Question about prayer

[CheeseNrice]

I have a question regarding prayer and "answers" supposedly from god. An example that brings about such questions are in relation to that mining disaster where so many of those miners were trapped and died.

I remember so many people gathering together at the churches and praying for the miners to be alive. Then, when they were told that all of the miners were alive, they all cheered and rejoiced proclaiming that "god answered our prayers." Now, hours later, when they found out that the miners were actually dead, how do they explain this?

Did god give them the "wrong answer"?

Did god give the same exact answer to all of those people who prayed? You mean to tell me that there was not one person there (even out of the clergy) who got the message from god that sorry, no, the miners were not alive and not coming home? Why did so many people get the wrong answer?

Did the people misinterpret what god's answer was? (in which case, it doesn't seem like prayer is of much use if you can't even reliably interpret the answer).

Did people really not get any answer at all from god, but were just deceiving themselves believing that god gave them an answer (which was wrong)?

[Fallibleone]

I wouldn't necessarily see this as being about answers from God and him giving the wrong ones, but more a question of whether God took any notice of their prayers.

I've seen it said that 'God always answers prayers, but sometimes he says 'no'', and this has always seemed to me to be a rather strange way of looking at it. How can one know, in that case, that he answers all of them, when 'no' looks like 'I'm not in'?

I guess I am wonering whether these families went from believing that God changed the pre-determined life course of those miners because they intervened, to thinking (when they found out that they were dead) that God had heard them but said 'no', or whether they thought that he hadn't heard them at all.

[McCulloch]

God did nothing, as he always does.

[jmac2112]

Good questions. And as always, if non-theists are looking for an answer in terms of science, none will be forthcoming. I can only give you the answer of a believer, if you can bear with me. As the father of two small children, I can't count the number of times that the wee tykes have melted into little puddles of tearful despair when their otherwise reasonable requests were denied because they conflicted with my larger vision of what was good for them. I hate to seem as though I am belittling the pain of those who suffer real, adult grief at the loss of a loved one, but I really do believe that in the end, we will see the larger picture. And I really do believe that we in this life are in the exact same position as little children who are constitutionally incapable of understanding the larger picture.

As to the question of how one would distinguish "No" from "Gone Fishing--Back at the End of the Age", well....you can't in any sort of direct way. But in Christian belief, the reason that God does not just reveal Himself immediately to our minds or senses, or give unmistakeable tokens of his providence for us, is that this life is a test. There is not one of us on this message board who has not made a decision for or against God (in varying degrees), and we have adopted our further beliefs based on that decision. We have made this decision in the face of the manifest evil in the world, including our own pain and frustration. There may be some who deny that, but I think they are kidding themselves if they think their decision is purely intellectual and theoretical, and that they are not looking for an explanation for why life has to be such a damn nuisance (said the father of the two small children, lovingly).

Those who adopt a materialist/physicalist/atheistic approach have found a way that, once the basic premises are accepted, is absolutely airtight in its logic and power to explain. G.K. Chesterton (a former agnostic himself) compares this way of thinking to that of a lunatic who thinks that he is Christ: "...it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for so the world denies Christ's." Similarly, of a man who claims to be the rightful King of England, "it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were the King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do." I would add that the atheist is like a conspiracy theorist. Have you ever tried to argue with a conspiracy theorist? There is nothing at all that you can point to that will shake his faith in his theory, because there is nothing that cannot be explained as part of the conspiracy. Chesterton goes on to describe materialists (and lunatics) as being "in the clean and well lit prison of one idea." The theory may explain, and it may be logical; but the man is still a lunatic, and no amount of reasoning will free him from his prison. If he could break out of that prison into sanity, he would live in a much larger and more interesting world, though of course reality is much messier and more confusing than lunacy. Those of us who are sane have many doubts, and don't understand much; lunatics have no doubts, and can explain everything.

I am sure that a non-theist could turn around and say that we are the ones in the prison of lunacy, the ones who cling to the conspiracy theory. I, who think that I am sane, cannot think of a convincing answer to give to such a lunatic. But we theists are definitely the ones without all the answers to everything. Something to think about.

[OnceConvinced]

I would add that the atheist is like a conspiracy theorist.

Well if we apply that logic, then we must look at the Christian (the opposite of an atheist) and deem that they are gullible and will believe every story they're told.

Have you ever tried to argue with a conspiracy theorist? There is nothing at all that you can point to that will shake his faith in his theory, because there is nothing that cannot be explained as part of the conspiracy. Chesterton goes on to describe materialists (and lunatics) as being "in the clean and well lit prison of one idea." The theory may explain, and it may be logical; but the man is still a lunatic, and no amount of reasoning will free him from his prison. If he could break out of that prison into sanity, he would live in a much larger and more interesting world, though of course reality is much messier and more confusing than lunacy. Those of us who are sane have many doubts, and don't understand much; lunatics have no doubts, and can explain everything.

I find it strange that a Christian (I'm assuming you are one) would lack so much faith in their God. You don't think the holy spirit can give the words to say to an atheist to enable them to believe? I would think God (if he existed) would know exactly what words to say to help "break them out of their prison". It seems that neither the holy spirit, nor God are all they are cracked up to be.

I am sure that a non-theist could turn around and say that we are the ones in the prison of lunacy, the ones who cling to the conspiracy theory. I, who think that I am sane, cannot think of a convincing answer to give to such a lunatic. But we theists are definitely the ones without all the answers to everything. Something to think about.

I'm not an atheist, but if I was, I'd take offence at you insinuating that I am a lunatic. However, the fact that you cannot think of a convincing answer to give to such a lunatic, seems to suggest that you have not thought hard enough and the holy spirit is not in you.

[Fallibleone]

Good questions. And as always, if non-theists are looking for an answer in terms of science, none will be forthcoming.

Why not? I know the emphasis so far has been on the 'no' of prayer, but what about the 'yes'? Believers often speak of their prayers having been answered when they can detect a tangible change in their lives for them to attribute to God. If this change is tangible, why on earth would it not be detectable by science?

I can only give you the answer of a believer, if you can bear with me. As the father of two small children, I can't count the number of times that the wee tykes have melted into little puddles of tearful despair when their otherwise reasonable requests were denied because they conflicted with my larger vision of what was good for them. I hate to seem as though I am belittling the pain of those who suffer real, adult grief at the loss of a loved one, but I really do believe that in the end, we will see the larger picture. And I really do believe that we in this life are in the exact same position as little children who are constitutionally incapable of understanding the larger picture.

That's all well and good, but given that we don't know what the bigger picture is, why does any theist even bother to pray? Unlike a child, theists are able to reason that they do not know the bigger picture. Therefore it is entirely reasonable for children to continue to ask things of us as parents which go against what we feel is good for them. For children, it is a simple matter of persuading the parent that what they want they should get. They don't acknowledge a greater plan (their wellbeing). Theists, it seems to me, are acting entirely unreasonably, in acknowledging that we are not aware of God's entire plan, but continuing to request God's intervention as though we can get him to change his mind. So I believe that the parent/child analogy falls down in that respect.

Is this the reaction of someone with great faith in God? If they are aware that God has a larger scheme which they know that they cannot fully comprehend, why do they not trust in him that he will do the correct thing, rather than appeal to him directly? Do theists really believe what they say they believe if all it takes is a time of increased stress or trouble to have them requesting God to change his plan for them?

As to the question of how one would distinguish "No" from "Gone Fishing--Back at the End of the Age", well....you can't in any sort of direct way. But in Christian belief, the reason that God does not just reveal Himself immediately to our minds or senses, or give unmistakeable tokens of his providence for us, is that this life is a test.

Yes, that is the Christian view. The point is, it seems to me, if one cannot tell the difference between 'no' and 'nobody home', why would one choose to see it as 'no'? To me, the concept of a God is superfluous to the equation. The explanation of non-existence is the most simple and the most obvious. I can only guess that it is only when the simplest concept - the possibility of God not being there - is given no acknowledgement whatsoever that the alternative ('no' as an answer) makes any sense. And yet apparently it is non-theists who are 'lunatics' and closed minded.

There is not one of us on this message board who has not made a decision for or against God (in varying degrees), and we have adopted our further beliefs based on that decision.

Christians have made the decision for God. Non-theists, or those who adhere to other religions, have not made decisions against God. To those individuals, the Christian God is not an extant entity against which decisions are to be made. For example as an agnostic atheist, I have never decided against God. Rather I have no reason to believe that God exists. Therefore I have not based further beliefs on the decision against God, but have remained in a state where God has yet to be proven, and where if any evidence comes to the fore I can examine it, changing my stance (there is no evidence to suggest that God is real) accordingly. My state is not, contrary to the opinion of some, fixed.

We have made this decision in the face of the manifest evil in the world, including our own pain and frustration.

'Evil' is a religious term, and has no meaning outside religion. I do not acknowledge that there is manifest 'evil' in the world. There is indeed pain, suffering and frustration.

There may be some who deny that, but I think they are kidding themselves if they think their decision is purely intellectual and theoretical, and that they are not looking for an explanation for why life has to be such a damn nuisance (said the father of the two small children, lovingly).

As has been described above, I argue that those who do not believe in the Christian God have not made a decision against God. Since this decision did not take place, descriprions of its methodology are useless. I personally am not looking for reasons why life has to be such a damn nuisance. It is a distinct possibility that there is no 'why'. This realisation is not very comfortable, but its probability is not lessened by that.

Those who adopt a materialist/physicalist/atheistic approach have found a way that, once the basic premises are accepted, is absolutely airtight in its logic and power to explain. G.K. Chesterton (a former agnostic himself) compares this way of thinking to that of a lunatic who thinks that he is Christ: "...it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for so the world denies Christ's." Similarly, of a man who claims to be the rightful King of England, "it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were the King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do." I would add that the atheist is like a conspiracy theorist. Have you ever tried to argue with a conspiracy theorist? There is nothing at all that you can point to that will shake his faith in his theory, because there is nothing that cannot be explained as part of the conspiracy.

Your depiction of an atheist appears to be one that is alien to an actual atheist (me) and does not describe the vast majority of atheists I know. It is a common argument of some Christians that 'no evidence would be good enough' for atheists. It is often used on this site. In my opinion, this is a smoke screen employed to obscure the reality, which is that no one on the planet has so far been able to offer even a tiny shred of evidence for the existence of God. Show me clear evidence of God, and I will accept it.

Chesterton goes on to describe materialists (and lunatics) as being "in the clean and well lit prison of one idea." The theory may explain, and it may be logical; but the man is still a lunatic, and no amount of reasoning will free him from his prison. If he could break out of that prison into sanity, he would live in a much larger and more interesting world, though of course reality is much messier and more confusing than lunacy. Those of us who are sane have many doubts, and don't understand much; lunatics have no doubts, and can explain everything.

Again, your description of atheists appears to be a caricature, rather than an accurate description of the 'atheist position'. This may be because atheists are not a big lump of identically-thinking people, but rather individuals who happen to share a disbelief in God or gods. Therefore you will have some who, for reason which I believe are based in earlier experiences, are frightened or unsettled by the idea of change. Others are not, and would accept evidence gladly, being on a kind of quest to get nearer to truth, wherever it may lead. I will trade your G.K. Chesterton for my Carl R. Rogers, because he describes better my position than your antagonistic quotations - '...the facts are always friendly. Every bit of evidence one can acquire, in any area, leads one that much closer to what is true. And being closer to the truth can never be a harmful or dangerous or unsatisfying thing.'

I am sure that a non-theist could turn around and say that we are the ones in the prison of lunacy, the ones who cling to the conspiracy theory. I, who think that I am sane, cannot think of a convincing answer to give to such a lunatic.

That is probably because you have classified all those who disagree with you as lunatics, who are notoriously difficult to reason with. Another reason why you cannot think of a convincing answer to give is perhaps that Christianity is the perfect symptom of lunacy as you describe it - requiring fixed belief, closed to change, where no amount of objective evidence of how the world works will penetrate.

I am often truly puzzled by the admission that one cannot think of convincing answers or arguments for others, and yet one is seemingly happy to take an apparently inexplicable belief to ones own breast. Furthermore, if one cannot give a convincing answer to others, why should those others give the belief their time?

But we theists are definitely the ones without all the answers to everything. Something to think about.

Do you agree that the simplest and most obvious answer, all being equal, to whether God answers 'no' or is just not there, is that he is just not there?

Here's something else to think about:

'...evaluation by others is not a guide for me. The judgements of others, while they are to be listened to, and taken into account for what they are, can never be a guide for me...I have come to feel that only one person (at least in my lifetime, and perhaps ever) can know whether what I am doing is honest, thorugh, open, and sound, or false and defensive and unsound, and I am that person.' - Carl Rogers.

[RyanP]

Trillions and trillions of prayers every day asking and begging and pleading for favors. 'Do this' 'Gimme that' 'I want a new car' 'I want a better job'. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday. And I say fine, pray for anything you want. Pray for anything.

But...what about the divine plan? Remember that? The divine plan. Long time ago god made a divine plan. Gave it a lot of thought. Decided it was a good plan. Put it into practice. And for billion and billions of years the divine plan has been doing just fine. Now you come along and pray for something. Well, suppose the thing you want isn't in god's divine plan. What do you want him to do? Change his plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a divine plan. What's the use of being god if every run-down schmuck with a two dollar prayer book can come along and f*** up your plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have; suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? 'Well it's god's will. God's will be done.' Fine, but if it gods will and he's going to do whatever he wants to anyway; why the f*** bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me. Couldn't you just skip the praying part and get right to his will?

[RyanP]

I would add that the atheist is like a conspiracy theorist. Have you ever tried to argue with a conspiracy theorist? There is nothing at all that you can point to that will shake his faith in his theory, because there is nothing that cannot be explained as part of the conspiracy.

Very good point.

[Fallibleone]

I would add that the atheist is like a conspiracy theorist. Have you ever tried to argue with a conspiracy theorist? There is nothing at all that you can point to that will shake his faith in his theory, because there is nothing that cannot be explained as part of the conspiracy.

Very good point.

How exactly is it a 'very good point'? Did you miss the part where I explained how different atheists have different views on acceptance of evidence because atheists can be different in any and all other ways except that of disbelief in God? If not, how can you call this a 'good point' when it has been shown to be an inaccurate description?

[Zzyzx]

.

I would add that the atheist is like a conspiracy theorist. Have you ever tried to argue with a conspiracy theorist? There is nothing at all that you can point to that will shake his faith in his theory, because there is nothing that cannot be explained as part of the conspiracy.

Very good point.

Another very good point is that conspiracies CAN exist, in which case the theorist is correct, and being unshaken in the theory is valid.

As one who often differs with "official explanations", I might be considered a Conspiracy Theorist – and as such can address the issue of whether one such person is willing to accept valid explanations based upon evidence. I will consider very carefully any evidence that is presented and WILL alter my thinking to reflect truth as best I can determine – regardless of where that may lead.

Perhaps a theistic theorist can understand being unshaken in beliefs regardless of opposing evidence. The theistic theorist might also be correct IF their god theories are true.