Prayer and power

[elliotfc]

What constitutes the prayer? The thoughts, words, or behaviors? And over what time-frame should those be considered to be prayer?

To me prayer is all about putting God in the center of the universe, and not yourself. You can have the same words "God, please cure my cancer", but it can have at least a few different perspectives. I think that for some Christians such prayers *always* have the understanding that it be fulfilled if it's God's will. Meaning that would *go* without saying, that is the thought behind the prayer. Others may see it as a request with ramifications. If the cancer is not cured, then God doesn't care or God doesn't exist or God hates me. This perspective places the individual at the center, and would have God either respect that, or be uncaring/unloving/non-existant.

As for time-frame, this also follows. Are we on God's time, or is God on our time? If we expect healing when we want it, we are having God submit to our plan, and not the other way around.

We will all suffer. We will all die. These will happen *before* we are perfectly healed. So yes, I think keeping in perspective is the key. Would we settle for imperfect and temporary healings above total healing?

If a person who is praying would prefer a granted specific prayer (heal my leukemia) over an eternal life with God, or, would make the specific prayer greater than eternal life with God, the perspective is out of whack. From a Christian point of view.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

But one must also ask the question, "What kind of reason do they have to believe that God exists or grants prayers?" Can it be any reason whatsoever?

On a personal level, yes.

If so, then nothing in the world is irrational (including the raping of virgins to cure AIDS.) If not, what separates the "good" reasons from the "bad" reasons?

About this one. Is the belief that *God* will cure you of AIDS if you rape a virgin, or is it that the virgin will take the AIDS from you completely, or is it something else?

I'll be happy to judge this particular thing as rational, or irrational, but I'd like to understand the thinking behind it first.

On the surface I'll call it irrational. What men have claimed to have had their AIDS cured by raping a virgin? One man? Ten men? What are their names? And then...was their AIDS actually cured? (and are we differentiating HIV from AIDS?)

With prayer, millions of people have claimed to have their prayers answered. So I dunno how much legs this comparison has.

Do you believe there can be invalid reasons to believe a thing?

I think so, but I also think that a person can override that. Let's say a friend of mine is staring at a bag of microwave popcorn which is sitting on the floor. He says if he stares at it hard enough it will start to pop. I'd spend maybe a couple minutes trying to persuade him that it's foolish to believe that, because who has ever heard of a case where someone staring at a bag of microwave pocorn sitting on the floor actually made it pop? And if he were to tell me that he is had a dream where he actually did it, at least that would be a valid reason, personal to himself. Is it valid to me? No. To the majority? No. To "science"? No. Is it valid to him? Apparently.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The raping virgins thing is a straw man. The belief that raping a virgin can sometimes cure AIDS would not justify the act even if it were true.

What do we mean by "cure AIDS"? Send an HIV related disease into remission? Eliminate HIV completely? Point of order please!

-Elliot

 

[Bri]

I don’t agree that agonistic opinions are the only rational belief when there is no evidence on either side. I think the default position is that it doesn’t exist until there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The way I see it, there are an infinite number of things that do not exit, yet only a finite number that actually can. That does not mean the possibility does not exist however.

Then unfortunately, the belief that intelligent life doesn't exist outside of our solar system would have to be the "default" position. I would agree with you, except that whatever criteria you come up with has to be consistent.

No, it is not similar at all.

Everything you presented is evidence of the possibility of intelligent life outside of our solar system. Unfortunately, there isn't any real evidence that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system. In that regard, the "default" position would have to be the same for both according to that criteria. If you insist that the opinion that isn't the "default" opinion is necessarily irrational in cases where there is little solid evidence either way, you should be consistent about the application of that rule.

To be quite honest, I think that to believe Earth is the only planet to have life requires a belief in God.

My guess is that those on this thread who insist the belief rational despite the insistence that the default position must be for non-existence are doing so based on that assumption (which is unfortunately not a very objective means of determining the rationality of a belief). That said, I can think of other reasons to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere (the belief doesn't require a belief in God). The conditions that lead to consciousness are poorly understood, so it seems quite reasonable to be of the opinion that the conditions required for intelligent life are quite specific. If so, the chances of those exact conditions occurring might be extremely slim, in which case it is unlikely that any other planet would produce intelligent life other than one that is just like ours. Is such an opinion necessarily irrational?

-Bri

 

[elliotfc]

I think it can be rational to believe in the possibility of extrasolar intelligent life and also the possibility of God existing. Note, that this is the possibility only, no certainty involved. However, I think it would be just as irrational to believe that talking to God, which may or may not exist, can change anything as it would be to talk to the extrasolar intelligence, which may or may not exist, for the same effect.

But God *is* extrasolar intelligence.

-Elliot

 

[I less than three logic]

But God *is* extrasolar intelligence.

-Elliot

Perhaps, but I meant life on a planet outside our solar system. Try to read things in context of the discussion.

 

[elliotfc]

This is sort of the position that RandFan took when he said the "Deist God" was rational. The position is that as long as you put no restrictions whatsoever on the characteristics of God, then believing in God is essentially the same thing as believing in nature. But if that is the case, why add in God at all? Is there a rational reason to rename "nature" to God?

This falls apart when you understand that Christians *do* put restrictions on the characteristics of God.

However, as soon as you start giving God traits, like "He listens to prayers", then such a belief is irrational in the absence of evidence for such listening.

Right. We simply have faith that God listens to our prayers, and this faith is based on the teachings of Christ (among others). It is also verified by personal experience however, which matters to a hell of a lot of people. It's verified in manifold ways, and not in the particular ways as would be needed to win a million dollar challenge.

Is it irrational based on your working models? I happily concede that it is. I don't care whether or not you think it is rational then, I guess that's all I can say. If I'm right, you could *still* be right. All of this would still be irrational, based on your working models. And if those models work for you, that's nice! They don't have to work for everyone, and God's ways do not have to be subject to them.

Sure, you could say "He listens but doesn't do anything", but once again, you are reducing God to something exactly resmbles no-god.

Not many Christians would say such a thing. Does God do everything exactly as we tell him to do it? Of course not. Would that make him a no-god? Of course not.

If you say "God is good", well we know what "good" normally means, so that claim requires evidence.

We exist, and that's the best evidence.

If you counter with "we don't know what 'good' means to God," then our buddy Occam slices Him out of the equation again.

I don't care much for Occam's razor, because reality is really really really complicated, the more you know about it. So I'll ignore that.

As for we don't know what good means to God, the Christian says this is not true, we have the person of Christ.

If you can't tell whether or not your God is doing "good", then there is no difference between that concept of God and no-god.

Life is more about what *we* do, than what God does. It is elementary Christian theology that Satan is allowed to reign on earth, that our sin makes us a sort of adversary to God. Yes we have problems telling what God is or isn't doing. We have severed ourselves from him.

No, I don't expect you to accept any of the above. I just want you to get a better handle of your understanding of Christian theology.

And I agree, talking to aliens is less rational than believing they might exist.

Isn't God an alien, sort of?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Perhaps, but I meant life on a planet outside our solar system. Try to read things in context of the discussion.

My point stands, thanks for the clarification.

We know that many people (myself included) believe that talking to God can have measureable effects on our personal lives, but we also keep that in perspective. We don't believe that if we pray to God to turn all of our rugs into molten lava, he will do just that.

I agree that you feel that talking to God is commensurate to talking to aliens, and to you both things are equally irrational. I accept that. Others disagree, and I think you accept that. We disagree, but we accept these things. The alternative is to fight about it, or pass legislation or protest each other's homes. Or eat ice cream.

-Elliot

 

[RandFan]

Then I'm sorry, but you haven't proven that prayer is irrational by any definition that is generally used.

Yes I have.

1.) It is a belief.
2.) It is a belief that an action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome

And prayer IS prayer. But "prayer" isn't generally defined as "an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome"...

It fits the definition.

...any more than "premarital sex" is generally defined as "the morally wrong act of having sex before marriage."

You are making the fatal error of believing the definition includes an opinion about superstition. The "irrational belief" isn't simply a judgment on the part of the writers of the dictionary. The writers are telling us WHY it is an irrational belief which only makes sense.

1.) Superstition is a belief. That doesn't tell us much.
2.) Superstition is an irrational belief. Again, this doesn't tell us much. Why does the writer consider the belief "irrational"?

 

[Bri]

Don't forget the "based on faith" part, Bri. When you leave out little things like that, you change the topic.

I have no idea what you're talking about in this post, but your insistence in discussing actions rather than beliefs is off-topic. ANY belief can be used to justify ANY action. The action is not evidence of the rationality of the belief. Any insistence in discussion of actions in order to provide evidence of the rationality or irrationality of a belief used to justify the action is a fallacy, and can be used to provide similar "evidence" (both for and against) any belief.

Very weak. And yet, with all the praying that goes on and all the things it could affect that would be very easy to see, the weakness of the evidence is damning.

I will address this point directly, since it is on-topic. Indeed, if the belief were that there should be evidence in favor of the effects of prayer, it would be an irrational belief.

However, it is my understanding that Christians ofter believe that God might not want to provide irrefutable evidence of his existence and grants prayer only for the purpose of affecting the outcome prayed for, and/or that prayers are granted only when the outcome is in the best interests of the person being prayed for, then there is little evidence for or against such belief.

-Bri

 

[Genesius]

We know that many people (myself included) believe that talking to God can have measureable effects on our personal lives, but we also keep that in perspective. We don't believe that if we pray to God to turn all of our rugs into molten lava, he will do just that.

Just curious. . .

There are many people who believe that prayer to Yahweh, Allah, Zoroaster or Krishna can have measurable effects on their personal lives. How do you reconcile that with your personal belief in God?

Are you a panthiest, saying that they're all worshiping the same God by different names, thus denying Jesus' claim that He is the only way to the Father?

Do you believe that only your prayers (and the prayers of your co-religionists) are effective and that members of other faiths are deluding themselves?

Do you consider the possibility that the benefits of prayer can be attributed to the placebo effect, and therefore none of the above-mentioned prayers have any meaning in a spiritual sense?

 

[RandFan]

I think that for some Christians such prayers *always* have the understanding that it be fulfilled if it's God's will.

What's the point of asking? How is asking God to cure cancer different from asking the wall?

 

[RandFan]

I have no idea what you're talking about in this post, but your insistence in discussing actions rather than beliefs is off-topic. ANY belief can be used to justify ANY action. The action is not evidence of the rationality of the belief. Any insistence in discussion of actions in order to provide evidence of the rationality or irrationality of a belief used to justify the action is a fallacy, and can be used to provide similar "evidence" (both for and against) any belief.

Forget the action, is the belief rational?

However, it is my understanding that Christians ofter believe that ... prayers are granted only when the outcome is in the best interests of the person being prayed for, then there is little evidence for or against such belief.

Then it is never in the best interest of people who don't have limbs for those limbs to grow back?

It is never in the best interest of a severely retarded child to be healed?

 

[Bri]

Yes I have.

1.) It is a belief.
2.) It is a belief that an action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome

Heh. By "generally used" I meant "generally used by others" not "made up by you." Please use an actual dictionary definition if your intent is to prove that prayer is irrational by definition.

You are making the fatal error of believing the definition includes an opinion about superstition. The "irrational belief" isn't simply a judgment on the part of the writers of the dictionary. The writers are telling us WHY it is an irrational belief which only makes sense.

I'm sorry, but you are making the error of apparently believing that the definition includes opinion about superstition (namely, that prayer is superstition). The dictionary makes no such opinion (nor does it provide the opinion that premarital sex is evil).

1.) Superstition is a belief. That doesn't tell us much.
2.) Superstition is an irrational belief. Again, this doesn't tell us much. Why does the writer consider the belief "irrational"?

The writer of the definition considers any belief to be a superstition if it is irrational and concerns an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events that influences its outcome. The dictionary definition doesn't specify that belief in prayer is either irrational or isn't logically related to a course of events believed to be influenced by the prayer. Likewise, the dictionary doesn't specify that "premarital sex" is morally wrong. You cannot use the dictionary to prove that prayer is a superstition by definition, nor can you use it to prove that premarital sex is evil by definition.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Then it is never in the best interest of people who don't have limbs for those limbs to grow back?

It is never in the best interest of a severely retarded child to be healed?

How would I know what might be in a person's best interest unless I'm omniscient?

BTW, you cut out the most important part of my sentence when you quoted me. The full sentence was:

However, it is my understanding that Christians ofter believe that God might not want to provide irrefutable evidence of his existence and grants prayer only for the purpose of affecting the outcome prayed for, and/or that prayers are granted only when the outcome is in the best interests of the person being prayed for, then there is little evidence for or against such belief.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Heh. By "generally used" I meant "generally used by others" not "made up by you." Please use an actual dictionary definition if your intent is to prove that prayer is irrational by definition.

I have. The description of prayer fits the definition.

I'm sorry, but you are making the error of apparently believing that the definition includes opinion about superstition (namely, that prayer is superstition). The dictionary makes no such opinion (nor does it provide the opinion that premarital sex is evil).

No, that is not correct. The dictionary does not speak to ANY specific belief. Only those that believe that an action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

By your logic NOTHING is superstition. I'll show you, name a superstition?

The writer of the definition considers any belief to be a superstition if it is irrational...

And how the hell do we determine IF IT IS IRRATIONAL?

...and concerns...

It does not say "and concerns" it says "that is". An irrational belief "that is"

Rabbit: a mammal that is warm-blooded with hair that breathes air, has internal fertilization and nurses its live-borne young.

What follows "that is" explains why the Rabbit is a mammal.

 

[RandFan]

How would I know what might be in a person's best interest unless I'm omniscient?

Evasion noted, by your logic "or that prayers are granted only when the outcome is in the best interests of the person being prayed for, then there is little evidence for or against such belief." we can infer that it is never in the person's best interest.

BTW, including the other sentence doesn't change anything.

However, it is my understanding that Christians ofter believe that God might not want to provide irrefutable evidence of his existence and grants prayer only for the purpose of affecting the outcome prayed for, and/or that prayers are granted only when the outcome is in the best interests of the person being prayed for, then there is little evidence for or against such belief.


We still must conclude that it is never in the best interest of a person who does not have limbs for them to grow back. And BTW, lizards can grow their tails back so it is not theoretically impossible for humans to do so. We simply lack the genetic code. God could cure some and not others there by NOT providing irrefutable evidence.

All we know is that there is a category of prayer that God for some reason or another never seems to answer.

 

[I less than three logic]

Then unfortunately, the belief that intelligent life doesn't exist outside of our solar system would have to be the "default" position. I would agree with you, except that whatever criteria you come up with has to be consistent.

Everything you presented is evidence of the possibility of intelligent life outside of our solar system. Unfortunately, there isn't any real evidence that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system. In that regard, the "default" position would have to be the same for both according to that criteria. If you insist that the opinion that isn't the "default" opinion is necessarily irrational in cases where there is little solid evidence either way, you should be consistent about the application of that rule.


My guess is that those on this thread who insist the belief rational despite the insistence that the default position must be for non-existence are doing so based on that assumption (which is unfortunately not a very objective means of determining the rationality of a belief). That said, I can think of other reasons to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere (the belief doesn't require a belief in God). The conditions that lead to consciousness are poorly understood, so it seems quite reasonable to be of the opinion that the conditions required for intelligent life are quite specific. If so, the chances of those exact conditions occurring might be extremely slim, in which case it is unlikely that any other planet would produce intelligent life other than one that is just like ours. Is such an opinion necessarily irrational?

-Bri

You still seem to be completely disregarding the fact that life exists here on Earth. We are not separate from the rest of the universe, so unless you believe life was created through a supernatural event, life on Earth is evidence for life in the universe. The stuff that makes up our solar system is abundant throughout the universe, and there is no reason to conclude that the events that happened within this solar system could not happen elsewhere.

I think it is completely rational to believe that it requires quite specific conditions for intelligent life to emerge. However, if all of it happens due to natural course of events, we're simply left with a numbers game. The probability that conditions on Earth being unique in a universe this size is unimaginably small, but not impossible. We may, in fact, be alone, but I'm willing to bet with the numbers on my side.

 

[Bri]

I have. The description of prayer fits the definition.

It is clearly your opinion that prayer fits the definition of "superstition," just as it is clearly the opinion of some Christians that premarital sex fits the definition of "evil."

No, that is not correct. The dictionary does not speak to ANY specific belief. Only those that believe that an action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Exactly. And the fact that you think that prayer is superstition is your opinion. The fact that some Christians think that premarital sex is evil is their opinion. Neither are provable by definition or otherwise.

By your logic NOTHING is superstition. I'll show you, name a superstition?

Again, I didn't say that nothing is superstition, only that belief in prayer cannot be proven to be superstition. In other words, that you think belief in prayer to be superstition is opinion, not fact.

And how the hell do we determine IF IT IS IRRATIONAL?

It's my position that you can't prove that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational, at least not by any criteria that would also prove that other beliefs you hold to be rational are irrational.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Again, I didn't say that nothing is superstition, only that belief in prayer cannot be proven to be superstition. In other words, that you think belief in prayer to be superstition is opinion, not fact.

ONE MORE TIME, NAME A SUPERSTITION? {SHEESH}