Ask an atheist anything! (seriously, anything)

[Gorgias]

That is your opinion, nothing more.

Not so. It’s a theological question, after all. And so, we look to the proper authorities. In this case… the Church, founded by Jesus. And, guess what? The answer I provided is their own answer! So… no – not just “my opinion”.

Tell that to the zillions of believers, who assert that fulfilled prayers are the sign that God cares for them and helped them in their time of need.

So, if a zillion people are mistaken, that makes their mistake go away? Nice try.

You seem to think that those positive results are just lucky coincidences and have nothing to do with the prayers themselves. Of course I would agree with that conclusion. Are we in agreement?

Sadly, we’re not. The ‘positive results’ are God’s will for the persons. God’s will is also that we are in alignment with His desires for us. So, if our prayers bring us into alignment with God’s will, then yes – the prayers were efficacious. Not by virtue of physical outcomes, mind you, but by virtue of spiritual ones.

No, the study is a repeatable, testable action.

Agreed. And, if its methodology is flawed (as in this type of study), then it’s repeatable, testable noise, not signal. GIGO, right?

Do you think most people aren’t asking for a healing, though? Why are they asking?

They’re hoping it’s God’s will for a healing, maybe?

Believers will point to what they believe are answered intercessory prayers and tout the power of prayer

Yes, some believers will do that. But, they’re treating prayer as a big ol’ slot machine in the sky, and in doing so, they’re misunderstanding and misusing it.

We know God can change.

No; that’s an anthropomorphism used in the Old Testament. I would frame it up differently: Abraham thought that he should start with “50 righteous people”, and came to learn that many fewer sufficed. The story of Job is a didactic tale, meant to discuss the meaning of suffering vis-a-vis God; it uses the narrative device of “God being tempted” in order to tell its story.

So… no; God does not change. That’s a central tenet of our faith.

 

[vz71]

The thing is prayer to have a better relationship with God isn’t mutually exclusive from prayers to have needed things occur.

A prayer of petition will be answered.
However, God will give us what is best for us…not necessarily what we think is best for us.

God knows us infinitely well, and knows is better than we know ourselves. And it is because of this ignorance on our part that prevents us from always perceiving an answer.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

They don’t go anywhere.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

And so, we look to the proper authorities.

Argument from authority? No, thanks.

So, if a zillion people are mistaken, that makes their mistake go away? Nice try.

It is not the number of them, it is their absolute conviction that their prayer was answered in a positive fashion. Of course they could be mistaken, and the positive outcome was merely a lucky coincidence. There is no third possibility. It was either the prayer that “worked”, or it was a lucky coincidence. Which would be supported by the incredibly rare positive “response”.

Agreed. And, if its methodology is flawed (as in this type of study), then it’s repeatable, testable noise, not signal. GIGO, right?

The methodology is the same, whether one attempts to validate the efficacy of a medication, or the efficacy of the payer. The assumption is wrong, namely that the prayer “helps”. And that is beautifully verified by the experiments.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It’s a weird doublethink when it comes to prayer. Believers are told to pray often and sincerely to affect change, but then when it doesn’t cause change they’re told that prayer doesn’t affect what God will do.

Sounds more of an fundamentalist sort of thing.

 

[Gorgias]

Argument from authority? No, thanks.

Nope. I’d have hoped you’d know better. Apparently not. I’d recommend that you look up the “argument from authority” fallacy, so that you don’t embarrass yourself by claiming it’s present when it isn’t.

It is not the number of them, it is their absolute conviction that their prayer was answered in a positive fashion.

Same difference: you’re asserting the argumentum ad populum fallacy either way.

There is no third possibility.

Sure there is. The “third possibility” is that it’s invalid to measure prayer in terms of numbers of healings.

The methodology is the same, whether one attempts to validate the efficacy of a medication, or the efficacy of the payer.

Aah, yes… indeed. (I’ve been waiting for that one to spring up!) Here, I’m afraid, is where you’ll have a hard time entering into productive dialogue with Christian believers. After all, “to him who has only a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail.” And to you (who has already stated that you do not believe in the existence of the ‘soul’), “to him who has only materialism, the entire world looks like empirically-measurable causes and effects.”

So, in your worldview, prayer must be the same sort of duck as a medical treatment. Nothing else, in your heuristic, makes sense. So, when someone attempts to explain that medical therapy and prayer are vastly different endeavors, you quack with anguish. Unfortunately, you can prove that prayer ain’t something that we don’t say it is, but that doesn’t get you anywhere.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Nope.

The only thing you referred was the authority of the Church. At least be consistent in your arguments. You did NOT offer anything else.

Same difference: you’re asserting the argumentum ad populum fallacy either way.

I guess you need to understand these arguments. I did NOT say that that the crowd is right, because they are a crowd. I merely referred to their conviction.

Sure there is. The “third possibility” is that it’s invalid to measure prayer in terms of numbers of healings.

Why would it? The principle is the same. It is your assertion that it is inapplicable in certain cases. But merely declaring it - ex cathedra - is not enough. It does not need to be a prayer, a shaman’s heal-dance or some new age hocus-pocus will be met with the same skepticism.

If there is no causative relationship between a prayer, and the healing, then the only rational conclusion is that the once-in-a-blue-moon occurrence is just a lucky break.

 

[vz71]

If there is no causative relationship between a prayer, and the healing, then the only rational conclusion is that the once-in-a-blue-moon occurrence is just a lucky break.

You sound more and more like my kids complaining that I always say no.

They even tried to make the same argument that there is no correlation between their asking and my granting permission. That somehow it is just a crap shoot as to whether or not my approval will come.

I countered the argument with the simple fact that I am charged with their well being and must use my judgement as to what is best for them.
They haven’t the years of experience I have, and do not always see when something is bad for them.

Perhaps granting of a prayer has more to do with the God’s will and that of the praying person being in line. A likely rare scenario. After all, God knows what is best for us better than we do.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

So, when someone attempts to explain that medical therapy and prayer are vastly different endeavors, you quack with anguish. Unfortunately, you can prove that prayer ain’t something that we don’t say it is, but that doesn’t get you anywhere.

Unfortunately no one attempts to explain it. They merely declare it ex-cathedra, and that is the problem. I wonder if you actually understand the difference?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

A prayer of petition will be answered.
However, God will give us what is best for us…not necessarily what we think is best for us.

So let’s break this down. Let’s say 100 people asked for healing. They sincerely prayed on it and in the end 60 were healed. The 60 that were healed were given what God thought was best for them. The 40 that were not healed were also given what God thought was best for them.

If everything was the same except none of the 100 people prayed would those same 60 people be healed? If the answer is yes, then why are people told to pray when they are in dire straits? Why would a vast majority of miracles certified to grant sainthood involved people who were healed after praying to that saint?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Sounds more of an fundamentalist sort of thing.

More than once I’ve been accused of reading scripture like a fundamentalist. It’s usually because I’ve pointed out that scripture is allegedly supposed to mean the opposite of what it actually says. It’s usually because I haven’t gone into it with a presupposition or have been unwilling to ignore disconfirming evidence.

 

[vz71]

what God thought

No…what God knows. Let’s not undermine who and what God is.

 

[vz71]

If everything was the same except none of the 100 people prayed would those same 60 people be healed?

If none had prayed, none would get the benefit of it. The results are not the same.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike_from_NJ:

Believers will point to what they believe are answered intercessory prayers and tout the power of prayer

Yes, some believers will do that. But, they’re treating prayer as a big ol’ slot machine in the sky, and in doing so, they’re misunderstanding and misusing it.

Would you consider the Catholic Church in the same way? They tout when intercessory prayer works in confirming people as saints.

No; that’s an anthropomorphism used in the Old Testament. I would frame it up differently: Abraham thought that he should start with “50 righteous people”, and came to learn that many fewer sufficed. The story of Job is a didactic tale, meant to discuss the meaning of suffering vis-a-vis God; it uses the narrative device of “God being tempted” in order to tell its story.

So… no; God does not change. That’s a central tenet of our faith.

Ah, the old that doesn’t count theory. A vast majority of apologetics is claiming that disconfirming evidence doesn’t count – not because there is a better explanation but because it runs counter to preconceived notions. Even as a symbolic tale it casts God in a very poor light.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Because of redemptive suffering and James 4:3 it’s easy to see why their prayer didn’t work.

 

[vz71]

why are people told to pray when they are in dire straits?

People should pray always.
Even moreso when they are in greatest need.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike_from_NJ:

If everything was the same except none of the 100 people prayed would those same 60 people be healed?

If none had prayed, none would get the benefit of it. The results are not the same.

Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying that those who did not pray would not have been healed?

 

[vz71]

Why would a vast majority of miracles certified to grant sainthood involved people who were healed after praying to that saint?

Because those miracles are easy to document.

 

[vz71]

Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying that those who did not pray would not have been healed?

No, what I am saying is that if no one prays, no one gets the benefit of the prayer.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

People should pray always.
Even moreso when they are in greatest need.

Should people in greatest need think that via prayer that they might receive something on Earth that they might not get without praying? Check out most programs on EWTN and they will not times where people gained something (health, knowledge, strength, safety) via prayer.

Because those miracles are easy to document.

Whether it would be easy to document or not isn’t the point. By the Church saying that prayer can cause one to be healed means that if many people pray for healing then if the same number of people with the same ailments pray as don’t pray then the number of healed prayers should exceed that of healed non-prayers.