Prayer and power

[RandFan]

My point was that a kangaroo isn't necessarily a frog, and isn't necessarily green according to that definition of frog, just as belief in prayer isn't necessarily superstion and isn't necessarily irrational using RandFan's definition of superstition.

The two do NOT equate.

 

[slingblade]

Obviously, I made up the definition. According to that definition, all frogs are green (and hop). By that (made up) definition, a grasshopper is also a frog, but that doesn't affect my point.

My point was that a kangaroo isn't necessarily a frog, and isn't necessarily green according to that definition of frog, just as belief in prayer isn't necessarily superstion and isn't necessarily irrational using RandFan's definition of superstition.

-Bri

Hmmm.

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.

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?

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'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?

 

[Bri]

Hmmm.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, it might seem to be valid to label an opinion irrational if there is a lot of evidence to the contrary or little evidence for something where evidence would be expected (the part in italic being important because it might exempt beliefs such as intelligent life outside of our solar system from being labeled "irrational"). Unfortunately, there is little evidence for or against a belief in prayer that involves a God who might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

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?

There's already a name for such a belief -- it's called opinion!

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?

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

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.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

My point was that a kangaroo isn't necessarily a frog, and isn't necessarily green according to that definition of frog, just as belief in prayer isn't necessarily superstion and isn't necessarily irrational using RandFan's definition of superstition.

I had said that the two do not equate. I realized that I should have been more precise.

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.

Argument A:
All frogs are green.
All frogs hop.
A kangaroo hops
A kangaroo is green.

Invalid because not all animals that hop are green.

Argument B:
P1: Any and all beliefs that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome, are, by definition, irrational.

P2: A prayer made in contemplation of a change of events or state is not logically related to those events or state.

 

[Bri]

I had said that the two do not equate. I realized that I should have been more precise.

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.

Granted, this discussion has been about belief in prayer that might influence events.

My argument is and has been that any prayer with the expectation of influencing the outcome of events is, by definition, irrational.

If by "expectation" you mean that the prayer will always produce the desired outcome, then I agree that it is irrational. If you mean the Christian belief that prayer sometimes influences the outcome of events, then I disagree that it is necessarily irrational. Neither of these can be shown to be irrational by definition as you claim (at least not by any definition you've posted).

Argument A:
...

If "frog" is defined as "a green animal that hops," then three things must be true before something fits the definition of a frog:

1. It must be green.
2. It must be an animal, specifically,
3. It must be an animal that hops.

Assuming that a kangaroo is an animal that hops...

A kangaroo is not a frog by definition unless all kangaroos are green by definition (and this definition says nothing about the color of kangaroos). To say that kangaroos are green by this definition is a fallacy. To show by this definition that a kangaroo is green, I would first have to show that it is a frog. To show that it is a frog, I would first have to assume that a kangaroo is green. To claim that by this definition, a kangaroo is green would be circular logic. I cannot use this definition to prove that kangaroos are green.

Argument B:
...

Your definition of "superstition" was "an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome." In order for something to fit that definition, three things must be true:

1. It must be irrational.
2. It must be a belief, specifically,
3. It must be a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Assuming that a belief in prayer is a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome (note that I don't necessarily agree with this, but for the sake of argument let's assume it to be true)...

If something is a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome, then it is not a superstition by definition unless all prayers are irrational by definition (this definition says nothing about the rationality of prayer). To say that a belief in prayer is irrational by this definition is a fallacy. To show by this definition that belief in prayer is irrational, I would first have to show that it is a superstition. To show that it is a superstition, I would first have to assume that belief in prayer is irrational. To claim that by this definition, belief in prayer is irrational would be circular logic. You cannot use this definition to prove that belief in prayer is irrational.

If you've used a different definition to show that belief in prayer is irrational, I haven't seen it. Unless you have done so (perhaps I missed it), you have not provided evidence of your claim that belief in prayer is by definition irrational.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

If by "expectation" you mean that the prayer will always produce the desired outcome, then I agree that it is irrational. If you mean the Christian belief that prayer sometimes influences the outcome of events, then I disagree that it is necessarily irrational. Neither of these can be shown to be irrational by definition as you claim (at least not by any definition you've posted).

Then we disagree. And yes, I think it does by the definition that I posted. But I'm happy to accept your definition. Thanks again for that.

To say that kangaroos are green by this definition is a fallacy.

??? Not a clue Bri. That Kangaroos are not green is not in dispute. I'm not certain why you wanted to rehash that. It serves no purpose as it is easily demonstrated that the logic is invalid. Further it is simply not related to nor is it analogous to irrational beliefs.

Your definition of "superstition" was "an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome."

Note mine. The dictionaries.

In order for something to fit that definition, three things must be true:

1. It must be irrational.
2. It must be a belief, specifically,
3. It must be a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

No. This is wrong. #2 and #3 are tautological. #1 is the conclusion.

Bri,

An argument is a connected set of statements in order to establish a definite proposition. You don't rebut an an argument by declaring that for the argument to be true the conclusion must be true. This would just be circular reasoning. To be true the premises must be true and must logically lead, via inference, to the conclusion.

So let's look at the argument one more time.

P1: Any and all beliefs that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome, are, by definition, irrational.

P2: A prayer made in contemplation of a change of events or state is not logically related to those events or state.

Conclusion: A Prayer made in contemplation of a change of events or state is irrational.

If you've used a different definition to show that belief in prayer is irrational, I haven't seen it. Unless you have done so (perhaps I missed it), you have not provided evidence of your claim that belief in prayer is by definition irrational.

Now, are the premises correct and do they logically lead to the conclusion?

Is premise #1 wrong?
Is premise #2 wrong?

And BTW, I accept your definition. By your definition prayer contemplating a change in events is irrational.

 

[slingblade]

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.

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 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. We suspect intelligent life exists elsewhere, and we know we simply don't have a way to get out there far enough to find out. It's rational to say you believe they might be out there.

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.

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."

 

[Bri]

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 agree with you, but I can't come up with any criteria by which prayer would be "wishful thinking" but the belief that there is intelligent life outside of the solar system wouldn't be. That's the problem. What to you is "wishful thinking" is just an opinion to someone else.

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. We suspect intelligent life exists elsewhere, and we know we simply don't have a way to get out there far enough to find out. It's rational to say you believe they might be out there.

Of course, and it is also rational to point out that prayer might actually work. If God didn't want us to know of his existence, then we would also lack the science to discover whether prayer really works or not.

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.

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."

Exactly. And there is (currently) no way to prove whether or not intelligent life exists outside of the solar system. We have opinions about all kinds of things that are unfalsifiable and don't (always) call them irrational. I can't think of any objective criteria by which you can call one unfalsifiable belief irrational and another rational. Without objective criteria, to claim that one is irrational while another is rational would itself be unfalsifiable opinion (which, oddly, might be considered irrational by the same criteria).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

??? Not a clue Bri. That Kangaroos are not green is not in dispute. I'm not certain why you wanted to rehash that. It serves no purpose as it is easily demonstrated that the logic is invalid.

Exactly, yet you're attempting to use the same flawed logic to show that belief in prayer is irrational by definition.

Further it is simply not related to nor is it analogous to irrational beliefs.

No, it's analogous to your definition of "superstition" which cannot be used to show that belief in prayer is irrational.

So let's look at the argument one more time.

And this is the last time. If you still don't get it, let's move on. To attempt to prove that belief in prayer is irrational by definition is silly regardless because then it is clear that you're using a different definition of prayer than any Christian uses, and the only relevent definition is the one a Christian would use.

P1: Any and all beliefs that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome, are, by definition, irrational.

P2: A prayer made in contemplation of a change of events or state is not logically related to those events or state.

Conclusion: A Prayer made in contemplation of a change of events or state is irrational.

Now, are the premises correct and do they logically lead to the conclusion?

Is premise #1 wrong?
Is premise #2 wrong?

Premise #1 is clearly wrong. It cannot be determined by using that definition that any and all beliefs that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome are irrational. Just as it can't be determined by the definition I posted of "frog" that any and all animals that hop are green.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Exactly, yet you're attempting to use the same flawed logic to show that belief in prayer is irrational by definition.

No, I am not.

No, it's analogous to your definition of "superstition" which cannot be used to show that belief in prayer is irrational.

How?

And this is the last time. If you still don't get it, let's move on. To attempt to prove that belief in prayer is irrational by definition is silly regardless because then it is clear that you're using a different definition of prayer than any Christian uses, and the only relevent definition is the one a Christian would use.

No, I'm not using any definition of prayer other than when one asks God via prayer with the hope to influence a course of events not related to the prayer.

Premise #1 is clearly wrong.

??? It's straight out of the dictionary. How on earth can you say that it is wrong? What reason do you have to say that it is wrong?

It cannot be determined by using that definition that any and all beliefs that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome are irrational.

??? Says who?

Just as it can't be determined by the definition I posted of "frog" that any and all animals that hop are green.

Non sequitur. Your frog argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument that I made.

1. All animals that hop are green.
2. All beliefs in an action not logically related to a course of events that influences the outcome of that course of events are irrational.

Bri,

You don't have to respond but here is the simple fact of the mater. You and I can both easily demonstrate that #1 is invalid. As hard as I try I can't demonstrate that #2 is invalid. Can you? And no, #1 doesn't make #2 invalid simply because they seemingly share the same structure.

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal

A = Men
B = Mortal
C = Socrates

A = B
C = A
C = B
Valid

All beliefs in an action not logically related to a curse of events that influences the outcome of that course of events are irrational.

A = beliefs in an action not logically related to a curse of events that influences the outcome of that course of events.
B= irrational
C = Prayer

A = B
C = A
C = B
Valid

One more thing. Assuming that this definition were not valid, and it is, I accept your definition. Why won't you?

Bri, if I could be shown wrong I would gladly admit it. I'm not. It is demonstrable that prayer is an action that is not logically connected to something like disease. If someone prays to god hoping to cure the disease then that person is no different than someone who keeps a rabbit's foot hoping to ward of disease. Prayer is no more connected to disease than rabbit's feet.

 

[Bri]

??? It's straight out of the dictionary. How on earth can you say that it is wrong? What reason do you have to say that it is wrong?

The definition you posted doesn't say that a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is irrational. It says that an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is superstition.

Just as the definition I posted doesn't say that an animal that jumps is green. It says that a green animal that jumps is a frog.

ETA: The problem is that you're misusing the phrase "by definition." You cannot show that belief in prayer is irrational by definition using the definition you posted. As an example, I can use the definition of "frog" to show that frogs are green, that frogs are animals, and that frogs hop. Therefore, by definition frogs are green. However, I cannot use the definition to show that by definition kangaroos are green. Likewise, you could show by definition that superstitions are irrational. However, you cannot use the definition to show that by definition belief in prayer is irrational.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I agree with you, but I can't come up with any criteria by which prayer would be "wishful thinking" but the belief that there is intelligent life outside of the solar system wouldn't be. That's the problem. What to you is "wishful thinking" is just an opinion to someone else.

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

Of course, and it is also rational to point out that prayer might actually work.

No, because there is no basis for that statement. It is unfounded. It has been demonstrated time and again not to work.

Exactly. And there is (currently) no way to prove whether or not intelligent life exists outside of the solar system. We have opinions about all kinds of things that are unfalsifiable and don't (always) call them irrational. I can't think of any objective criteria by which you can call one unfalsifiable belief irrational and another rational. Without objective criteria, to claim that one is irrational while another is rational would itself be unfalsifiable opinion (which, oddly, might be considered irrational by the same criteria).

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.

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

There should be some reason, besides faith, that it is true. Take intelligent life outside of our solar system. There are far more likely reasons to believe that it is true than prayer.

Belief in prayer relies on faith and confirmation bias.

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.

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.

 

[RandFan]

The definition you posted doesn't say that a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is irrational. It says that an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is superstition.

Do you honestly believe that the dictionary left "irrational belief" undefined? It IS defining what that irrational belief is. Otherwise what would be the point?

Superstition = irrational belief.
It is irrational BECAUSE it believes that a circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences it's outcome.

Bri, if this definition means what you think it means then it is telling us nothing.

Ask yourself this very important question. Why did the dictionary not simply state that superstition is an irrational belief?

And that is not simply rhetorical. I would appreciate an answer.

 

[slingblade]

I agree with you, but I can't come up with any criteria by which prayer would be "wishful thinking" but the belief that there is intelligent life outside of the solar system wouldn't be. That's the problem. What to you is "wishful thinking" is just an opinion to someone else.

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

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:

After another brief exchange on the issue of pantheism, the monk in attendance asked us to reflect on what we actually do when we pray, and whether or not such prayer requires a belief in God. One person replied that we are looking for inner strength. Another said we typically resort to prayer when we need comfort, or when facing times of transformation, as in near death experiences. A third person distinguished between prayer as a form of communion, which seems possible without believing in a God "out there", and prayer as a form of communication, which does seem to require belief in an external God and is typically used for consolation. To these suggestions, the monk replied that we typically pray for happiness (for ourselves and others) and that prayer is always primarily an internal activity. Its result is to give us a healthy mind, and this in turn can have an immediately positive effect on our bodies. He added that in Tibetan tradition prayer is sometimes called the "wish path", and that its positive effects on the mind are taken to justify even prayers for world peace and the like. For in so doing, we project our good wishes from the world of mind into the physical world, where they then have a real effect!

(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?"

 

[Beth]

Interesting thread. I'm surprised that it's taken 12 pages to get the point in Slingblades last post. Prayer can and does work for many people for reasons entirely natural. I have always prayed regularly despite having lost my conviction regarding the existance of God decades ago. Prayer helps me alter my attitude and approach to things in my life that are troubling me. I think it can be regarded as a form of meditation, but I find it more useful in many ways than meditation. Afterwards, I am able to tackle and solve problems that I wasn't before. I don't think this effect is at all dependent on whether or not God exists, in whatever form he might take.

I pray because it's something I was taught to do as a child and as an adult, I find the familarity of it helps me achieve a particular type of 'meditative' state of mind I am seeking more than the meditation techniques I've learned as an adult.


Thus, I find it reasonable and rational for people to 'believe' in prayer, because I think it would work as well or better for those who believe as it does for me.

 

[slingblade]

Interesting thread. I'm surprised that it's taken 12 pages to get the point in Slingblades last post. Prayer can and does work for many people for reasons entirely natural. I have always prayed regularly despite having lost my conviction regarding the existance of God decades ago. Prayer helps me alter my attitude and approach to things in my life that are troubling me. I think it can be regarded as a form of meditation, but I find it more useful in many ways than meditation. Afterwards, I am able to tackle and solve problems that I wasn't before. I don't think this effect is at all dependent on whether or not God exists, in whatever form he might take.

I pray because it's something I was taught to do as a child and as an adult, I find the familarity of it helps me achieve a particular type of 'meditative' state of mind I am seeking more than the meditation techniques I've learned as an adult.


Thus, I find it reasonable and rational for people to 'believe' in prayer, because I think it would work as well or better for those who believe as it does for me.

But you seem to mean something different by "works" than is posed by the question(s). By "work," you mean "has some kind of beneficial effect."

By "work," I mean "you received what you prayed for; your prayer was granted."

If a cancer patient prays for healing and does nothing else, can the cancer patient be assured his cancer will be cured? The answer is: chance or less than. If an amputee prays for restoration of her lost limb, will the limb regenerate? The answer, as far as we can know, is NO. There's not even a chance element involved.

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. 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 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.

 

[RandFan]

Interesting thread. I'm surprised that it's taken 12 pages to get the point in Slingblades last post. Prayer can and does work for many people for reasons entirely natural. I have always prayed regularly despite having lost my conviction regarding the existance of God decades ago. Prayer helps me alter my attitude and approach to things in my life that are troubling me. I think it can be regarded as a form of meditation, but I find it more useful in many ways than meditation. Afterwards, I am able to tackle and solve problems that I wasn't before. I don't think this effect is at all dependent on whether or not God exists, in whatever form he might take.

I pray because it's something I was taught to do as a child and as an adult, I find the familarity of it helps me achieve a particular type of 'meditative' state of mind I am seeking more than the meditation techniques I've learned as an adult.

Thus, I find it reasonable and rational for people to 'believe' in prayer, because I think it would work as well or better for those who believe as it does for me.

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.

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

 

[Beth]

Slingblade and 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. Rather, the point I grew up believing was that you would benefit from prayer, but how that benefit would come about was left to God to decide.

Now, since that's how all the people I know believe in prayer, it seems a perfectly sane and rational belief to me. As far as

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

To me, this falls into the 'can't step into the same river twice' maxim. Prayer affects events by affecting us. It helps to change one's mindset about things, and that naturally leads to changing one's interactions with other people and things leading to a unique course of events. Could this be achieved without prayer? I don't know. That means I don't t think it irrational to suppose that it could, indeed, work in ways we do not understand. Ways we cannot, at present, logically connect in a causal way.

 

[slingblade]

Slingblade and 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Beth]

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.

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.

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.

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.