Announcing "Answered" Prayers Both Stupid and Disgusting

[David Sklansky]

This is one of my biggest pet peeves.

Recently a mother who recovered her child lost for four days in the woods said on TV something like, "Some people think that heaven is closed. I am here to tell you that they are wrong. We prayed every day and God answered them. We have a our little boy back."

Yesterday Bossjj mentioned how Jews prayed during the first Gulf War and that it was likely the reason that no one was killed by all the scud missiles.

Of course I don't believe that any prayers are answered. But even if I am wrong, statements like the two above are way out of line.

First of all they are stupid. Reason being that unless the event is physically impossible or at least incredibly unlikely, the fact that it happens is precious little evidence that prayer had anything to do with it. If you pray for something that has a one percent chance of happening randomly and it proceeds to come in, so what? That's even more obvious if you have prayed one hundred times and were "answered" only once.

I would think that even most religious people would agree that when someone prays for something, say winning the lottery, and then it happens, it was almost certainly NOT because of the prayer. Put another way: I believe that if a thousand people pray for a one percent shot, ten, on average, will have their prayer answered. Religious people, noting how rare it is that prayers work, might predict that eleven of the prayers will hit their one percent shot. But even if prayers could work, under this scenario we would have eleven people claiming their good luck came from prayer and 91% would be wrong.

The reasons such statements are disgusting, especially when life and death is involved, is because of the tremendous insensitivety it shows toward many others. Namely those who have NOT had their prayers answered. What do you think would have gone through the mind of the several mothers who have had to edure the disappearance followed by death of one of their little children if they had been listening to that ladies speech? I bet most of them prayed just as hard. If they are to believe her speech they must conclude that they were not as worthy in God's eyes. Don't they have enough to deal with? And that lady made her speech very shortly after a number of high profile child killings so she should have realized all this.

Same for the Bossjj comment. Bet during the time of those missiles, hundreds of ill Israelis died even though many were praying for them. Even if he is stupid enough (I can use that word to describe him because he tosses it around a lot, and I'll gladly bet $50,000 that even though he is smarter than most, he can't beat me on any type of intelligence test) to believe that the lack of casualties was anything more than a random event, he still shouldn't be so insensitive as to brag about it when somone who prayed and got nothing might be reading his words.

[txag007]

As a Christian who absolutely believes that God answers prayers, my reaction to your post is as follows. Just because the occurrence of an event is in line with a certain probability of said event happening does not mean that God was not involved. If it is going to take place 1% of the time anyway, perhaps God decides to whom it happens.

Insensitive to those whose prayers are not answered, you say? Maybe. Part of having faith, however, is to trust both that God sees the bigger picture and has a plan for your life. God always answers prayers, but he answers them in His time. Sometimes his answer is "no".

I'm not pretending to know everything about prayer. This is just what I believe.

[David Sklansky]

Just because the occurrence of an event is in line with a certain probability of said event happening does not mean that God was not involved. If it is going to take place 1% of the time anyway, perhaps God decides to whom it happens.


I see. So God decides who gets the one percent shot. But he doesn't use his powers to give it to more than one percent (or whatever the mathematical probability might be). Even though they all prayed.

[tripp0807]

[ QUOTE ]
[S]tatements like the two above are way out of line.

First of all they are stupid. Reason being that unless the event is physically impossible or at least incredibly unlikely, the fact that it happens is precious little evidence that prayer had anything to do with it. If you pray for something that has a one percent chance of happening randomly and it proceeds to come in, so what? That's even more obvious if you have prayed one hundred times and were "answered" only once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning does not justify your conclusion. Just because something that is unlikely to happen does happen does not mean that the prayer had nothing to do with the outcome. With prayer, there are substantially more factors involved (see below). Furthermore, when something "physically impossible" (your words) happens, I think, one has substantial proof that prayer works.

[ QUOTE ]
I would think that even most religious people would agree that when someone prays for something, say winning the lottery, and then it happens, it was almost certainly NOT because of the prayer. Put another way: I believe that if a thousand people pray for a one percent shot, ten, on average, will have their prayer answered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here, where you "put it another way," you're assuming that the question of whether a prayer is answered is independent of the nature of the prayer itself. This is a mistake. I agree that when a person prays for something that serves a purpose contrary to God's will, and said "thing" occurs, it often has little, if anything, to do with prayer (the reason that I say little is to cover cases where God may answer a prayer to show a person that they don't really want/need what they pray for).

[ QUOTE ]
Religious people, noting how rare it is that prayers work, might predict that eleven of the prayers will hit their one percent shot. But even if prayers could work, under this scenario we would have eleven people claiming their good luck came from prayer and 91% would be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it highly unlikely that you can find a "religous" person who will predict the likelihood of a prayer being answered by a percentage. Most "mainstream" Christians believe that the "likelihood" of a prayer being answered hinges on the correlation between what is asked for and God's will.

[ QUOTE ]
The reasons such statements are disgusting, especially when life and death is involved, is because of the tremendous insensitivety it shows toward many others. Namely those who have NOT had their prayers answered.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something to this. Many whose faith is weak in the first place will have it further weakened because this sort of statement will cause them to believe that their faith is either a) weak, b) worthless, or c) misplaced. Even those whose faith is strong might have their faith weakened if they had a terrible experience that was not "solved" (bad word choice) by prayer.

The problem with the idea that all the belief that ALL prayers will be answered is that it is contradictory to the idea that God's will must be done; more Christians need to recognize that the question to whether a prayer will be answered is dependent on numerous factors, including the motives and faith of the person seeking, but more importantly, God's will. If we got everything that we asked for in prayer, how would God's will factor into anything?

[ QUOTE ]
Even if he is stupid enough (I can use that word to describe him because he tosses it around a lot...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Why stoop to other's levels? If somebody raises out of turn to get a free card, does that mean I can?

-Tripp

[slickpoppa]

Your explanation is plausible, but there is absolutely no proof of it. In the absence of any evidence, my default position is that prayer does not do anything.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

Most "mainstream" Christians believe that the "likelihood" of a prayer being answered hinges on the correlation between what is asked for and God's will.


[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, God will answer your prayer if the event for which you're praying was going to happen anyway. So the point of praying is . . .?

[David Sklansky]

"Furthermore, when something "physically impossible" (your words) happens, I think, one has substantial proof that prayer works."

I'm not going to address most of your points because they are off the subject of my orignial post. So is the quoted statement above.

But I find that statement fascinating. You seem to think that I might not accept that when something physically impossible is prayed for and happens, that it is not substantial proof that prayer works. What are you talking about? It is virtually IRREFUTABLE proof. If not for prayer at least for the existence of God. That is why it was so moronic for Bossjj to think that God would tell Jews to ignore a real miracle. The laws of physics can be suspended by something besides God?

As I have said several times, I would become an instant believer, if I thought even one real miracle has ever occurred. As would anyone with half a brain.

[Jake (The Snake)]

[ QUOTE ]
Many whose faith is weak in the first place will have it further weakened because this sort of statement will cause them to believe that their faith is either a) weak, b) worthless, or c) misplaced....
The problem with the idea that all the belief that ALL prayers will be answered is that it is contradictory to the idea that God's will must be done; more Christians need to recognize that the question to whether a prayer will be answered is dependent on numerous factors, including the motives and faith of the person seeking, but more importantly, God's will. If we got everything that we asked for in prayer, how would God's will factor into anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to be insensitive and I hope I'm not taking your statement out of context but this is one of the major problems I have with religious people and their justifications.

You seem to be saying that those whose faith is weak will have their faith further weakened when their prayers are not answered, whereas those with a strong faith will understand that it up to the will of God (or at least they should).

There is an important correlation here. As your faith in God becomes stronger and stronger, you are more willing to accept the outcomes to your prayers without questioning it. Antony Flew writes about this. Religious people just keep making more and more qualifications about things.

When someone points out that many people die despite the fact that they prayed, you say "God loves us and has a plan for each of us." Well, what could possibly occur to make you believe that the opposite is true? There is nothing. Because of your faith, you are bound to keep making more qualifications.

There is a good argument against this and hopefully somebody will make it before I make any more comments.

[tripp0807]

[ QUOTE ]
In the absence of any evidence, my default position is that prayer does not do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this should be your default position. The only evidence you're going to get of prayer working is the evidence that you find when prayer works for you. That was and continues to be my evidence.


[ QUOTE ]
In other words, God will answer your prayer if the event for which you're praying was going to happen anyway. So the point of praying is . . .?

[/ QUOTE ]

At no point did I say that "God's will" was what was going to happen anyway. In my personal opinion, as it relates to prayer, God's "will" is whether he wants to answer it based on a number of factors, only some of which I think I am aware of.

-Tripp

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, God will answer your prayer if the event for which you're praying was going to happen anyway. So the point of praying is . . .?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that they are saying the point is that it happens to YOU and not someone else.

It does all seem pretty pointless, though.

As an aside, I was able to use religion effectively at the table the other day. I was getting hammered on the river repeatedly and was down about 35BB after 2 hours of playing when I asked the fish who kept drawing out what religion he was.

He said he didn't discuss his religion at the table, which I thought was a good answer and told him that I respected that.

Right after my next big hand got cracked, I announced that I'm changing gods. This got a laugh from the table and I used it as an opportunity to change my image.

2 hours later I was up 50BB.

I guess my prayers were answered. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, God will answer your prayer if the event for which you're praying was going to happen anyway. So the point of praying is . . .?

[/ QUOTE ]

At no point did I say that "God's will" was what was going to happen anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

How could God's will not happen? God is omnipotent and omniscient, right?

[PLOlover]

I believe Douglas Adams covered this in the Hitchhiker series.

The president of the universe is taken to a torture machine that shows him his place in the universe. It will drive him mad to know how infinitely unimportant he is in the cosmic scheme.

He manages to escape because he got into a simulated universe or something by accidentally exiting via the window rather than the door, and in this computer simulated universe he is the most important thing in it, just as he has always known.

[txag007]

Who am I to say what God can and can't do? He could give it to all 100% if he so chooses. (That all-powerful thing must be nice, huh?)

Sometimes His answer to our prayers is no. Even though they all prayed? Yes.

My point is that using the likelihood of an event occurring does not automatically mean that God is not involved in answering someone's prayers for that event.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

As I have said several times, I would become an instant believer, if I thought even one real miracle has ever occurred. As would anyone with half a brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which leads to the question as to why God, rather than provide the world with irrefutable evidence of his existance via physical miracles such as described, would let people continue in a disbelief that will result (per some religions) in eternal punishment?

Claiming that such miracles did occur some thousands of years ago doesn't work. Clearly those miracles are unpersuasive today, given the level of unbelief, whereas something like stopping the moon this evening would be.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Which leads to the question as to why God, rather than provide the world with irrefutable evidence of his existance via physical miracles such as described, would let people continue in a disbelief that will result (per some religions) in eternal punishment?

Claiming that such miracles did occur some thousands of years ago doesn't work. Clearly those miracles are unpersuasive today, given the level of unbelief, whereas something like stopping the moon this evening would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The general answer that theologists give to this question is that if God revealed himself directly, it would eliminate free will. After all, what choice would you have but to follow God?

I guess you could say that it would be kind of like showing your cards in a poker game when you have an absolute lock.

If you have AA on a board of AA7r and show them, who will continue to play against you? I guess the guy with the backdoor SF draw could take a shot at you, but that would be pretty pointless wouldn't it?

[txag007]

"As I have said several times, I would become an instant believer, if I thought even one real miracle has ever occurred. As would anyone with half a brain."

But then there would be no reason for faith, and faith is a very important part of Christianity.

[PLOlover]

So then why are there miracles in the old and new testament?

[KaneKungFu123]

Would you say that getting gang raped in a parking lot is God's plan for someone?

[ QUOTE ]
As a Christian who absolutely believes that God answers prayers, my reaction to your post is as follows. Just because the occurrence of an event is in line with a certain probability of said event happening does not mean that God was not involved. If it is going to take place 1% of the time anyway, perhaps God decides to whom it happens.

Insensitive to those whose prayers are not answered, you say? Maybe. Part of having faith, however, is to trust both that God sees the bigger picture and has a plan for your life. God always answers prayers, but he answers them in His time. Sometimes his answer is "no".

I'm not pretending to know everything about prayer. This is just what I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PLOlover]

I would have to say yes. This is the same god that nuked Soddom and Gommorrah and stuff like that.

[Jcrew]

How tolerant is your definition of miracle? If a guy claims to have Godly powers and was able to roll a 6 on any 6 sided die at a 20% or greater rate on demand(say he rolls 100 times at every request), would you believe his claim? If so, how many times would he have to perform for you to be satisfied?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you say that getting gang raped in a parking lot is God's plan for someone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it was God answering the gang's prayers.

[txag007]

"So then why are there miracles in the old and new testament?"

To confirm the divinity of God, overcome skeptics, and give people a reason to have faith. At the time of those miracles, there was no Bible. In fact, one could say that the existence of the Bible today is a miracle in itself.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
If a guy claims to have Godly powers and was able to roll a 6 on any 6 sided die at a 20% or greater rate on demand(say he rolls 100 times at every request), would you believe his claim? If so, how many times would he have to perform for you to be satisfied?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a miracle. This is a learned skill.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, one could say that the existence of the Bible today is a miracle in itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not for the reasons you think.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

As I have said several times, I would become an instant believer, if I thought even one real miracle has ever occurred. As would anyone with half a brain.


[/ QUOTE ]

You've also said that if anything that looked like a real miracle ocurred it was just a matter of time until science explained it away, um, er, I mean gave a rational explanation - presumably you would die still believing science would someday explain it. This effectively means you are saying miracles are impossible.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
To confirm the divinity of God, overcome skeptics, and give people a reason to have faith. At the time of those miracles, there was no Bible. In fact, one could say that the existence of the Bible today is a miracle in itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic doublethink.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
The reasons such statements are disgusting, especially when life and death is involved, is because of the tremendous insensitivety it shows toward many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Too much appeasement goes on between high IQ people and low IQ people. High IQ people are expected to excuse low IQ people for shítting on others because "they can't help it", or "didn't mean it" etc. while it is impossible to have situations go the other way because the low IQ people are simply incapable of understanding how high IQ people think.

To me it's very surprising that high IQ people don't band together and wrest away the power from the masses, creating an elitist society in which the higher your IQ the more rights you have. It's as though they enjoy being subservient and having their interests suppressed.

[txag007]

"Yes, but not for the reasons you think."

What are the reasons I think?

[txag007]

"Classic doublethink."

Lol. I was expecting that.
Two comments:

1)I believe God is capable of performing miracles today, but he chooses to speak in other ways. By miracles, I mean occurrences that violate the laws of physics (not something that's just unlikely to occur).

2)My earlier comment about the Bible being in existence today used the word miracle very loosely. My intent was to imply that there are certain things that increase the chance that Christianity is correct. The Bible being is existence is one of those things.

3)Okay, three comments. Christianity is about a relationship between you and God. It cannot be proven. If it could, there would be no reason for faith. That doesn't mean that there aren't indicators out there to guide our thinking.

[andyfox]

The worst of this is when people believe God answered their prayers to harm others. When the Puritans burned the Pequots, they wrote that it pleased God to see the Indians so punished. If one believes that Osama Bin Laden believes his rantings, then he believes that is pleased God to see the 9/11 victims dead. It is one thing to have one's prayers answered to help somebody; it is quite another to see that one's prayers answered to harm others. Those prayers lead to renewed belief that God and good are on your side and the devil and evil belong to the Other.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
"As I have said several times, I would become an instant believer, if I thought even one real miracle has ever occurred. As would anyone with half a brain."

But then there would be no reason for faith, and faith is a very important part of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear, God. Please make him stop. Please make him stop. Please make him stop....

[Jcrew]

Yes, it may be. You missed the point though. The example was contrived to ask the question how many coincidences must occur for a reasonable logical person to call it a miracle. Since David seems to merit himself as such a person, I would like to hear his opinion on the matter.

[David Sklansky]

"You've also said that if anything that looked like a real miracle ocurred it was just a matter of time until science explained it away, um, er, I mean gave a rational explanation"

I never said that. You have me confused with maurile. In fact I have said close to the opposite. Because I am more skeptical than most scientists about the possibility of explaining consciousness.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Those prayers lead to renewed belief that God and good are on your side and the devil and evil belong to the Other.

[/ QUOTE ]

It specifically says in the bible that part of the contract between god and man is that if you worship him, your enemies will become his enemies.

[laurentia]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reasons such statements are disgusting, especially when life and death is involved, is because of the tremendous insensitivety it shows toward many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Too much appeasement goes on between high IQ people and low IQ people. High IQ people are expected to excuse low IQ people for shítting on others because "they can't help it", or "didn't mean it" etc. while it is impossible to have situations go the other way because the low IQ people are simply incapable of understanding how high IQ people think.

To me it's very surprising that high IQ people don't band together and wrest away the power from the masses, creating an elitist society in which the higher your IQ the more rights you have. It's as though they enjoy being subservient and having their interests suppressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Except for the fact that in Sklansky's example the "shitting on others" happens between low IQ people and real elitists don't worry about that.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

I see. So God decides who gets the one percent shot. But he doesn't use his powers to give it to more than one percent (or whatever the mathematical probability might be). Even though they all prayed.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this actually is a very plausible possibiliity. God does not want Earth to be perfect. That's what heaven is for. So, instead of giving everybody everything they desire, God gives it to somebody who will praise His name.

Too many people when trying to disprove religions point out how imperfect life on Earth is. They fail to realize that that is part of the plan.

Josh

[dragon14]

[ QUOTE ]
The reasons such statements are disgusting, especially when life and death is involved, is because of the tremendous insensitivity it shows toward many others. Namely those who have NOT had their prayers answered. What do you think would have gone through the mind of the several mothers who have had to endure the disappearance followed by death of one of their little children if they had been listening to that ladies speech? I bet most of them prayed just as hard. If they are to believe her speech they must conclude that they were not as worthy in God's eyes. Don't they have enough to deal with? And that lady made her speech very shortly after a number of high profile child killings so she should have realized all this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lady made her speech while feeling overjoyed that her son had been found alive. After four days it's normal to have doubts that he would be found alive and he was. It's probably a bit of wishful thinking for her to think that praying for her son was going to help him but if it helped her cope with the situation I don't see the problem.

When someone I know is seriously ill and someone remarks that they are praying for them it strikes me as a warm gesture although I'm more of a rational than religious person.

If her son had not been found alive both parents would have spent a lot of time wondering if they could have done something to prevent it. These thoughts would probably have verged from the fairly rational "If he hadn't gone on that trip, he'd still be here today" to the more irrational "God intended for this to happen to strengthen our faith".

If faith is a big part of someone's life it's natural to couch life's hardships in terms of your religion. If science is the big part of your life perhaps you can look at everything in terms of numbers. If my son were lost I'd prefer someone to say "I'm praying for him, we're going to find him alive" than for a mathematician to say "the odds of him surviving four days in the woods all alone are 15%".

People caring about and trying to show support however irrational for their loved ones strikes me as more positive than negative.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
If my son were lost I'd prefer someone to say "I'm praying for him, we're going to find him alive" than for a mathematician to say "the odds of him surviving four days in the woods all alone are 15%".


[/ QUOTE ]


This is nonsense. I would much rather have a competent search and rescue team that would take a systemic and rational approach to finding my son that would have the best probability of success, than have 1.2 billion Christians or 1.2 billion Muslins praying that he will survive and be found. Nor would I ask for any help in finding my son from psychics or Astrologers.

-Zeno

[dragon14]

You seem to be misrepresenting my post. Please read it again. There is no endorsement of the power of prayer or of the power of psychics or astrologers.

I think Sklansky is overly aggressive in insulting a woman who just found out her son was alive after having been missing for four days.

I'm referring to the fact that saying you're praying for someone is a kind gesture that implies a person is in your thoughts and you understand that they are going through tough times. I state that this is preferable to cold, rational thought.

I'm referring to one on one gestures, not to what the best way of locating someone is.

[Zeno]

The thread is long with many responses and I apologize if I was mistaken and/or misinterpreted what your real intent was. It appeared to me that you denigrated ‘mathematics’ wholesale, when employing mathematical principles could certainly help having the best chances of finding a lost person.

A simple misunderstanding in the mix of all the topics.

I'm getting old. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

-Zeno

[carlo]

Prayer is a way of "conversing with spiritual beings". He knows what you need and asking for events to happen is not prayer but earth centered egocentricity.

It was not always so as in previous ages there was an atavistic clairvoyance in which each man had an understanding ofspiritual activity(to a greater or lesser extent) and the idea of "proof" in our conventional sense would have been ridiculous.

The farther back in time one goes the more connected to these worlds was the human spirit on earth. Adam walked in this world prior to the "Fall" and there has been a gradual descent up to the present time.

We have reached the point of "non existance" of the spiritual worlds in the sense that we cannot relate to it.Prior to the "Fall" we were in the bosom of spirituality but with no objective sense of self. The progression has continued such that our sense of self is strong and herein lies the Ego.

Our individual Ego is the "baby" of our spirituality--the "I Am"-a drop in the ocean of the Godhead. The future is the selfless Ego in which we recognize our nature as spiritual beings with a history and as individuals.

Go for it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

regards,
carlo

[David Sklansky]

"I'm referring to the fact that saying you're praying for someone is a kind gesture that implies a person is in your thoughts and you understand that they are going through tough times."

That wasn't what she said. And given that her son had returned she should have been more thoughtful to those who hadn't.

[David Sklansky]

"I see. So God decides who gets the one percent shot. But he doesn't use his powers to give it to more than one percent (or whatever the mathematical probability might be). Even though they all prayed."

"See, this actually is a very plausible possibiliity. God does not want Earth to be perfect. That's what heaven is for. So, instead of giving everybody everything they desire, God gives it to somebody who will praise His name."

Your'e saying something unrelated to my comment. Anyway lets try this. A hundred non prayers are put into the same situation as a hundred prayers. If the desired outcome is a one percent shot, one non believer and one believer will on average succeed. Do you dispute that? and if not, exactly how has God intervened there?

By the way, in the interest of politeness I should make it clear that I don't actually want to know the answers to these questions. I know them already. To say otherwise would be to patronize you. I am just trying to figure out what question to ask you that will illuminate to you the flaws in your argument. Perhaps it will be easier to admit these flaws if you realize that a concession on your part doesn't imply there is no God.

[The Dude]

The bigger point that you are trying to make goes beyond the issue of prayer. I know a lot of Christians, almost all of which try to apply meaning and significance to random events. When people say "I ran into so-and-so today, and I'm just convinced it was for a purpose." Or, "this really bad thing happened, and I know God had me go through it for a purpose." While it is entirely possible that these things are for a purpose (or, in your example, that God did answer the prayer), it is more often than not nonsense.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This is nonsense. I would much rather have a competent search and rescue team that would take a systemic and rational approach to finding my son that would have the best probability of success, than have 1.2 billion Christians or 1.2 billion Muslins praying that he will survive and be found. Nor would I ask for any help in finding my son from psychics or Astrologers.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's up to the men to search. It's up to the women to get hysterical together. So the purpose of prayer is obvious.

[Josh W]

Why do all of your 'points' start out with "IF".

The answer to your question was in my first post. Even if still only 1/100 get their desired results, God chooses who it is. Whereas all 100 people are nameless/faceless to you, they aren't to God, and each person does not represent the same utility.

Are you asserting that if there's a 1 in 100 chance of an event occuring, and all 100 people pray devoutly on it, that still only 1 person will get their desired outcome?

Are you saying this is true, and if so, do you have any reason why you believe this?

Don't think that God HAS TO follow all the laws of physics and probability that you do. Remember, you are a mere mortal and He isn't.

[txag007]

"God does not want Earth to be perfect. That's what heaven is for."

I disagree. It's not Him who makes the world imperfect. It is the sin of mankind. He created a perfect world in the Garden of Eden. It was Adam and Eve who brought sin into the world (and thus, separated man from God). Earth has been imperfect ever since.

[txag007]

"A hundred non prayers are put into the same situation as a hundred prayers. If the desired outcome is a one percent shot, one non believer and one believer will on average succeed. Do you dispute that?"

God is about relationships. Honestly, I don't think he gives a flip what the probabilities are. Because I truly believe that God answers prayers, I would say that the situation with a hundred prayers would have a higher rate of success than those who don't pray.

[txag007]

"While it is entirely possible that these things are for a purpose (or, in your example, that God did answer the prayer), it is more often than not nonsense."

How do you know?

[Dan Mezick]

David,

You realize fully, of course, that many folks that read your posts on [god, God and GOD] are praying for you. Probably a great many, and probably daily. I'm sure the number of people involved grows daily because you are high profile and influential. As such you are a prime implicant for prayer from (oh no) Christians, who tend to pray for all leaders and authorities.

I just wanted to pass this along. I know it means nothing to you and is of no consequence in your view.

Certainly you post for reactions. Some of these may be much greater than you expect.

Although you might never admit it, at some level you likely intend for those very prayers to occur.

[dragon14]

First of all you're taking this quote from my reply to zeno not my reply to your post.

My problem with your post was that you are insulting a woman who is overjoyed that her son who was feared dead was found alive. Anyone who prays a lot certainly gets their share of unanswered prayers. (Keep in mind I'm not endorsing prayer here, just equating it to goal-setting, wishes, etc.)

Parents of children who were not found alive who are religious will certainly question God's intentions in allowing their son or daughter to die on their own. It's not as if the Utah woman's quote would be the only reason a religious person would question what their God had in mind.

My main point is that questioning someone's thoughtfullness or lack thereof at an extremely emotional time seems a bit unfair. At a strong emotional point one can't expect complete rationality of thought.

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
My main point is that questioning someone's thoughtfullness or lack thereof at an extremely emotional time seems a bit unfair. At a strong emotional point one can't expect complete rationality of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

THIS is the whole point.

This woman will forever live her life now based on the conclusions she came to during this period of irrational thought.

She came to this conclusion in the first place because of sloppy thinking and religious training and will now draw lifelong motivation from the (probably) wrong conclusions that she is drawing during her vulnerable moments.

She is not the only one who does this, it's typical of most people. The problem is that it's also backward. Most of our instinctive reactions are not the most efficient or effective way to deal with a situation. That's what training and techniques are for.

This training, though, causes her to believe something, which, in here case worked out to her benefit, but is just as likely to cause equal or greater damage simultaneously to someone else.

What if, the next time something goes very badly for her God 'doesn't' answer her prayers. Let's say, for example that her child, now returned, gets sick 3 weeks later and dies.

Then what does she say? She'll still pray for him while he's sick, I would imagine.

BTW, I know it's hypothetical so please don't start by saying it didn't happen that way.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
"God does not want Earth to be perfect. That's what heaven is for."

I disagree. It's not Him who makes the world imperfect. It is the sin of mankind. He created a perfect world in the Garden of Eden. It was Adam and Eve who brought sin into the world (and thus, separated man from God). Earth has been imperfect ever since.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with WHY Earth isn't imperfect, obviously. But if God wanted Earth to be perfect again, He could make it so. But just like parents don't give their kids everything they want (i.e. answer their kids prayers) because they have a bigger picture in mind, God doesn't give people everything they want on Earth.

Josh

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
While it is entirely possible that these things are for a purpose (or, in your example, that God did answer the prayer), it is more often than not nonsense.[ QUOTE ]
How do you know?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Everybody with half a brain knows.

[txag007]

I know what you're saying, but you are talking about two different things. God did not WANT the world to become imperfect. Adam and Eve's sin was not part of His plan. It broke his heart. So why did he give them the forbidden fruit in the first place? He gave man a choice, so he would know our love for Him is real. The same applies as to why He doesn't just kill Satan and make the world perfect again. He wants us to CHOOSE him.

Now, if you are talking about why God doesn't answer everyone's prayers all the time. You're right. He sees the big picture that we do not.

[txag007]

"How do you know?
Everybody with half a brain knows"

You said you don't believe God puts specific people in our lives for a purpose. I believe He does. I'm just asking for your reasoning. What makes you think it's nonsense?

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
You said you don't believe God puts specific people in our lives for a purpose. I believe He does. I'm just asking for your reasoning. What makes you think it's nonsense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem with this question is a question too.

What makes you think this belief isn't nonsense other than the fact that you believe it?

[txag007]

"What makes you think this belief isn't nonsense other than the fact that you believe it?"

The Bible says God has a plan for our lives. If this is true, then it would seem logical to me that he would do this. I don't know how much weight that holds with you because I'm not sure if you believe that the Bible is true.

Regardless, that's my reasoning. What's yours?

[David Sklansky]

"Are you asserting that if there's a 1 in 100 chance of an event occuring, and all 100 people pray devoutly on it, that still only 1 person will get their desired outcome?"

Believe it or not, that is what I am saying.

"Are you saying this is true, and if so, do you have any reason why you believe this?"

Because I have known many situations where it is clear that many are praying and the number who are answered is what probablity would predict.

"Don't think that God HAS TO follow all the laws of physics and probability that you do."

Correct. That's the point.

[dragon14]

Dov,

I think Sklansky was too harsh with his judgment of this woman. Whether or not rational thought is preferable to irrational thought is not something I'm discussing in my posts.

He seems to be trying to score points about religion at a time of extreme circumstances. Very few people will appear on television to announce to the media that their son who was feared dead is now alive. Saying that your prayers, hopes, dreams etc., were realized in this case is unlikely to cause anyone any harm. Religious people are certainly aware that they do not get everything they ask for whether prayers, wishes, or desires.

Most religious people are aware that taking action towards a goal is more likely to help them than simply praying. That's why most religious people go to work, visit the doctor, etc. They don't pin all their hopes on religion, but if before going to bed at night they say a few prayers I'm not sure what the harm is.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I wonder if God is people's coping mechanism for explaining random events. I think Human beings suffer incredibly from the truth that the result of a random event has no meaning.

[mockingbird]

[ QUOTE ]
The laws of physics can be suspended by something besides God?


[/ QUOTE ]

If an event occurred that seemingly violated the laws of physics it is possible that the laws of physics will then be expanded or amended. New knowledge is revealed all the time and is not considered miraculous in the literal sense.

For example: evidence that the sun revolves around the earth when this contradicted the accepted scientific views of the day /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mockingbird]

David, your posts on God strike me as very strange.

I want to preface my remarks by saying that I have not read all of your posts on this subject and have not even read all the responses to this post.

I agree there is gross insensitivity in a mother claiming that God answered her prayers by bringing her child back alive.

I agree many religious people are self rightous, smug, insensitive, illogical, arrogant, ignorant .....etc. etc. What group of people is free from these qualities? Poker players????? LOL.

Just because there is poor advice dispensed on this web site at times does not mean that all poker players are stupid or incompetant. I've known computer programmers who cant take a derivative or an anti log - do all computer programers need remedial math?

Your comments about how can people of different religions all be right and blah blah are pretty obvious and pretty dull.


You seem to be missing the entire point of spirituality . There is a mystical experience that can not be entirely stated in words. The full power of it completely eludes description.

It's late and I cant think of an adequate analogy for the type of questions you're asking. It's sort of like asking - or demanding - that someone prove that an orchid is beautiful. Proof is not the point. You're asking the wrong questions.

I believe that our lives are determined both by predestination and by free will. I know that in the classical sense these two ideas are mutually exclusive and I still believe both of them anyway.

I'm also told that the most brilliant scientists who ever lived have determined that light and all of electomagnetic radiation is both a wave and a particle phenomenon. Are they all idiots?

You're looking for the worst things in religion and religious people - this is sooo easy, way too easy for someone who is obviously intelligent. If I looked for stupid poker players or for stupid things poker players, even experts, do; would I find any????

[David Sklansky]

I am not guilty of your charges. I have said over and over again that my problem is with people who adamently believe in detailed specifics of their religion. If their beliefs were more vague, as yours are, OR if they admitted that it is not at all certain that their specific beliefs are correct, I wouldn't be writing about this stuff.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
"
Because I have known many situations where it is clear that many are praying and the number who are answered is what probablity would predict.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to put this to rest if you can tell me ONE such case where this is/was true (you said you know of many).

This would, as I'm sure you know, mean that you know EVERYBODY who was praying for a result, what EVERYBODY was praying for, and at least a close statistical approximation of the desired outcome.

If it was something like "overcoming cancer", you would, of course, need to know all of the cancer cases, how many people were praying in each case, etc.

If it was something like praying for the gender of a child (where the stats are a whole lot more 'knowable' than most anything else), you would need to know what everybody is praying for. Just because one guy says he is praying for a daughter doesn't mean he really is. He could be saying that to appease his wife.

So, please, give us ONE example where you are even close to meeting these requirements.

You know of many you said. Were you telling us the truth?

Josh

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, that's my reasoning. What's yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

I already gave the important part of my reasoning earlier in the thread.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
You said you don't believe God puts specific people in our lives for a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I didn't say that. I said that many Christians (and other spiritual people) try to apply meaning to WAY too much stuff. Let me give you a for example. In some Christian circles, I hear the line "everything happens for a purpose" all the time. Not "many things," not "some things," but "everything." So my sister-in-law has two miscarraiges in 6 months, and she has people running up to her left and right telling her that these miscarraiges are for a purpose, and that there is a higher good in their happening than if they had not. You know what? That's bullshit. Sometimes life just sucks. And people having miscarraiges is just one of those things.

Or take a small boy or girl who is consistently sexually abused as a child. Let's hear those "everything has a purpose" explain the good in that. LIke I said, sometimes life sucks and there is no purpose or greater good in things. To believe otherwise is as naive as those who say "God answers all prayers. It may not be in the way you want it, but he answers them all nonetheless." No he doesn't. Pull your head out of your ass and look at the real world.

Now, all that said, I understand that you never made the claim that all things have a purpose. You're saying "some" things. I agree wholeheartedly. I can pinpoint experiences I've had and people I've known as definate Godsends that served specific purposes in my life. But when it comes to drawing the line between the "all things" and "no things" extremes, most Christians fall too heavily on the "all things" side than is real.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I have said over and over again that my problem is with people who adamently believe in detailed specifics of their religion. If their beliefs were more vague, as yours are, OR if they admitted that it is not at all certain that their specific beliefs are correct, I wouldn't be writing about this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a problem with a dog who barks at you in a hostile way when his owner clearly shows him in a way that he should be able to understand that you are a friend, not a threat etc.?

I see low IQ people similarly. Their irrational hostilities hit my ears in the same way as those of a barking dog. Just wondering if it was the same for you and if not, why not?

[tripp0807]

David said:

[ QUOTE ]
I am not guilty of your charges. I have said over and over again that my problem is with people who adamently believe in detailed specifics of their religion. If their beliefs were more vague, as yours are, OR if they admitted that it is not at all certain that their specific beliefs are correct, I wouldn't be writing about this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

I ask these questions to clarify rather than criticize. How do you reconcile these requirements with the ability of others to practice their faith? Simple faith requires the followers of pretty much all (if not all) major religions to believe certain tenents without doubt. How can you ask a person to follow their faith without truly believing it?

Thanks for your response, if you choose to post one.

-Tripp

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Simple faith requires the followers of pretty much all (if not all) major religions to believe certain tenents without doubt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is true at all. The so called old covenant, for example, simply requires people to follow certain commandments, judgements, and statutes, in return for certain laid out benefits.

[tripp0807]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is true at all. The so called old covenant, for example, simply requires people to follow certain commandments, judgements, and statutes, in return for certain laid out benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the predicate for following such is the belief in the authority who created the rules; without that belief, following them would be irrational.

-Tripp

[Warren Whitmore]

Francis Galton was quite possibly the greatest statistician that ever published his work. His theory of evolution is much better than his cousin's (Darwin).

He developed the math for regression to the mean, correlation coefficints, and the laws which affect the Gausian distribution.

In both of his books "Hereditary Genius" & "Natural inheritance" he found no correlation with prayer and effect whatever despite the most rigourous trials ranging from peasants to popes.

[RIDGE45]

"I would think that even most religious people would agree that when someone prays for something, say winning the lottery, and then it happens, it was almost certainly NOT because of the prayer. Put another way: I believe that if a thousand people pray for a one percent shot, ten, on average, will have their prayer answered. Religious people, noting how rare it is that prayers work, might predict that eleven of the prayers will hit their one percent shot."

What most people do not understand about prayer is that prayer is not meant as an attempt to increase the odds of a certain event happening. It is a communication between yourself and God. Prayer is a way for you to cope, deal, analyze, and reflect upon life while expressing to God your hopes, fears, and wants.
EVERY PRAYER IS ANSWERED. The answer is just not always yes. If I ask someone to give me $50 dollars, and they don’t give it to me, they have answered my request. This answer may be vocally (no you can not have $50) God answers every prayer in his time, according to his plans. Some people pray and pray and their cancer stricken loved one still dies…this is very sad. But the reason God let this happen is beyond our comprehension. On the same token some might not pray at all and there cancer stricken loved one lives.

When someone says “God answered our prayers” what has really happened is that God answered their prayers the way they wanted them answered.

As for as the statistical outcome of a certain event: I believe that prayer does explicitly effect the odds of an event happening (i.e. me winning the lottery, etc.) because prayer is not a "to do" list for God. It is communication between yourself and God. It is a way of strengthening your spiritual bond, reflecting on life, and a coping mechanism. It is not a wish list.

“Of course I don't believe that any prayers are answered. But even if I am wrong, statements like the two above are way out of line.

First of all they are stupid.”

These statements are not stupid they are just poorly worded, misunderstood, and somewhat ignorant. A true believer would not be trying to show that prayer was responsible for the outcome, but rather that God was responsible. People who say “our prayers were answered” are not trying to say if you want something pray for it and it will come true! God grants wishes! They are trying to communicate how they believe their religion, their God had blessed them, protected them, or touched them. God had chosen for that particular child to live, and for that they where grateful.

I appreciate your thought provoking post.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
But the predicate for following such is the belief in the authority who created the rules; without that belief, following them would be irrational.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think for most people though, just seeing that believers in their faith had a higher quality of life than non believers would be enough.

I mean, no one today disputes god's law about not eating fat. The reason is that we now have a scientific explanation of fat and heart disease and stuff.

The fact of the matter is that most people today are willing to pay the price of eating fat, which is heart disease. In former times this was known as sin, and the punishment for sin.

[txag007]

'In some Christian circles, I hear the line "everything happens for a purpose" all the time. Not "many things," not "some things," but "everything."'

That comes from a verse in the Bible that is misinterpretted by too many Christians. Romans 8:28 says "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose."

That verse is specifically aimed at believers, but is quoted often to nonbelievers in the effort to comfort those undergoing hard times. Problem is, it does not mean that everything bad that happens in this world was part of God's plan. There are things that happen that nobody can explain (i.e. your sister-in-laws miscarriages).

Christians come off as very insensitive when misquoting this verse.

[PokerAmateur4]

I think you are right on point David. Have you heard the George Carlin bit which supports the same principle behind your post?

He talks about how he prays to Joe Pesci, and his prayers are "answered" in about the same 50/50 rate.
-------

"In the absence of any evidence, my default position is that prayer does not do anything."
===
"Actually, this should be your default position. The only evidence you're going to get of prayer working is the evidence that you find when prayer works for you. That was and continues to be my evidence.(Tripp0807)"

If it's not too personal, I would like to ask you what your evidence was. Perhaps we can look at this as an example to support or weaken Mr.Sklansky's original post.

The real 'miracle' would be if this unlikely events never occured. Now that's a prayer!