Prayer and power

[elliotfc]

So belief in a god that answers prayers is irrational. That is the only point I am making.

I accept that point but I would qualify it. I would say "belief in god that answers prayers *exactly as we would have God answer them* is irrational". Actually I wouldn't say such a thing, but, I would be partial to the idea.

So, you might respond by saying...why, then, would anyone pray to God in a specific way? And I could respond, and say "well, why not? What's wrong with making a request?"

It can't hurt to ask...unless...you ask with specific and non-negotiable expectations.

Believing a thing is effective without requiring evidence that it is effective is irrational. That's all.

But we *do* require evidence, I don't think you're getting that. Our *kind* of evidence isn't the kind of evidence you are satisfied with, because you have a different way of handling this topic than do we.

Our evidence, to you, is not evidence. That's why we'll bonk heads. I see your statement, and I say "poopysticks! I require evidence". And then you say "yeah, but your evidence is not really evidence". When making such a statement you're taking a lot of things for granted. Our perspectives are not in alignment, that's for sure.

But I accept that you consider this to be irrational. No sense yelling at you, unless you think that would help to change your mind.

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.

Well of course you're speaking non-literally...I must define?...that doesn't have any legs. I don't believe in limiting outcomes when it comes to God's grace, so I'm exempting myself from what you say I must do.

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.)

Many times. Maybe they're right! Maybe they're not. It's a nice thing to say. Or maybe it isn't. I don't know.

They might say, "God was watching over me," or something similar, as if sometimes He does, sometimes He doesn't.

Yes, I agree that if you follow-up on the language and take it as far as it goes, you'll come up with such things. And of course you could pin someone down in such a way. But does that mean that God *wasn't* watching. No, even though I appreciate the point your making here.

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.

Sure. Prayer is a personal thing, and people will say things that suit them. And they could be completely correct! Or not. I dunno.

All I ask is that those positive outcomes which "prove" God to them be considered against outcomes which are negative or neutral.

Good point. This would have to be a personal plea, I think. I get your point.

I think most Christians have what I've called the Christian understanding of prayer, yet still proclaim the positive outcomes of prayer. And why not? Why, exactly, should they *not* do that? As for the unanswered prayers (negative/neutral), they appear to not be as easily proclaimed. But I don't think too much should be made of that. If I tell my girlfriend what happened to me during the day, I'll mention a few things. Maybe several things. But the bulk of the things I won't talk about. OK. That's how it is with many things. Sometimes you just talk about things that are more interesting or compelling than others.

Now, I'm the kind of person who is probably more partial to talk about what you would call neutral/negative prayer. But whatever. People can talk about whatever they want to talk about. I'm sure if you pinned someone down you can get them to talk about other things.

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.

But does a tragic accident have to *necessarily* be evidence against God? I don't think your point follows.

You can't have it both ways (and still be rational.)

Accept we don't think that God exists solely to perform miracles anytime they are asked for. I think I've said this many times. We believe that our lives will include suffering, and eventually death. That's the way it is. God won't be a non-stop miracle worker to take those things away.

Will he do miraculous things? Yes. That's what we believe.

I'm no longer interested in whether or not people consider this general perspective to be irrational. If it is the correct perspective, this opinion will have zero meaning to me, as opposed to what it has now. A little bit of meaning. I think it's dwindling, the more times I see it enunciated. Maybe after 10 more pages of this thread it will be just about at zero, at which point I'll no longer feel the urge to engage the irrationality point.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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

I was in the studio mostly! I would have preferred to have been reproductive, instead of productive, but whatever.

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.

Here's one. Are Christians irrational, within the Christian perspective, or only irrational according to the working perspective in this forum?

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

Yeah, he's a salty one alright.

-Elliot

 

[Freethinker]

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?

Okay then, accept god exists. Some scenarios:

1. God doesn't want us to see any evidence he exists.

2. God is so puny and feeble that even though he tries his hardest to make us aware of his existence, he can't.

3. Satan is so stong that he beats god down everytime god tries to let us know he exists.

4. God hates us and is hiding from us because he wants us to go burn in hell.

5. We all have invisible pink unicorns flying around our heads blocking out all signs of god's existence with their magic wings. (Of course you have to accept that the IPUs exist, but that's no different than accepting god exists, because there is the same amount of evidence.)

etc., etc., etc. .......


Which of those doesn't follow Bri's "logic"? They are all equally possible if you are open-minded.

 

[RandFan]

But does a tragic accident have to *necessarily* be evidence against God? I don't think your point follows.

I just don't see the point. If treatment for cancer can't be shown to work then why believe that it does? If I examine two groups of an equal number of people with cancer. Let's say 1000 in each group. And the rate of death is the same for both groups yet one group is religious and prays for cures and the other doesn't then what purpose does the prayer serve as it relates to miracles?

If I can't discern which group of individuals believes in prayer from the other then what is the point of miracles? Miracles appear to be things that happen to everyone whether we want them to or not. Whether we pray for them or not.

 

[Freethinker]

Are Christians irrational, within the Christian perspective, or only irrational according to the working perspective in this forum?

I don't think rationality can be defined within a perspective. Crazy people are rational within the lunatic perspective. (don't make the link that I'm saying Christians are crazy, it's just an example). Christians have a built-in bias caused by their assumption that god exists. You cannot base a rational argument on an irrational assumption. The "Christian perspective" includes an assumption for which there is no evidence. Anything built on this is invalid until the basic assumption is supported.

 

[elliotfc]

If you can't tell if it is effective and yet you still believe it is effective, then your belief is irrational.

I don't think I'll agree with this particular dogma, but I will say that probably most Christians (including me) thinks that they can detect the efficacy of prayer, but I'm sure not in any way that would satisfy you.

And I'll reiterate. If something is effecting you, and you can't detect it, that doesn't mean something is not effecting you. Athletes use undetectable drugs to great effect. You could slip them into their drinks and they can be effected without being detected. Didn't I say that in an earlier post? I think so!

If you can tell, then it is not irrational. Can you tell, or is it just faith?

It's definitely faith. Sometimes people say that they can tell. I guess you think they're wrong. But maybe they're right! I dunno.

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.

It's a deal! And we'll continue to think it's rational! If we're wrong, oh well!

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.

Ah yes, I did say this already.

Good! I'm glad you brought up delay! We too believe in delay. We think evenutally we'll get all the details on how God answered our prayers!

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.

But of course we believe there is a perfect judge who will judge effectiveness. We don't believe our contrived judgments have any effect on that.

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

You have different standards than I do. If it's just the way it is, then it is objective rationality. Do you think that rationality exists independent of rational creatures? Just wondering. If yes, I've got a well-constituted arsenal of follow-ups, I've had this conversation with many people, but not recently, so maybe it's time to have it again.

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.

I'm becoming desensitized.

I mean really...who cares what you think about this, right? So you think it's irrational. That's that. That's it. There's nothing else to it than that. You've said it over and over and over again. And that's the extent. You can say it 398712 more times. And that would also be it. Just the repitition.

I have mentioned that if I shared your set of perspectives and standards I *may* also think as you do. But I'm not sure about that.

I'm being sensitive, of course, for a reason. I would prefer to have people consider me rational, as opposed to irrational. And like I said, I'm becoming desensitized to that, at least in this forum, with this topic.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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.

I think Bri was making a simple point, a very simple point. Simply this.

A. A person has *faith* that God exists.
B. There is not clear, indisputable evidence that God does, in fact, exist.
C. Therefore, a person who has *faith* that God exists could very well suspect, for good reason, that God does not want people to have clear, indisputable evidence, that God exists.

I think Bri just threw that out there, with no intention of saying anything further than that. Also, she isn't necessarily speaking from her perspective, but from the Christian perspective. Meaning, she's just giving a pretty accurate, and very simple, representation of how this shakes out.

It *does not follow* from this that ignorance becomes evidence. No. The faith comes first. The lack of evidence is not evidence for God...rather, it is significant, perhaps, to God's plan in how he wants to be known (or not known I guess).

The point that absence of evidence is anything more than that was not made in this. Because the position was *already* held, before point B was considered.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Yes.

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

Ignoring whether or not the premise is nonsensical, it is abundantly clear that most posters in this forum assume that God exists in many conversations with theists (i.e. check every single long thread between theists and atheists, when atheists use theistic tenets and dogmas in order to facilitate a conversation). There can be much sense in doing such a thing, in my opinion, but you're free to disagree. Apparently you do?

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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

Exactly.

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

No, I don't think that people who don't pray do anything to build a relationship with God.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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

What is the name of that person?

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

Really? I don't see it.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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

For certain things, sure. But chemistry works for certain things, and for other things it isn't useful or helpful.

Alchemy is actually helpful for certain things. It might be useful if you're writing a novel or something.

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

Right, and as I've said a million times objective truth is not contingent on science and if there are objective truths that science can not detect that's just the way it is.

If you can't define successful results in advance, then you can't say it has produced successful results.

No. You actually *can* say it. It's pretty easy to say it.

You disagree. Oh well.

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]

I have no idea.

Can you claim successful results for absolutely anything? I think so.

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?

Many people rely on their faith. As for other kinds of faith, many people rely on those faiths. I think the Christian faith is better because I prefer the dogmas to others. As for what religion has the most reliable faith, I have no idea, I'm not even that interetsed in that one. Let's say they are all equal, or maybe they're not. I dunno.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Okay then, accept god exists. Some scenarios:

1. God doesn't want us to see any evidence he exists.

Depends what is evidence. Many Christians think the Bible is evidence, but others don't think it is evidence.

I don't think there are very many Christians who think that there is *zero* evidence for God's existence. Probably a good percentage of agnostics believe thta.

2. God is so puny and feeble that even though he tries his hardest to make us aware of his existence, he can't.

I don't think you'd find more than 5 Christians who believe this. Probably less than 5.

3. Satan is so stong that he beats god down everytime god tries to let us know he exists.

See above.

4. God hates us and is hiding from us because he wants us to go burn in hell.

Ever see the movie Shatter Dead?

5. We all have invisible pink unicorns flying around our heads blocking out all signs of god's existence with their magic wings. (Of course you have to accept that the IPUs exist, but that's no different than accepting god exists, because there is the same amount of evidence.)

I don't think more than 5 Christians believe this.

Which of those doesn't follow Bri's "logic"? They are all equally possible if you are open-minded.

Right. We're talking from the Christian perspective.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I just don't see the point. If treatment for cancer can't be shown to work then why believe that it does?

I don't think God is commensurate to something like treatment for cancer.

We are going to suffer. We are going to die. This is the human condition. God allows for these realities. There are dogmas behind these realities. Prayer will not eliminate suffering and death *in the way we would have it do so*. We believe that all prayers are perfectly answered in Christ. Christ will do away with our suffering and death, but not in this life as it is.

Miracles are thus either a foretaste of things to come, signs of God's power, special interventions as part of a greater plan, etc. They are not the focal point of Christian belief (on a personal level, of course you could consider Jesus to be a miracle...and maybe you should, but whatever). If they were the focal point of Christian belief, I wouldn't be a Christian. We aren't saved by miracles, but by an event that happened 2000 years ago.

If I examine two groups of an equal number of people with cancer. Let's say 1000 in each group. And the rate of death is the same for both groups yet one group is religious and prays for cures and the other doesn't then what purpose does the prayer serve as it relates to miracles?

I've said several times that prayer brings us closer to God. Will we all die, and will we all suffer? Yes. Prayer will not do away with death and suffering. Now, from a certain perspective it actually *does*, for we believe that Christ was an answered prayer, but I don't think you're interested in that point.

If I can't discern which group of individuals believes in prayer from the other then what is the point of miracles?

I think they have particular points, and not general points. That's a very personal question. I think I had one event in my life which I consider to be miraculous. I don't think it has any point to anyone but myself. Nor do I expect it to. It happened to me. I don't obsess over it either. It happened.

Miracles appear to be things that happen to everyone whether we want them to or not. Whether we pray for them or not.

I think miracles can happen to people who don't pray for them. Sure.

I don't think that prayer is about miracles happening to people BTW, I'm not sure if that's the operating understanding behind this particular post.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I don't think rationality can be defined within a perspective.

If no perspectives existed, rationality could *not* be defined. Agreed?

If only one person existed, and the perspective of that person did not correspond to a perspective that you would consider to be rational, how would that person know that?

Crazy people are rational within the lunatic perspective.

I don't believe there is a singular lunatic perspecitive. I think many crazy people consider other crazy people to be crazy.

Christians have a built-in bias caused by their assumption that god exists.

I agree that Christians assume that god exists, and that such a belief is not crazy.

You cannot base a rational argument on an irrational assumption.

I think you can base rational arguments on *assumptions*. You say the assumption is irrational. Neato.

The "Christian perspective" includes an assumption for which there is no evidence. Anything built on this is invalid until the basic assumption is supported.

You say there is no evidence, and we disagree. Our evidence is either not good enough for you, or, you don't consider it to be evidence. Probably the latter.

I GET IT.

I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. Really. Feel free to repeat it though. Let's say you are correct. Great. That's wonderful. Nice one! Way to go. Put it on your tombstone, that you died rational as opposed to irrational. Cool.

-Elliot

 

[Ossai]

elliotfc

But we *do* require evidence, I don't think you're getting that. Our *kind* of evidence isn't the kind of evidence you are satisfied with, because you have a different way of handling this topic than do we.

That would be because it’s not actually evidence. It’s wishful thinking and illogical assumptions.

Athletes use undetectable drugs to great effect. You could slip them into their drinks and they can be effected without being detected.

Do you even read what you post. You just stated that athletes use undetectable drugs and that we can detect their effects. There is a connection not being made somewhere.

Apparently I’m still on elliotfc’s ignore list. So many questions, no answers.

Ossai

 

[Tricky]

For certain things, sure. But chemistry works for certain things, and for other things it isn't useful or helpful.

Well, all matter is made of "chemicals", so you could say that it works for everything. But this would be a serious derail.

Alchemy is actually helpful for certain things. It might be useful if you're writing a novel or something.

LOL. Yeah, it works if you're creating fiction. Come to think of it, alchemy and religion DO have a lot in common.

Right, and as I've said a million times objective truth is not contingent on science and if there are objective truths that science can not detect that's just the way it is.

And as I have said a million times, objective truths do not vary from person to person. There is nothing that you or anyone else has told me about their religious belief that is not almost completely subjective.

No. You actually *can* say it. It's pretty easy to say it.

Don't play these word games Elliot. I expect more of you.

Can you claim successful results for absolutely anything? I think so.

Yes you can. Will you be correct all the time? I think not. But this completely sidesteps the issue of how one determines what constitutes a successful result. You can't do it post-hoc.

Many people rely on their faith. As for other kinds of faith, many people rely on those faiths.

Yes, many people rely on their various faiths. My father in law is lying in the next room dying, in part because relied on his faith in Kevin Trudeau's book.

I think the Christian faith is better because I prefer the dogmas to others. As for what religion has the most reliable faith, I have no idea, I'm not even that interetsed in that one. Let's say they are all equal...

Okay, lets say all faiths are equal. So since they are all equal, faith, as a way of determining truth, is worthless, because there is no way of discrimminating between well-placed faith and poorly-placed faith.

...or maybe they're not. I dunno.

Okay, lets say all faiths are not equal. How do you determine which one is closest to truth without relying on your preferred faith?

 

[drkitten]

I don't think God is commensurate to something like treatment for cancer.

I don't think so, either.

Cancer treatments exist.

Cancer treatments can be shown to exist.

It is not irrational to believe that cancer treatments exist.

 

[Tricky]

I don't think so, either.

Cancer treatments exist.

Cancer treatments can be shown to exist.

It is not irrational to believe that cancer treatments exist.

You forgot one.

Some cancer treatments can be shown to exist which actually are successful in treating cancer according to predefined parameters of success.

 

[RandFan]

I think Bri was making a simple point, a very simple point. Simply this.

A. A person has *faith* that God exists.
B. There is not clear, indisputable evidence that God does, in fact, exist.
C. Therefore, a person who has *faith* that God exists could very well suspect, for good reason, that God does not want people to have clear, indisputable evidence, that God exists.

I think Bri just threw that out there, with no intention of saying anything further than that. Also, she isn't necessarily speaking from her perspective, but from the Christian perspective. Meaning, she's just giving a pretty accurate, and very simple, representation of how this shakes out.

It *does not follow* from this that ignorance becomes evidence. No. The faith comes first. The lack of evidence is not evidence for God...rather, it is significant, perhaps, to God's plan in how he wants to be known (or not known I guess).

The point that absence of evidence is anything more than that was not made in this. Because the position was *already* held, before point B was considered.

-Elliot

Hey Elliot,

I'm sorry but there just is no cleaning this up.

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.

That is nonsensical no matter what position you take.

Bri is stating that assuming A is true, the fact that we don't know for certain that A is true is SOLID EVIDENCE of B. No. It isn't.

I understand your point. I really, really do. I understood Bri's point, I really, really do. In the end it is nonsensical. It is illogical and the flaw is not in the assumption that God exists. The absence of evidence is simply the absence of evidence. No more, no less, here or in bizzaro world. I'll have to re-read Alice in the looking glass but I'm not sure if it is even evidence there either.

 

[Bri]

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.

I agree, but the key word here is "possibility." It is also possible for God to exist, so it would in no way be considered irrational to consider the possibility. The problem is that there is no evidence at all that either actually exists. If you label one as "rational" then you would likely have to label the other as "rational" as well unless you have thought of some criteria to distinguish between the two that isn't based on speculation.

If you read Anacoluthon64s post a couple above yours this has already been explained.

I read it, and I don't see how it explains how Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational but other beliefs which are not based on solid evidence can be considered rational.

-Bri