Or, as Norman Vincent Peale called it, Positive Thinking. :dubious:
A bunch of things:
I love that little quote from the arch-pragmatist for two reasons:
-
Being a follower of Jesus is all well and good, but when the rubber hits the road (usually immediately after sex in the back seat of the car ;)), one is obliged to, in James’s words, be doers of the Word and not hearers only. In other words, sometimes how God wants His Will to be done is for somebody who’s glibly claimed to be His follower to get off his Equus asinus and get to work doing it.
-
To make us causes. I babysat some kids once during a heat wave, whose parents were fairly authoritarian in their child-rearing processes. I knew full well that they wanted to go to the beach, and that I was authorized to take them there; they knew from past occasions that I was able and willing to take them there. But I waited until they asked to go, rather than telling them we were going. Either way would have made them happy, but the second gave them a small but precious gift: it made going to the beach their choice. God’s intent may well be to do X anyway, but if he does X after A.B. has prayed to him to do X, he has in fact answered A.B.'s prayer.
Secondly, there is more of a relationship between Christian prayer and pagan magick than either side, much less the atheists here, would be willing to admit. In both cases, the external view is that of people using ritual and verbal modes to attempt to manipulate the physical world by appeal to the supernatural. In point of fact, though, what goes on internally in the pray-er or Work-er is an effort to conform one’s own will to something exterior to oneself: God’s will on the one hand, the “spiritual shape” of nature on the other.
Finally, there are some practical interior reasons for prayer that have significance:
- As just noted, prayer as the reshaping of the individual. Jesus’s prayer in Gethsemane, “Lord, if it be possible, take this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will but thine be done” is the archetype for this perspective. Christians are acutely aware of how far they fall short of perfection, and accustomed to use this means to work on it.
- Prayer that is answered then and there. In my experience, though, this does not happen in the form, “Hey, Poly? God here. You asked blah, blah, blah. Well, it’s My will that blah, blah. See you Sunday at the bread and wine tasting party?” Rather, what happens when prayer gets direct real-time answer is an internal conviction of what is appropriate. And this has an interesting explanation: There’s a bit of non-religious wisdom that I enjoy the quirkiness of: “When you have to make a decision and the value of the two choices appears about equal, flip a coin. Don’t necessarily go by the results of the coin toss. But when that coin is in the air, and the decision has been taken from you and assigned to chance, you’ll know which result you want to come up. Go do that choice.” There’s often an interior sense, once you’ve poured out a concern to God in prayer, of what it is you should do that accords with His will.
- The therapeutic element of prayer. Why are psychotherapists and counselors so prevalent? It’s rare that they can actually take action to solve the person’s problem. But what they do do, is furnish a sympathetic ear. And sometimes, half the problem is not having anyone to share it with, who will listen and not judge.
- The other half of the therapeutic element ties into what’s already been noted. Ever see a scene where someone is deathly ill or critically injured, and someone else who loves the patient says, “Doctor, do everything you can!” Objectively, that’s a bit of an insult to the doctor, who could come back with, “If you hadn’t asked me to do that, do you think I was planning to sit back with a good book and let him/her die?” But in point of fact, they know that when something which matters deeply to you is out of your hands, asking for the help you’ll get anyway has the therapeutic element of allowing you to at least do something to help solve the problem.
- Prayer as spiritual therapy. The egotist needs to realize that God and not he is in charge of the universe. The self-condemnatory needs to realize that he is a valuable enough person to have direct access to the Lord of all. God doesn’t need to hear prayer. Rather, He commands it because he knows that it’s good for us.
So you already know what I want and what I intend? You can read my mind and my intentions? Then why bother coming on this thread at all? Why not just read my mind from the comfort of your armchair. 
You sure know a lot about my intentions, Oakminster!
According to you, I am “attacking” theists by pointing out that prayer has been shown not to work in this study?
By your reasoning, if I I see someone waiting at a bus stop and I know that buses no longer stop there, and I tell him there is no point waiting for a bus , then I am attacking him?
Oakminster and Valteron, the personal motivations of posters are not a topic in this thread. Just address whatever issues of fact or logic you believe are pertinent to the topic of the OP and leave the personal remarks for the BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, this is fascinating! Valteron, who has been so ready to assign motive to every theist that he’s claimed affinity to the one person in these threads who was prepared to argue against gay marriage, is now taking umbrage that other people are reading his intent into his argumentation. Valteron, to you I say that you need to read three verses from Scripture, which have nothing to do with the issue of prayer, specifically the first, second, and 12th verses of the 7th chapter of the Gospel According to St. Matthew.
You attacked theists with your provovative thread title. You’ve made no effort to discuss the merits or lack thereof of the study, or even responded to the rather obvious criticism I posted last night. It cost a lot of money, and you seem to think it somehow supports the atheist jihad.
You misinterpeted the study. It has arguably demonstrated that the prayers designed by the researchers were ineffective, but that’s about it. The study made no effort to determine whether one type of prayer was better than another type, whether gods exist, which faith (if any) is correct, etc.
Your analogy fails because it is not possible for you to know whether the bus/god exists or not.
Pistols at dawn, you moderator-meanie dude.
Or, um…ok. Sorry boss.
Blaster, you remind me of those people who make claims of paranormal powers and agree to be tested by groups like CSICOP or the James Randi Foundation or other scientific bullshit-busters.
It is hilarious to see all the escape clauses they come up with to squirm out of it.
One “dowser” who claimed to be able to find gold and was proven not to have that power under strict scientific testing started saying that the “gold” on the lettering on the encyclopedia on the bookshelves was distracting him. There is not a milligram of gold in that “gold” lettering.
Now we are being told by you that “. . the moment (there is) any enforcement on the form of the prayer, it directly affects its quality.”
In fact, the three faith communities were left free to pray as they wished. The specific formula about recovery was the only thing they were asked to add. Nor is there any record of any of the three faith communities complaining that the requirements of the experiement had hampered their prayers.
This prayer formula and the length of prayer time were just ways of ensuring consistency in the experimental method.
So you have a real Catch-22 going here, don’t you? If the experiment imposes some standards of consistency, then you fault the results because there was “enforcement”.
On the other hand, if there had not been such standards of consistency enforced, you could always argue that the different prayers and length of prayer time make the whole experiment inconclusive.
I am pretty sure, however, that if the experiment had shown even a slight improvement in the prayed-for group, you and others would be warmly embracing its conclusions with little reservation.
How do I know that? Because a much less complete and setriously flawed study was published in 1998 by Randolph C. Byrd as “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population” in the Southern Medical Journal.
I recall the media picking up that story about how prayer had been scientifically “proven to work”. I remember letters to the editor from theists supporting the study, glowing praise for the study from pulpits and in religious publications.
But when a 10-year, $2.4 million study finds no such effect, then all of a sudden the methodology is all wrong, isn’t it?
Boy, and I thought I was the wordy one! But you still have not shown me an iota of evidence that prayer works.
I think we should ask K’bird about this one. His answers are always a blast to read.
There is a group of gay Christians (an oxymoron, but I digress) in my city who prayed for weeks before the most recent vote in the Canadian Parliament on same-sex marriage. They were praying that SS marriage would be approved anew, and with an increased majority.
In fact, just before Christmas, pro-gay-marriage MPs won with something like 175 to 125 (numbers may not be exactly right, but close), an even larger majority than the first time.
So, are we to assume that God heard the prayers of his little faggot children and somehow affected the outcome? What about all the anti-gay Christians (including the Catholic Church in Canada) who were praying that SS marriage would be defeated. Surely their numbers were larger? Surely their faith is as strong?
Is it possible that the same God who said, as K’Bird kindly explained, that gays should be murdered, in the Old Testament, now wants them to settle down to married life and even adopt kids (which gay couples do in Canada). Is Jehovah getting liberal in his old age?
In fact, you need to learn more about this study you don’t understand. Start with the article I linked in Post #7. The parts I quoted debunk your position.
I completely agree with this, and I am (very) lapsed Christian. To me, prayer was never about a laundry list of “things” or events I wanted God to intercede on, instead it was a way for me to figure out what I should be doing or saying or the way I should be approaching a problem/experience.
I am not surprised at all that intercessionary prayer was found to be essentially null and void. What needs to be looked at is the effect that prayer had–not on the patients at those 6 hospitals, but the people who did the praying. They might have come away from the experience with changed hearts re sickness, hospital visitation, health habits of their own etc. That would be the answered prayers, IMO.
So to go with the logic contained in your statement, ITR, we must suppose that no Hindu has ever gotten comfort from praying to the Hindu Gods. Either that or the Hindu Gods exist.
Similarly, no ancient Roman or Greek ever gained comfort by praying to the Roman and Greek gods for help. Because if they did obtain comfort, then those gods also really existed.
Obviously non-existent beinghs cannot offer comfort. But is it not possible for a person to derive comfort from praying to such a being in the belief that they do exist?
Valteron, I am a follower of Christ. Not a particularly good one, but a follower just the same. I don’t go in for fag bashing or denying people rights or shouting about hellfire.
You disagree with me in regards to religion. But as a follower of the teaching of Jesus, I will say this… I love you. I am also no arrogant enough to think the concept of loving someone unconditionally is the sole domain of those who follow Christ. I believe you are just as capable of love as I am.
All of that said, I am going to pray for you. I pray that you will have abundant love in your life. I pray you know justice, and that to the best of your ability, you live a just life. I pray that you are happy. I pray that you are able to positively impact the people you touch in your life, from your mate to the bagger at the grocery store to the guy who picks the coffee beans that end up in your cup tomorrow morning.
Maybe you will consider this prayer of no value, of no worth. Perhaps it is useless.
Wouldn’t you call entreaties against that prayer worthless as well? Isn’t railing against prayer just as value-less?
Maybe you will get to someone and they will give up prayer. Wouldn’t your energies be better utilized helping a young mother pay her oil bill so she has heat? Or maybe volunteering at the local SPCA?
I am annoyed by Christianists who espouse Christ in word only. I believe we all have a responsibility to make this life better for our fellow man, but so many Christians feel like they are punching their Jesus card if they oppose gay marriage and abortion.
Not being a follower of Christ does not get you off the hook for serving your brothers and sisters. Message board theses attempting to debunk prayer are as worthless as you claim prayer to be.
So does beer.
Pardon my snippiness, but that’s exactly what I did do. What I did not do, you’re entirely correct in implying, is show that the very restricted meaning of prayer that you assigned, of asking God for specific results that can be objectively measured, “works.” But, and forgive me for bringing your sexuality into this, that’s like someone saying that there’s nothing wrong with you loving your lifemate (meaning in a platonic, asexual best-friends sort of way) but that for you to desire him or worse have sex with him is sinful. Quite simply, they’re redefining “love” to a restricted meaning to suit themselves and their argument – just as you’re redefining “prayer.” People were teaching prayer as capable of being sorted into adoration, contrition, thanksgiving, petition, or intercession centuries before either of us were born, just as they were sorting love into agapetic, filial, philadelphic, and erotic long before the “love him like a buddy” clowns were born.
Thats very nice but it doesn’t show any iota that prayer works.
Three hundred years ago, people like me would have been put to death by Christian society for being an atheist and for being gay. So if a gay atheist like myself can now not only NOT get killed but get more people to think logically and not believe in fairy tales, then I consider that a great improvement. Don’t you?
In fact, I have had an influence in helping others turn from the superstition that is religion and learn to think for themselves. Among these are my nephews and neice. I cannot claim ALL the credit, but if those three kids today reject religion, their uncle Valteron played a big role in opening their eyes.
I consider that a kindness, don’t you? If I can get someone to reject the brainwashing of religion and think as a free man or woman, I consider I have done an act of charity.
Why would you need to pray for me? I am happy, I enjoy life. Without needing to believe in God. But if you want to waste your time, knock yourself out!
And where the Hell do you get off preaching to me about how I should help those less fortunate? What makes you think I don’t already do more than you do? In fact I do very little volunteer work. This is because my time is worth about $60 an hour. It makes much more sense for me to earn money working and donate generously to good causes like the SPCA, the local shelter for the homeless, the hospice for AIDS sufferers, the atheist and humanist associations, and others working for the betterment of humanity.
But to homophobic organizations like the Catholic Church or the Salvation Army, I give the middle digit.
Frankly, a nice cheque for a few hundred to the local shelter does good, and I know it does. Much more good than wearing out my knees praying to a non-existent sky fairy.
I have a feeling you do not have a very broad idea of what it means to be a Christian. If you feel like it, start a thread about whether gays can be christians…