Judicial poker

What purpose is served by confirmation hearings? Until the 20C, we didn't even have public hearings for Supreme Court nominees. Ever since Bork, they've degenerated into a cat-and-mouse game where nominees giving evasive answers to tripwire questions. An opportunity for senators to indulge in flamboyant moral grandstanding for the cameras. 

Confirmation hearings ferret out whether the nominee is a good poker player. Does the nominee have a good game face. Can they bluff their way through the process. Are they smooth dissemblers. 

Scripture condemns transgender behavior

https://stream.org/memo-to-the-washington-post-the-bible-does-reject-transgender-behavior/

Is memory unreliable?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-corroboration-necessary-memory-unreliable/

I'm afraid this is too much like Bart Ehrman. I don't regard memory as generally unreliable. I don't regard eyewitness testimony as generally unreliable. Indeed, French often illustrates his articles by talking about his own experiences as a boy or college student. 

There's another factor in the allegations against Kavanaugh, and that's the role of alcohol. Assuming they were both at the same drinking party, if one or both were under the influence, that will make their memories unreliable. Indeed, that will impair their perception of events at the time–much less how well they remember it. 

A theology of suffering

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too. 6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer. 7 Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort (2 Cor 1:3-7).

1. That's an edifying sentiment, but in what respect is it true? God often refuses to protect his people–in contrast to the way a human father does everything he can to protect his family. And human fathers would do even more if they could. Presumably, Paul isn't just spouting an inspirational bromide. 

There's a defensive piety that sometimes hinders us from asking hard questions about a biblical text. The point is not that we should be impious, but defensive piety can be an impediment to understanding the passage if we just settle for the surface sentiment without probing the text. 

2. Some theologians resort to the notion of a suffering God. God doesn't alleviate suffering. Rather, he suffers with us. 

That's not a very satisfying explanation. If I had a "friend" who refused to relieve my suffering, even though he could put a stop to it, I wouldn't consider him to be much of a friend. Suffering with me is a sorry substitute if you can halt or prevent the suffering in the first place. If you can't, then commiseration may be better than nothing, but is God really that impotent?

3. Another explanation might be that God's mercy is primarily eschatological. He's merciful by saving us from eternal misery, not temporary misery. And there's a sense in which that's importantly true, but this particular text is more about the here-and-now than the hereafter. 

4. Some of the language has its background in OT usage and Jewish liturgical prayers. "Consolation" might be a better rendering than "comfort". 

5. In the text, there's an interplay between suffering and consolation, where prior suffering is a precondition for deliverance. Divine consolation takes the form of intervention rather than prevention. Not preempting affliction but bringing good out of evil. 

6. In the text, divine solace is indirect. God uses fellow believers to channel divine consolation. Both suffering and consolation have a corporate dimension. 

7. God doesn't generally spare believers from having to endure the same kinds of suffering as unbelievers. The difference is how Christians minister to each other. 

To take a comparison, suppose a group of high school students find themselves stranded on a desert island. Maybe a storm forced their Cessna to make an emergency landing. They expect to be rescued, but as the days lengthen into weeks, the despairing realization sweeps over them that no one knows where they are. They're presumed dead. 

Suppose they don't even like each other. But now they must work together to survive. That forces them to develop bonds of affection. They look out for each other. Share with each other. Having become fast friends, they help each other when one of them is sick or injured. 

Suppose their ordeal was preventable. But if they never were castaways, they wouldn't have the opportunity–indeed, the necessity–to console each other. Because they're marooned, with no rescue in sight, they must band together and care for each other. Which is better? 

The old duffer code

Denny Burke has conveniently posted a time-stamped edition of Mohler's position regarding The Statement on Justice and the Gospel:

http://www.dennyburk.com/albert-mohler-answers-questions-about-social-justice/

I draw attention to this because Mohler is one of the grand muftis in the SBC. His position is influential, and representative of other power brokers in the SBC. 

Unlike Russell Moore, who's a weasel, I think Mohler is a good guy. I disagree with his reasons for not signing the statement.

You might call it the old duffer code: "When I was a boy…" Folks like Mohler have the provincial notion that when and where they grew up should be the frame of reference for the younger generation. Mohler and I are just about the same age (he's two months younger than me), but I don't chain the younger generation to the experiences of my generation. They have their own duties and challenges. 

Libido and libation

There's an explosive, detailed allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

1. To judge by the story, I find the allegation realistic and credible. But credible isn't the same thing as convincing. 

2. For the most part, her account lacks any independent corroborative. Thus far, no one else at the party confirms her story. That doesn't mean her story is false. If it happened, both Kavanaugh and witness Mark Judge have every incentive to lie. And if it happened, they were the only direct witnesses. Mind you, if she was distraught, other partiers might notice her condition as she left. 

This is a problem with failing to report a crime when it happens. The witness pool dries up. Memories fade. 

3. The closest thing to corroboration is the polygraph. I think it's significant that she passed the polygraph. Indeed, I think it's significant that she agreed to take it in the first place. If she fabricated the story whole cloth, would she even dare to take a polygraph?

4. That said, a polygraph is not infallible, and to my knowledge, it only shows that the subject is convinced of what they say. Some people who claim to be victims of ritual Satanic abuse might pass a polygraph. Some "alien abductees" might pass a polygraph. On the vicissitudes of the polygraph:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

5. If true, it's odd that she's uncertain what year it happened. Given such an unforgettable incident, how could she be unsure about the year? 

Likewise, she's given conflicting accounts of her age at the time of the alleged assault. Was she 15 or in her "late teens"? How could she not remember her age?

The fact that she says she doesn't remember the year or the place could be a calculating way to render her allegation unfalsifiable. 

6. Although I find her allegation plausible, there's another plausible scenario. Both she and Kavanaugh were inebriated. 

She denies that she was drunk, but I treat her denials the same way I treat the denials of Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. If guilty, they have reason to hide their guilt. They have reason to protect their reputation. But that cuts both ways. For by the same token, if she was inebriated to some degree, she has reason to deny it, since admitting that both were intoxicated dramatically changes the social dynamics. 

Why do teenagers go to drinking parties if not to drink and hookup? By design, it's a sexually charged setting.

7. If they were both intoxicated to some degree, then she could be completely sincere in her recollections, yet intoxication might impair her perceptions at the time, what signals she was sending, as well as her memories of the event. (By "perception" I don't mean sensory perception but interpretation.)

When teenagers and college students attend drinking parties, there's a presumption that the partiers are under the influence and sex is on their minds. It pretty much removes the conditions necessary to establish nonconsent. 

8. Rape charges are often hard to verify if there are no witnesses. In addition, rape depends on nonconsent. And that makes attempted rape even harder to verify. Throw in a drinking party with barelyclad teenagers, and what's the presumption? What's the expectation? 

9. In addition, the timing is politically calculated to derail his confirmation. She's a registered Democrat. 

Now, that's still consistent with the truth of the allegation. But it's equally consistent with expedient defamation. That's a problem with last-minute accusations, which weren't reported at the time the alleged incident occurred. 

10. There's also the issue of double standards. Suppose, at a drinking party, a teenage girl shoved a boy onto a bed and began to tear his clothes off. Technically that's sexual assault, but if girl does it to a boy, does anyone honestly think that's sexual assault–or do we instinctively understand that what may be a traumatic experience for a female isn't a traumatic experience for a male? Men are wired differently. 

Or suppose you had a gay drinking party in which one young sodomite forced himself on another young sodomite. Is that attempted rape? Of did he leave himself open to that, given the setting? Swim with sharks...

Our society needs to get honest about standards. Either have a consistent unisex standard or a consistent complementation standard. If secular progressives are serious about how men and women are physically and psychologically interchangeable, then what is attempted rape when a male takes the initiative is attempted rape when a female takes the initiative.

If, on the other hand, we admit that normal men and women are physically and psychologically different, then that justifies a double standard in some situations (where sexual differences come to the fore), but that needs to be consistently applied. That means excluding women from certain occupations to which they are physically and/or psychologically unsuited.

What we have right now is a double standard when it benefits women. Where men are presumptively guilty. That's a miscarriage of justice. 

Religious Trump voters

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2018-voter-survey/religious-trump-voters

Fascinating demographic breakdown which puts the lie to the stereotype about "white evangelical Trump voters".

Does regeneration precede faith?

Soteriology 101

ORDO SALUTIS: Does Regeneration Precede Faith?

After quoting Tit 3:5, Leighton Flowers says:

regeneration is the washing or cleansing of our hearts from sin. It is not some supernatural, inner working that irresistibly causes people to believe truth.

1. Flowers seems to have a penchant for semantic fallacies. His implicit argument appears to be that because an English translation uses "regeneration" in a different sense than how it's used in Reformed theology, this text disproves Reformed theology. 

Stop to consider what a fallacious inference that is. "Regeneration" is a English word based on a Latin derivative. It's used in some English translations to render the Greek original. 

In Reformed theology, "regeneration" is a technical term. The fact that an English translation employs the same word in a less specialized sense than Reformed usage is beside the point. Flowers is trading on the connotations of an English word, but Paul didn't write in English. 

2. Paul is using the metaphor of rebirth. Metaphors tend to be open-textured. What they mean in a sentence is context-dependent. 

3. The fact that Paul may be using the metaphor in Tit 3:5 in a different sense than Reformed theology doesn't contradict Reformed theology. Rather, Paul isn't speaking to that issue one way or the other. Silence is not a denial. 

4. As commentators like Marshall and Towner explain, Tit 3:5 attributes the entire result to the prior intervention of the Spirit. If anything, that's a monergistic prooftext. The Spirit is the agent of spiritual rebirth and renewal. 

5. That said, it's striking that Flowers quoted v5 but ignores v3:

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another (Tit 3:3).

Compare that to other Pauline passages:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts (Eph 2:1-3).

17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, and they are full of greed (Eph 4:17-19).

How can people in a state of psychological bondage be receptive to the Gospel? Given their psychological condition (dead in sin, enslaved to passion, under occult bondage), they will be ill-disposed to accept the message. So what overcomes their antagonism? 

After quoting Acts 15:8-9, Leighton says:

God knew their heart and bore witness of what He knew. He did not determine it. And the heart is cleansed by faith. The heart isn't cleansed or washed (regenerated) to cause faith. 

1. The text is alluding to the evangelization of Cornelius, not unconverted sinners generally. Cornelius was an intellectual convert to Judaism. He worshipped Yahweh. He wasn't a pagan. This isn't starting from scratch. 

He's in the same boat as believing Jews who need to make a transition to the new covenant. Jews who need to learn about the Redeemer in the person of Jesus.

2. What does the gift of the Spirit mean in Acts? Does it denote regeneration? Were the Eleven unregenerate prior to Pentecost? In some contexts, it confers a kind of spiritual empowerment–resulting in visible miracles. 

The scope of the gift might vary according to the recipient. If the recipient is a believing Jew or Godfearer, the gift may confer charismata. If, on the other hand, the recipient is a raw pagan, then the invention of the Spirit may need to go back a step to do something more radical. 

The noble lie

In this post I'll outline how I approach the global warming controversy. 

1. Appeal is made to "scientific consensus". That's an argument from authority. The argument from authority can be valid or invalid depending on the assumptions. Appeal to scientific consensus in general is fallacious inasmuch as most scientists lack expertise in climatology and atmospheric sciences. 

2. Apropos (1), appeal is made to expert opinion. That, too, is an argument from authority, but a more respectable version. It's often rational to defer to expert opinion. 

Sometimes we defer to expert opinion, not because that's an epistemic virtue, but because it's a practical necessity. There are situations in which deference to expert opinion is a forced option.

3. There are, however, other situations in which we have the luxury of suspending judgment. Just as it's often rational to defer to public opinion, there are other situations in which it's rational to withhold judgment. If I'm unqualified to render an informed judgment on a particular issue, suspending judgment is sometimes the most responsible course of action. Taking drastic actions can be reckless and harmful. 

4. Apropos (3), it isn't a binary choice. It is, for instance, possible to be a global warming skeptic rather than a global warming "denier". And there can be good reasons for skepticism (see below).

5. Proponents of global warming will say the fact that most folks aren't qualified to have an informed opinion on global warming is precisely why they should defer to expert opinion. And, all things being equal, deference to expert opinion is often rational. 

However, the argument from authority crucially depends on trust. It presumes that the experts are acting in good faith. That their stated positions are uncoerced. That their position isn't skewed by an ulterior agenda. 

Unfortunately, there's abundant evidence that "climate science" is heavily politicized. Evidence that scientific dissent is blacklisted. Data is manipulated. Scientific counterevidence is suppressed or destroyed. 

It's no secret that global warming zealotry is the spearhead of an underlying philosophy. Environmentalism is an ideology. A worldview. A secular religion. Environmentalism is hostile to human exceptionalism and anthropocentrism. 

This is a moral crusade. Environmental ethics. "Environmental justice".  

Environmentalists are convinced that "sustainability initiatives" are a good idea even if global warming is bogus. For them, global warming alarmism is a noble lie. Even if the threat is widely exaggerated, that's justified by a larger principle. Global warming alarmism is a means to an end. 

That destroys the prima facie deference to expert opinion. Once we realize that the experts aren't offering disinterested information, it becomes rational to suspend judgment. 

The flip side of expert opinion is the ability to do a snow job on the non-specialist. Because the non-specialist is unqualified to evaluate the evidence, experts can abuse their authority to deceive the public with a blizzard of factoids. 

6. Ironically, the global warming establishment is antithetical to scientific inquiry. Carl Sagan made the optimistic claim that science is self-correcting. However, once the party line gets enacted into law, as official policy, climate science ceases to be a self-correcting process (if it ever was). At that point, scientific scrutiny is criminalized. 

7. The reputed threat of looming environmental catastrophe is not the only threat we need to consider or guard against. Another looming threat is the clear and present danger of totalitarianism. Consider how, under the Obama administration, the EPA abused its mandate. Consider how, during the Obama era, attorneys general were poised to prosecute global warming critics. Consider how the climate science establishment is an arm of the UN (IPCC). Consider how Google censors politically incorrect searches, which makes it increasingly impossible for the general public to fact-check global warming and other political orthodoxies of the liberal establishment. 

In our own time, totalitarianism, whether secular or Islamic, poses a far greater threat to the quality of life than global warming. Totalitarianism, whether secular or Islamic, poses a far more verifiable threat to the quality of life than global warming. 

Because I'm not qualified to make an informed judgment on global warming, I'm a global warming skeptic. I withhold judgment.

Given a choice between the hypothetical threat of global warming and the existential threat of totalitarianism, I prioritize opposition to totalitarianism. And not coincidentally, global warming zealots are totalitarians. 

Wilted Flowers

I don't normally read Leighton Flowers because he's a hack. Ironically, I think it's unfair to assess freewill theism by spokesmen like Flowers. However, a Facebook notification directed me to a post of his. He begins by quoting Rom 5:2 as follows:

Christ through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.

He then says Calvinists tacitly reword the verse as follows:

Christ through whom we have gained access by grace into this faith in which we now stand. 

Several issues:

i) Flowers is too lazy to present an actual argument. It's not my job to make his argument for him. But for discussion purposes, let's try to tease out the implicit argument. This seems to be what he's thinking: according to Calvinism, even faith is the product of God's grace. On that view, grace precedes faith. 

Flowers imagines that Rom 5:2 contradicts that understanding because it reverses the order: faith precedes grace. According to Calvinism, grace is the gateway to faith. According to Flowers, faith is the gateway to grace. Assuming that's the thrust of what Flowers has in mind:

i) His argument hinges on the syntactical relationship between faith and grace in Rom 5:2. There is, however, a text-critical issue. As a recent commentator has noted:

"By faith" is disputed among the major manuscripts, and probably does not belong in the original text–although this is probably a reasonable scribal hypothesis regarding Paul's belief. S. Porter, The Letter to the Romans (Sheffield 2015), 115. 

So Leighton's entire argument hinges on the presence of a word which may well be a  scribal interpolation. It's at least as likely if not more likely that Paul never used that word in 5:2. 

ii) In addition, Flowers commits a few related semantic fallacies. He acts as though "grace" has the same sense every time Paul uses the word. In addition, he acts as though the mere use of that Greek word carries the entire concept of grace in Pauline theology. By the same token, he acts as though the truth of Reformed theology depends on words having the same meaning in systematics and dogmatics that they have in biblical usage. So his semantic fallacy is several layers deep. 

iii) In context, Paul seems to be using "grace" as a synonym for a justified state. And that's consistent with Reformed theology. According to Calvinism, justification is contingent on faith. 

In Reformed theology, "grace" has multiple phases. The fact that one stage of saving grace is subsequent to faith doesn't mean there can't be prior stages of grace. In Reformed theology, the concept of grace encompasses salvation from start to finish, viz. election, redemption, regeneration, saving faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, glorification. The fact that some stages of grace are post-conversion doesn't militate against pre-conversion stages of grace. 

Science, faith, and God

Some comments on a recent dialogue between John Lennox and Michael Ruse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrnXdzQRISM

1. Both Lennox and Ruse are in their 70s. Lennox has something to look forward to when he dies–Ruse has nothing to look forward to.

2. Ruse illustrates the implausibility of the freewill defense, and Lennox's response is philosophically trite. In general, though, Ruse's religious ideal seems to be heavily conditioned by his Quaker upbringing and education. Even though he's an atheist (agnostic, naturalist), the Quaker paradigm remains his frame of reference.

The dialogue was interesting but frustrating because they didn't have time to develop their ideas. At one point Lennox gestured at a distinction between different kinds of science, but that was dropped. To develop his comparison, a science like chemistry is more fully and directly evidence-based than physics, which requires more theoretical filler.

It isn't clear to me if Ruse has a consistent position. However, his position may be more sophisticated than Lennox. At times, Lennox sounds like a positivist.

3. This goes back to an ancient and perennial debate on the relation between faith and reason. Here's one way of viewing it. Facts and evidence only take us so far. The evidence doesn't explain everything. The evidence leaves many important questions unanswered. Sometimes the evidence leaves us baffled. 

So we need something to fill out the evidence. Something over and above raw evidence. For many Christians, that's faith. For more cerebral Christians, that's reason. Christian philosophy and philosophical theology can help to fill the gap when the evidence runs out. Take theodicies. Mind you, faith can never be eliminated. 

Likewise, there's evidence for the Bible. And Biblical revelation provides explanations where raw evidence is lacking. Evidence can corroborate a truth-claim, but a truth-claim is distinct from the corroborative evidence. Revelation answers some questions which the evidence leaves unanswered. So revelation helps to fill out the evidence. Revelation interprets the available evidence and extends the reach of the available evidence.

In that respect, the relation between faith and reason is more like theoretical physics than chemistry. There's a necessary evidential component, but it requires philosophical and theological interpretation to fill out what's missing from the raw evidence.

4. I appreciate Lennox's courageous response to the professors. He refused to back down, even though as a college student and aspiring academic, he was quite vulnerable to being blacklisted by secular academia and the secular scientific establishment. 

5. That said, many Christians and atheists alike suffer from a nearsighted, bubblegummy idealism about "the truth", as if the truth has absolute value regardless of anything else. But truth is not a virtue in a godless universe. Truth isn't something to live for in a godless universe. Better to be a hedonist if it came to that. 

Truth is a necessary but insufficient condition for a worldview. A satisfactory worldview must have room for the good as well as the true. Truth is worthless unless truth can point us to some ultimate good. 

There is no truth for truth's sake. Rather, there's truth for goodness' sake and goodness for truth's sake. Christian apologists need to avoid a truncated worldview where bare truth, divested of anything else, is something to live for and die for. 

Christianity and naturalism aren't just two sides of an argument. It would be suicidal to abandon Christianity for atheism under the aegis of "following the truth"–as if truth has independent value regardless of what the world is like. Truth is not enough. 

Imagine a godless universe with a malevolent master race of aliens. Cruel, sadistic. Suppose they require you murder your mother to prove your undying allegiance to the alien overlords. That's nothing to live for, even if that was true.

6. Perhaps we need more discussion of what distinguishes private evidence from public evidence. For instance:

i) Some of the Resurrection appearances are to solitary individuals. That's originally private evidence. 

ii) We can compare (i) to Resurrection appearances to groups of people. Presumably, that would be classified as public evidence.

iii) However, there's a sense in which collective private evidence can be reclassified as public evidence. That is to say, multiple-attestation can be something witnessed by several people at once or else it can be something witnessed by solitary observers. If, though, you have multiple reports of the same thing by isolated observers, the effect is mutual corroboration.

Suppose you have to be smarter to drive than be a chess champ?

https://billdembski.com/science-and-technology/virtual-railroads-and-west-virginia-back-roads/#more-53657

Chess is an informal IQ test. A goal of AI was to design a computer that could outperform the best chess-players. That was a way of proving AI. Mind you, calling what computers do "intelligent" is Pickwickian. 

But be that as it may, what if it takes more intelligence to perform a mundane task like driving than playing chess? If we can design computers to beat even the best players at chess, but we can't design automated cars to reliably do what human drivers can do, then that presents a paradox for AI. 

This may go to the fact that in chess, the variables are quantifiable and predictable, while driving conditions are not. In that context, human intelligence is adaptable in a way that AI is not. 

Village atheism

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/the-problem-of-village-atheism.html

Is there anybody here?

http://www.uncover.org.uk/mark/watch

Fatal overdose

https://anchorednorth.org/the-overdose-that-didnt-kill-me/

Assuming this is true, seems like a case of instantaneous miraculous restoration (from a fatal overdose). 

Encountering Islam

https://voice.dts.edu/tablepodcast/encountering-islam/

Has a transcript

Hunger stones

Hmm. Aren't sea levels supposed to be rising due to climate change?

https://www.sciencealert.com/sinister-hunger-stones-dire-warnings-surfacing-european-heatwave-czech-drought-elbe-decin

imposing hegemonic gender roles onto polar bears

The next frontier in social justice: transgender rights for polar bears:

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/cog/tcc/2018/00000018/00000001/art00005

Income redistribution

http://kuyperian.com/is-social-justice-just-a-defense/

Is unanswered prayer a waste of time?

I don't know if there are any reliable stats on this topic, but it wouldn't surprise me if most Christian prayers go unanswered. (By "unanswered prayer," I mean not getting what you ask for.) That raises an interesting and important question: answered prayer has obvious value, but does unanswered prayer serve any purpose? 

i) At one level you might view prayer like dandelion parachutes and maple leaf whirlybirds. Even if most don't germinate, redundancy provides a margin so that a few are likely to germinate. More prosaically, if you already get less than you pray for, then the less you pray, the less you get. You get even less than if you prayed more often. Suppose only a fraction of prayers are answered. In that event, the "odds" of any prayer getting answered plummet if you pray infrequently. You fall below the threshold. 

Now, that's a rather mechanical way of putting it. I'm not suggesting that it's primarily about the odds. There is, though, an element of truth in the fact that you get more hits with more throws. On a dartboard, even when you miss most of the time, if you keep throwing darts, you'll get lucky, but if you rarely throw darts, your hits will be that much rarer rare.

Once again, I'm not suggesting that answered prayer is a matter of luck. Just using an analogy to illustrate the point. Analogies have disanalogies. 

And, of course, you don't know ahead of time which prayers will go unanswered. So it's not as if you could make better use of that time. 

ii) When several people pray for someone, and the prayer is answered, whose prayer was answered? Was everyone's prayer for that person answered? If they all prayed for the same thing, did God individually answer their prayers? There's a sense in which, if fifty people pray for the same thing, and God answers their prayer, God can't answer their prayer fifty different times since there's just one specified outcome. 

Or did God respond to just one or two prayer warriors–out of the sum total? If half the people prayed, maybe the prayer would go unanswered, not because it's about sheer numbers, but perhaps the prayers of some Christians are more efficacious. Some Christians are more saintly than others. (I don't mean "saintly" in the Catholic sense.)

iii) The habit of prayer creates a prayer-shaped life. Both answered and unanswered prayers contribute to a prayer-shaped life. It's not confined to a subset of "successful" prayers, but a life of prayer that conditions and regulates the Christian pilgrimage. 

v) Answered prayer affects the future, but so does unanswered prayer. For the time spent in prayer is time diverted from other activities. Even when prayer doesn't affect the future by directing a specific outcome (answered prayer), yet the act of prayer still affects the future regardless of the divine response. In a cause/effect world, what agents do with their time has a ripple effect. In his providence, God employs unanswered prayer as well as answered prayer to orchestrate the future.