Prayer Makes No Sense

[Ana the Ist]

Well yes, I'm blaming you.

Well the first step is admitting it. The second step would be realizing that personal attacks don't invalidate my criticism of prayer in any way. The third step would be dropping the person attacks and addressing the post instead.

It's like saying you hate asparagus, then saying "oh, by the way, I've never tried asparagus".

I've never tried heroin either...but I can still comment on its use and effects based upon observations.

More importantly, I'm not saying that I hate prayer...I'm stating that I don't understand aspects of it. Judging by the lack of replies...it doesn't seem like anyone else understands it any better.

In that case, God would have given them the job. You can't retro-write my story, lol. Write your own.

I was simply making the point that without certain details...there's no way to know if it would've been better or worse for the person's prayer to be answered.

Since no one is capable of knowing what their life would've been like with or without certain prayers being answered or denied...it would seem that your point is irrelevant.

 

[Chesterton]

Well the first step is admitting it. The second step would be realizing that personal attacks don't invalidate my criticism of prayer in any way. The third step would be dropping the person attacks and addressing the post instead.

All I've done is address the content of the post.

I've never tried heroin either...but I can still comment on its use and effects based upon observations.

More importantly, I'm not saying that I hate prayer...I'm stating that I don't understand aspects of it. Judging by the lack of replies...it doesn't seem like anyone else understands it any better.

You haven't observed anyone else's life in that way.

I was simply making the point that without certain details...there's no way to know if it would've been better or worse for the person's prayer to be answered.

Since no one is capable of knowing what their life would've been like with or without certain prayers being answered or denied...it would seem that your point is irrelevant.

A lot of Enron employees lost their life savings because of investing in Enron stock options. I'm just saying it's better not to lose your life savings than to lose them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

All I've done is address the content of the post.

Well not really...to quote you directly...

Well yes, I'm blaming you.

That doesn't address the content of my post at all. It's an ad hominem attack. I don't hold it against you though, I can understand why this is frustrating for you.

You haven't observed anyone else's life in that way.

In what way? I've read people's prayers...I've read about answered ones and unanswered ones. The thread is simply about trying to make sense of it.

A lot of Enron employees lost their life savings because of investing in Enron stock options. I'm just saying it's better not to lose your life savings than to lose them.

Well maybe it's for the best...maybe those people would've invested that money in a way that would've unknowingly funded terrorism and killed hundreds of people. Maybe if Enron grew, and the invested money increased, Enron would've bought/built an oil tanker that would've crashed in the Gulf and destroyed the ecosystem for decades.

For people who believe that god lets children be born with HIV for some "good" reason (especially when they prayed the child would be born healthy)...justifying the loss of some money doesn't sound all that difficult.

You do bring up one interesting point though...at what point does the answer to the prayer/god's actions begin, and the actions of the person praying end? I'm fairly certain you wouldn't claim that god made those people make poor investment choices. Do you think they prayed about how to invest and god said "You know...I don't think you should diversify your portfolio at all. You should put all your eggs into one basket, because worrying about risk is for cowards. No one ever loses out by putting their life savings into one stock."?

Unless we're talking about a "miracle" of the kind that's something impossible (a person being able to fly by flapping their arms for example) I don't know how one would know if their "prayer" was granted because of god....or if they just made it happen with their own choices and actions.

 

[Dirk1540]

I've made threads about this in the past...and last time I got almost zero replies. I figured it's been long enough that maybe someone has an answer.

Prayer makes no sense to me...how is it supposed to work? I'm talking about the kind of prayer where ones asks god for "stuff". Now before everyone jumps in with the whole "god doesn't just grant wishes" answer...let's not pretend that we all don't know exactly what I'm talking about. People ask god for stuff all the time. Whether it's to find a marriage partner, or job, or money...or to cure mom's cancer, or give them a clear path in life...people ask god for stuff all the time. There's a whole section of this forum dedicated to prayer requests. People tell people that they'll pray for them...indicating that they want god to do something about the crisis that person is going through.

The most common answer I've seen is that god answers prayers in one of three basic ways...

1. Prayer granted.

2. Prayer not granted.

3. Maybe prayer will be granted later.

I'm just going to say this is a nonsense answer. We could say this about wishes or literally anything that can actually happen. Will it rain? Yes. No. Possibly later. Will I one day find true love? Yes. No. Possibly later.

That idea of prayer is literally no different than what we would expect if there was no god and prayers were never answered. So if that's your reply...please don't bother.

If anyone else wants to take a crack at answering this is a way that makes any sense whatsoever...I'm more than willing to consider your reply.

Merry Christmas.

Prayer has completely shocked me at times at the intense natural high it has created (even in states of half hearted apathy, and EVEN in states of skepticism too). Although that is pretty much the story for me and prayer (intense inner experiences)...I’m not really a living example of the ‘Asking for things & receiving them’ prayer person. REALLY wish I was though lol.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know it wasn't meant as a joke. But ask yourself this--and be perfectly honest. On one of the highest holy days of the Islamic calendar, would you dare to go to a Muslim forum and ask very pointed and potentially even offensive questions of them about their faith...and at the end of that long and very pointed question, say, "Happy Ramadan, by the way"?

I'll level with you here...and sorry for not noticing this question sooner...I'm not sure why my mind slipped over it.

Yes I would. I don't actually think it's daring. I try not to ask "offensive" questions...but I accept that it can happen since I've got no way of knowing what someone might take offense to. I certainly didn't mean any offense by this thread...it's in the apologetics section because it's an argument against a concept within christianity (or any religion that has prayer) but I don't think I phrased it in a deliberately offensive way. I definitely could have...but I didn't. I am a bit curious about what part of the OP you took offense to.

I don't really keep track of muslim holidays...but if I did, and I was on the muslim forum that I pose questions to muslims on (Ummah.com)...and I happened to be posting a thread on Ramadan...I would wish them a happy Ramadan, regardless of what the thread was about.

You see, Ramadan/Christmas/Hanukkah...and pretty much every other religious holiday doesn't hold any meaning to me. Sure, I may get a day off of work...I get to spend it with my loving wife...I may get some gifts and I'll send some out to those I love and care about...but the day holds no religious significance to me.

So, if for some reason, the religious significance of the day means that someone shouldn't be asking questions about your religion...I don't really know why you would expect me to know that. It doesn't mean that to me...and I've certainly never heard that rule before. I simply wanted to wish everyone a merry Christmas because I know the day holds some meaning for believers. I honestly never thought it could be taken as offensive in any way...especially when you see how upset some christians get when you tell them "happy holidays" instead of merry Christmas.

I've never seen it. Not in nearly two decades of interacting with atheists. I never expect to see it. Yet we routinely see this of atheists. Ever wonder why?

You've never seen it in two decades of interacting with atheists....yet exactly one sentence later, you say that routinely see this of atheists. ??? Which is it? Do you see it from atheists or not?

Or did you mean to write that differently?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Prayer has completely shocked me at times at the intense natural high it has created (even in states of half hearted apathy, and EVEN in states of skepticism too). Although that is pretty much the story for me and prayer (intense inner experiences)...I’m not really a living example of the ‘Asking for things & receiving them’ prayer person. REALLY wish I was though lol.

I've long suspected that feelings play a big big part of the whole ritual.

 

[Liza B.]

I'll level with you here...and sorry for not noticing this question sooner...I'm not sure why my mind slipped over it.

Yes I would. I don't actually think it's daring. I try not to ask "offensive" questions...but I accept that it can happen since I've got no way of knowing what someone might take offense to. I certainly didn't mean any offense by this thread...it's in the apologetics section because it's an argument against a concept within christianity (or any religion that has prayer) but I don't think I phrased it in a deliberately offensive way. I definitely could have...but I didn't. I am a bit curious about what part of the OP you took offense to.

I don't really keep track of muslim holidays...but if I did, and I was on the muslim forum that I pose questions to muslims on (Ummah.com)...and I happened to be posting a thread on Ramadan...I would wish them a happy Ramadan, regardless of what the thread was about.

You see, Ramadan/Christmas/Hanukkah...and pretty much every other religious holiday doesn't hold any meaning to me. Sure, I may get a day off of work...I get to spend it with my loving wife...I may get some gifts and I'll send some out to those I love and care about...but the day holds no religious significance to me.

So, if for some reason, the religious significance of the day means that someone shouldn't be asking questions about your religion...I don't really know why you would expect me to know that. It doesn't mean that to me...and I've certainly never heard that rule before. I simply wanted to wish everyone a merry Christmas because I know the day holds some meaning for believers. I honestly never thought it could be taken as offensive in any way...especially when you see how upset some christians get when you tell them "happy holidays" instead of merry Christmas.



You've never seen it in two decades of interacting with atheists....yet exactly one sentence later, you say that routinely see this of atheists. ??? Which is it? Do you see it from atheists or not?

Or did you mean to write that differently?

I'm encouraged that you interact with Muslims on their websites as well. My impression is that most atheists do not. I have no stats to bear this out but lots of anecdotes, and most Muslim sites are not overrun with atheists like most Christian sites are. There are lots of anecdotes and some stats that would probably paint an accurate enough picture to give evidence for this.

I also think my interaction with atheists over many years would probably paint a pretty accurate picture of what happens around Christian holidays. I have been told I don't know how many times on this forum this season that Christmas has pagan origins. Does this offend me? Not really. It makes me wonder at the impulse behind the telling, though.

Do I think most atheists would dare to tell Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs that the way they celebrate their holidays are not valid? Not on your life. Absolutely not. Most atheists I know brag about how they have Muslim, Hindu and Sikh neighbors, coworkers and friends and blah, blah, blah....not for the world do I think they would tell these folks that they don't celebrate their holidays correctly, as I have been told repeatedly in just the last week.

There are bolder atheists than the ones I have mentioned in the paragraph above. But like in most areas of life, I guess, most of them are just not that bold. Take that as you like, I guess. They go for the easy, even the lazy, targets. Let's face it: Christianity is the easy and lazy target.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm encouraged that you interact with Muslims on their websites as well. My impression is that most atheists do not. I have no stats to bear this out but lots of anecdotes, and most Muslim sites are not overrun with atheists like most Christian sites are. There are lots of anecdotes and some stats that would probably paint an accurate enough picture to give evidence for this.

To be completely honest, I don't visit that forum as often as I used to. Discussion on those forums tends to end up the same way every time. There may be a little back and forth regarding a passage in the Koran....but it tends to devolve into an argument about Arabic that's totally bogus.

They argue that every word in Arabic can have dozens of meanings in every context...so when you point out something flawed, well that's just due to interpretive limitations. I even made a thread about this argument once....claiming that it would be rather pointless for a god to deliver his message in such a wildly inconsistent language...but they just argue that's part of the "beauty" of the message.

I also think my interaction with atheists over many years would probably paint a pretty accurate picture of what happens around Christian holidays. I have been told I don't know how many times on this forum this season that Christmas has pagan origins. Does this offend me? Not really. It makes me wonder at the impulse behind the telling, though.

Do I think most atheists would dare to tell Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs that the way they celebrate their holidays are not valid? Not on your life. Absolutely not.

Why?

Most atheists I know brag about how they have Muslim, Hindu and Sikh neighbors, coworkers and friends and blah, blah, blah....not for the world do I think they would tell these folks that they don't celebrate their holidays correctly, as I have been told repeatedly in just the last week.

There are bolder atheists than the ones I have mentioned in the paragraph above. But like in most areas of life, I guess, most of them are just not that bold. Take that as you like, I guess. They go for the easy, even the lazy, targets. Let's face it: Christianity is the easy and lazy target.

Well, to be fair, this is a predominantly christian nation. If you were speaking to atheists in India...or the middle east before they get stoned to death...I would think they're more critical of their nation's predominant religion.

 

[Liza B.]

To be completely honest, I don't visit that forum as often as I used to. Discussion on those forums tends to end up the same way every time. There may be a little back and forth regarding a passage in the Koran....but it tends to devolve into an argument about Arabic that's totally bogus.

They argue that every word in Arabic can have dozens of meanings in every context...so when you point out something flawed, well that's just due to interpretive limitations. I even made a thread about this argument once....claiming that it would be rather pointless for a god to deliver his message in such a wildly inconsistent language...but they just argue that's part of the "beauty" of the message.

That seems disingenuous. There is some beauty in mystery, but that something has dozens of meanings in every context is incomprehensible. Interesting.

Why?

For fear of giving offense to the "diverse", of course.

Well, to be fair, this is a predominantly christian nation. If you were speaking to atheists in India...or the middle east before they get stoned to death...I would think they're more critical of their nation's predominant religion.

Right, which makes sense somewhat here in the States. I am particularly perplexed by European atheists who still vigorously argue with American Christians, which you often find. They're a lot close to that Middle Eastern stoning than they think they are...and probably closer to that than whatever Christian theocracy they're imagining.

 

[Chesterton]

Well not really...to quote you directly...

That doesn't address the content of my post at all. It's an ad hominem attack. I don't hold it against you though, I can understand why this is frustrating for you.

Oh come on. I was "blaming you" for exactly what I said I was blaming your for. It was no personal attack.

In what way? I've read people's prayers...I've read about answered ones and unanswered ones. The thread is simply about trying to make sense of it.

The analogy to heroin use isn't a good one. And it seems like you do understand prayer, you said it pretty simply in your OP. So I'll repeat that I don't see how you don't see sense in it.

Well maybe it's for the best...maybe those people would've invested that money in a way that would've unknowingly funded terrorism and killed hundreds of people. Maybe if Enron grew, and the invested money increased, Enron would've bought/built an oil tanker that would've crashed in the Gulf and destroyed the ecosystem for decades.

For people who believe that god lets children be born with HIV for some "good" reason (especially when they prayed the child would be born healthy)...justifying the loss of some money doesn't sound all that difficult.

I agree. But the key word is "maybe". Neither of us knows.

You do bring up one interesting point though...at what point does the answer to the prayer/god's actions begin, and the actions of the person praying end? I'm fairly certain you wouldn't claim that god made those people make poor investment choices. Do you think they prayed about how to invest and god said "You know...I don't think you should diversify your portfolio at all. You should put all your eggs into one basket, because worrying about risk is for cowards. No one ever loses out by putting their life savings into one stock."?

Unless we're talking about a "miracle" of the kind that's something impossible (a person being able to fly by flapping their arms for example) I don't know how one would know if their "prayer" was granted because of god....or if they just made it happen with their own choices and actions.

I think it's useless speculation to wonder about other people's lives and prayers and results.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh come on. I was "blaming you" for exactly what I said I was blaming your for. It was no personal attack.

Weren't you blaming me for criticizing prayer without having prayed...because you felt that somehow weakened the points I've made?

The analogy to heroin use isn't a good one. And it seems like you do understand prayer, you said it pretty simply in your OP. So I'll repeat that I don't see how you don't see sense in it.

What part don't you understand? That a phenomenon based upon interaction between an individual and a deity doesn't appear any different than an interaction between a man and nothing else at all?

I'm not sure how many ways I can say that.

I agree. But the key word is "maybe". Neither of us knows.

Right...so as an explanation of prayer your point falls rather short. Also, what's wrong with the heroin analogy?

I think it's useless speculation to wonder about other people's lives and prayers and results.

Why?

 

[Almost there]

Since I have three bonafide miracles in my life, all answers to prayer, I'm a believer in it.

My wife and I pray every single day now before I head off to work, not to mention what each of us does on their own throughout the day.

 

[Chesterton]

Weren't you blaming me for criticizing prayer without having prayed...because you felt that somehow weakened the points I've made?

Yes, it weakens the points you're attempting. That's not an ad hom.

What part don't you understand? That a phenomenon based upon interaction between an individual and a deity doesn't appear any different than an interaction between a man and nothing else at all?

I'm not sure how many ways I can say that.

You answer your own objection. You admit that deity and no deity could appear the same. So what is your problem with it? What is your argument?

Right...so as an explanation of prayer your point falls rather short.

How does my explanation fall short by acknowledging that we humans don't have complete information and can't know the future?

Also, what's wrong with the heroin analogy?

We know the effects of heroin. We can't comment on the effects of prayer when we don't know the effects because they may be completely individualized, unlike heroin.

Why?

For starters, if someone says they privately prayed, you have no way of knowing if they really did. There are dozens of reasons. This doesn't lend itself to scientific inquiry. There could be a thousand variables in each individual case which could never be known.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, it weakens the points you're attempting. That's not an ad hom.

So far it's textbook ad hom...

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

I bolded the relevant part...but to be fair, I'll give you a chance to explain why "it weakens the point". Just avoid any sloppy analogies and give a plain explanation.

You answer your own objection. You admit that deity and no deity could appear the same. So what is your problem with it? What is your argument?

It's not that they could appear...they do appear. If prayer were a real interaction with a god who grants prayers...we would expect there to be a difference between the results you get. Since there isn't, the only rational explanation is that either...

1. Prayer isn't an interaction with a god. If god exists...he either cannot "receive" prayers and therefore doesn't grant them...or, god does receive prayers and simply chooses not to grant them.

2. God doesn't exist.

How does my explanation fall short by acknowledging that we humans don't have complete information and can't know the future?

Your claim was something along the lines of, "sometimes unanswered prayers themselves are for the best"...now that we've concluded there's no way of knowing an unanswered prayer was "for the best", your point is moot.

We know the effects of heroin. We can't comment on the effects of prayer when we don't know the effects because they may be completely individualized, unlike heroin.

What does that have to do with your claim regarding having to "try something" to understand it? Whether prayer is "completely individualized" or not...the results are still going to fall into one of the three categories that make up the central point to my argument. Is there some other fourth option I'm not aware of?

For starters, if someone says they privately prayed, you have no way of knowing if they really did. There are dozens of reasons. This doesn't lend itself to scientific inquiry. There could be a thousand variables in each individual case which could never be known.

Can you give an example? To use your Enron analogy...someone applies for a position at Enron then goes home and prays for the job. Three days later, they're called in for an interview and they get the job.

How does one know if god answered the prayer....or if that person got the job all by themselves without any intervention from god?

 

[Chesterton]

So far it's textbook ad hom...

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

I bolded the relevant part...but to be fair, I'll give you a chance to explain why "it weakens the point". Just avoid any sloppy analogies and give a plain explanation.

Ana: Prayer makes no sense.
Ana: I've never tried prayer.
This speaks for itself.

It's not that they could appear...they do appear. If prayer were a real interaction with a god who grants prayers...we would expect there to be a difference between the results you get. Since there isn't, the only rational explanation is that either...

1. Prayer isn't an interaction with a god. If god exists...he either cannot "receive" prayers and therefore doesn't grant them...or, god does receive prayers and simply chooses not to grant them.

2. God doesn't exist.

Those 2 things don't necessarily follow from what you said, so you need to explain why you believe they do.

Your claim was something along the lines of, "sometimes unanswered prayers themselves are for the best"...now that we've concluded there's no way of knowing an unanswered prayer was "for the best", your point is moot.

Show me where "we" have concluded that.

What does that have to do with your claim regarding having to "try something" to understand it? Whether prayer is "completely individualized" or not...the results are still going to fall into one of the three categories that make up the central point to my argument. Is there some other fourth option I'm not aware of?

If you don't see what it has to do with it, I really don't know how to explain it any more simply.

Can you give an example? To use your Enron analogy...someone applies for a position at Enron then goes home and prays for the job. Three days later, they're called in for an interview and they get the job.

Enron was the example. I'm not going to play the game of "give me more" and "give me something else" because you're frustrated by the responses you get.

How does one know if god answered the prayer....or if that person got the job all by themselves without any intervention from god?

I don't know. You seem pretty sure. You tell me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana: Prayer makes no sense.
Ana: I've never tried prayer.
This speaks for itself.

No lol it doesn't. The first sentence in no way invalidates the second.

This is exactly why I warned you about the esoteric knowledge fallacy. You have directly stated it...but you're now implying that the only way to understand how prayer works is to do it.

That's contradictory to the nature of knowledge.

If I told you that I have prayed before...and then wrote the exact same OP...my argument wouldn't change at all. That's the biggest indication that you're pursuing an ad hominem.

I daresay that your inability to address the argument wouldn't change either.

Those 2 things don't necessarily follow from what you said, so you need to explain why you believe they do.

Logic. If you don't think they follow...show why. All you're really doing here is claiming I'm wrong in as many ways as you can imagine...but you never explain why you think I'm wrong.

Show me where "we" have concluded that.

You want me to quote you?

If you don't see what it has to do with it, I really don't know how to explain it any more simply.

The problem is you never explained it to begin with. You can claimed it's a factor in prayer...but you never explained how or why.

Enron was the example. I'm not going to play the game of "give me more" and "give me something else" because you're frustrated by the responses you get.

The responses I've gotten lack any kind of explanatory power.

I don't know.

Your first honest answer so far.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No lol it doesn't. The first sentence in no way invalidates the second.

This is exactly why I warned you about the esoteric knowledge fallacy. You have directly stated it...but you're now implying that the only way to understand how prayer works is to do it.

That's contradictory to the nature of knowledge...

..The responses I've gotten lack any kind of explanatory power.

[...yes, I know, your response was originally directed to someone else, but I'm commandeering it for the moment. ]

This is the first time I've ever heard of an "esoteric knowledge fallacy." If this is the case, then I guess I had better throw out all these books on Jewish philosophy/theology that I have, as well as erase all of my comments about Epistemological Indices within the Bible that I've spread out in various places here in the Apologetics section.

Is the admonition to "learn by doing" really just a token form of "esotericism," especially as it pertains to prayer, or is it merely your refusal and unwillingness to engage a set of ideas that are not native to Western thinking?

[Moreover, you never answered my question in a previous post above.]

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Chesterton]

Logic. If you don't think they follow...show why. All you're really doing here is claiming I'm wrong in as many ways as you can imagine...but you never explain why you think I'm wrong.

I've already done what you're asking for. I'm not going to waste time repeating myself with different words.