Why Pray?

  • Thread starter Thread starter J123M
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, R Daneel, given your rejection of all three, do you accept #4? Is it possible that your #4 is similar to my allegation that there is a #5? Hmmmmm… So do you then claim to be an atheist, agnostic, deist, or one of the other options? Curiouser and curiouser, and mildly interested. And given any one of those, including atheism, what role-especially positive- might “prayer” by any discriptionon play for you, if at all?
 
antroji said:
So, R Daneel, given your rejection of all three, do you accept #4? Is it possible that your #4 is similar to my allegation that there is a #5? Hmmmmm… So do you then claim to be an atheist, agnostic, deist, or one of the other options? Curiouser and curiouser, and mildly interested. And given any one of those, including atheism, what role-especially positive- might “prayer” by any discriptionon play for you, if at all?
Click to expand...
Of course I reject all the options. You say that there is a fifth one, but never elaborated what it might be. So tell us about this fifth option.

I am firmly an atheist, meaning that I do not believe anything “beyond” this physical existence. However, I am open to the possibility, that I am wrong. The trouble is that during all those years I spent on these boards I have never been presented any good arguments that I am wrong. I have seen many arguments. Some of them were thought-provoking, but the overwhelming majority was not. Sometimes they were logical, mostly irrational, “explaining away” the objections I and other ones brought up. I am aware that the posters here are not the authority on these subjects. But it is strange that a huge majority of them present their views as it they were the fount of all wisdom. When their view is proven wrong, they do not come clean and admit it, they start the hide-and-seek game, and attempt to explain away the evidence. Which is pretty sad.

To say that supplicative prayer is “rational” cannot be accepted. Either God can be influenced by these prayers, or not. If God is immutable, then he cannot be influenced - and so the supplicative prayers make no difference. So why should anyone engage in improductive endeavors? That is the sign of irrationality. Doublethink is to hold two contradictory assertions in mind and hold them both true. In this case “God cannot be influenced” and “supplicative prayer is rational” are these two contradictory statements. A clear example of doublethink.
 
It is a true story that some scientists put a monkey in a cage and allowed for only four ways out of it. The monkey found a fifth way. Let’s say for the moment that I’m a lucky monkey and leave it there until there has been some other clarity.

I happen to agree with you, despite my upbringing and surroundings, about suplicative prayer. And for almost identical reasons. And though I am “young” on here, I already agree with you about the nature of the postings in these fora. But here we are. Go figure.

Thanks for your reply. I hope to continue enjoying your posts on here.

M
 
antroji said:
It is a true story that some scientists put a monkey in a cage and allowed for only four ways out of it. The monkey found a fifth way. Let’s say for the moment that I’m a lucky monkey and leave it there until there has been some other clarity.

I happen to agree with you, despite my upbringing and surroundings, about suplicative prayer. And for almost identical reasons. And though I am “young” on here, I already agree with you about the nature of the postings in these fora. But here we are. Go figure.

Thanks for your reply. I hope to continue enjoying your posts on here.

M
Click to expand...
Well, first of all options 1 and 2 aren’t mutually exclusive - #1 is saying a chicken comes from an egg and #2 is saying an egg comes from a chicken. Both are true.

And option 3 is a double-barrelled proposition. Part a of that proposition asserts that God’s knowledge and our actions are independent of each other. Part b asserts that any similarity or sameness is the result of pure coincidence.

I accept part a and reject part b - ‘being independent’ of something or someone doesn’t mean the same thing at all as having a purely coincidental likeness to that thing or person, and I explained why.

So yes, I explained my option 5 - which is a that BOTH #1 and#2 are true, and part a of #3 is true as well.

Can I have some bananas now, please? 😃
 
antroji
*
I happen to agree with you, despite my upbringing and surroundings, about suplicative prayer.
*

You are a Catholic and you don’t think much of supplicative prayer?

I guess you don’t think much of the Our Father?

“Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

This is how Jesus taught us to pray! 😉
 
I’m kind of a weirdo in this matter, Charlemagne II. The different disciplines I’ve studied lead me to believe that this fundamental and beautiful prayer was originally devotional and declarative. IMHO it might better read “(You) give us this day* our daily bread, and (You) forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.** (You) do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”*** To me that form has broader and deeper implications.
  • “Day” as well carries the connotation of Light, or awareness, in the sense that we do not live by bread alone. eg “You give us this day–our daily bread.” Remember that Aramaic was written without punctuation or capitalization, not even to mention without vowels.
**This is simply a statement of the Law of Reciprocity as a consequence of the dynamic embodied in the two forms of the Golden Rule and Jesus’ injunction to “love thy neighbor as thyself…”

***The Love and Loving of God gives the human mind an assemblage point that yields clarity and right action.
 
antroji
*
The different disciplines I’ve studied lead me to believe that this fundamental and beautiful prayer was originally devotional and declarative. IMHO it might better read “(You) give us this day* our daily bread, and (You) forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.** (You) do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”*** To me that form has broader and deeper implications.*

That’s a private interpretation. More words from Jesus, “Ask and you shall receive,” invite us to supplicate. 👍

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; …
 
Right. Those don’t refer to God making a special intervention in your life, but to the dynamic which is demonstrated by the expeirience that what you focus on tends ot percipitate in your experience since you organize your thinking around it.

How long have we been praying for world peace? The conversion of sinners? Apple pie from the sky? Sorry, those quotes have to do with our purpose , goal. and aim. God does not change because of our wishes, a condition that would be required if He granted prayers.
 
LilyM said:
Well, first of all options 1 and 2 aren’t mutually exclusive - #1 is saying a chicken comes from an egg and #2 is saying an egg comes from a chicken. Both are true.

And option 3 is a double-barrelled proposition. Part a of that proposition asserts that God’s knowledge and our actions are independent of each other. Part b asserts that any similarity or sameness is the result of pure coincidence.

I accept part a and reject part b - ‘being independent’ of something or someone doesn’t mean the same thing at all as having a purely coincidental likeness to that thing or person, and I explained why.

So yes, I explained my option 5 - which is a that BOTH #1 and#2 are true, and part a of #3 is true as well.

Can I have some bananas now, please? 😃
Click to expand...
Sorry, no bananas just yet. Options #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive. To reply to your specific example: “eggs came first - reptiles lay eggs, and the birds are the descendants of reptiles”. But of course this is just a playful reply to your playful question. The problem cannot be reduced to this age-old trickery.

The deeper problem is this. If God’s knowledge is the causative agent for human actions, then our actions are not free. This is why option #1, if presented standalone would be rejected out of hand. Option #2 is similar. If even ONE of our actions would be the causative agent for God’s knowledge, then in that case, God’s knowledge would be contingent, and thus God would be contingent. That cannot be circumvented by a tricky question.

As for option #3, you separated into two parts. You say that the equivalence there could be something else than “coincidence”. What else could it be? You said that your knowledge of the computer’s workings and the actual workings are the same but not coincidental. Which is true, but your knowledge comes from studying the computer, so your knowledge comes from the working of the computer (aided by your desire to learn it).

But let’s go formal:

If there are two events, which show full equivalence, (A == B), then the only possibilities are A causes B (A → B), or B causes A (B → A), A and B just happen to coincide, and both A and B are caused by some other factor (C → A and C → B). These are logically mutually exclusive and there is no “fifth” option.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
More words from Jesus, “Ask and you shall receive,” invite us to supplicate.

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; …
Click to expand...
Why do you waste your (and our) time on words? Talk is cheap. Go and do it, and we shall all stand in awe. There was an old story: “Someone boasted of having had a huge jump some time ago in Rhodos. The skeptics merely said ‘Hic Rhodos, hic salta!’.” Meaning: don’t boast, prove it. “This is Rhodos, jump here!”. You talk the talk, but you don’t walk the walk…
 
R_Daneel said:
Sorry, no bananas just yet. Options #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive. To reply to your specific example: “eggs came first - reptiles lay eggs, and the birds are the descendants of reptiles”. But of course this is just a playful reply to your playful question. The problem cannot be reduced to this age-old trickery.

The deeper problem is this. If God’s knowledge is the causative agent for human actions, then our actions are not free. This is why option #1, if presented standalone would be rejected out of hand. Option #2 is similar. If even ONE of our actions would be the causative agent for God’s knowledge, then in that case, God’s knowledge would be contingent, and thus God would be contingent. That cannot be circumvented by a tricky question.

As for option #3, you separated into two parts. You say that the equivalence there could be something else than “coincidence”. What else could it be? You said that your knowledge of the computer’s workings and the actual workings are the same but not coincidental. Which is true, but your knowledge comes from studying the computer, so your knowledge comes from the working of the computer (aided by your desire to learn it).

But let’s go formal:

If there are two events, which show full equivalence, (A == B), then the only possibilities are A causes B (A → B), or B causes A (B → A), A and B just happen to coincide, and both A and B are caused by some other factor (C → A and C → B). These are logically mutually exclusive and there is no “fifth” option.
Click to expand...
Care to address my response to your position(s) in post #39?
 
R Daneel

*Why do you waste your (and our) time on words? *

I do not regard the words of Jesus as a waste of my time or yours.

And why are you so angry? :mad:
 
antroji

Right. Those don’t refer to God making a special intervention in your life, but to the dynamic which is demonstrated by the expeirience that what you focus on tends ot percipitate in your experience since you organize your thinking around it.

Mumbo-jumbo? 😃
 
J123M said:
I understand that we are supposed to pray but why? If God knows what will happen then why does it matter what we do? Is it just for us to know what God wants and not ask for anything or is there something I’m not seeing?:confused:
Thanks in advance for helping me out of my confusion!😃
Click to expand...
WOW, your thread was totally hijacked by someone who appears to be Athiest/Agnostic and has no desire to talk about prayer and faith…

Your question is interesting in light of last Sunday’s scripture readings, which was about the very thing you’re asking… As our priest explained, Intercession isn’t about changing God’s mind, its about the interaction with him. God LOVES when we ask him for things, whether for ourselves or for others, and he LOVES to provide for his children. He wants us to trust in him. When he grants us the things we ask for, he has not changed his mind since his mind was always to provide for his children when they need… Read the Old Testament prophets, read the prophesies made by Mary at Fatima, many of them basically read: “If you don’t place your trust in God, this is what’s going to happen; if you do trust in God, however, here’s how he’ll bless you…” See, he’s not changing his mind, he’s just taking the appropriate predefined path based on his love for us and our trust in him.
 
R_Daneel said:
That is fine, but you missed the point. What is the causal relationship between God’s knowledge and our actions?

There are four possibilities:
  1. God knows what we do becuase we do it. (Our actions cause God’s knowledge).
  2. We do what we do, because God knows it. (God’s knowledge causes our actions).
  3. God’s knowledge and our actions are independent, neither causes the other one, they just “happen” to coincide. It is simple a coincidence of cosmic proportions that somehow these two entites “happen” to be the same.
  4. Both God’s knowledge and our actions are caused by some external agent.
Think about it, and tell me which do you think is true. Don’t hurry, there is no need. Think them all over. The solution is pretty fun.
Click to expand...
I like this. I’ll choose (3) and (4).

(3) because there’s a correlation, not causation (typically) between what God knows and what I choose to do. It just coincides, and the coincidence is cosmic.

(4) because, though there’s some sort of self-causation involved with the free will (which I don’t really understand), my free will itself was caused, not by God’s knowledge, but by God’s own efficacious will to create my will; some other (not really ‘external’) agent.

That’s the best answer I can give so far.
 
I’ll give my reformed “cop out” to prayer.

I pray because God commands it and I want to please God. This is the best answer, on the level of philosophy, that I can give.

I have no idea how prayer works, or whether we really influence God or not. I don’t think it really matters. Regardless of how these and other difficult (impossible?) questions are answered, I’d still pray. God’s command, even if it’s not the whole story, provides sufficient reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top