Prayer and power

[elliotfc]

If I believe that putting mayonnaise on my elbow is the reason I feel good, it might work (coincidentally) but it is not rational.

As a fetish or something it might, in fact, make you feel good. I'm undecided about whether or not fetishes are rational or not, but some of them seem kind of interesting! Not that one. Mayonnaise on my foot though.....hmmmmm.....maybe I'll try that one tonight. But not Hellman's, Hellman's is the devil's food. It's made in hell!

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.

I disagree. Believing that it *necessarily* influences results would be irrational to me.

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?

You mean sacrificing a virgin's virginity? Ummm...it *might* be advantageous to hold that belief, but please check with the virgin first.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Apparently, the Bible contains promises, made by God/Christ, that state whatever you pray for, you'll receive from God.

I'm glad you say apparently, because the Christian understanding is that it isn't that simple.

Also, Christians do believe that God will answer all of our prayers, and the PERFECT answer is Jesus.

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.

With caveats, as you admit.

I maintain that my personal experience shows these promises are not kept.

I've already had a response to this and it probably is best if I don't do it again as I think this is a sensitive one.

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.

The condition is GOD'S WILL BE DONE.

How about the Lord's Prayer? That's a good prayer.

Here's Mother Teresa's prayer:
DEAR JESUS, help me to spread Thy fragrance everywhere I go. Flood my soul with Thy spirit and love. Penetrate and possess my whole being so utterly that all my life may only be a radiance of Thine. Shine through me and be so in me that every soul I come in contact with may feel Thy presence in my soul. Let them look up and see no longer me but only Jesus. Stay with me and then I shall begin to shine as you shine, so to shine as to be a light to others.

That's a good one too.

-Elliot

 

[Tricky]

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

You are talking about the mechanism of praying, not how prayer functions. By this logic, the action of rubbing a rabbit's foot functions in a definable, observable way.

But you, of all people, should know that prayer is purported to function as a way to communicate with God. This is it's main function, and that function cannot be observed. All you can observe is two or three gathered in His Name rubbing a rabbit's foot.

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.

Nobody (I hope) is 100% irrational, or 100% rational for that matter. But if you hold an irrational belief, then by definition you are irrational, at least as regards that belief.

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 understand that they are trying to communicate with God. Since there is no objective way of determining whether or not that communication is succeeding, then their actions are, again, by definition, irrational. Doing something that cannot be shown to work is irrational. Don't be insulted. We all do irrational thins from time to time, but we should be ready to recognize this when they are pointed out.

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.

Certainly I can *understand* why people pray.

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).

Would you say then that prayer is just the ritual (or "exercise") itself and that it has nothing to do with actual communication with God? Because that is what it looks like from this paragraph.

 

[Bri]

Well, hon, I rather think it's all opinion, on this particular topic.

That's pretty much my point. Furthermore, I believe it's a mistake to say that one opinion is necessarily more or less rational than another opinion without taking into account the reasons behind the opinion (unless one or the other belief is internally inconsistent, of course). It is possible that an opinion that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is less rational than an opinion in prayer depending on the nature of each belief and the reasons for each belief (and even then, whether one is more rational than the other is probably itself an opinion). That's what I've been trying to get across. I don't believe there is any objective criteria for determining which of two opinions is necessarily more rational than the other.

Anyway, I did find an interesting article which, as with most interesting articles, doesn't answer questions so much as poses new ones in response:

Is prayer just wishful thinking? (The Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe)
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/HKPC/prayer.htm

Near the end, this snip:



(empahsis mine)

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?"

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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

You've flip-flopped on this supposed strawman several times during this thread. If anyone thinks this is your argument, it's because you have yet to state exactly what you think Christians actually do believe, much less how their belief is necessarily less rational than other beliefs that you hold to be rational.

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.

Actually, you also keep slipping back to the same implication that Christians beileve that God grants any and all prayers:

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.

I think your point can be made without implying a belief that nobody holds or overstating the case against beliefs that are held. As far as I can tell, the only Christian belief that would necessarily be irrational (or even necessarily more irrational than other opinions that you might consider rational) is the belief that God grants any and all prayers. Which I assume is why it is tempting to keep bringing up this strawman.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

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

To demonstrate the promise made. And by that promise he should be able to answer all categories of prayer. However there are a number of categories of prayer that he never answers. And we should note that if he doesn't answer all prayers then that scripture, along with others, is quite misleading.

 

[RandFan]

I disagree. Believing that it *necessarily* influences results would be irrational to me.

That's fine but understand that there is no mechanism for prayer (an act unrelated to an event), to influence that event. There is also zero evidence that it works.

Believing that it "nesessarily" influences results would be more irrational.

 

[RandFan]

You've flip-flopped on this supposed strawman several times during this thread. If anyone thinks this is your argument, it's because you have yet to state exactly what you think Christians actually do believe, much less how their belief is necessarily less rational than other beliefs that you hold to be rational.

No, but if believing this makes you fell better that is ok. I have been quite consistent with my argument. I have told you time and agin that beliefs vary from person to peson and it would be wrong to state what those beliefs would be. I would in fact be erecting a straw man. All I can do is demonstrate that a belief that prayer can influence events is irrational. Let me restate my position.

1.) The Bible promises to answer ALL prayers.
2.) There are a number of categories of prayers that are never answered (as far as we know).
3.) There is zero evidence that prayer works any better than chance.
4.) Belief in an object or act (prayer) that is not related to a course of events that influences those events is irrational.

The more likely a person believes that prayer can and does influences the outcome of events the more irrational a person is. This is also do in part to your own definition which I have reworded here.

A belief is irrational if it balances the chances of the event occurring and the potential consequence or benefit of the event occurring and it choses the less likely over the more likely. The greater the difference the more irrational.

 

[Tricky]

I'm glad you say apparently, because the Christian understanding is that it isn't that simple.

It would seem that the Christian understanding is that only God understands how prayer works.

Also, Christians do believe that God will answer all of our prayers, and the PERFECT answer is Jesus.

Well that's just silly. Depending on the question, "Jesus" is a stupid answer. Not always, though, like if the question is "Who is Matty Alou's brother?"

How about the Lord's Prayer? That's a good prayer.

Here's Mother Teresa's prayer:
DEAR JESUS, help me to spread Thy fragrance everywhere I go. Flood my soul with Thy spirit and love. Penetrate and possess my whole being so utterly that all my life may only be a radiance of Thine. Shine through me and be so in me that every soul I come in contact with may feel Thy presence in my soul. Let them look up and see no longer me but only Jesus. Stay with me and then I shall begin to shine as you shine, so to shine as to be a light to others.

That's a good one too.

And what do those prayers say? They say "hooray for God and hooray for Jesus". They make little mention of actual behaviours you should undertake in order to "shine" or what you should do to earn your "daily bread", though the LP does instruct us to forgive, though not which trespasses specifically to forgive. As such, they are not very useful for any sort of moral lessons.

So is a prayer like a pep-rally in that it is a lot of cheering which has nothing to do with the game?

 

[Bri]

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

I misspoke. The possibility that prayers are granted by God is fact, in the sense that it isn't impossibile that prayers are granted by God. That prayers are (or have been) granted is not fact. We do not know for a fact if there has ever been a prayer that has been granted by God.

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".

I meant that if someone believed that prayer produced the specific results prayed for every time, then their belief would clearly be irrational because clearly the specific results prayed for are not granted every time. Belief that a prayer might be answered in some other way that has nothing to do with the results being prayed for wouldn't fit in that category (and wouldn't necessarily be irrational).

-Bri

 

[elliotfc]

To demonstrate the promise made.

If you really got into a verse, the context of the verse, and the totality of prayer in the gospels, instead of selecting a phrase culled from a verse, I think you'd see this from my point of view. But I won't ever be able to get you to do that, I don't think.

And by that promise he should be able to answer all categories of prayer.

Well *should* is a whole different banana. I don't believe in telling God what he should do.

However there are a number of categories of prayer that he never answers.

You've said this many times and I'm not willing to accept this dogmatic statement on faith alone.

And we should note that if he doesn't answer all prayers then that scripture, along with others, is quite misleading.

I agree that some people can be misled by all of this.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

That's fine but understand that there is no mechanism for prayer (an act unrelated to an event), to influence that event.

You mean mechanism as in...prayer being necessarily attached to a particular result, right?

You say that a prayer (the act) is not related to the result (the event), and I say that might be the case sometimes, most of the time, rarely, I dunno. It's not something I'm going to be dogmatic about. I'm not going to say that it's always related to the event or never related to the event. I just don't.

Also, just because we can't explain a mechanism does not mean it doesn't exist, think about life before neo-Darwinian evolution if you dare.

There is also zero evidence that it works.

There is anecdotal evidence which may be rejected and/or explained away.

Believing that it "nesessarily" influences results would be more irrational.

I average about 1 or 2 typos per post I reckon, but thanks for not holding that against me.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Let me restate my position.

1.) The Bible promises to answer ALL prayers.

With caveats.

2.) There are a number of categories of prayers that are never answered (as far as we know).

Or, not answered as we think they should be answered (limbs regenerating in front of our shocked eyes).

3.) There is zero evidence that prayer works any better than chance.

Just anecdotes.

4.) Belief in an object or act (prayer) that is not related to a course of events that influences those events is irrational.

I think point 4 is a coping mechanism on your part (just my opinion). It would wreck your world view if there was a relation, so there can't be, and those who say there is must be irrational. I don't hold this coping mechanism against you, if you care that is and I doubt you do, just like I'm caring less and less about who you consider to be irrational. It really doesn't matter.

The more likely a person believes that prayer can and does influences the outcome of events the more irrational a person is. This is also do in part to your own definition which I have reworded here.

I see that this means a lot to you, so I'll stop repeating what I keep saying, because in turn you just repeat what you keep saying.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I misspoke. The possibility that prayers are granted by God is fact, in the sense that it isn't impossibile that prayers are granted by God. That prayers are (or have been) granted is not fact. We do not know for a fact if there has ever been a prayer that has been granted by God.

Gotcha. I agree that there are no universally established facts when it comes to the possibility of answered prayer. If there were, this would go against the mass of the Bible which requires us to have faith (and no caveats on that one!).

I meant that if someone believed that prayer produced the specific results prayed for every time, then their belief would clearly be irrational because clearly the specific results prayed for are not granted every time.

Agreed.

Belief that a prayer might be answered in some other way that has nothing to do with the results being prayed for wouldn't fit in that category (and wouldn't necessarily be irrational).

Agreed.

-Elliot

 

[Bri]

No, but if believing this makes you fell better that is ok. I have been quite consistent with my argument. I have told you time and agin that beliefs vary from person to peson and it would be wrong to state what those beliefs would be. I would in fact be erecting a straw man.

You in fact are erecting the very straw man that you claim that you're not erecting by insisting that #1 below is true, when in fact you are interpreting some passages of scripture in a way that no Christians that I know of interpret it.

All I can do is demonstrate that a belief that prayer can influence events is irrational.

The word "can" that I've embolded here usually means "can possibly" when used in this context. If you're using it in a different way, please clarify. Otherwise, you've already admitted that it's possible that belief in prayer influences events, then such a belief is rational by your own admission.

Of course, you've obfuscated the term "irrational" by recently using phrases like "less rational" or "more rational" to make it difficult to tell exactly what you're saying, so it's possible that I'm misunderstanding your use of that term also. However, assuming that it would be inaccurate to label something as "irrational" that isn't necessarily "less rational" than something you would label as "rational," you have yet to show that Christian belief in prayer is necessarily any "less rational" than other beliefs that you have held to be "rational," and therefore for you to characterize it as "irrational" would be inaccurate.

Let me restate my position.

1.) The Bible promises to answer ALL prayers.
2.) There are a number of categories of prayers that are never answered (as far as we know).
3.) There is zero evidence that prayer works any better than chance.
4.) Belief in an object or act (prayer) that is not related to a course of events that influences those events is irrational.

We've already discussed that #1 is based on a particular interpretation of the Bible that Christians don't use, and therefore may not be true.

You've wisely added the parenthetical "as far as we know" to #2 which changes its implications drastically.

#3 seems to be accurate.

#4 doesn't accurately describe prayer as Christians believe it, and even if it did, it doesn't seem to follow from the other statements except perhaps for very narrow definitions of "irrational" which would allow other beliefs that you have previously held to be rational to also be irrational.

The more likely a person believes that prayer can and does influences the outcome of events the more irrational a person is. This is also do in part to your own definition which I have reworded here.

I can't make heads or tails of these two sentences. I'm not sure what you mean by "the more likely a person believes" so I'll wait to comment until you clarify. Also, please clarify what you mean by "can" in this case, if you mean something other than "can possibly." Finally, what definition of mine have you reworded here?

-Bri

 

[elliotfc]

It would seem that the Christian understanding is that only God understands how prayer works.

Do you mean the act of praying, the presence of a relationship while praying, or the tangible results of prayer? I think the Christian understanding is the world is what it is, there is pain and suffering, and true deliverance won't be had in our finite physical lifespan. Understanding prayer within that context...I think I understand how it basically works. As for how God responds to our prayer, yes, only God understands how and why he responds to us as he does, although our dogmas say that we are separated from God as a result of our sinful nature so that has something to do with it, and God chooses to respect the consequence of our sin.

Well that's just silly. Depending on the question, "Jesus" is a stupid answer. Not always, though, like if the question is "Who is Matty Alou's brother?"

You mean Felipe, right?

We know that our redeemer lives. Yes, that is silly to some. Oh well!

And what do those prayers say? They say "hooray for God and hooray for Jesus".

No, that's what you say. I'm sorry that's all you get out of 'em, and I'm thankful that they mean so much more to so many others.

They make little mention of actual behaviours you should undertake in order to "shine" or what you should do to earn your "daily bread", though the LP does instruct us to forgive, though not which trespasses specifically to forgive. As such, they are not very useful for any sort of moral lessons.

I don't think that short prayers are supposed to provide moral lessons! We can get those from other places.

So is a prayer like a pep-rally in that it is a lot of cheering which has nothing to do with the game?

No! If you want a pep-rally, get thee to a pep-rally. Maybe it's just me, but the two prayers referred to are *nothing* like any pep-rally I've ever seen.

-Elliot

 

[Bri]

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.

It has been my experience with Christians who believe God to be benevolent that a majority also believe that God grants prayer only when it is best for them, a condition that would often be impossible to determine unless one were omniscient.

-Bri

 

[elliotfc]

You are talking about the mechanism of praying, not how prayer functions. By this logic, the action of rubbing a rabbit's foot functions in a definable, observable way.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

See, I don't know what is meant by "how prayer functions". I think that is a pretty personal question actually, and different people can give different answers.

But you, of all people, should know that prayer is purported to function as a way to communicate with God.

I'd say build a relationship, but sure.

This is it's main function, and that function cannot be observed.

Not directly, I agree.

All you can observe is two or three gathered in His Name rubbing a rabbit's foot.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make (sans rabbit foot).

Nobody (I hope) is 100% irrational, or 100% rational for that matter. But if you hold an irrational belief, then by definition you are irrational, at least as regards that belief.

I disagree, I think there can be rational reasons for holding irrational beliefs. Here are a few.
1) The individual disagrees with the imprimatur of irrational in regards to the belief.
2) The individual feels that rationality may be independent of objective reality, and for that reason feels no need to necessarily respect labels which are independent of objective reality.
3) The individual believes in super-human factors that are not confined by human standards of rationality.
4) A benefit is recognized in holding the belief that appears to correspond to holding the belief, and while that correspondence is intact, the belief is held.

I can come up with more. My point? There can be rational reasons for holding a judged irrational belief, and that would be a rational thing to do, therefore holding an irrational belief does not necessarily make one irrational.

I understand that they are trying to communicate with God. Since there is no objective way of determining whether or not that communication is succeeding,

Why would there need to be, necessarily?

then their actions are, again, by definition, irrational.

I disagree, because of the question I just raised.

Doing something that cannot be shown to work is irrational.

Not if being "shown to work" is secondary to other motivations. Meaning, if you are praying with the intention that the result of your prayer will be such that you will have demonstrated to every skeptic that your prayer has "worked", then yeah, I'd call that irrational.

Would you say then that prayer is just the ritual (or "exercise") itself and that it has nothing to do with actual communication with God?

OK.

Prayer and power are *two* different things. That's why I started this thread to begin with.

Prayer is prayer. The result is something different.

Now, as far as actual communication with God goes, we communicate with God in a different way that we communicate with each other.

-Elliot

 

[Tricky]

See, I don't know what is meant by "how prayer functions". I think that is a pretty personal question actually, and different people can give different answers.

Then prayer has no actual function. If it is all just a "personal" feeling and has no objective definition of how it works, then it can't be said to work at all, since no one can agree what that means.

I'd say build a relationship, but sure.

LOL. Yeah, but it is tough to build a relationship with someone with whom you have no communication. Communication is the foundation of a relationship. So if you can't demonstrate the existence of the foundation, it's pretty hard to demonstrate the existence of the relationship.

I disagree, I think there can be rational reasons for holding irrational beliefs. Here are a few.
1) The individual disagrees with the imprimatur of irrational in regards to the belief.
2) The individual feels that rationality may be independent of objective reality, and for that reason feels no need to necessarily respect labels which are independent of objective reality.
(my addition: Then this individual does not know what "rational" means.)
3) The individual believes in super-human factors that are not confined by human standards of rationality.
4) A benefit is recognized in holding the belief that appears to correspond to holding the belief, and while that correspondence is intact, the belief is held.

I can come up with more. My point? There can be rational reasons for holding a judged irrational belief, and that would be a rational thing to do, therefore holding an irrational belief does not necessarily make one irrational.

Yes, and I can list the rational reasons for believing in Santa Claus too.
1) You see him in stores
2) They have songs about him.
3) (and most importantly) He brings you gifts

etc. etc.

Here's the thing. Once you know a belief is irrational, can you still rationally believe in it? I submit that you cannot. The only excuse for believing something irrational is ignorance. That is why most people will not agree that their beliefs are irrational, but will try instead to contend that they are rational. So really, we come back to the definition of what is meant by "rational". On this, I suspect we will not soon agree.

Why would there need to be, necessarily?

To determine if your behavior is rational. Talking to imaginary friends is irrational. If you agree with this, then the only way you can make your communication with God rational is to believe that He is not imaginary. If it is not important to you that your communication with God is no different from the communication with an imaginary friend, then there is no need to determine if this communication is actually occurring.

I disagree, because of the question I just raised.

And I disagree because your need has nothing to do with rationality. If it is so important to you that you have an imaginary friend that you will brook no inquiries, by yourself or others, about how you know this friend, then you can continue to maintain that this belief in the imaginary friend is rational. I could not do this.

Not if being "shown to work" is secondary to other motivations. Meaning, if you are praying with the intention that the result of your prayer will be such that you will have demonstrated to every skeptic that your prayer has "worked", then yeah, I'd call that irrational.

Not just for skeptics. For yourself. Maybe you don't need to know if it is rational. Maybe you don't care. And that is one of the biggest difference between skeptics and believers. Skeptics care if their own beliefs are irrational. At least, this one does.

Prayer and power are *two* different things. That's why I started this thread to begin with.

Prayer is prayer. The result is something different.

Then it seems you are saying that "results" have no connection to prayers. Zero zip zilch. they are *two* different things. Nothing you say to or hear from God has any effect on results.

But if that is not your argument and you still maintain that there is a connection, however tenuous, between prayer and results, then without evidence, that belief is irrational. By definition.

Now, as far as actual communication with God goes, we communicate with God in a different way that we communicate with each other.

LOL. Obviously. Unless He has a forum board out there on the net.

 

[Meffy]

LOL. Obviously. Unless He has a forum board out there on the net.

Oh, but he does!

Hey, wait a minute -- you mean that guy with the glowering eye and white beard and million-dollar challenge ISN'T GOD?!?!

*9_9* Ooooops...