Prayer and power

[elliotfc]

What do you think "effective" means? If you can't perceive an effect, then it is ineffective.

I disagree. If your perception is faulty, that would be independent of effectiveness.

If you can't define what an effect is, it is ineffective, since an undefinded effect cannot be perceived.

I can't even say I disagree with this. I don't know the foundation behind such a statement, it seems completely contrived (no offense, please feel free to elaborate).

There is no difference between an effect which cannot be perceived versus no effect.

Again, I disagree. If I replace someone's vitamins with I dunno, human growth hormone or something, they may never perceive that, but effects may occur and they would credit such effects to other things. Not the best analogy, I'll think of a better one in the near future if we choose to chew this over.

Hypothesizing about what God might or might not want us to know is not going to change that.

And if God acts in ways that are not directly and correctly and singularly and undoubtedly perceivable, that's just the way it is.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

You have propounded such a caveat at least once before in this thread, yet you fail, or possibly refuse, to see the fatal damage it does to your argument: if true, this provision necessitates that belief in the effectiveness of prayer be classed as irrational, for we cannot know in advance what outcome any given prayer will produce.

I accept that you consider it to be irrational.

Since we believe that God has free will, a will greater than our own, a will better than our own, it would be irrataional (in my opinoin) for a Christian to expect God to be a slave to our decided outcomes viz a viz prayer.

So I see your point to be *fundamentally* irrational because it does not mesh with how Christians understand prayer.

Any result that differs from the one intended will constitute "evidence" for both of the two opposing perspectives about prayer's effectiveness. The latter view is only tenable in a postmodernist frame of mind.

But Christians don't believe that God is a slave to our intentions. If he was...but I've already given many many many examples. It's be an untenable world, in my opinion, if God was in fact a slave to our intentions. Y'all complain about how God is a real bastard for allowing rape and mass murder to happen. I can't imagine how much you'd be complaining about if God answered every prayer, exactly as it was intended to be answered.

-Elliot

 

[Tricky]

Welcome back.

This would fall under "putting God to the test". Unambiguously. We Christians don't believe that God is an unthinking procedure like gravity.

So belief in a god that answers prayers is irrational. That is the only point I am making. Believing a thing is effective without requiring evidence that it is effective is irrational. That's all. I'm not saying everything you or Bri believes is irrational. I'm not even making any moral judgments on it. It is just a question of what "irrational" means and what conditions satisfy that meaning.

We can "agree" upon outcomes, but if God is akin to a personality, as we believe, you'd kind of need God to agree on the outcomes as well, don't you think?

No, I don't think that. I'm not asking God if it is rational. I'm asking you. You are the one who must define what outcome would satisfy you as evidence of intervention. If you cannot think of any, well, here comes that word again.

To those who think that testing prayer in such a way is ludicrous, any conclusion reached in regards to ineffectiveness is likewise ludicrous.

Not at all. How many times have you heard a Christian say, "I thank God for answering my prayers for ____________". (Fill in the blank with some positive outcome, such as surviving an accident, winning the lottery etc.) They might say, "God was watching over me," or something similar, as if sometimes He does, sometimes He doesn't. So it is quite obvious that those who believe in the efficacy of prayer are quite content to use outcomes to justify their position, when it suits them. All I ask is that those positive outcomes which "prove" God to them be considered against outcomes which are negative or neutral. If you accept a miracle as evidence for God, then unless you accept a tragic accident as evidence against God, then your belief in God based on miracles is irrational. You can't have it both ways (and still be rational.)

I understand and accept that from a different mindset (yours), all that you propose seems quite reasonable.

Not just reasonable, but the definition of the word, rational. Unlike my fear of roaches.

 

[Tricky]

Been busy recently! Don't know what the state of this thread is exactly, but Bri appears to be doing yeowoman's work.

Came across this prayer recently...

And I might reply

I didn’t ask God and I still got...
I didn’t ask God for strength and I still got difficulties to make me strong.
I didn’t ask God for wisdom and I still got problems to solve.
I didn’t ask God for prosperity and I still got muscles and (some semblance of) brains to work.
I didn’t ask God for courage and I still got dangers to overcome.
I didn’t ask God for patience and I still got placed in situations where I was forced to wait.
I didn’t ask God for love and I still got troubled people to help.
I didn’t ask God for favors and I still got opportunities.
I asked for nothing; I got stuff anyway.
No prayers were required.


(It is a silly prayer that assumes the conclusion. There is a word for this kind of stuff. Glurge.)

 

[elliotfc]

But by your own admission it may be impossible to tell if a prayer succeeds.

It may be impossible when it comes to certain methodologies, but why should certain methodologies have dogmatic power over others? Meaning, if someone accepts that a prayer has succeeded, independent of a scientific methodology, and if they are *correct*, well, there ya go.

Is belief in prayer contingent on science? Well...no. Not a remarkable point, is it?

Tell me, in what other situation would an action which produced no discernable result be called "effective"?

I don't think that Christians believe prayer produces no discernable results! Rather, they don't believe that prayer produces *specific, pre-determined and singularly expected* results.

There you go hypothesizing about what God may want again. What if God hates prayer?

!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Bri is arguing from the perspective of a Christian, of course Christians *do* think they have many ideas about what God wants, and we have no reason, based on the NT, to think that God hates *prayer*. Now, he may hate some prayers in particular (like a prayer that a person could get away with a serial killing spree)...but God hating prayer, no if ands or buts? There is no basis for a Christian to believe that.

Would you also agree that it is rational to believe that prayer is countereffective?

I think it could be rational to believe that. Prayer *ought* to, first and foremost, bring us closer to God, and allow us to submit ourselves to God's will and not our own. But such ideas would be irrelevant to those who don't believe in God. Therefore, such people would only be interested in the specifics of prayer, and not the general understanding of prayer as far as a relationship with God goes.

This way of looking at prayer (excluding all generalties) could definitely conclude that prayer is counterproductive, because it makes prayer to be like using a stereo. It either works or it doesn't. But you wouldn't have a relationship with a stereo (unless you're into that sort of thing).

If you can't tie it to the cause, then you can't call it an effect.

Or you could tie it to the cause, but others wouldn't be convinced that such a tie was valid.

But you'd never know it.

That's where faith comes in.

So it would be irrational to believe it had an effect that you could not perceive.

There's quite a bit about Christianity that is, to many, irrational. A virgin having a kid. Dead people rising from the dead. The least of us being the most blessed. And if it these things are *true*, obsessing over their rationality is a fool's errand. In my opinion. I prefer objective reality to personal opinions about rationality. And OF COURSE, human rationality is less than God's.

Paul said that if Christ never rose from the dead, all of Christianity is foolishness. Allow me to make irrationality commensurate to foolishness. In this way I agree. Yes, of course people can conclude that A, B, or C, that Chrisitans believe, is irraitonal. *You have that opinion because you do not have faith in the things that we have faith in*. And if we are correct, the judgment of the non-believers is to us the greatest of foolishness. Or irrational.

It is in this way, and only in this way, that I agree with all that you say when you bring up irrationality. You also use it in the directed sense (relating it to scientific discernment) which I do not feel any reason to submit to, and in that sense, I only agree that your conclusion is correct within that confinement. But I'm not so confined, so whatever.

And as soon as you can provide some evidence that God doesn't want us to know for certain of His existence, then that belief becomes rational. Until then, it is not.

That's a funny place to draw the line. Why not say..."provide some evidence that God *exists*"? Or, are you assuming that for the sake of this discussion? And if so, you could also assume that God wants us to have faith in his existence.

-Elliot

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Welcome back, Elliot; I hope you were productive on top of being busy!?

I accept that you consider it to be irrational.

...

So I see your point to be *fundamentally* irrational because it does not mesh with how Christians understand prayer.

My rejoinder was in response to Bri's representation of christians' conception of prayer and their god's role in it, not one that I presume to impose on them.

In any case, I'll let Tricky provide a salient reply:

No, I don't think that. I'm not asking God if it is rational. I'm asking you. You are the one who must define what outcome would satisfy you as evidence of intervention. If you cannot think of any, well, here comes that word again.

'Luthon64

 

[RandFan]

Sorry I missed them. Yes, I also agree with P5 and P6. Two additional comment. First, the word "necessary" indicates an absolute fact. If you say that B necessarily follows from A, that means that there is no chance that B doesn't follow from A (which is why the word is seldom used in science except in conjunction with the word "not" such as "not necessarily" and is otherwise generally restricted to logic).

{sigh}

1.) I did not use the word necessarily. You did.
2.) I do not hold absolute facts.
3.) If I said the sun will rise tomorrow I would not add the provision "not necessarily"
4.) If someone asked me if the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow I would say yes.

Second, evolution and the sun rising tomorrow and the number of grandparents you have and even naked men are facts because there is significant evidence to back them up. They therefore meet the requirement of P6 and are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Prayer is irrational. I hold that position provisionally. It would be perverse for me to withhold provisional consent. I subscribe to the position put forth by Todd Carroll in the Skeptics dictionary.

A miracle may be defined as a violation of the laws of nature through willful intervention. By asking an SB or energy to interfere with the ordinary course of natural events, one is requesting a miracle. To believe in miracles, as David Hume argued several centuries ago, is to go against the universal experience that there is an inexorable order and lawfulness to our sense perceptions. All our rules of reasoning are based upon this experience. We would have to abandon them to believe in miracles.

Not so with opinions for which there is little evidence.

What "opinion" for which there is little or no evidence? My position on prayer is based on the laws of physics and reason as is the sun rising. If you ask me if I had a grandfather I would say yes. I can't prove it. Both are dead. If you said that I had over stated my case I would say no. If you said that I did not necessarily have a grandfather I would have to concede that YOUR view is possible since all things are possible and I could have been put here by aliens. It is NOT MY VIEW.

It is not my view that prayer is not necessarily irrational.
It is not my view that the sun will not necessarily rise tomorrow.

If you include the word "necessarily" to indicate an absolute fact rather than just a fact, the evidence required to back it up is even higher.

"Absolute fact"? If you agree with P5 and P6 then why make this statement? You are being inconsistent. You either subscribe to P5 and P6 or you don't. If you do agree with P5 then stop saying "absolute fact" in the context of our discussion.

Lighten up. I was actually making a point, that even if you accept that facts don't require absolute certainty, you still need significant evidence to back them up (see P6). I now agree with P4, with the above comments applied.

So, I agree with all of your premises! Again, if that is the extent of your argument, then we are in total agreement!

P4 is simply a proposition. I DON'T hold it.

The evidence is too great for me to withhold provisional consent.

 

[elliotfc]

I don't know where you get "no discernible result" from. A prayer is effective if it does what it is intended to do, regardless of whether the result is obvious.

It may also be effective if it does something that it was *not* intended to do. Many people say things like....boy, I prayed for this, but I got that...and "that" was what I really needed after all!

All are possibilities, and if someone held such belief, I wouldn't say that their belief is necessarily irrational (depending on the belief and their reasons for holding it, of course. But we were talking about Christian belief in prayer on this thread.

There aren't any Christians participating in this thread! Besides me! I'm speaking from that perspective. And I think you're accurately representing it, as far as you are choosing to do so.

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

Exactly.

-Elliot

 

[Tricky]

I disagree. If your perception is faulty, that would be independent of effectiveness.

If you can't tell if it is effective and yet you still believe it is effective, then your belief is irrational. If you can tell, then it is not irrational. Can you tell, or is it just faith?

I can't even say I disagree with this. I don't know the foundation behind such a statement, it seems completely contrived (no offense, please feel free to elaborate).

It has to do with how we judge things to be effective. The only way to do so is to show the link between cause and effect. You can do this by showing the mechanics or you can do it statistically (perhaps some other ways). If you cannot link cause to effect, then you cannot say a certain thing (cause) is effective. What I keep hearing you and Bri say is that you personally need not be able to link cause (prayer) with effect (outcome) in order to believe that prayer is effective. I will continue to maintain that such a position is irrational.

Again, I disagree. If I replace someone's vitamins with I dunno, human growth hormone or something, they may never perceive that, but effects may occur and they would credit such effects to other things. Not the best analogy, I'll think of a better one in the near future if we choose to chew this over.

Oh sure, you can make detection of effectiveness difficult by seeding with false data, in this case the contents of the pills one is taking. It might take some time to uncover the mistake, but it could be uncovered. And when it was, then the conclusion that the vitamins led to rapid growth would have to be thrown out. I'm not saying you can't be mistaken. All of us can in so many ways. But unless you agree that there is some way to judge effectiveness, then you are essentially saying that you don't know if a thing is effective.

And if God acts in ways that are not directly and correctly and singularly and undoubtedly perceivable, that's just the way it is.

And if you believe it without evidence, then that belief is irrational. That's just the way it is.

Really, you and Bri shouldn't be so sensitive about being irrational about your religion. All honest people will admit that they are irrational about some things.

 

[elliotfc]

I think it's a great prayer!

I think this has to be...at least...the 15th time...I've seen an atheist re-write a prayer to make a point. Probably closer to 20 times. I'm glad that you respect the templates! Harder to come up with your own, but whatever. Glad it was serviceable to your needs!

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

We know intelligent life exists and we know elsewhere exists. It is therefore not irrational to consider the possibility that there is intelligent life elsewhere. It is no way proven, but a belief of this could in no way be considered irrational.

We consider God to be intelligent life.

-Elliot

 

[RandFan]

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

Thus ignorance become evidence.

The absense of evidence can only be the absense of evidence. No more. No less. To think otherwise is to abandon logic and reason.

 

[elliotfc]

That is quite possibly the most nonsensical thing I've ever read.

Really?!?

It starts with accepting God's existence. I understand that you *don't*, but just do, for the moment. God exists.

Bri was acknowledging what I hear you people say over and over and over and over and over again. There is no evidence that God, in fact, exists. You can't have a problem with that statement, can you?

So. Add the 2 things together. Is the conclusion that God exists, and doesn't want us to know his existence, non-sensical? It would appear to follow, would it not?

I presume then that the fact that we don't know for certain that the Tooth Fairy exists is solid evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists.

You completely missed the point Bri was making. I agree that your leap is something to roll ones eyes over.

-Elliot

 

[drkitten]

It starts with accepting God's existence. I understand that you *don't*, but just do, for the moment. God exists.

Bri was acknowledging what I hear you people say over and over and over and over and over again. There is no evidence that God, in fact, exists. You can't have a problem with that statement, can you?

So. Add the 2 things together. Is the conclusion that God exists, and doesn't want us to know his existence, non-sensical?

Yes.

Accepting the conclusion of any argument that "starts with" a nonsensical premise is itself nonsensical.

 

[RandFan]

I asked for strength and God gave me difficulties to make me strong.

I asked the Doctor for medicine because I was sick. He gave me a placebo and my condition got much worse but ultimately this made me stronger. Thank you Doctor.

I asked an attorney to prove my innocence at trial but he was incompetent and I went to jail. In jail I spent my time reading books, this made me wiser. Fighting the bullies in prison made me stronger. Facing the bullies gave me courage. Waiting for my release gave me patience. Thanks attorney.

It's amazing how everything works to our benefit if we view it properly.

Odd thing is, if you don't pray you still get all of the benefits of prayer.

 

[Ossai]

elliotfc

You completely missed the point Bri was making. I agree that your leap is something to roll ones eyes over.

Bri had a point? What was it?

Or is a Bri point like yours, meaningless assertion?

Ossai

 

[RandFan]

Is the conclusion that God exists, and doesn't want us to know his existence, non-sensical?

That the absense of any evidence is evidence of something is non-sensical in every sense.

 

[Moochie]

And what of the person who prayed this (elliotfc's) prayer and won millions in lotto?

I might be way off, but this stuff looks more like a certain political orientation than anything else.

M.

 

[JamesDillon]

That the absense of any evidence is evidence of something is non-sensical in every sense.

That's just what God wants you to think.

 

[Tricky]

It may be impossible when it comes to certain methodologies, but why should certain methodologies have dogmatic power over others?

Um... because they can be objectively demonstrated? Kinda like why chemistry is better than alchemy.

Meaning, if someone accepts that a prayer has succeeded, independent of a scientific methodology, and if they are *correct*, well, there ya go.

Is belief in prayer contingent on science? Well...no. Not a remarkable point, is it?

Maybe not science, but objectivity. Science is just a tool for finding objective truth.

I don't think that Christians believe prayer produces no discernable results! Rather, they don't believe that prayer produces *specific, pre-determined and singularly expected* results.

If you can't define successful results in advance, then you can't say it has produced successful results. If you define what constitutes successful results after they have happened, then you can claim successful results for absolutely anything.
[political diversion]Both Israel and Hizbollah are claiming success in the war. If you had asked them a month ago what "success" meant, do you think either of them would have called this current situation "success"?[/political diversion]

If Bri is arguing from the perspective of a Christian, of course Christians *do* think they have many ideas about what God wants, and we have no reason, based on the NT, to think that God hates *prayer*. Now, he may hate some prayers in particular (like a prayer that a person could get away with a serial killing spree)...but God hating prayer, no if ands or buts? There is no basis for a Christian to believe that.

Nevertheless, it is every bit as rational as belief that God likes prayer. There is an equal amount of evidence for it. Maybe more.

I think it could be rational to believe that. Prayer *ought* to, first and foremost, bring us closer to God, and allow us to submit ourselves to God's will and not our own. But such ideas would be irrelevant to those who don't believe in God. Therefore, such people would only be interested in the specifics of prayer, and not the general understanding of prayer as far as a relationship with God goes.

How do you know what prayer *ought* to do? (Yes, I know the answer: Faith). Is there any reason why Christian faith is more reliable than other kind of faith? How can you tell?

That's where faith comes in.

And irrationality!

There's quite a bit about Christianity that is, to many, irrational. A virgin having a kid. Dead people rising from the dead. The least of us being the most blessed. And if it these things are *true*, obsessing over their rationality is a fool's errand. In my opinion.

Call me a fool then. I think it is good for all of us to recognize where we are being irrational. I don't obsess over it. I've got lots of other things to do, as apparently you do too.

And OF COURSE, human rationality is less than God's.

Um... could you demonstrate this without using the F-word?

That's a funny place to draw the line. Why not say..."provide some evidence that God *exists*"? Or, are you assuming that for the sake of this discussion? And if so, you could also assume that God wants us to have faith in his existence.

LOL. We've been there. Again and again and again. Like you, I just ride the merry-go-round because it's fun, not because it gets me anywhere.