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 — Valentinus

You open up what is most important for you and bring it into focus — Valentinus

I took the above to imply a shift of emphasis from the object of our prayer, god, to the subject of prayer, us, and thereby give us insight into the psychology of prayer; in my view this diminishes the importance of god to a space-filler - there only to make the act of prayer, which is a conversation and requires an interlocutor, rationally acceptable.

The psychology of prayer may have nothing to do with this X you propose to be the deity. But maybe it does.
The serious attention given to what concerns a person is there or not. As that quality relates to the act of prayer was not suggested as a reduction to something that could be done just as well without the pesky religious stuff.

Consider specific prayers. For example, the "Lord's Prayer" asks for daily bread and to be forgiven for trespasses. You can "prove" the first happened if you ate something but the second?
And the one who prays this is not bargaining like Faustus to get a result but is doing something else.

I guess I am not sure what going to a place far from your concerns to piss on the fire you found there serves a greater rational understanding.

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

I hedging my bets. That is rational. I use rational methods to arrive at what I believe and what I don't. The outcome may be true or false, but it is approximating the truth as I see it. How else do you think is a better approach?

But if a well-thought-out rational opinion is not rational, then what is? -- Please note: I've been away for some time from this thread, so I must do some re-reading of it.

It seems to me that prayer is habit you acquire far too early for it to have anything to do with rationality. I've known a number of semi-public figures (headmasters and such) who were extremely good at sort of 'to whom it may concern' prayers. (You know - 'We ask that....' using the vocative without attaching it too actively). I think there is much to be said for such an activity if you don't ask for anything.

I think there is much to be said for such an activity if you don't ask for anything. — iolo

So just tell god simply that you love him, or something? If you don't ask for anything, it is not a prayer.
"to pray" is to beg, to ask for, to beseech. Examples: "I pray you lay down your weapons before I smite thee." "I pray for no rain today on my wedding day, the seventeenth in numerical sequence."

So just tell god simply that you love him, or something? If you don't ask for anything, it is not a prayer.
"to pray" is to beg, to ask for, to beseech. Examples: "I pray you lay down your weapons before I smite thee." "I pray for no rain today on my wedding day, the seventeenth in numerical sequence." — god must be atheist

You seem to be desperately hung up on gods and dictionaries. I'm not. Very few of those who have gone in for prayer have been asking for anything for themselves, surely? Look in your dictionary for thee word 'may': we are all free to use it.

You seem to be desperately hung up on gods and dictionaries. I'm not. Very few of those who have gone in for prayer have been asking for anything for themselves, surely? Look in your dictionary for thee word 'may': we are all free to use it. — iolo

You assume too much, my friend. I did not consult a dictionary; I know the English language.

What you are saying is that you go away from the commonly accepted meaning of the words when you speak or write English. To you "pray" does not mean pray; it means something totally different.

How on Earth do you suppose to communicate with your own species if you decide to use the words outside their meaning?

You've boggled your mind. You think speaking in tongues is the proper way to address issues on a philosophy website. At least that's what you are advocating when you say you go away from the dictionary meanings of words when you use them.

You seem to be desperately hung up on gods and dictionaries. I'm not. Very few of those who have gone in for prayer have been asking for anything for themselves, surely? Look in your dictionary for thee word 'may': we are all free to use it. — iolo
You assume too much, my friend. I did not consult a dictionary; I know the English language.

What you are saying is that you go away from the commonly accepted meaning of the words when you speak or write English. To you "pray" does not mean pray; it means something totally different.

How on Earth do you suppose to communicate with your own species if you decide to use the words outside their meaning?

You've boggled your mind. You think speaking in tongues is the proper way to address issues on a philosophy website. At least that's what you are advocating when you say you go away from the dictionary meanings of words when you use them. — god must be atheist

'Pray' means what religious people do. Usually they go in for thanks and perhaps the needs of others. You are trying to impose a meaning that belongs to nursery-school children, surely, listing demands like fat little capitalists? Philosophical discussion seems mainly to be an attempt to write dictionaries, and as an old 'English' lecturer I prefer to use language as it comes naturally out of instructed usage.

The sense of the word “pray” meaning to ask or beg is older than the narrower religious sense. Why do you think it is that the religious activity came to be called that, if it weren’t usually a case of doing what the word ordinarily meant: begging?

Usually they go in for thanks and perhaps the needs of others. — iolo

When they go into the need of others, they are still begging. Not for themselves (and I never stated that the begging is always and only for the benefit of the person doing the begging; you assumed it along the conversation at one point or another, without indication), but still, they ask god to help their children, parents, community members, the world, in one aspect or another. This is asking, begging, praying, and without it a prayer is not a prayer.

You say a prayer can involve thanks. If it only involves thanks, then that's thanksgiving. And that hardly ever occurs. When we sit down to eat, even then we don't only just thank the lord for the bounty; we ask him to bless it. That's what makes it a prayer.

↪iolo The sense of the word “pray” meaning to ask or beg is older than the narrower religious sense. Why do you think it is that the religious activity came to be called that, if it weren’t usually a case of doing what the word ordinarily meant: begging? — Pfhorrest

I'm not into these dictionary games. Grown ups who go in for prayer don't mean begging but getting into some sort of communication with what they call 'God' and clarifying their relationship with whatever else they might suppose worth connecting with for these intermittent bits of consciousness we call us'. Letters to Father Christmas should properly go up the chimney1 :)

Not in the tradition I was brought up in, not at all.

as an old 'English' lecturer I prefer to use language as it comes naturally out of instructed usage — iolo

Perhaps yes, but your past still does not give you the right to alter the meanings in a way that is not commonly accepted practice or not part of the communal convention of meanings.

What I see here is that you created in your mind an equivalence of communicating with god with the word "prayer". I put to you that "prayer" is a form of communication with god in which the praying person asks god some favour. Forms of communication with god that do not involve requests are not prayers, and I put to you that using that word thus wrongly bastardizes the word, meaning that the word used is used for a meaning it does not have.

I'm not into these dictionary games. — iolo

Again: for a lecturer of English or in English this very sad. In my opinion a teacher should stand out by using words in their proper meaning. By being PROUD of using a word outside its meaning, is not really what a teacher I want my kids to learn from ought to do. Very sadly, more and more teachers are in the habit of doing precisely that -- teaching wrong things.

Because you called your opponents' arguments "dictionary games" you obviously are trying to downplay the importance of correctness. This is a weakness in two ways; on one hand, you emotionally downplay without using an argument, so it's an ad hominem falacy (appeal to the humanity of the opponent); on the other hand, you reject the validity of your opponent's point without a supporting argument.

I'm not into these dictionary games. — iolo

Using words outside the meaning of dictionaries is a dangerous precedent. What if I tell you, "The cable car is in good shape, it will never fall down" when you put your children in it, and if it does fall down, PROVIDED WE USE A CONVENTION OF BEING ABLE TO USE WORDS OUTSIDE THEIR DICTIONARY MEANING AND STILL CALL IT PROPER COMMUNICATION (which you, iolo, advocate here), then I can claim that I meant "the cable car is in bad shape, and it will fall down" and you have no discourse, since you entered into a convention that states that the language convention is invalidated.

What I see here is that you created in your mind an equivalence of communicating with god with the word "prayer". I put to you that "prayer" is a form of communication with god in which the praying person asks god some favour. Forms of communication with god that do not involve requests are not prayers, and I put to you that using that word thus wrongly bastardizes the word, meaning that the word used is used for a meaning it does not have. — god must be atheist

I just used 'prayer' in the way it is used by people who go in for the activity. I'd though you'd been quoting one of the sillier dictionaries.

Again: for a lecturer of English or in English this very sad. In my opinion a teacher should stand out by using words in their proper meaning. By being PROUD of using a word outside its meaning, is not really what a teacher I want my kids to learn from ought to do. Very sadly, more and more teachers are in the habit of doing precisely that -- teaching wrong things. — god must be atheist

I was using the word correctly.

Using words outside the meaning of dictionaries is a dangerous precedent. What if I tell you, "The cable car is in good shape, it will never fall down" when you put your children in it, and if it does fall down, PROVIDED WE USE A CONVENTION OF BEING ABLE TO USE WORDS OUTSIDE THEIR DICTIONARY MEANING AND STILL CALL IT PROPER COMMUNICATION (which you, iolo, advocate here), then I can claim that I meant "the cable car is in bad shape, and it will fall down" and you have no discourse, since you entered into a convention that states that the language convention is invalidated. — god must be atheist

In my limited experience (I get bored easily) a great deal of 'philosophy' seems to be devoted to arguing about the meaning of words. I call these dictionary games.

If prayer makes you feel better and it's rational to try to feel better is it rational not to pray?

If prayer makes you feel better and it's rational to try to feel better is it rational not to pray? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Agreed - but if people suppose it means asking for goodies from a non-existent sky-daddy, goodies you won't get, I suppose it makes sense not to, since you'd end up feeling worse?

Why do you suppose it is that people who pray named their activity with a word that already meant “to beg”?

Agreed - but if people suppose it means asking for goodies from a non-existent sky-daddy, goodies you won't get, I suppose it makes sense not to, since you'd end up feeling worse? — iolo

Wish-list prayers aren't the only kind. There's prayers of thanks, praise, apology, confession, etc, and also just soliloquizing: a kind of talk therapy.

Why do you suppose it is that people who pray named their activity with a word that already meant “to beg”? — Pfhorrest

The word 'orison' is an interesting variant. Connected to 'oratory,' and older than 'pray.'

Thanks for that. Looking up the root of that, it appears to come from a word that meant "praise". The audible similarity of that to "pray" makes me wonder if there was some conflation between them along the way, that gave "pray" the sense that iolo is on about, but I can't find any good source to back up that hypothesis.

Who cares?

I've been saying that. I was trying to see the sense of what some other write.

It suggests that a lot, if not most, of people who pray have disagreed with you, and thought begging was an adequate description of what they were doing.

A pretty high proportion of people are half-wits, let's face it.

Defining god, and defining prayer are first needed to establish the efficacy of praying.

The definition in the OP that prayer consists of ‘asking for something’ from a separate entity..i.e.god. Is a common definition yet i feel deeper probing into many religious texts allude to a more subtle nature and function of prayer. Just like the notion of god, alludes to a more complex ‘being’ than just a separate entity sitting on a throne, blessing some, smiting others.

The statistics for ‘answered prayers’ probably point to it being a gamble and really serves to help a person feel better, than the prayer actually being ‘answered’.

Whereas there are more subtler forms of prayer occurring constantly by us all that are being answered.