prayer

[Harry Marks]

Harry:

Listening to God can happen by listening to our imagination. We may be "channeling" God.

Say what?

For sure if you think you are listening to God by listening to your imagination you are definitely listening to your imagination, not God. Which may not be a bad thing, if being quiet and still allows you to focus on your own thoughts.

Lady of Shallot -

Your response is correct except for the words, "not God." We who believe that God is incarnated see no reason to think the thoughts of Gandhi are never the thoughts of God, the thoughts of Martin Luther King are never the thoughts of God, and, by the same possible association, the thoughts of yourself are not ever also, at the same time as they are your thoughts, the thoughts of God. God's effectiveness in the world may be mainly through people's inspired action and thought, and this does not mean they have been strangely taken over and feel no power over their own thoughts and actions. Rather, quite the opposite, they may sense only a deep sense of meaning in those thoughts or actions. Or even just a sense that the thoughts are "right".

The important issue is not whether that is how God works, but how believers can learn to distinguish their thoughts that are "not from God" from those that are "from God." A good start is to recognize that it is a serious issue (I have heard many sermons on the subject - I assure you that Christians know it is a problem.) Therefore a certain humility must be maintained, and if God seems to be telling us to go and kill someone because their child will someday slaughter millions, it might make more sense to check in for mental health care than to go ahead and kill them. Likewise we check those thoughts against learning and sharing from our experience at that point. Would most of the people I worship with agree that the thought is from God? Would Jesus agree?

There is always interpretation involved. That doesn't invalidate the belief - but it gives belief a fascinatingly social dimension if we recognize that there is interpretation involved and take the subject seriously.

[lady of shallot]

Thank you for your response Dawn.

[Interbane]

We who believe that God is incarnated see no reason to think the thoughts of Gandhi are never the thoughts of God, the thoughts of Martin Luther King are never the thoughts of God, and, by the same possible association, the thoughts of yourself are not ever also, at the same time as they are your thoughts, the thoughts of God.

Although you see no reason "not" to believe some people's thoughts are divinely inspired, that does not equal a reason to believe. A reason 'not' to believe something is not a valid reason to instead believe it. That is the most common false dichotomy I see from theological rationale.

Rather than hypothesize that some certain people are sharing their thoughts with the divine, why not instead simply conclude that the thoughts are the thoughts of that person?! The is the most simplistic, parsimonious answer. To say that a person is thinking, but god is helping him to do this thinking, is absurd and superfluous. If you can show me the most divinely inspired thought(great wisdom from some sage, you pick), I will show you a thought that came as the result of normal and natural human reasoning. There is no need to hypothesize any more. That explains it all.

Rather, quite the opposite, they may sense only a deep sense of meaning in those thoughts or actions. Or even just a sense that the thoughts are "right".

You're speaking of the intersection between emotion and reason. Each of us is able to have an emotional feeling of "correctness" with regards to certain conclusions. Brain mapping has shown that this emotional reaction is supplemental to our conscious reasoning, and provides the "feeling" of certainty we feel from time to time. This is an entirely natural reaction, but can become active even when we're thinking of something false. The correlation in experiments is unmistakable, and there may even be enough research done now that shows causation as well.

This cognitive phenomenon is a fact. It happens. You are saying the same effects happen, but rather than having a natural cause, they have a supernatural cause? That is an unwarranted leap of faith. We have no reason to conjure up that hypothesis, since the feeling of certainty and thoughts of great profundity are all able to be naturally explained.

There is always interpretation involved. That doesn't invalidate the belief - but it gives belief a fascinatingly social dimension if we recognize that there is interpretation involved and take the subject seriously.

The belief is invalidated because we already have explanations for all the things you've mentioned. There is no need to believe there is more to it, unless you can show to me results which cannot be natural. Auto mechanics don't hypothesize that there are engine gophers on treadmills powering your vehicle. The functioning of an auto is natural, and there is no need for an additional superfluous hypothesis.

[Interbane]

Though it will give you no satisfaction, I am satisfied to let God set the parameters simply because it is to Him that I am speaking and He is the one who has made this possible and set the rules.

This still isn't making any sense to me. You say god is setting the parameters. But how is he telling you them? How do you know it's actually, truly god? Sure, you may be absolutely convinced, but that doesn't mean you're right. Countless people across history were absolutely convinced in false things. Conviction isn't enough. To warrant the belief, you need something tangible. Good reasoning is required, and evidence would be a bonus. But you have neither. You're simply "claiming" that god is setting the parameters. How do you know your fellow humans weren't the ones to set the parameters? You cannot rule that out, and it is the simplest explanation.

I will boldly assume that I have far more experience here than you do--a lifetime of it first and second hand. It means nothing to me that scientists sit in labs praying and measuring results!

Dawn, some of those scientists are extremely brilliant, and hope to find results that prayer works. They are not so stupid as to think they can sit in a lab and get results. That's really not intelligent - I think it's insulting to professional scientists to think they wouldn't have been able to devise a better experiment. Compassionate surveys with minimal intrusion at hospitals, done before and after prayers with different groups. There are ways to make it double blind, so the interviewer and the interviewee are both blind to the purpose of the study. There are also parameters in place to ensure the compassion and the conviction of the people praying for their loved ones are genuine.

For every problem you can think of in such an experiment, you are thinking like a scientist. Those are precisely the problems they are required to solve. How to eliminate any possibility for unwanted influence so that the behavior in question - prayer - is pristinely isolated in a variety of ways without altering it's method or function or sincerity.

The results are unanimous. Prayer does not work. It has no effect above placebo. If you believe it works, then it's only in your head.

I have seen sufficient evidence that prayer is magnificently effective.

Did you plot the events so that you could compare them to other events? One or two anecdotal memories most likely stand out as undoubtedly miraculous. But such improbable healings are inevitable in our natural world. They should be contrasted with all the people that were prayed for, yet died or didn't recover. It is simply a matter of probability. The larger the pool of sick people, the larger the number of natural yet miraculous seeming miracles(a small percentage). This small percentage of amazing recoveries is precisely the same in the prayer group and the non-prayer control group. Which means, there is no need to hypothesize that the happening was anything other than natural.

These are the facts on the ground Dawn.

Nature does not explain everything.

Of all the phenomenon that happen, we've narrowed down the list of the unexplained to a very limited number. Only those areas which aren't yet explained have the potential to have supernatural explanations. The other areas can be explained naturally, and there is and always has been a uniformity to these workings that lead us to the conclusion that everything can be explained naturally. This is inductive reasoning, and is the best tool to use here.

So to make the claim that "nature does not explain everything." is actually a massive claim in itself. If you believe it, rather than being agnostic towards it(as I am), then you truly need some remarkable evidence to overcome the precedent. Simply saying it, and having faith it's true, is invalid.

[stahrwe]

Though it will give you no satisfaction, I am satisfied to let God set the parameters simply because it is to Him that I am speaking and He is the one who has made this possible and set the rules.

This still isn't making any sense to me. You say god is setting the parameters. But how is he telling you them? How do you know it's actually, truly god? Sure, you may be absolutely convinced, but that doesn't mean you're right. Countless people across history were absolutely convinced in false things. Conviction isn't enough. To warrant the belief, you need something tangible. Good reasoning is required, and evidence would be a bonus. But you have neither. You're simply "claiming" that god is setting the parameters. How do you know your fellow humans weren't the ones to set the parameters? You cannot rule that out, and it is the simplest explanation.

As Spock said to Dr. McCoy: "You should be taught the difference between empiricism and stubborness." One method for understanding the reality of the foundation of our belief is to view its history. Its fruit. And, just as one can know whether a person is truly saved by seeing the fruit in their lives so too is the fruit of believers built up over the years evidence of truth.

We also have the Bible which is a resource to consult, and though it has been disparraged and belittled by many here, you cannot appreciate its value and benefit.

Finally, Jesus is not a spirit or idea, he is risen in bodily form and those who know Him have a personal relationship with Him.

I will boldly assume that I have far more experience here than you do--a lifetime of it first and second hand. It means nothing to me that scientists sit in labs praying and measuring results!

Dawn, some of those scientists are extremely brilliant, and hope to find results that prayer works. They are not so stupid as to think they can sit in a lab and get results. That's really not intelligent - I think it's insulting to professional scientists to think they wouldn't have been able to devise a better experiment. Compassionate surveys with minimal intrusion at hospitals, done before and after prayers with different groups. There are ways to make it double blind, so the interviewer and the interviewee are both blind to the purpose of the study. There are also parameters in place to ensure the compassion and the conviction of the people praying for their loved ones are genuine.

Do you see the problem with your 'experiment'? You cannot make it a truly 'blind' experiment as one of the participants in the prayer study is fully informed and in control of the result.

For every problem you can think of in such an experiment, you are thinking like a scientist. Those are precisely the problems they are required to solve. How to eliminate any possibility for unwanted influence so that the behavior in question - prayer - is pristinely isolated in a variety of ways without altering it's method or function or sincerity.

The results are unanimous. Prayer does not work. It has no effect above placebo. If you believe it works, then it's only in your head.

Your experiment is not possible to perform for the reason cited above.

I have seen sufficient evidence that prayer is magnificently effective.

Did you plot the events so that you could compare them to other events? One or two anecdotal memories most likely stand out as undoubtedly miraculous. But such improbable healings are inevitable in our natural world. They should be contrasted with all the people that were prayed for, yet died or didn't recover. It is simply a matter of probability. The larger the pool of sick people, the larger the number of natural yet miraculous seeming miracles(a small percentage). This small percentage of amazing recoveries is precisely the same in the prayer group and the non-prayer control group. Which means, there is no need to hypothesize that the happening was anything other than natural.

These are the facts on the ground Dawn.

How would you explain conversing with another person in their language, a language I don't speak?

The problem with your experiment is that you are trying to design an experiment which either leaves God out or manipulates Him and you can do neither.

Nature does not explain everything.

Of all the phenomenon that happen, we've narrowed down the list of the unexplained to a very limited number. Only those areas which aren't yet explained have the potential to have supernatural explanations. The other areas can be explained naturally, and there is and always has been a uniformity to these workings that lead us to the conclusion that everything can be explained naturally. This is inductive reasoning, and is the best tool to use here.

I am not sure what this paragraph has to do with prayer. But, in the spirit of continuing the discussion you have another logical flaw in the above. Your claim that inductive reason has allowed you to conclude that because there has always been a natural explanation for all phenomenon that the remaining unexplained ones (whatever you mean by that) will have a natural explanation too.

You misunderstand prayer. Not every answer to prayer is going to involve a miracle or anything dramatic in fact most prayers are mundane.

So to make the claim that "nature does not explain everything." is actually a massive claim in itself. If you believe it, rather than being agnostic towards it(as I am), then you truly need some remarkable evidence to overcome the precedent. Simply saying it, and having faith it's true, is invalid.

Saying that a person's faith, is 'invalid' is not capable of being defended. You have no standing to make such a general statment. The most you can say is, "Simply saying it and having faith it's true, is invalid for me

.

[Interbane]

One method for understanding the reality of the foundation of our belief is to view its history

I love the fuzzy language. Whatever you mean by that, which I can't figure out, you are playing at the water's edge of a fallacy. The history of believers of a belief has no impact on the truthfulness of that belief, unless the belief is actually about said history.

And, just as one can know whether a person is truly saved by seeing the fruit in their lives so too is the fruit of believers built up over the years evidence of truth.

There is no evidence of truth. I would have been exposed to it by now, unless there is a conspiracy to hide it from me. All I see is subjective interpretation. The topic is prayer, if you've forgotten.

Do you see the problem with your 'experiment'? You cannot make it a truly 'blind' experiment as one of the participants in the prayer study is fully informed and in control of the result.

Never heard of "double blind"?

How would you explain conversing with another person in their language, a language I don't speak?

If you don't speak that language, how do you know if you're hearing anything?

But, in the spirit of continuing the discussion you have another logical flaw in the above. Your claim that inductive reason has allowed you to conclude that because there has always been a natural explanation for all phenomenon that the remaining unexplained ones (whatever you mean by that) will have a natural explanation too.

You forgot to point out where the flaw was, and the claim you're ascribing to me isn't correct. I never said there has always been a natural explanation for all phenomenon.

Saying that a person's faith, is 'invalid' is not capable of being defended. You have no standing to make such a general statment. The most you can say is, "Simply saying it and having faith it's true, is invalid for me

Then it is as valid to have faith that you're worshipping Satan who pretended to be Jesus. Your inability to see the nuances makes these conversations pointless. You think you're making points, but you either completely misunderstand me or use faulty reasoning. Over and over, in more than 4 out of 5 posts you make.

You think I'm being evasive or fishy when I tell you that you make a straw man out of me. But it's the truth. Through your eyes, the world is simple. That's one reason you'll never break free from your delusion. You think there are only a handful of "greens", when in fact reality is more complex. There are infinite variations of green, since it's based off wavelengths. The nuances in my posts make all the difference in the world. If you can't follow them, then that is your fault.

[lady of shallot]

Many years ago friends and I used to experiment with "automatic" writing. This is the way you do it. You take a pencil and hold it lightly in your hand not quit touching (or only lightly) the surface of your paper. (we always used large sheets of newspaper opened up on the dining room table)

You do not rest your arm or elbow on the table so your arm tires. While this is happening you try to make you mind blank or maybe focused on the pencil. After a while your arm is really heavy and the pencil starts to move. It first inscribes figure 8's. Then starts writing sentences. Of course no punctuation or capitalization.

You are writing messages or sentences. Although I do not remember them too specifically they seemed to be thoughts that I was submerging or maybe not paying enough attention to in my conscious life. Nothing bizarre or mysterious or off the wall. This is probably like deep meditation or prayer. If I had been spiritually inclined I could have supposed these messages from another source than my own mind . . . and hey, I had it in writing! But I always thought it was just me, but maybe the deeper me.

[stahrwe]

In the spirit of continuing the Star Trek quotes, I submit that Interbane's objection reminds me of the quote, "It had a maw that could swallow a planet."

Similarly, Interbane's continued reliance on his worn bag of tricks is not only unoriginal but dangerous. Its fate has been sealed by recent events. Too late tonight to deal with the gnats. The love bugs were annoying enough today.

[Harry Marks]

We who believe that God is incarnated see no reason to think the thoughts of Gandhi are never the thoughts of God, the thoughts of Martin Luther King are never the thoughts of God, and, by the same possible association, the thoughts of yourself are not ever also, at the same time as they are your thoughts, the thoughts of God.

Although you see no reason "not" to believe some people's thoughts are divinely inspired, that does not equal a reason to believe. A reason 'not' to believe something is not a valid reason to instead believe it. That is the most common false dichotomy I see from theological rationale.

Rather than hypothesize that some certain people are sharing their thoughts with the divine, why not instead simply conclude that the thoughts are the thoughts of that person?! The is the most simplistic, parsimonious answer. To say that a person is thinking, but god is helping him to do this thinking, is absurd and superfluous. If you can show me the most divinely inspired thought(great wisdom from some sage, you pick), I will show you a thought that came as the result of normal and natural human reasoning. There is no need to hypothesize any more. That explains it all.

Rather, quite the opposite, they may sense only a deep sense of meaning in those thoughts or actions. Or even just a sense that the thoughts are "right".

You're speaking of the intersection between emotion and reason. Each of us is able to have an emotional feeling of "correctness" with regards to certain conclusions. Brain mapping has shown that this emotional reaction is supplemental to our conscious reasoning, and provides the "feeling" of certainty we feel from time to time. This is an entirely natural reaction, but can become active even when we're thinking of something false. The correlation in experiments is unmistakable, and there may even be enough research done now that shows causation as well.

This cognitive phenomenon is a fact. It happens. You are saying the same effects happen, but rather than having a natural cause, they have a supernatural cause? That is an unwarranted leap of faith. We have no reason to conjure up that hypothesis, since the feeling of certainty and thoughts of great profundity are all able to be naturally explained.

There is always interpretation involved. That doesn't invalidate the belief - but it gives belief a fascinatingly social dimension if we recognize that there is interpretation involved and take the subject seriously.

The belief is invalidated because we already have explanations for all the things you've mentioned. There is no need to believe there is more to it, unless you can show to me results which cannot be natural. Auto mechanics don't hypothesize that there are engine gophers on treadmills powering your vehicle. The functioning of an auto is natural, and there is no need for an additional superfluous hypothesis.

Interbane -

I am not trying to convince you or anyone. I am trying to explain the way prayer works. The first thing to grasp is that, even though those offering prayers often think of the activity as having influence on a supernatural agent, the real way prayer works is not mainly via this assumption but by an influence of the activity on the spirit of the person praying. Or, if the term spirit sounds supernatural to you, on the mind of the person praying.

It is not necessary to posit any supernatural action or supernatural agent in order to properly use interpretations about God. "God's will" becomes "that which would be the most caring thing for the situation" and "Please, God" becomes "I really think this is a very caring outcome and I care enough to wait hopefully for it."

It seems to be important to you to give parsimonious explanations, but what you miss is that prayer is not science, nor even an instrumental activity like generating electricity. We really don't much care what the scientific explanation is, and in fact, being conscious of the science interferes with the activity. It would be like asking a chess grandmaster or a parent having an intimate conversation with their child to stop and think about neurons firing and how the connections might have arisen. That's just dumb. Explaining is for explainers. Praying is for those who pray.

So, to return to the immediately preceding discussion, the fact that thoughts are my thoughts does not preclude them from being the thoughts of God as well. This works for those who think of God as a supernatural being, and it also works for Christians like me who think of God as the spirit of caring. This is not by way of explaining anything - it is just how prayer works. We get answers mainly in the interpretations we put on things, including our own thoughts. An "answer" often looks like "that is not really the most caring thing in the situation, you just thought it was, so think harder" or "it will happen, but not the way you imagined it, because this is about finding grounds for sympathetic communication, not about you having power over the universe." These are enriching interactions, whether they originate with my mind, with an external spirit of caring, with an external supernatural mind, or with some combination of these.

[stahrwe]

Many years ago friends and I used to experiment with "automatic" writing. This is the way you do it. You take a pencil and hold it lightly in your hand not quit touching (or only lightly) the surface of your paper. (we always used large sheets of newspaper opened up on the dining room table)

You do not rest your arm or elbow on the table so your arm tires. While this is happening you try to make you mind blank or maybe focused on the pencil. After a while your arm is really heavy and the pencil starts to move. It first inscribes figure 8's. Then starts writing sentences. Of course no punctuation or capitalization.

You are writing messages or sentences. Although I do not remember them too specifically they seemed to be thoughts that I was submerging or maybe not paying enough attention to in my conscious life. Nothing bizarre or mysterious or off the wall. This is probably like deep meditation or prayer. If I had been spiritually inclined I could have supposed these messages from another source than my own mind . . . and hey, I had it in writing! But I always thought it was just me, but maybe the deeper me.t

Automatic writing has nothing to do with and is in no way like prayer. Prayer is total involvement of the person in conversation with God.