Asymmetrical Information

All prayer is equally (in)effective. God does whatever He wants regardless.

What really matters is the state of mind of the person praying. A wish or prayer for something good to happen to someone is a an act of cheerfulness, compassion, tolerance, and/or love. A wish or prayer for something bad to happen to someone is an act of hatred, fear, and anger. Either act brings the praying/wishing individual a step closer to being a person of either goodness and decency, or of corruption and violence, as applicable.

God, in His holiness, only hears the prayers of the righteous. Only those saved by the blood of Jesus have righteousness imputed to them. God does not hear the prayers of Muslims. The Bible is very clear on this matter.

I'm pretty sure that anybody whose prayers would be answered wouldn't be praying for something malicious, anyway.

I thought there were about 1B muslims and 1.2B Christians--not a huge difference.

I wish all my prayers were as likely to be fulfilled via high explosives.

Right about the time prayer can be quantified as a statistical element, it has ceased to have meaning. God isn't a vending machine just waiting for the right combination of incantation tokens to be inserted; I know of Christians in African and Middle Eastern countries who have been ostracized by their families and targeted with violence. What they find in prayer is not abracadabra! wealth-and-power over their physical circumstances or opressors, but inner peace in the midst of turmoil.

You are describing what is technically known as "prayers of petition", which is to say prayers that ask God to do something.

Here's the part I've never been able to reconcile about prayers of petition: why would God give any weight to my requests?

I mean, this is God we're talking about here. God, who knows and understands the true consequeces of every possible course of action. How could my snivelling little opinion have any weight at all next to the true consequences that God can see at a glance.

Let's pick the most benign example I can think of: my wife is ill and I pray for her to get better. God surely knows the true consequences of every contingency. Suppose her illness inspires someone else somehow? What if her illness helps a doctor in a way that eventually benefits hundreds of people? Suppose her illness now will prevent a future illness?

Any way you slice it or dice it, a supreme being that knows the true consequences of all actions would be irresponsible to allow the course of human events to be decided by the likes of us. The omnipotent one should be the one making the decisions, not the stupid, fallible ones.

So what point is there in prayers of petition (as opposed, say, to prayers of thanks, a completely different category) when you know in advance God would have to be untrue to his nature to be swayed by them?

...well, howzabout just praying for justice?

And then, leave it up to God.

Rob - A very good question. The answer, from (as Al Gore might say) "my faith tradition" is that prayers of petition help to change the petitioner, not God. God may condition receipt of certain blessings upon our exercising the faith necessary to ask Him for the desired blessing. This faith then brings us closer to Him and His desires for how we live our lives.

Or, to use a mortal example. I am helping my daughter pay for her college education. My support is contingent on her behavior -- in particular she needs to acknowledge my assistance is not automatic. She needs to thank me and put forth good effort on her studies. Why the requirement that she thank me? Not (I don't think) because such thanks feeds my ego, but because it requires a certain humility on her part. And, I think she will be happier and go along better in life if she posses an appropriate amount of that virtue. So, while I want to "bless" her with an education, I will withhold that blessing if she does not ask for it. It's not too difficult for me to imagine a Heavenly Parent feeling similarly towards His mortal children.

Let's assume that we do know for a fact that God exists and that the Bible is his "Word". How do we know that he isn't lying?

Be careful what you pray for.

We have all heard preachers saying things like
"I beseech thee God to hear the prayers of (parents of dying child)...." Why do the religious need a preacher to intervene when they
can directly call on God themselves? Does God have a scale that tips when a divine joins in the prayers? Does he have a tote board that lights up when x number of people in the community pray for an certain outcome (e.g. Terri Schiavo)?
And why were we beseeched to "pray for the Pope?"
God wouldn't admit John Paul II to heaven unless
1 billion prayed for him? When've I nicely put such questions to the religious, especially about
prayers unanswered regarding innocent children,
they conveniently remark that "Prayers are always
answered and sometimes the answer is 'no'."
So say a silent prayer if you wish, it may make you feel better; but the value of mass prayer
services and the like would seem to be nil.

David:

Good try, but you miss a couple important things:

In my example, I prayed for something for someone else. God would be remiss to judge the other person by my prayer or lack thereof.

Secondly, you are judging your daughter at least partly by her actions ("good effort on her studies"), not her petitions. And I explicitly stated that prayers of thanks were a different category from prayers of petition (and a category where your thoughts may well apply).

I still can't see how prayers of petition - particularly ones that intercede for other people - don't represent a contradiction. God would be stupid to take my limited understanding of the world into account when deciding how things will turn out.

Rob -- I am not suggesting that God listens to prayers and is persuaded to change His mind. I am saying God makes some of His blessings conditional on an individual's (or several individuals') actions (including prayer). Praying for someone else requires us to be less self-centered than we might otherwise be. Such prayers bring us closer to the person we are praying for and to God. Assuming God desires us to be more selfless than selfish, He might in wisdom condition some blessings upon the prayers of others in our behalf.

It may not seem fair to condition one person's blessings on another's actions, but I assume God has ways of evening things out in this life or the next. I suspect he scores things differently than we do. What, to our mortal, short-term, point of view appears unfair may appear fair from His Eternal perspective.

Let's assume that we do know for a fact that God exists and that the Bible is his "Word". How do we know that he isn't lying?

Easy: When you know for a fact that God exists and the Bible is His Word, you don't make the fallacy of trying to create Him in your own image.

Easy: When you know for a fact that God exists and the Bible is His Word, you don't make the fallacy of trying to create Him in your own image.

Exactly.

How many times have we heard/read people say something like, "I refuse to believe in a God that would allow [the holocaust, 9/11, whatever] to happen", thus judging God for this world not being perfect - perfect as defined by the person making the statement. What arrogance.

Mycin,

Arrogance. Great word. But who is arrogant, one who admits to not knowing? - or one who claims to know the unknowable?

Rob,

If I may, I'd like to extend David's "parent" analogy to address your issue of why God would answer your prayers requesting help for others.

Imagine your child came to you with a story of one of her school mates who needed, I dunno, say someone to take them to the mall to buy a prom dress as the friend's single parent was ill that week and couldn't manage it. You don't know the friend or her family, but agree to help largely because it's important to you child, whom you love unconditionally. Note you may not be able to help, as other priorities may get in the way, but you'd help if you could.

I think it's kinda like that.

Also, I think it's a mistake to assume that God attempts to absolutely maximize outcomes in some sort of pseudo-economic way, such that requests can't be granted unless they result in the best possible outcome. We're on this earth to muddle through as best we can, making mistakes (and hopefully learning from them) along the way, much like children. God is a caring parent who helps when He can, but may withhold requested help if He knows it would do more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.

As the old saying goes, all prayers are answered -- sometimes the answer is, "No."

But, many times it's, "Yes."

Jane, you are hilarious. I saw the prayer request on Fox News Channel last night. First it was on the ticker, summed up like a press release headline fresh from a dot-com VPMarketing... "Prayers requested for al-Zarquari." Then they scroll the "Islamic websitye request prayers for Iraqi insurgent terrorist Abu...". Then the infobabe told the story of how he was shot 3 times and severely wounded and how al Queda had reportedly already been meeting to decide who would head the franchise in Iraq when he died. Now we're just waiting for the white smoke, right?

Don't you think the bigger story here, along with the Koran flushing and Italy idicting an author for saying that Western civ is far superior to these backwards twits, is that we're being asked to give a damn? Instead of sending Jessica Simpson to play for our troops, we ought to send Britney Spears to do a free concert for 1 million Iraqis. And maybe Larry Flynt to jumpstart their publishing industry.

Randy,

Arrogance. Great word. But who is arrogant, one who admits to not knowing? - or one who claims to know the unknowable?

One who claims to know the unknowable, of course.

To what do you refer?

If you're suggesting that belief is, in general, more arrogant that disbelief, I disagree.

Consider these statements:

"I believe there is a power greater than myself, who has given us instruction, direction and guidance through the Bible in a manner that we, with our limited abilities, can still understand."

"There may or may not be a power greater than myself. I await proof."

"I believe there is no power greater than myself."

I suggest that the last statement is the most arrogant.

I've always (OK, not ALways, but since my flirtation with agnosticism in high school) thought of my prayers as a sort of spiritual exercise. God doesn't need them, but I do. A regular habit of prayer encourages me to listen when God speaks, in whatever voice God chooses to use at the time; asking for things, for myself or for others, is a reminder that we are children of God rather than products of a kind of existential breeding experiment. Paul, the most irritating and brilliant man(-only - that is, as opposed to Jesus who wasn't man-only) of the New Testament, puts it this way: "Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace" - and Jan Karon adds, "as children of the King!" (The Hebrews I take from from the King James, because "boldly" is much better than the "with confidence" of the Revised Standard.)

I also tend to think that if I'm actually growing closer to God through my prayer and my way of life, my prayers of petition may end up being closer and closer to what God intends, so I'll perceive a "yes" when, in reality, it's simply that my wishes and expectations are conforming to God's better. This may be hubris. I dunno.

Which is why it's always safe to stick to the Jan Karon "prayer that never fails": Thy will be done. Can't really argue with that... (But I bet someone will, which is the peculiar beauty of both the Western Civ system and this medium. Bring it on - I'll defend to the death, etc., etc.!)

Might I recommend that if we really want God to do something about our prayers then we should immediately contact Pat Robertson and pay him large sums of money to communicate to God exactly what we want. If I recall he has often claimed that he has a direct line of communication with God and that God does what he asks and tells him what is going to happen. I think this is a great way to find out the answer to Jane's quandry.

I have prayed and God has answered my prayers, sometimes in ways so oddly coincidental it seems things must have been prearranged to make the answer happen. I have also wondered why God would do that - he has lots of other things to do. Then I remember he loves his children, and I am one of them.

Luther wrote that a Christian may humbly request material things of God, being mindful of the fact that to receive what we want might not actually be to our benefit, but that we can demand of God the spiritual gifts that He promised us, as God always keeps his promises. Next step: figure out what those spiritual gifts are. That's probably a major reason why Luther translated the Bible into the native German of his parishoners...

It's also a Lutheran thing to observe that prayer isn't us talking to God, which as others have pointed out is wholly redundant, but rather us being still enough to allow God to talk to us uninterrupted. This actually requires a great deal more discipline than it sounds.

An old joke I've heard: A man is counseled to pray for his enemies. The counselor comes back a few days later, asks if he's done it and he says yes, but he had stopped. He prayed for them, they didn't die, so he figured it didn't work.

Every act of creation also destroys. So every prayer for creation is also a prayer for destruction. So let's be mindful what we are creating, what we are destroying in the process, and how much we value each.

Mycin,

Re; "If you're suggesting that belief is, in general, more arrogant that disbelief, I disagree."

I am not. I have no problem with "beliefs" of any kind. It is not arrogance to "believe" in a higher power. Nor is it arrogance to "believe" there is no higher power. It is arrogance to claim to "know", as this particular "truth" is beyond the capabilities of the human brain, which is limited by time. For the human being, "truth" exists only in immediate perception. A claim to "know" the "truth" of the existance or non-existance of a higher power is a failure to recognize the fallibility of the human mind, and is therefore the height of arrogance.

My original post, concerning the possibility that God, if he exists, could be lying, is an expansion of this idea that we simply don't know.

Mycin,

Just a quick demonstration;

Imagine that I show you an object. The object is red. You can see that it is red. What you "know" is that the object you see before you is red. Now I place the object behind my back, and I ask you, what color is the object? As quickly as this, you have passed from the realm of truth into the realm of belief. You can believe that the object is red, you can place value in believing the object is red, you can act on your belief that the object is red - but you do not "know" that the object is red. A separation from immediate perception introduces a possibility of error (though not a probability of error). The same is true for a separation from personal experience, or a separation in time.

And yes I am aware that that the words "know" and "believe" are often interchangeable in common usage. This is imprecise, and it does cause problems.

Bad news: even with the object right before your eyes, you don't "know" that it's red just because it looks red to you.

Interestingly enough, an excellent way to get a good handle on the issues in knowledge vs. belief is to study artificial intelligence for a while.

Paul,

Good point. Even the senses are suspect. As for studying AI, I troubleshoot computer problems for a living. When the problem is difficult, I give up on the shortcuts and go back to the basics - retest everything to separate what I really know from what I just think I know.

I have no problem with "beliefs" of any kind. It is not arrogance to "believe" in a higher power. Nor is it arrogance to "believe" there is no higher power. It is arrogance to claim to "know", as this particular "truth" is beyond the capabilities of the human brain, which is limited by time. For the human being, "truth" exists only in immediate perception. A claim to "know" the "truth" of the existance or non-existance of a higher power is a failure to recognize the fallibility of the human mind, and is therefore the height of arrogance.

"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, 'If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free'." (John 8:31-32)

Thus, the basis of knowing truth: believing in someone who is not bound by human limitations, i.e., God, who reveals knowledge and truth. Of course, belief has to be reasonable, or it is merely an idle exercise of chattering into the wind.

Thus, pointing to the limitations of human perception is just a semantic dodge to avoid the possibility that truth and knowledge ARE attainable (and all of the corresponding responsibility and accountability those entail -- two things human pride, i.e. the source of all arrogance, has never enjoyed addressing). The real question that should be considered: is your belief (whether belief in something, or nothing at all) an idle exercise, or are you following an extraordinary claimant who provided the requisite extraordinary evidence?

Anony-mouse,

Re; "...pointing to the limitations of human perception is just a semantic dodge..."

No, it isn't. It is a fact that the human mind is fallible. A semantic dodge would be ignoring this fact, and pressing on with a claim to know a "truth" that is simply a "belief".

The acid test for a belief is whether or not it has value - does it work. You believe that your faith has value. I believe that my lack of faith has value. Only time will tell - or maybe not...

P.S Anony-mouse,

Accountability and Responsibility arise from Freedom - not Faith.

No, it isn't. It is a fact that the human mind is fallible. A semantic dodge would be ignoring this fact, and pressing on with a claim to know a "truth" that is simply a "belief".

The human mind IS fallible. The human mind can also believe in something fallible. But to deny any knowability is merely an effort to avoid accountability to an absolute, if it exists. (Freedom doesn't bring accountability and responsibility unless it is based on something objective, since it is itself otherwise subject to the same human fallibility.)

Which brings us back again to: is your belief (whether belief in something, or nothing at all) an idle exercise, or are you following an extraordinary claimant who provided the requisite extraordinary evidence?

Let me expand on what I mean. The case for the Christian is not some arbitrary, abstract "belief in God," but rather that God reached down into the human sphere roughly 2000 years ago and revealed Himself through Jesus Christ. Jesus was, by accounts that pass any plausible litmus test for historical reliability, not only capable of raising others from the dead, but was Himself raised from the dead, all under circumstances that effectively preclude illusion or trickery.

Now, one can choose to accept or reject that, based solely on belief since resurection from the dead is not readily provable through empirics, but if you choose to believe that, then there is no logical difficulty accepting that knowable truth follows. One who can raise from the dead and be raised from the dead has every right to claim and proclaim external, objective truth.

Yet a third time: is your belief (whether belief in something, or nothing at all) an idle exercise, or are you following an extraordinary claimant who provided the requisite extraordinary evidence?

Accountability and Responsibility arise from Freedom - not Faith.

That's really profound, Randy. Is that true, or is it just one of your beliefs?

Francis Galton once did a study on the efficacy of prayer. He reasoned that people in England prayed daily for the welfare of the royal family and, if prayer worked they should live longer than other aristocrats.
He discovered that they lived significantly shorter, and concluded that prayer has negative efficacy.

R,

Good one :)

Its a belief of course. Anony-mouse makes the case for an "objective" truth handed down from on high which requires accountability to it. Its an interesting possibility, but without it, accountability and responsibility are inseperable from freedom. Anony-mouse may be right. I can only say that I don't believe he is.

[Coffee shoots out my nose - which hurts]

David Riceman, what a fanTAStic study that must have been! Hee hee! I can see the King's subjects now, kneeling at their bedsides: "...and the grace of a happy death..."

Anony-mouse,

Re; "Is your belief (whether belief in something, or nothing at all) an idle exercise, or are you following an extraordinary claimant who provided the requisite extraordinary evidence?"

My beliefs are the result of a combination of memories of past experiences, immediate perception, expectations of future experiences, and secondary sources. My beliefs are not an idle exercise as I live my life on the basis of my beliefs - as do we all. But I don't trust "extraordinary claimants" of any kind, for the simple reason that their claims are extraordinary.

You seem to me to be one who favors the objective to the subjective. It is of value to you to believe that your beliefs have an objective source. I am a pragmatist. Knowing the limits of the human brain, I favor subjective "value" to objective "truth". The only real difference is that you will use the word "know" where I would use the word "believe". Its about precision. But I don't stop people in the middle of a conversation and correct them - well, maybe in blogs.

I think that if what you want is for Al-Zarqawi to die from his wounds, then that's what you should pray about. Lay your attitudes and desires bare before God; get intimate with him. Put in secular terms, this is a path to personal growth. And welcome any sense of conviction or repentance that maybe your attitude needs to change some. But don't be judgemental about yourself, because that will lead to denial, "political correctness", and block any growth or spiritual development. After all, this is just between you and God, so let it all hang out.

Simply becoming aware of what your attitudes are and how they may need to change is the engine of personal growth, of spiritual growth.

It's very normal, very human for us to want Zarqawi to die, but I very much doubt it would make things better if he did.

Perhaps you might find that there are better, wiser things to pray for than the death of Al Zarqawi. What if he were to recover but have a change of heart? Stranger things have happened. Maybe there's an even better thing that could happen, that I just haven't thought of yet.

The best model of this kind of prayer is that of Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. "God you say that money is a curse. So can't you curse me just once, just a little bit?"

Faith does not move mountains. Men with shovels and the faith to use them move mountains. Or in this case, men with a properly boresighted Hellfire missile.

cc: There are about 2.2 billion Christians, and 1.4 billion Muslims.

Comments are Closed.