands of dollars to see a preacher who will heal them aren't going to God. They're going to a preacher!

Read your last paragraph. "Ministers promising miracles". EXACTLY! Faith in the minister, and not in God. Because if you had faith in God, why go to the minister who promises to heal you if you give him hundreds or thousands of dollars? Why not go to the poor church in your town with the minister who doesn't have a TV show and doesn't drive the high-falootin (sp?) car?

I don't accept the notion that Christians don't believe that God performs miracles.

Neither do I.

That prayer is simply a feel good exercise.

Agreed, I think practically every Christian would reject that idea.

But...

Here we go again. Understanding. We have an understanding of prayer. Beth has an understanding of prayer. You have an understanding of prayer.

So. You are able to talk about how Christians view prayer. You recognize that Christians (in general) believe that God performs miracles. You recognize that Christians (in general) believe that prayer is more than just a feel good exercise. Now, where do we diverge? You don't recognize that Christians (in general) also believe that prayer is *not* a superstition, as they don't accept that God is compelled to do anything of their desire just because they asked it of God.

You say otherwise, that's fine. That is just anecdotal. I can show you people who do believe that God grants miracles. That God does answer these kinds of prayers.

Most Christians believe that God does grant miracles. Sometimes. Not very often probably. This is our lot, we have to live with it, God isn't going to perform miracles non-stop and do away with the human condition.

See, even if you believe that God grants miracles, it is still possible (Bri I think suggests necessary as well at least in practice, and I agree) that doesn't mean that you believe that God exists solely to perform miracles for us so that there would be no suffering and no death. Because there is suffering and there is death, they are necessary results of sin. But God can still perform miracles. But the miracles will not do away with suffering and death. And the miracles don't hold a candle to Jesus. That's our salvation right there, a healing from bone cancer doesn't compare. But it's a hell of a lot easier to fixate on that, be you a believer or a non-believer. And it's a great way to make a living as you rightly and ably point out.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

This is not the argument. No one is arguing that Christians believe that God grants every prayer. That is a really tired strawman.

Then why is the phrase "whatever you ask for you shall receive" continually supplied?

-Elliot