Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Why pray?


For some reason, it bugs atheists that Christians pray. Atheists spend time trying to disprove the efficacy of prayer. Trying to convince us that prayer is make-believe. Why is that?

Surely they don’t feel threatened by Christian prayer. After all, they don’t believe in a God who answers prayer. So it’s not as if the Christian is doing something that’s somehow harmful to the unbeliever.

Maybe they object to prayer because they think prayer is a waste of time. But why is that objectionable?

A waste of whose time? Not the unbeliever’s.  He doesn’t pray. And if a Christian wants to waste his time in prayer, how other folks spend their time is none of your business.

In the long run, what does the Christian have to lose? If the atheist is right, everyone loses everything sooner or later. If the atheist is right, he has just as much to lose as the Christian. So it’s not as if the Christian has more to lose.

Besides, don’t unbelievers tell us that what makes life meaningful is whatever is meaningful to you? Atheists admit that life has no objective meaning. God didn’t put you here for a reason. So the only meaning there is to life will be subjective meaning. The things you do to make life meaningful for you, on your own terms. And that varies from one individual to the next.

But in that case, even if (arguendo) prayer isn’t objectively meaningful, it remains subjectively meaningful to the Christian. From an atheistic standpoint, that makes it no more or less meaningful than whatever an atheist does to superimpose personal significance on his own tenuous existence.

Unbelievers also object to prayer because it’s so intangible. How does the Christian know that God is listening? He’s praying to somebody he can’t see, or hear, or touch. He’s making a wish: hoped-for futurities which, in the nature of the case, he can’t see or feel at the time of prayer. So praying to God seems to be empirically and psychologically indistinguishable from talking to yourself.

And no doubt there are times when Christians find the intangibility of prayer a bit disconcerting. Where it has an air of unreality. Where talking to someone and talking to no one feels much the same.

Yet, when you think about it, prayer isn’t in a class apart from other things we experience. Take the past. Certain things that happened to us.

These were real events. But from the present perspective, they are now intangible. You can’t go back in time. All you have are memories. Yet remembered events are just as intangible as nonevents. At that point they aren’t much different than something you see in a movie or read in a novel.

Things that happen to you were real. They happened in real time and real space. But from the present perspective, they don’t occupy your time and space. And yet they may be more significant to you that most day-to-day events.

What about counterfactuals? By definition, that’s a nonevent. Something that didn’t happen. Can’t get more intangible or unreal than that. Yet some nonevents can be more significant to you than real events.

Take a close call. You almost died. Or someone you love almost died. You came within an inch of dying. Maybe a driver ran a red light when you were crossing the street. A bystander tackled you just in the nick of time.

There’s a tremendous sense of relief as you look back on that near miss. Enormous gratitude.

Some people experience life-changing events. But a close call may be a life-changing nonevent. Suddenly you don’t take life for granted. You don’t take your loved one’s life for granted. Every minute counts.

Something that didn’t happen to you on that day can be far more significant to you than something that happens to you everyday of the week.  Even though it’s utterly intangible, even though there’s an obvious sense in which that’s unreal, it seems very real. For it seems as if you could just as well have taken that fork in the road. A split second separates you from the onramp to that alternate timeline. (BTW, determinism can account for this, too.)

In fact, a close call prompts some survivors to reexamine their lives. They must have been spared for a reason. They weren’t taken sooner because they still have something in this life which they need to do.

For now I’m not commenting on whether this reaction is justified. I’m just pointing out that our lives are shaped by past and future intangibles. Prayer isn’t unique in that regard. Even if, to all appearances, all your prayers go unanswered, that wouldn’t reduce it to a psychological projection or exercise in futility. 

18 comments:

  1. I was actually thinking about atheist's detestation of public prayers just recently because my older nephew's foot ball game had a prayer right before the teams started entering the field. I thought of several of the things you wrote as I considered why an atheist may object to that prayer, but I couldn't think of any rational reason from their perspective. Why would an atheist, of all people, care about prayer- even public prayer?

    Of course, I think ultimately the only rational explanation that they give a crap is because of their suppression of the knowledge of God. The question has more to do with the answers they devise in denial of their suppression of the Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Instead of prayer for say, 45 seconds or a minute or so, imagine the activity involved is twiddling your thumbs. It just so happens to be prayer, but really, it can be any meaningless (to non-believers like me) activity. It's not simply a waste of the personal time of the person practicing the activity, but the expenditure of time and energy in that activity subtracts from the time and energy available for let's say more meaningful activities which could benefit others. Take twiddling your thumbs on the job. It accomplishes nothing, other than perhaps subject personal enrichment, but actually subtracts from productivity. Even if you could make the case that twiddling thumbs hurts no one, and even fails to subtract from social benefits in anyway, it still boils down to a meaningless activity (from our perspective). It is irksome to us because this life is all we feel we are guaranteed to have, and even if someone has the right to waste their time and energy on an activity we find meaningless, it seems immoral to do so (from a relativist perspective, I suppose, so that's simply my personal opinion). Suppressing the knowledge of God has nothing to do with it, honestly, so that Scripture is unfounded.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So in essence you're saying that the reason atheists get upset when Christians pray is because they think it's unproductive and atheists hate it when people are unproductive?

    That can't be right. I'm willing to bet that every atheist can think of at least one unproductive activity that they enjoy and don't feel irritated with when they see other people engaging in it so I don't think that's the issue.

    Besides, what is it to 'be productive' on atheism? What ultimate purpose is there to contribute to? Why should anyone care what anyone else does or does not do?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It certainly can be a lack of productivity. Private prayer which I do not observe does not concern me, at least until I find out about it. Imagine any unproductive activity that wastes time and energy, and you can understand a distaste for it. I am simply speaking from my personal perspective, however, so this is simply my opinion. But most activities of this sort are public in nature, involve and many people, and effectively subtract resources from being used more effectively on other tasks. In saying that, am I (or anyone) perfectly free from hypocrisy? No. But we do have a standard to ascribe to (again, I admit it's rather subjective).

    Speaking of standards, especially subjective ones, I can only answer your last question by appealing to the concept. If this life is the only one we are ever guaranteed, then it makes sense to maximize the enjoyment and utility of it. Again, that's very subjective, so without some sort of absolute standard, some people would never be satisfied with the concept enough to accept it. But that is not my concern. My "ultimate purpose" in life may simply be to embrace my humanity and enjoy the full wonder of life, and that is simply good enough for me. Whether it is for anyone else, is not my primary concern, so I just attempt to defend my views and persuade according to my ability. The rest is out of my hands (I would have said as a believer at this point, that it is "in God's hands" which is still true if such a God exists as Christian theists propose).

    ReplyDelete
  5. David J. Houston said...
    Besides, what is it to 'be productive' on atheism? What ultimate purpose is there to contribute to? Why should anyone care what anyone else does or does not do?

    Exactly. If atheism were true, then nothing would matter in the end when we reach maximum entropy in the heat death of the universe. Nothing would finally, ultimately, and lastingly matter. Even in the present, there would only be arbitrarily self-chosen subjective (non-ultimate, non-transcendent) meaning.

    That's not the case in Christianity. Every tiny bit of love, effort/deeds, prayer, faithfulness (etc.) counts and will have eternal consequences.


    I can't help but be reminded of William Lane Craig's lecture "The Absurdity of Life Without God" which can be viewed here.

    As well as two of my favor my favorite sermons by Edward Griffin titled Heaven and When I Was a Child I Thought as a Child

    I've posted these links many times before, but there might be new readers of this blog who have never seen them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BYRON SAID:

    “It's not simply a waste of the personal time of the person practicing the activity, but the expenditure of time and energy in that activity subtracts from the time and energy available for let's say more meaningful activities which could benefit others…It is irksome to us because this life is all we feel we are guaranteed to have, and even if someone has the right to waste their time and energy on an activity we find meaningless, it seems immoral to do so (from a relativist perspective, I suppose, so that's simply my personal opinion.”

    i) In my observation, most unbelievers aren’t very philanthropic in their stewardship of time. Don’t many unbelievers kill lots of time in purely recreational activities like surfing, watching sophomoric movies, playing video games (e.g. World of Warcraft), &c.?

    ii) From an atheistic standpoint, why be humanitarian? As John von Neumann told Richard Feynman, “You don't have to be responsible for the world you're in!”

    I think von Neumann’s point is that he didn’t choose to be born in this world. He didn’t create his fellow human beings. He wasn’t responsible for the fact that some people are born with every advantage while others are born disadvantaged.

    “But most activities of this sort are public in nature, involve and many people, and effectively subtract resources from being used more effectively on other tasks.”

    Let’s take public prayer at a high school football game. Atheists frequently object to the prayer, yet they don’t object to the game itself. But surely football effectively subtracts resources from being used more effectively on other tasks.

    “If this life is the only one we are ever guaranteed, then it makes sense to maximize the enjoyment and utility of it.”

    i) Which frequently involves wasteful entertainment, like gambling in Las Vegas, or going on a cruise ship, or hooking up with pretty coeds.

    ii) From an atheistic standpoint, why be productive? Would a painter paint a new masterpiece every year if he knew the buyer was going to pour lighter fluid on the painting and set it aflame?

    But isn’t that what our life amounts to, if atheism is true? The dying do things for the dying. It’s all time and effort down the drain.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I must protest the lumping of cruises and computer gaming in with the list of sinful wastes of time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't think Steve meant that cruises and video games are essentially evil. Just that they're 'unproductive' according to the standard that exists in Byron's head that he sometimes thinks we should follow and at other times that we shouldn't follow depending on how much sleep he's had, when he ate last, etc.

    My question for Byron is that if there is no meaning to our lives. If it's all just subjective. Then isn't the difference between spending your time in prayer or 'embracing your humanity' or killing babies much like that difficult decision that faces gamers everywhere: "Shall I dedicate my time to World of Warcraft or Guild Wars or Call of Duty?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. My sense is that most atheists disdain prayer for two reasons. First of all, as noted by Byron, it is a waste of time and entirely akin to twiddling ones' thumbs. However, I would agree that many activities fall into that category and there is no point in singling out prayer.

    The more insidious problem with prayer is the suggestion that the deity would intervene in the natural world (for example, to cure a disease) just because someone bothers to ask. That being said, Christian belief in intercessionary prayer is supported by the Bible: If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer: Matthew 21:22 (NIV) and Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours: Mark 11:24 (NIV). No ambiguity there.

    In order to illustrate the futility of relying on supernatural intervention through prayer, I ask religious believers to consider the following “prayer experiment”:

    Decide on what you would like to pray for - we will call that result A.

    We will agree that you will pray to God (or whatever supernatural being you choose) for result A to happen.

    I will pray to the ghost of Michael Jackson to ensure that result A happens.

    If result A happens, you will explain to me why it is more likely that God (or whatever supernatural being you chose) made it happen than Jacko or you will fairly concede that it is just as likely that Jacko did it.

    If result A does not happen, we will agree that neither God (or whatever supernatural being you chose) or Jacko answer all prayers. You will then explain to me why the entity you chose to pray to selectively answers more prayers than Jacko.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Atheist Missionary said:

    "If result A does not happen, we will agree that neither God (or whatever supernatural being you chose) or Jacko answer all prayers."

    1. How would this disprove Christian prayer? Christians already believe God can respond with a no. Christians already believe God doesn't answer "all" prayers.

    2. Since when is the absence of evidence evidence of absence? This is poor logic.

    3. You're treating God like he's some sort of an experiment rather than a person.

    4. Why should God comply with anyone's prayers in the first place? Similarly parents don't necessarily grant whatever their kid reqests. Parents routinely say no to their kid if their kid's requests are unwise.

    Or what if God thinks it best not to answer these sorts of prayers since they're a bit testy to put it mildly? In other words, even if their kid makes a reasonable request, because their kid has a wrong attitude about it, then an otherwise reasonable request could still be declined.

    5. Obviously you didn't bother to read the post or at least attempt to grasp the point of the post.

    6. All this is off the top of my head. But there's obviously a lot more to say. Maybe I'll come back to this a bit later if I have some more time.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Other Triablogue links on prayer

    Tuesday, February 22, 2011
    They that wait upon the Lord


    Thursday, February 24, 2011
    On a wing and a prayer


    Sunday, March 06, 2011
    A Christian View Of Prayer


    Wednesday, March 17, 2010
    Count your blessings


    Sunday, April 18, 2004
    Thank God for unanswered prayer!


    Sunday, September 18, 2011
    Has science falsified prayer?


    Sunday, September 25, 2011
    Is prayer unfalsifiable?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, pretty much everything Atheist Missionary said. And Steve, you DO have a point with unproductive activities when they're simply taken at face value. But as for ultimate meaning, I will get back to that in a second.

    I was going to spend some more time on this reply, but I got back to this post very late tonight and so I will just quickly type up my main thoughts in reply. Christianity does have ultimate meaning and purpose going for it, or at least a claim to such, and that's very difficult to discount, or to which to try to offer an alternative. But the more I think about it, the less compelling I believe Christianity is (at least for me), and I will try to explain that.

    I'm not convinced that a lack of an "ultimate" objective standard, or goal, or result is necessarily as defeatist or disappointing as Christian theists make it sound, from their perspective. Even Paul himself wrote in 1 Cor 15:32 ESV "What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'" Though of course I disagree with his perspective and eventual conclusion to the question of perspective, I think in a sense he really gets it. If the only hope we have is in this life, then why not enjoy it to the fullest? But he casts this in a bad light, as a scenario utterly devoid of hope, because he insists on a perspective beyond the individual, and this is simply not proven.

    For all the claims of Christianity to the ultimate standard of God's goodness, and purpose and meaning in life with eternal consequences (and hopefully, to gain God's rewards and shun His righteous punishments), I see no proof of the existence of any sort of thing we could possibly call an absolute standard, outside of science and outside of a person's individual lifespan. What proof do Christians have that there are such things as an absolute standard, and purpose or meaning to their lives beyond their deaths and personal existence? I am not very familiar with presuppositional apologetics, but it seems that such things are assumed as items of faith, and that the Bible is accepted as a product of divine revelation. As far as I am aware, Christianity cannot be proven true, but can be shown to be possible and perhaps for some, even probable. The criticism against raw atheism is that it provides no ultimate purpose for life, perhaps, and no way to escape the eventual heat death of the universe, but Christianity without proofs really does not either. But more to the point, IF atheism is true, then the "ultimate" meaning of life, and "inevitable" destruction of this universe, do not matter to the atheist individual, unless coinciding with that person's lifespan quite obviously. The important thing is to live this life that we are guaranteed now to have to the fullest of our ability.

    It's true there is no outer compulsion for morality in such a system. And I cannot help what believers have or have not observed in others. But if evolution is true, and science is accurate in its study of behavior and manipulation of human activity, then humanity can and should improve simply as a product of evolution (that is a statement of opinion, not fact, because such is not necessary and cannot be proven, but forms my personal belief). Evolution is still a mystery to me, but it seems that eventual improvement of the species so far has been the goal which has been reached and constantly re-extended through almost endless periods of time. (continued)

    ReplyDelete
  13. The other thing is about prayer, and I just want to write a quick reply to it. The way that neurotransmitter defines divine behavior effectively removes it from being objectively collected and analyzed for further discussion and learning. Claiming yes/no/wait logically and effectively exhausts all possibilities, and throwing in personality without definition or ability to observe such, only serves to insulate prayer-faith from criticism, not actually communicate any understanding about its requirements and operation. I mean no insult here, but as a friend of mine said, I can receive the same yes/no/wait responses that God supposedly gives and in the same way (with the same statistical odds of occurrence) by praying to my refrigerator. At least I can get food from it. Prayer is mysterious, and doesn't work scientifically in every test I've heard about so far. Perhaps it shouldn't even be considered as a possible means of acquiring help beyond human capabilities? That's my belief, and personal opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Byron said:

    "I think in a sense he really gets it. If the only hope we have is in this life, then why not enjoy it to the fullest? But he casts this in a bad light, as a scenario utterly devoid of hope, because he insists on a perspective beyond the individual, and this is simply not proven."

    If there is no God, if Jesus Christ isn't who he says he is and didn't do what he says he did, then what Paul says is correct. We might try to imbue our own lives with our own meaning, but in an ultimate sense life itself is meaningless. So Paul isn't casting anything in "a bad light" so much as being a realist.

    I don't know what you're referring to when you say Paul "insists on a perspective beyond the individual." Do you mean Christ's resurrection? Do you mean the truth claims of Christianity?

    "I see no proof of the existence of any sort of thing we could possibly call an absolute standard, outside of science and outside of a person's individual lifespan."

    I'm versed in science and scientific thinking. At least to some degree. But I don't see how science supplies or can supply an "absolute standard" if you're speaking about morality and ethics.

    "What proof do Christians have that there are such things as an absolute standard, and purpose or meaning to their lives beyond their deaths and personal existence?"

    This is a broad question. It enters into large swathes of apologetical territory such as the existence of God, natural theology, revealed theology, etc. We could talk at length about it. But it'd be better if you asked specific questions.

    "I am not very familiar with presuppositional apologetics, but it seems that such things are assumed as items of faith, and that the Bible is accepted as a product of divine revelation."

    All genuine Christians would accept the Bible as divine revelation. It's not limited to presuppositionalists.

    By the way, presuppositionalists don't necessarily "assume" the existence of an absolute moral standard as an "item of faith."

    "Christianity cannot be proven true"

    What would you consider proof?

    "The criticism against raw atheism is that it provides no ultimate purpose for life, perhaps, and no way to escape the eventual heat death of the universe"

    Sure, that's one big criticism against atheism. But that's a criticism supplied by atheists themselves as well as science. In other words, it's not just Christians who say this about naturalistic atheism. Many atheists and secular scientists themselves agree.

    "but Christianity without proofs really does not either."

    Again, what do you consider proof?

    Christian apologists make reasoned arguments for their positions.

    Perhaps you're not satisfied with the arguments. This doesn't necessarily mean the arguments are unreasonable. Rather it could be that you have an unreasonable standard for proof.

    "But more to the point, IF atheism is true, then the 'ultimate' meaning of life, and 'inevitable' destruction of this universe, do not matter to the atheist individual, unless coinciding with that person's lifespan quite obviously. The important thing is to live this life that we are guaranteed now to have to the fullest of our ability."

    True, it's a fundamentally self-centered and self-serving view. On atheism there's no rational reason to care about others beyond oneself. There's no rational reason to care about one's friends or family or progeny or the future of humanity, for instance. Not unless it happens to intersect with one's own goals (e.g. happiness).

    Of course, this attitude undercuts secular humanism.

    "It's true there is no outer compulsion for morality in such a system."

    Nice to see an honest admission.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "And I cannot help what believers have or have not observed in others."

    It's not based on observation alone. We're not solely talking about how one behaves. Atheists can behave in accordance to biblical morality or ethics. That's not in question.

    Rather we're talking about what objectively grounds the naturalistic atheist's morality or ethics (among other things).

    Again, it's not just Christians or "believers" observe in atheists. Atheists have "observed" this about atheism too.

    "But if evolution is true, and science is accurate in its study of behavior and manipulation of human activity, then humanity can and should improve simply as a product of evolution"

    But "improve" can mean a number of different things. It could be an "improvement" for the survival of future humans if humans "evolved" to have less intelligence than now. Say if a hostile but intelligent alien species conquered our planet and enslaved humanity. In order for humanity to survive enslavement, perhaps natural selection will favor less intelligent future humans.

    Also, "improve" could come into conflict with other species. Perhaps in the future dolphins will evolve to become intelligent, sentient beings. Perhaps their ascendance will cause humans to become extinct.

    "that is a statement of opinion, not fact, because such is not necessary and cannot be proven, but forms my personal belief"

    Then, with all due respect what's your point? Basing some of your core beliefs on "a statement of opinion" isn't logical or reasonable.

    "The way that neurotransmitter defines divine behavior effectively removes it from being objectively collected and analyzed for further discussion and learning."

    If the God of the Bible exists, then how are you going to subject God to the sort of scrutiny espoused by The Atheist Missionary? Why should God fit into your preconceived experimental methodology?

    Besides, Steve Hays and the other Triabloggers have responded to the topic of prayer in much more detail and with much more intelligence than I'm capable of mustering. See Annoyed Pinoy's helpful links above.

    "Prayer is mysterious, and doesn't work scientifically in every test I've heard about so far."

    Which tests are you referring to?

    "Perhaps it shouldn't even be considered as a possible means of acquiring help beyond human capabilities? That's my belief, and personal opinion."

    Once again, with due respect, if it's no more than your "belief" and "personal opinion," then there's no good reason to accept it, especially in light of the counter arguments against your beliefs and personal opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:

    "In order to illustrate the futility of relying on supernatural intervention through prayer, I ask religious believers to consider the following 'prayer experiment'...You will then explain to me why the entity you chose to pray to selectively answers more prayers than Jacko."

    In this life we often ask people to do things for us. Sometimes they do as we ask, sometimes they refuse. Is it therefore futile to ask for help unless you always get what you ask for?

    We have nothing to lose by asking for something we don't receive. We have something to gain by asking for something we receive in answer to our request.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Steve wrote: We have nothing to lose by asking for something we don't receive. We have something to gain by asking for something we receive in answer to our request.

    OK, so I can rely on that logic to pray to the ghost of Michael Jackson.

    The point here is why anyone would think that it is probable, not possible, that any prayer might be answered.

    P.S. I just made 3 sincere heartfelt prayers to each of Jesus, Beelzebub and Thor that I will win tonight's Canadian national 6/49 lottery. I will buy three separate tickets and write the deity's name on each. If Jesus' ticket wins, all winnings go to Oxfam Canada. If Thor wins, I keep the cash. If Beelzebub wins, all winnings will be mailed to Peter Singer to do with as he pleases (unless those at Triablogue have a better idea or I receive some better malevolent inspiration as to what to do with the cash).

    ReplyDelete
  18. You're attempting an argument from analogy minus the argument. You need to supply a supporting argument to show that Jesus, Thor, and the ghost of Michael Jackson are evidentially equivalent, as well as having comparable attributes.

    ReplyDelete