Is prayer meaningless?

[sojourner]

BTW, I heard a story on NPR this morning about "brain mapping" they're doing with different religious groups who are involved in deep prayer. The scientist said two interesting things (paraphrased):

We are just beginning to understand how spiritual experience affects us physically.

The people tested are having some kind of experience, since their brains are reacting to that experience.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't agree. In speaking for all atheists maybe you presume too much? For example my wife is a strong atheist, she has a strong conviction that this whole God business is nonsense. She felt gratitude when all our children were born healthy. According to what you posted she is not an atheist so?

I think it fair to make generalizations about atheism that follow from its meaning. Atheists do not have deities to be grateful to. As for your wife, she can probably explain her attitude better than I can. Who does she claim to be grateful to? Luck? When I survived my last two surgeries, I was grateful to medical science and the surgeons.

I can understand that it may be so for you but that does not mean that it follows for me. I do not consider gratitude a social grace - from your pov I may be wrong and I can accept that - but from mine it makes sense.

Fair enough. Myself, I think it no accident that "grace" and "gratitude" derive from the same historical root. Both have to do with social bonding.

My pov is that religion is ubiquitous in human society, because it serves human needs. It will continue to exist as long as people find it useful. A primary use of religion is empowerment. Prayer is not used exclusively to increase control over one's circumstances, but people quite obviously pray FOR things from a deity all the time. They consider that prayer works when something that was prayed for comes about, and they talk about prayers being "answered" or "unanswered". I don't think that I need your buy-in for me to be able to make my case. What is most interesting to me about prayer is that people have to believe that God gets something in return when he answers prayers. People need to feel that God needs them in some way in order for the bonding to work properly, but an omnipotent being doesn't really "need" anything, by definition.

You are talking about prayer to a God you do not believe in but you know nothing of the God I do believe in.
Why would you presume to know my mind?

We all make inferences about what is in each other's minds. If we did not, then attempts at communication would be useless. I do think that I know something about the God you believe in, even if you would like to believe that I do not. I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be mistaken in my inferences. One goal of communication is to correct mistaken inferences that we may have made about what is in each other's mind.

 

[Copernicus]

BTW, I heard a story on NPR this morning about "brain mapping" they're doing with different religious groups who are involved in deep prayer. The scientist said two interesting things (paraphrased):

We are just beginning to understand how spiritual experience affects us physically.

Actually, we are not just beginning to do that. Scientists have known about the placebo effect for quite a long time now. We are just beginning to locate areas of the brain where blood flow increases and decreases when religious people pray or meditate. Scientists then try to draw interesting conclusions about how the brain works when people are in that state of mind.

The people tested are having some kind of experience, since their brains are reacting to that experience.

This is trivially true. Every mental experience should correspond to brain activity of some kind. What is in question is whether the brain activity has anything at all to do with an external agency such as a god. I don't think that the scientists involved in these experiments have any evidence at all to support that conclusion.

 

[Storm]

What is in question is whether the brain activity has anything at all to do with an external agency such as a god. I don't think that the scientists involved in these experiments have any evidence at all to support that conclusion.

Nor will they, ever. Such questions are beyond the limitations of science.

 

[Enlighten]

I may be contradicting something... but prayer isnt necessary.

I must disagree with you as it does mention in the bible that we should pray:

1. Pray acknowledging He is God, and that you accept His gracious gift, Jesus Christ, as your Lord and Savior (Genesis 17:1, Romans 6:16-18).
2. Pray confessing our sins and accepting His forgiveness (Romans 3:23-26).
3.Pray that His will be done in our lives, that His Holy Spirit guide us, and that we be filled with the fullness of all God has for us.
4. Pray for (spiritual) understanding and wisdom (Proverbs 2:6-8, 3:5).
5. Pray with thanksgiving for all the ways He blesses us (Philippians 4:6.
6. Pray when we are ill, lonely, going through trials or interceding for others (James 5:14-16, 2 Corinthians 12:9-10).
7. Pray to worship Him (Psalm 95:6-7).

Obviously there is a lot more reference to prayer in the bible but I just took these from a simple internet search: Why Should We Pray

 

[Copernicus]

Nor will they, ever. Such questions are beyond the limitations of science.

Storm, this kind of claim is very popular. Stephen J. Gould gave it the name Non-Overlapping Magisteria (or NOMA), the idea being that science and religion explain different aspects of reality and do not "overlap". However, it is an essential aspect of religious faith that miracles happen--that the spiritual realm somehow brings about events in the physical realm. Hence, religion inevitably opens itself up to empirical investigation.

 

[Storm]

Storm, this kind of claim is very popular. Stephen J. Gould gave it the name Non-Overlapping Magisteria (or NOMA), the idea being that science and religion explain different aspects of reality and do not "overlap". However, it is an essential aspect of religious faith that miracles happen--that the spiritual realm somehow brings about events in the physical realm. Hence, religion inevitably opens itself up to empirical investigation.

As I've said elsewhere, if the supernatural exists, all bets are off. Even if it doesn't, science will never be able to answer the question of God's existence. It's a tool, and it has limits.

Rather than hijack your thread, though, I invite you to respond to this old one of mine: Evidence?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

However, it is an essential aspect of religious faith that miracles happen--that the spiritual realm somehow brings about events in the physical realm. Hence, religion inevitably opens itself up to empirical investigation.

Yes, but they always have their unquestionable corner of mysteries to run back to when the physical claims don't pass muster.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Prayer is an expression of our inner energy. It doesn't matter what the content of the prayer is as long as the energy that empowers it is released. This is why some speak in "tongues" when praying. If one has the impulse to pray....pray.

 

[logician]

"Even if it doesn't, science will never be able to answer the question of God's existence"

Which god?

 

[Storm]

"Even if it doesn't, science will never be able to answer the question of God's existence"

Which god?

Take your pick, though I tend to default to the deistic.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

"Even if it doesn't, science will never be able to answer the question of God's existence"

Which god?

You....

 

[logician]

Never say never.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Never say never.

If science could possibly prove or put forth evidence of god, would it not follow that what one perceives as the method of science is also the method of god? Would it not then follow that your own conscious presence is just a limited aspect of the greater whole that, perceived as whole IS god? Maybe...?

 

[logician]

"God" is only an abstract concept.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Would it not then follow that your own conscious presence is just a limited aspect of the greater whole that, perceived as whole IS god? Maybe...?

So some people are god's brain, while others are god's anal sphincter? This actually explains a lot.

 

[theonepaladin]

God knows what you need, and He provides it. "He is not a vending machine." -anonomous RF user (LOL) like someone said in a different topic.

 

[Nepenthe]

Yeah, god isn't much like a vending machine, the deity is more like an atm. I can deposit all the prayers I want but I'm not going to get more back than I actually put into it. You know, hands that help and all that Ingersoll quote stuff.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

"God" is only an abstract concept.

Yes, indeed. A concept. A word. A thought. A mental cognition. But those things that it points to, the one thing that is the foundation upon which even the pointers themselves all must stand, the silence, the stillness, the consciousness, whatever you want to call it, that which is essentially you...that which even you have "faith" in because you are here communicating with me. That which is here now exists, does it not? When you are sitting quietly, perceiving stillness, would you say that you are separate from that stillness or that you are the stillness and that all else, all content, all sense perceptions, even what you perceive as your own body or your thoughts, is essentially you, but also not you? Are there even answers to these questions, or do they just stand as they are?...as you, the perceiving entity, who experiences these questions, this content, this sentence that you are reading right now through your own self-made reality.

You could call it "god", sure...

And what is the difference if it is expressed as "science" or "prayer"?

"Consensus" is the only thing that springs to mind.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Yeah, god isn't much like a vending machine, the deity is more like an atm. I can deposit all the prayers I want but I'm not going to get more back than I actually put into it. You know, hands that help and all that Ingersoll quote stuff.

What?! But my friend said it was working fine!