blowero, one purpose of prayer I’ve been taught is “to incline our hearts and minds to God”. That sounds to me like changing one’s state of mind. Then again, it’s early and I haven’t had a cup of tea yet.
CJ
If you accept the idea of a powerful God who is able to hear and respond to the prayers of His worshippers, then clearly prayer CAN be effective in changing external events.
Prayers can be answered in many different ways - changing your state of mind could be one of them…
Grim
Yes … with a human being. But we’re talking about omniscience here. Shouldn’t that all be assumed with someone or something that is omniscient (the point to the OP, I believe).
I suppose all of our concepts of God are going to be limited, not to mention expressed in very abbreviated shorthand. Having said that, I think prayer makes a lot more sense if you quit using the limited concept of God as SuperPerson: a God-Entity who has thoughts, opinions, attitudes, and the rest of what you’d call a state of mind on Tuesday afternoon, and who mulls things over and reaches conclusions by Tuesday evening.
Western theology has problems with the idea that we are God (sounds blasphemous) and I am no highly studied Christian theologian (I’m as inclined to simply discard a Christian idea that doesn’t fit my personal theology as I am to try to reconcile them), but insofar as Jesus of Nazareth said “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” and also taught us to pray saying “OUR Father who art in heaven…”, I suggest it is not so blasphemous after all: God is a lot more than merely us, but God is in us and we are in God. Therefore the “seeking a state of mind” aspect of prayer is not separate from the “communicating with God” part – prayer is the act of getting in touch with God, of whom you are a part, and who resides within you. (God also resides external to you, but that’s not the avenue through which you communicate with God).
Surely it can only be assumed if both parties are omniscient?
Um, so in conclusion from this thread I’ve learnt: God actually never answers prayer, he just does what is right for people , and therefore prayer is just a tool to make us feel better. Does that sum it up?
Well, get back to me after you have your tea, because I believe we are in agreement, and other than that, I’m not sure what your point was.
That sounds like a truism. Isn’t it just another way of saying: “If it is true that God answers prayers, then it follows that God answers prayers”?
Not to get too sidetracked, but I don’t just “accept” things without evidence. But of course, I’m not suggesting that everyone has to agree with me. As an atheist, it’s my opinion that the only real effect of prayer is to change the state of mind of the person who is praying (or to make a person feel good to the extent that they know they are being prayed for by someone else).
But since it’s quite possible for humans to change their state of mind without outside intervention (by meditation, for example), I see no reason to assume that any assistance from god(s) is required to accomplish it. The object of your thoughts does not necessarily HAVE to exist in order to change your state of mind. Remember when you were young (or if you ARE young, think about now), when you may have thought about the future, and falling in love, and the kind of person you might fall in love with. Remember how it gave you a pleasant feeling of anticipation, even though that person didn’t actually exist? Yes, something that does not actually exist can change your state of mind.
No, I don’t think so. God may not answer your prayers in the sense of altering the course of events and causing you to win the lottery, or recover from your terminal cancer when this would not otherwise have happened. But he may answer your prayers in the sense of speaking to you, of giving you insight, understanding or wisdom, of showing you how to face the problems you have, or simply giving you strength.
“Dear God, please get me a new bicycle” is a fairly immature kind of prayer. It’s the kind of thing a child might say to his or her parent, but it’s not what an adult would say to a parent. Adults don’t expect their parents to give them new bicycles. In adulthood, you find a new way of speaking to your parents. It’s the same with prayer.
Whether or not prayers anwered by ‘natural’ means are actually answered is entirely arbitrary though. If a child prays for a new bicycle, what criteria should we impose in considering that God (assuming for the moment that we believe he is real)had a hand in answering? - should the bicycle have to materialise out of thin air? - should the parents feel strangely and inexplicably moved to buy it secretly? or can it not also be valid (even if only from the limited, naive view of the child) that the parents knew the child wanted one and bought it because of that?
Neither do I “just accept” things - I would guess that my definition of acceptable evidence would be different from yours, and I freely admit that my evidence is subjective and personal, but it is enough to convince me that there is a God who seems to be concerned for me and the circumstances of my life and who responds when I pray… As an athiest, you will dispute all of that, and that’s OK…
True, but I have also met people who hold such fixed viewpoints that it would take an Act of God to alter them!! 
Quite right - I could fool myself for a little while that everything was going to be fine, but by the time the weekend came around and I was the one sitting at home with cold pizza and reruns, I might find my imaginary lover less than satisfactory in altering my state of mind. My belief in a Creator God is not based on a single experience, but an on-going, developing relationship. Were this relationship to prove unfulfilling (and unresponsive) over a significant period of time, then I would be forced to re-examine it. Thus far, God has been up to the task…
Grim
A little of a tangent, perhaps, but reminds me of a couple of years ago when I unintentionally offended the heck out of my sister-i-law. We were to have Easter dinner at her home. She asked if we wished to attend Easter services at their Lutheran church - her husband was playing trumpet.
What impressed me most about the service (other than its interminable length!) was the lack of any acknowledgement of the here and now. It was all - “Because Christ died and rose, we will live forever! Alleluiah!” But I kept my thoughts to myself out of politeness.
During dinner, she kept asking me how I liked the service. I repeatedly smiled and expressed noncommittal pleasantries along the lines of, “It was nice.” “The music was nice.” “Sure is a beautiful church.” Keep in mind that she is well aware of the fact that her sister, I, and our kids are devout - tho by no means evangelical - humanists/atheists.
In response to the nth such question, I responded with my own question, namely, “Why does your God need to be worshipped?” Seemed to smack a little of insecurity on his part. See, in my mind, it seemed the time, effort, and money represented by that Easter service might be better spent - say - feeding the poor or providing some other social service. Or directed at giving more guidance at how to live your own day-to-day existence. I thought it was a legitimate question, and I asked it honestly with no intention to offend.
Well, she wouldn’t speak to me for over a year. She was incredibly upset that I would mention such thoughts in front of her impressionable 13 year old son.
I still think it a legitimate question. If I were to believe in a God, When selecting among the options I’d choose one that preferred “worship” expressed in socially beneficial deeds and personal growth, instead of group repetition of traditional pageantry.
Just to add one more point. The Hebrew word “to pray” hispallel is a reflexive verb (an action that one does to oneself).
Zev Steinhardt
blowero, I really was missing that cup of tea, apparently. I read this,
, but not the following sentence,
. Please accept my apologies.
Dinsdale, you said,
[quote]
. If I were to believe in a God, When selecting among the options I’d choose one that preferred “worship” expressed in socially beneficial deeds and personal growth, instead of group repetition of traditional pageantry.** Why not both? To me, the socially beneficial deeds and, to a lesser extent, personal growth are an outward expression of my faith as a form of worship. On the other hand, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I’m also quite active in the pageantry part of it, both literally, by helping out with the Christmas pageant, and a bit more figuratively by singing in the choir, reading lessons, etc. I can’t explain this, and it may be considered a bit New Age-y, but there is a definate energy, a definate strength I find in attending church services which is harder to acheive on my own. Yes, the words may be meaningless to some (hence one of my objections to “under God” in the PoA), but there is definately something there. In my religious context, I suppose it’s the Holy Spirit. It is certainly life-sustaining, restoring, and healing, but I can’t explain it in rational, scientific terms.
I don’t do ritual for the sake of ritual or go to church just to socialize (among other things, I’m not all that good at socializing). I go because I experience something there I do not elsewhere and because formal acknowledgement of my relationship with God matters to me. It is not my place to say whether it matters to God. I assume so, but for over a decade I assumed I was ugly. I could be wrong about this, too. On the other hand, unlike the ugliness, this feels right.
Sorry I can’t give you better evidence,
CJ
cj - I did not intend to imply that there is no conceivable legitimate benefit to worship or pageantry. Tho it happens to not be my personal cup of tea. That is why I have relatively little dispute with folk who acknowledge that the religion/philoosophy they practice is the result of a studied examination of what is bast for them personally. I strongly disagree, however, with “one true church”, my-way-or-the-highway type of folk.
At the very least, I thought the topic was worthy of discussion. And I mistakenly interpreted her repeated and insistent inquiries, and her apparent dissatisfaction with my banal pleasantries in response, as representing a desire and capacity for intelligent interchange on a topic I find interesting and important. I was mistaken.
Oh well, that makes one more person with whom I can freely converse at length about the weather. Hot enough for ya?
I know the type - they insist on discussing controversial matters, then get upset when you don’t agree with them.:rolleyes:
Actually, I try to avoid people like that. I’m sort of amused by the amount of talking I do about Christianity on this Board, when two of my closest friends, and the people I have the best conversations about religion (and other topics with) are a pair of Fundamentalists turned atheists turned Wiccans. We very rarely have to resort to talking about the weather! 
I hope we three can continue to discuss religion.
CJ
I haven’t met anyone who can convincingly argue against the first part, but I would point out that making us feel better can be a good thing (though not, of course, automatically a justification of erroneous belief) and if God exists he’s a person too, and thus we could hardly help but take His feelings into account.
In response to Morbid’s quote:
Exodus 8:20
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning and confront Pharaoh as he goes to the water and say to him, 'This is what the Lord says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me.
There are other numerous scriptures about worship, but this one pretty much sums it up, because God said it. Worship should be done not out of duty, but because He is worthy.
Mordib, I’m sorry I spelled you name wrong. I tried to edit my post, but this site won’t let me have access to my post.
Sorry. That sounds like circular logic to me.
The Bible is the one true authority because it says so right in The Bible?