Why we cannot pray

TheMadFool

Prayers are said to be offered as if it's an act of giving but the fact of the matter is it's a taking - we ask for something in return for our supplications whatever form it may take.

That's all right, after all who in this world doesn't have a fervent desire that seeks fulfillment.

Yet, being rational we must at least some kind of a background check on who it is we're praying to. There is no harm in understanding the nature of the object of our prayers and it may lead to an answer to the profound doubt we have regarding the efficacy of prayer.

God, is all good, all knowing AND all powerful. Surely such a being can do something as simple as answer a prayer for a job. Yes, for God, if he is what we think he is, we're like tiny toddlers in a toy shop asking, begging for a toy that could give us immeasurable joy.

Let's stay with the child analogy for a little more. Jesus Christ was none other than the son of God himself. Jesu supposedly sacrificed himself for our sins. It's as if God gave his only son for humanity's sins. I said "as if" because the whole story can be spun around and reinterpreted as god taking Jesus away from us. Wouldn't it have been better for Jesus to have lived and taught us everything we need to know? In that sense then he didn't value us above his son and then we may ask, "If a father (god) can torture his own son (Jesus) to deprive us from a better understanding of god then what of us?" The answer is that we, humanity, are/is nothing to god. We're so despicable or so it seems that Jesus, his only son, was horribly and quickly put to death before we could learn anything that wasn't ambiguous or nebulous or confusing.

Ergo, it must be that our prayers to god will not only fall on deaf ears but may actually invite god's spite, a fact that's written all over the pages of the holy books of the world.

We can't pray. We shouldn't pray.

Sherbert

Ergo, it must be that our prayers to god will not only fall on deaf ears but may actually invite god's spite, a fact that's written all over the pages of the holy books of the world. — TheMadFool

1. God is not your bitch to be bent over to do your will.
2. I don't know of any works that God wrote.

god must be atheist

↪Sherbert

1. This reply is not founded on empirical evidence, and no a priori knowledge exists. So it could be true or false, nobody knows.

2. Rather allegedly, God wrote the ten commandments, but at a time when writing had not been invented by humans yet. How Moses made any sense of it is beyond me. Maybe there was a sort of Rosetta stone included in the package, with Egyptian hierogliphs and Mesopotamian clay writings to explain the jist of it.

god must be atheist

We can't pray. We shouldn't pray. — TheMadFool

"When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there, who put forth the proposition that you can petition the Lord with Prayer. Petition the Lord... with Prayer? YOU CAN NOT PETITION THE LORD... WITH PRAYER!" (Audience goes wild.) -- Jim Morrison, on the "Live in Concert" double album by The Doors.

Sherbert

1. This reply is not founded on empirical evidence, and no a priori knowledge exists. So it could be true or false, nobody knows. — god must be atheist

Last Thursday I saw a squirrel outside. There is no empirical evidence that there this squirrel that I saw Thursday. By your argument I cannot say that I know there was a squirrel that I saw last Thursday. That is obviously absurd.

2. Rather allegedly, God wrote the ten commandments, but at a time when writing had not been invented by humans yet. How Moses made any sense of it is beyond me. Maybe there was a sort of Rosetta stone included in the package, with Egyptian hierogliphs and Mesopotamian clay writings to explain the jist of it. — god must be atheist

It was 15 commandments until he dropped one of the tablets..-Mel Brooks

We have all kinds of writings that are said to be from God. And though you chose a "literaly" written by God example. We do not have it.

god must be atheist

It was 15 commandments until he dropped one of the tablets..-Mel Brooks — Sherbert

God comes down to Earth and meets a Roman. "Roman," God says, "I have a commandment for you." "Oh? What is it?" Asks the Roman. "Thou shalt not kill." Roman retorts: "I can't use that commandment. Our entire empire has been based on blood and sword. Totally counter-productive," and turns and walks away. God walks down the road, and meets a Pharasee. "Pharasee, I have a commandment for you." "Oh? What is it?" "Thou shalt not steal." "WHAT? I can't use that commandment. Our entire economy is based on stealing and lying and misrepresenting products. Sorry." And the Pharasee walks away. Finally God meets Moses. "Moses, I have a commandment for you." "Oh?" Says Moses, "How much does it cost?" God is a bit taken back, "Cost? It costs nothing." "In that case, I'll take ten," says Moses quickly.

god must be atheist

Last Thursday I saw a squirrel outside. There is no empirical evidence that there this squirrel that I saw Thursday. By your argument I cannot say that I know there was a squirrel that I saw last Thursday. That is obviously absurd. — Sherbert

The empirical evidence was that you saw it. If you did not see it but insisted that there was a squirrel there last Thursday, but you never heard anyone attest to it, or have some sort of trace of it to report, then there is no empirical evidence.

Because the empirical evidence of god is missing, and only exists in legends, one has to use his own powers of judgment whether to believe the report or not. Some believe that the legends are reports of facts of empirical evidence -- some don't.

Seeing a squirrel is your empirical evidence of which I have to make a judgment as to believe your report or not. If I believe it, it is because I have seen squirrels and I know they exist on Thursdays in all kinds of seemingly random places. So it is not inconceivable to me that you are reporting the truth. In fact, it is very, very likely that you are. I choose to believe you therefore, and I accept your report as empirical evidence.

Sherbert

I choose to believe you therefore, and I accept your report as empirical evidence. — god must be atheist

You are believing testimony as empirical evidence and accept it as true.

Because the empirical evidence of god is missing, and only exists in legends, — god must be atheist

You are not believing testimony as empirical evidence and not accepting it as true.

This shows that empirical evidence and it truth claim is simply decided by your personal opinion. This is not rational.

Wayfarer

Prayers are said to be offered as if it's an act of giving but the fact of the matter is it's a taking - we ask for something in return for our supplications whatever form it may take. — TheMadFool

Not at all. That is specifically called ‘petitionary prayer’ and comprises asking for something or seeking a benefit. Human nature being what it is, people will seek advantage in anything, even prayer, but prayer itself might just as easily be supplicatory - seeking to understand the divine will - without asking or seeking gain.

Pfhorrest

↪Wayfarer

To supplicate means to ask or beg for something. How is that different from petition?

Wayfarer

God, is all good, all knowing AND all powerful. — TheMadFool

There are many contributors on this forum who write from an assumption of the foolishness of religious faith, and then, from that perspective, imagine what 'God' must be like, and what such terms as 'all good' must mean. But they have no real understanding of what the terms mean for the faithful, for the obvious reason that they themselves lack faith; accordingly they project caricatures of faith, and then scornfully ask why the reality doesn't conform with their projections.

Wayfarer

To supplicate means to ask or beg for something. How is that different from petition? — Pfhorrest

To ask to understand how to do what is right, or to attain inner peace, is not the same as seeking a benefit - rain, crops, children, wealth and so on.

Buddhism, it is said, doesn't believe in or pray to the 'creator God' of the Biblical faiths - which is true. But there are clear parallels. In most Asian cultures, householders will often attend temple services and light incense with a clearly petitionary intent - 'may Buddha grant me a long life/healthy offspring/male sons' and so on. Householders expect to receive a spiritual benefit from supporting the Buddhist sangha and to that end often endow monasteries, where inscriptions attesting to such charitable activities exist from ancient times.

As I said, it is human nature. These kinds of offerings and petitionary prayer acts have existed as long as humankind. But in various places in Buddhist scripture there are admonitions against seeking any kind of gain. For example, in Jodo Shinsu liturgy, there is a specific admonishment against 'seeking gain through petitionary prayer'. In Sōtō Zen, one is encouraged to 'practice with no idea of gain'. Indeed in the Diamond Sutra, one of the principle texts of East Asian Buddhism, we read:

Subhūti said to the Buddha: “World-honored One. When the buddhas attain peerless perfect enlightenment, is it the case that actually nothing is attained?”

“Exactly right. Subhūti, as far as peerless perfect enlightenment is concerned, I have not attained the slightest thing. This is why it is called peerless perfect enlightenment.”

There are also parallels in Christian mysticism:

The most powerful prayer, one well-nigh omnipotent, and the worthiest work of all is the outcome of a quiet mind. The quieter it is the more powerful, the worthier, the deeper, the more telling and more perfect the prayer is. To the quiet mind all things are possible. What is a quiet mind? A quiet mind is one which nothing weighs on, nothing worries, which, free from ties and from all self-seeking, is wholly merged into the will of God and dead to its own. — Meister Eckhardt

Translation from A Dazzling Darkness: An Anthology of Western Mysticism (1985) by Patrick Grant

Pfhorrest

↪Wayfarer

Are you saying that theists actually agree with atheists, and atheists just falsely believe that theists disagree with them? Because atheists are saying "this is what I take religion to be and I disagree with it", so if you say they take religion to be something it's not, then what they disagree with is not what you actually believe, ergo you actually agree with them.

Sherbert

↪Pfhorrest

No, he is politely pointing out a Strawman argument.

Wayfarer

Because atheists are saying "this is what I take religion to be and I disagree with it", so if you say they take religion to be something it's not, then what they disagree with is not what you actually believe, ergo you actually agree with them. — Pfhorrest

In today's culture atheism is generally conditioned in response to the kind of religious doctrines and practices that it has rejected, and continue to see the question through that prism.

A case in point - atheists are likely to believe that all Christian sects accept in the 'doctrine of vicarious atonement', i.e. that 'Christ died to take the burden of our sins'. They might be surprised to know that this doctrine has never really been accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy, for example.

Pfhorrest

↪Sherbert

If Alice says she's anti-man because she hates straw and men are all made of straw, and Bob corrects her that generally men are not actually made of straw, does that not mean that Alice isn't actually anti-man, even if she is anti-straw, since men are not actually made of straw? She may call herself anti-man but if all she cares about is avoiding straw, then she doesn't have any actual conflict with non-straw men, does she? And more to the point, men are actually made of the same stuff as women are, not the straw that women like Alice claim they're made of, so men are just like women in the respect that Alice is concerned with.

Gus Lamarch

God, is all good, all knowing AND all powerful. — TheMadFool

It seems to me to have been very easy for "God" to give life to the whole creation, and right after that same committing a mere deviation from its plans, abandoning it. Does this prove that "God" is omnipotent? No, it just proves that one of your biggest weaknesses is resentment.

TheMadFool

1. God is not your bitch to be bent over to do your will. — Sherbert

Although I wouldn't word it that way I think it captures the gist of what I want to say. Would you agree then that we humans are god's, as you so eloquently put it, bitches? We (have to) fawn on him since, by his own proclamation, he is the be all and end all. Also, the posture we assume in prayer leaves nothing to the imagination as to who, god or humans, actually bends over for whom. This bitch-analogy is clearly more than a just a good fit to the God-human relationship.

Not at all. That is specifically called ‘petitionary prayer’ and comprises asking for something or seeking a benefit. Human nature being what it is, people will seek advantage in anything, even prayer, but prayer itself might just as easily be supplicatory - seeking to understand the divine will - without asking or seeking gain. — Wayfarer

Thanks. I understand that the prayer I'm referring to is more accurately described as petitioners prayer but it's my suspicion that prayer of this type constitutes the majority of all forms of prayer. Cynicism notwithstanding I think the popular view is that a god who cares not for our welfare needn't be prayed to. Thus petitionary prayer is probably the most prevalent type of prayer.

Also, staying cynical, it's quite impossible for prayer to be totally unselfish. There's always some personal benefit in all prayer. I mean what would be a prayer that isn't selfish? You say it could be to understand god's will but doesn't that, if realized, give you a certain amount of satisfaction or contentment?

There are many contributors on this forum who write from an assumption of the foolishness of religious faith, and then, from that perspective, imagine what 'God' must be like, and what such terms as 'all good' must mean. But they have no real understanding of what the terms mean for the faithful, for the obvious reason that they themselves lack faith; accordingly they project caricatures of faith, and then scornfully ask why the reality doesn't conform with their projections. — Wayfarer

I didn't intend my interpretation of the Jesus story to be a caricature. All it is is a different perspective to a 2000 year old tale of a man, who in the official version, sacrificied himself for the sins of humanity. With absolutely no alterations to the facts written in scripture Jesus can be seen as a light to humanity, snuffed out by god to prevent humans from ever knowing the truth.

TheMadFool

"When I was back there in seminary school, there was a person there, who put forth the proposition that you can petition the Lord with Prayer. Petition the Lord... with Prayer? YOU CAN NOT PETITION THE LORD... WITH PRAYER!" (Audience goes wild.) -- Jim Morrison, on the "Live in Concert" double album by The Doors. — god must be atheist

:smile: :up:

TheMadFool

It seems to me to have been very easy for "God" to give life to the whole creation, and right after that same committing a mere deviation from its plans, abandoning it. Does this prove that "God" is omnipotent? No, it just proves that one of your biggest weaknesses is resentment. — Gus Lamarch

That there are so many dissatisfied souls points to the failure of god's plan doesn't it? If just one or even a few hundred people were unhappy with their condition in life, then it makes sense to say that god's plan is good. Yet, every single person is unhappy with their lives. Is there something wrong with all of us or is there a problem with god's plan?

Wayfarer

a god who cares not for our welfare — TheMadFool

What is good for you is not necessarily what you want.

Sherbert

That there are so many dissatisfied souls points to the failure of god's plan doesn't it? — TheMadFool

What is God's plan?

Sherbert

Would you agree then that we humans are god's, — TheMadFool

It would depend on how you define the term. Do you think you are an example of God in the manner of how people would generally define that term?

We (have to) fawn on him — TheMadFool

How does he want you to "fawn" on him?

TheMadFool

What is good for you is not necessarily what you want. — Wayfarer

This statement falls under the category of mental gymnastics akin to how a contortionist must bend and twist into the most unnatural positions to fit inside a box.

Our natural state, ergo what is comfortable for us is to have desires, wish for them to be fulfilled and if that happens jump in joy or if not to suffer for it. What you're saying is like telling a herbivore that plants are not what they want but they "actually" want something else.

Also, one could say the same thing you said without invoking god by resorting to non-religious principles e.g. we can tell person that the kick s/he gets out of drugs may not be what s/he actually needs by way of informing him/her about the harmful effects of drug abuse and the benefits of being drug-free.

TheMadFool

↪Sherbert

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." if read in the tone the wording suggests is an explicit threat.

How does he want you to "fawn" on him? — Sherbert

you ask!

TheMadFool

What is God's plan? — Sherbert

No idea but presumably parents want the best for their children and that particular detail seems to be contradicted by the facts of the world.

Sherbert

you ask! — TheMadFool

You made the truth claim that God wants us to fawn over him. If you cannot say what that means then you have created a strawman. I don't care, but you may want to actually know that what you are saying is actually true.[

quote="TheMadFool;366757"]No idea but presumably parents want the best for their children and that particular detail seems to be contradicted by the facts of the world.[/quote]

You made the truth claim that

That there are so many dissatisfied souls points to the failure of god's plan doesn't it? — TheMadFool

You made the truth claim that god's plan fails from the fact that there are so many dissatisfied souls. If you do know what god's plan is, then you have created a strawman argument. I think you have better arguments in you. Would love to hear them.

TheMadFool

↪Sherbert

Firstly, it's plain to see that we can't know the plans of our fellow humans; so reading god's mind is off the table.

That said, you don't need to be a genius to put the brute facts of the world, the needless suffering, side by side with the omni-attributes of god, and see that something doesn't add up.

Valentinus

↪TheMadFool

Ergo, it must be that our prayers to god will not only fall on deaf ears but may actually invite god's spite — TheMadFool

You are holding on to both sides of a comparison there when they are mutually exclusive.

Praying is not a quid pro quo. You open up what is most important for you and bring it into focus. That it is framed as an appeal to something outside of oneself is not like a letter where a person has to make it out to the proper address for the message to be sent.

I suppose the topic goes toward comparing different ways to express isolation and connection. Maybe it is easier to talk about that than approaching it through an activity that is understood and done in so many different ways.

TheMadFool

Praying is not a quid pro quo. You open up what is most important for you and bring it into focus. That it is framed as an appeal to something outside of oneself is not like a letter where a person has to make it out to the proper address for the message to be sent. — Valentinus

You remarks are pertinent to the psychology of prayer: the stress on what you pray for instead of who you pray to agrees with the fact that people all over the world pray for the same things - health, wealth, etc - though the gods who they pray to are all different.

That said, even if gods are, as you seem to be implying, just space-fillers, of value only to the extent we have something to pray for, we still need to examine these gods and see whether they're in fact capable of answering our prayers. I think this is common sense; after all everyone expects returns on an investment.

Valentinus

↪TheMadFool

I don't mean to say that the one toward whom prayer is directed is a "space filler."
What I am saying is that faith involves the act of being witnessed, that somehow a prayer is heard. How that is understood varies widely in different expressions of belief. But it makes sense to me to start with the conditions for being heard before talking about how efficacious speaking may be.

The matter of believing one is heard is also a matter of being a good listener to oneself. In the book of Job, for example, many of Job's friends tell him he is doing something wrong and that is why his suffering what is happening. The confidence Job has that they are wrong points to a relationship that is not equivalent to the exchange of goods model you are suggesting.

Why we cannot pray

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions