Lack of Divine Intervention

Remove all ads!

Actually, the better control group would have been a group that thought they were being prayed to, but in reality were not.

 

Y'know, rather than debate among ourselves what we personally think prayer is, why not look, I don't know, to the Bible and see what IT says about prayer?

This isn't a glum grovel or a praise-for-payola swap. Just four simple parts: recognition of to Whom one is speaking; request for help with the needs of the moment; confession of one's moral weakness; and compassion for others' failings.

Note the intrinsic humility of a proper prayer. Its opening emphasizes the greatness of the One to Whom one prays; the closing emphasizes the weakness of the one making the prayer. (None of this nonsense about the strength of one's faith being the determining factor!) The request for the needs of the moment comes sandwiched in the middle.

Why? Because prayer isn't about asking for stuff. It's about a conversation between two persons -- between you and God. And like any conversation, the precise words on any given day are much less important than the relationship that prompts, and is strengthened by, those words.

Sure, we ask our parents for stuff all the time -- like, say, allowance money to pay for Oblivion -- but even though we depend on our parents' generosity to survive, that's really incidental to the fundamental relationship of parent-child. Same with us and God. Yeah, we should pray for help and such, most definitely. But prayer isn't about what we can get out of God.

So what you write, DR...

...misses the point. One doesn't "exchange" praise for anything; praise is the natural, proper response to God's activity. Seriously, think about how this works in real life. Do we "exchange" cheers at a ballgame for a homerun? Do we "exchange" applause at a theatre for a good performance? Do we "exchange" compliments with a beautiful woman for her good looks? Praise -- whether of God, a sports team, or a beautiful woman -- at its most basic is just honest recognition of the facts.

And prayer is the honest recognition that not only is God worth talking to, but God thinks we're worth listening to. The real miracle isn't whether God answers this or that prayer; the true miracle is that He listens at all.

 

I agree with Grey completely on that.

/me checks thermostat in Hell

Prayer isn't (and shouldn't) be about asking God to give you special treatment, or dealing with the problems of the moment in a manifest way. It should be (IMO) about observing one's faith, praising one's deity, and possibly seeking strength or reassurance in the act of doing these things.

It's not a purchase order or request for services message sent to God. God ain't Santa Claus, interceding on demand. If He has a plan, He'll smite, assist or reward as that plan dictates. Instead, just be the best human you can be. Let God handle the planning stuff. He's had a bit more practice than you.

If prayer can give one comfort, happiness, hope and strength to face life's trials or rejoice at its blessings, surely that is sufficient to ask for and reason enough to do it. To me, that is the essence of the miracle of faith - the ability to find in oneself those things which may already have been there as they are needed.

I'm sorry too, NOG, but I think it's for entirely different reasons.

 

Here is what I think Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor (who is kind of a jerk-ass) would have to say on God handing out miracles:

 

Allow me to ruin whatever goodwill remains by noting my amusement that everyone is so shocked, shocked at NOG's tactless bashing of Muslim and Catholic prayers. Given that the whole POINT of this thread is to undermine the idea that any prayer works (except as a psychological trick), I find it ironic that it's fine to say that ALL prayers are a joke, but not fine to say that only SOME prayers don't work.

 

Grey, it is the bashing of Muslims and Catholics that I find offensive. the idea that if you don't agree with my religion of course your prayers won't work.

Your above post on prayer was excellent.

 

No, Grey - I think you're missing the point. Praise is not a base recognition of the facts. Telling an ugly woman that she's ugly isn't praise, it's a recognition of fact. So is booing at a bad stage performance or crappy ball player. Praise is a form of positive reinforcement, and therefore, payment. Woman don't spend hours putting on makeup because the recognition of facts gives them the vapors. Here - look it up as you seem to be confused on the definition of "praise."

And we're not discussing the everyday basic prayer - which you're correct about. We're discussing praying for yourself or someone else so that God makes something happen; be it a little push or make the impossible possible. So when a loving family member in their prayer says "please god, please make Uncle Jim's heart condition go away," or when a Priest says "please God, please bless and sanctify this sacrament," or when Sharon Stone says "please God, please let Basic Instinct 2 jumpstart my dead as hell career," the person is, in fact, asking for something from God and offering faith and praise in return. Even when they say "forgive us our trespasses" - still asking for his favor. So like it or not, recognizing God's greatness is, by definition, exaltation, which is positive reinforcement (as you want his continued favor), which is a form of payment. I don't think God would answer prayers that started off with "Hey, God - you big douchebag - please cure uncle Jim's heart condition. Amen." The praise is an essential part of the equation.

 

I remain nonplussed.

So on the one hand we have people who think this study shows that God does not answer prayer, either because He doesn't exist or because He doesn't care or because He doesn't dare get involved without infringing on free will. Or maybe prayer works but only because it has psychological effects, even though there's not really anyone listening.

On the other hand we have some like DR and dmc who embrace the opposite, saying that if this theoretical God WERE to grant these requests, that would be reason enough to reject Him. It would be difficult to "respect" this kind of "celestial actuary".

And on the third hand we have some like Nakia (thanks for your kind words about my first post!) who agree prayers work but disagree that prayers can or should be qualitatively distinguished. To be fair, one prayer should be as good as another.

My first reaction is, "Darned if we do, darned if we don't." My second reaction is, if (and that's a big if) there is a God Who answers prayer -- and I mean answers, personally and individually, not automatically acting by some divine reflex -- then it is not inherently bashing to suggest that God might distinguish between those praying to Him.

So let's see. We have on one side those dismissing millennia of religious tradition and instead laying out personally-tailored requirements about how God will have to answer or not answer prayer before one can be "interested" or show "respect" or allow that God is correctly observing one's "free will" or sense of fairness. And on the other we have the idea that maybe this God has the right to determine for Himself which prayers He will answer and how He will answer them, and that the impossibly contradictory standards we're imposing on Him are irrelevant to the eternally consistent standards He's imposing on us.

Hence why I remain nonplussed.

-----------

And DR:

You are right. I don't mean mere basic recognition of fact; what I should've said was, basic recognition of goodness. That applies to sports teams (great play!), theatre productions (encore! encore!), and, yes, even beautiful women. Regardless, praise is still the natural, proper response to that basic recognition of goodness (whether defined by beauty, success, or whatever).

To say nice things about someone without sincerity is flattery, and it kinda by definition doesn't work with a God Who is supposed to be all-knowing. So observing the formalities in prayer by saying nice things one doesn't mean is counterproductive. Far better to say, "Lord, I'm mad as heck right now, especially at You, for ruining my life.", etc., etc.

Prayer is an honest conversation with God, not a pay-for-praise swap. God doesn't need our praise any more than the Grand Canyon needs picturetakers to be majestic.

(Throwaway joke: What's the difference between gossip and flattery? Gossip is saying something behind someone's back that you wouldn't say to their face. Flattery is saying something to someone's face that you wouldn't say behind their back.)

 

Then you can be "plussed" on perhaps the one and only fact that can be universally agreed upon regarding God - that the idea of God means different things to different people. None of us are right, and none of us are wrong; because at the end of the day it's the faith and the personal interpretation that matters, not the semantics.

Ah, but God does need our faith in him to exist. If everyone on Earth up and decided one day "poof - God does not exist," then He wouldn't. So while it may not always be about "pay-for-praise," it's certainly about "pay-for-faith." If you don't believe in God, then he can't possibly answer your prayers because he doesn't exist, and therefore prayer would have no meaning to anyone. One might as well pray to Harry Potter if that's the case - you'd get the same results.

[ April 07, 2006, 06:46: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Now I am confused. It is 1AM here. I'm waiting for something to download and all kinds of thoughts are going through my head.

One of my favorite and upsetting sayings to others is "we create our own gods." Weird to see someone else infer the same thing.

However I believe there is a Supreme Being, The Creator. For the sake of simplicity I call this Being God, with a capital G. I did not create him/her/it. God exists before anything else and everything that exists comes from God. God doesn't need me or my praise to exist. My cats probably understand me better than I will ever understand God.

I do have some qualification to speak regarding religion at least to some degree. I was a member of an Episcopal Religious Order for 13 years. We studied theology maybe not to the depth of a priest but it was required. We studied the Bible, the whole thing, Old and New Testaments.

Hokay, it was Anglo-Catholic(pretty much RC without the Pope) and not protestant so based on posts throughtout the board some of you will pooh-pooh it.

Maybe Anglo-Catholics are more tolerant than other sects but no where and at no time was I ever taught that the only way to get to Heaven and avoid hell was to be an Anglo-Catholic or for that matter some sort of Christian. "In my Father's house are many rooms".

"I know not where it leads, I only know I walk the King's Highway."

Good night all. "God bless us, each and everyone."

 

I'm not saying that miracles don't happen - there's far too much we don't know about the way things work to claim to understand the happenings of everything in this universe. However, this much I am certain of:

(1) It's somewhat pointless to attempt to test an otherwise unobservable phenomenon with a scientific method.
(2) Without knowing the precise method for this experiment, I fail to see how all other variables can be controlled, such that the effects of prayer can be isolated.
(3) Let people do what gives them peace of mind and hope for the future in their private lives - it's not harming anybody else, and the world is bleak enough without continuing with the BS and false contests.

As the remains of a computer that collided with God said in Futurama... "when you do things right, people won't know you've done anything at all." (my emphasis)

Going off-topic a bit...

Hang on a sec, DR - since we can't prove or disprove the existence of God, how can you say something like that with such certainty?

If there is a God, it presupposes that He was kicking around long before humans were. That kinda shoots the "He needs the faithful to exist" idea. Maybe the concept of the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God requires the existence of the faithful, but if God exists, he's hardly in need of admirers to exist or be omnipotent.

EDIT: Lousy oversight...

[ April 07, 2006, 08:43: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

I'm not certain, Non-Seq - that's the thing. It's merely a counterpoint to the idea that God needs nothing from us. I think, in many ways, God needs us more than we need him.

So according to what I said - that if everyone on Earth up and decided one not to believe in God, or even that religion didn't exist and it had never occured to anyone in the history of the Earth that God existed, would God still exist? If you believe God created the universe and us along with it, then yes, he would exist regardless of the presence of faith. If you believe God was created by man and man's innate need to believe in a higher power, then no, he wouldn't exist in the absence of faith. I'm in the dmc camp - where I'm not sure what to believe about the specifics of God's existance. But I do believe in God, and that's generally good enough for me.

So that statement was probably a logical fallacy, I admit. After all, you could have a twin brother that I didn't know existed, and yet he would still exist. I suppose what I was trying to say was, without our faith in Him, God has no power, and therefore, no meaning. Which means he needs our faith as much as we need to believe he's there.

Then again, I may be in Nakia's state of mind...where it's the wee hours and I may be making less and less sense...but I guess that remains to be seen tomorrow when I re-read all this.

 

[Edit]Bah! DR: How dare you post while I was typing, and clarify what you said!?

That certainly is an interesting concept. So, God created the world and all life on it. BUt, God cannot exist without belief. Which means either (1) there was someone/something around before the world and us was created, believing in God; or (2) Humans created God then dictated what had happened in the past, before their existance, to fit in with the fact that God MUST have created everything. Or (3) because of the faith that will exist in the future, God was able to come into existance to create the world before any faith actaully existed.


[Edit]Now that DR ruined that point by beating me to my post, I should probably address the topic at hand

Prays, in my belief, do do good. The purpose of praying is to foster hope in humans. And hope is a powerful tool in healing. But, it can work the opposite way. If people think 'Oh, God will help me get better if that is what he has planned, nothing I can do about it but pray' then we most likely see almost the opposite happening.

There is no powerful divine entity out there healing us as we pray. What does happen is that we believe, through pray, that we can be healed and as a result are more likely too. Of course, there are other ways to do it without believing in religion, possibly more successful ways as it doesn't require relying on anyone's assistance, in a manner of speaking.

[Edit Mark II]*looks up at his post* Wow, that's horribly written... prehaps it's time to go back to bed..

[ April 07, 2006, 08:04: Message edited by: Rotku ]

 

First I will address this as science based thinker. I am a Registered Nurse in an ICU. We take care of all different kinds of patients. I didn't see anything in this article that addressed how they medically profiled thses pts. Some patients history automatically make them at a higher risk for post operative complications. I assume that they somehow looked at this before grouping patients, but if they didn't that would seriously slant the results. Then there is the psychological aspect, did the patients that knew they were being prayed for plan on that prayer doing more for them and make them not as complient with the treatments prescribed by the doctor, this too would slant the results. Enough about the science.

We need a foundation to start with. I was brought up as a Baptist, and that the Bible was literally "God Breathed", or that God used man to write down his message. In other words, the bible is filled with God's actual words. Next I was taught that God has preserved His word for us in the Bilble that we have today; and therefore everything in the Bible is God's word, and it is filled with instructions for "believers". Believers are those that believe that Jesus Christ was God's Son, born of the vrigin Mary, and that He came down from heaven in the form of a human baby that grew up with the purpose of dying on the cross for all sinners. Sinners are all men and women, because sin was passed on to each and everyone of us from Adam (ultimately)when we are concieved. Baptists believe that Jesus died for them, as the ultimate sacrifice, to replace the sacrifice of spotless lambs. Jesus is the ultimate spotless "lamb" because though was born as a man, he did not have sin "imputed" (passed on) because of the imaculate conception (essetially "without sex"), and that he lived a completely sinlless life. Because he was a man without sin, he was the ultimate "lamb" and was scrificed on the cross. Then on the third day he arose (of his own power came back to life) demonstrating his power over death, because the bible says that death is the ultimate result of sin.

Now that I have established a base, I will put forth my statemants on this matter. Prayer to the "believer" is not an option because Jesus told believers to pray, and he even taught them how as is previously brought up in this thread. Baptists believe that prayer is a duty and privilage. God tells "believers" to bring all things to him in prayer.

Now as for the outcome of God answering prayer let us consider Jesus, God's only son, and His prayer. The bible says that Jesus prayed before He was taken to Pilate and ultimately to the cross. In these prayers Jesus prayed "Oh my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt"(MATTHEW 26:39b) Well the cup didn't pass, and Jesus was arrested and taken to the cross. God says to take your problems to him, but doesn't say that he will do whatever you want.

Now, on to free will. Baptists believe that God has given man free will. But it doesn't end there. He tells what the consequnces of sin are. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 3:23).

Now for the disclaimers. When I say Baptist I refer to churches/religions that would be aligned with groups like the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. I know that some may jump on and say that they don't believe as I do. I am aware of that, and that is why I placed such a huge post to clarify the foundation of my beliefs. If you don't start with believing that same as I do, this won't be much of an arguement.

 

Ah, I see. I'd probably switch the positions of "meaning" and "power", but otherwise I agree with you. And Voltaire (IIRC, "if God created man in his own image, certainly we have amply returned the favour"). And I have the advantage of it being mid-afternoon down here in Australia.

 

Ah, I'm breifly on a par with Voltaire. I can sleep happy. So on that note...

[ Zonk. ]

 

Ok, I'm sorry I offended so many people, but let me explain my reasoning.
I, as a baptist, believe that my God is the only God, that the muslims and buhddists(sp) and such don't worship the same God I do, and that (Roman) Catholocism has turned more into idol worship than worship of God. Therefore, if I believe that My God is the only real God and that others pray to other (and thus false) gods, then I must conclude that their prayers don't work.
It's kind of like if I believe I'm shopping for groceries at the grocerie store and they're shopping for them at the clothing store. I'll get what I need and they simply won't.

As for the meaning and value of prayer, Grey is dead on. Prayer is about a relationship with God, not getting what you want.

@DeathRabbit

Here you couldn't be more wrong. It isn't just about having faith, it's about having faith in the right God. If you're praying to mushrooms to save you, you're faith isn't worth the mushrooms you're praying to. The fact is, either some of us are right and the rest are wrong, or all of us are wrong and none of us are right. God may mean different things to different people, but I guarentee that He only means Himself to Him, and that is what He has taught us.

 

Unless God isn't picky about how specifically he is worshipped or what specifically he is called.

By your definition of God, yes, that's true, but it doesn't logically follow if one doesn't agree with your definition of God.

 

{emphasis mine}

I can't possibly believe in such a narrow-minded Suprem Being, entirely aside from the fact that it goes wildly astray from the idea of God as infinite.

To each his own!