Does Prayer Actually, Y’know, WORK?

Brethren, I will speak today on the gospel of John, the sixteenth chapter, verse 24. Jesus said, “Ask and you will receive.” As the National Day of Prayer approaches, this verse is both relevant and unambiguous.
Apologists like to water down this verse and many others like it to say that they doesn’t mean what they obviously mean, so let’s be sure we have this right. Here it is in context.
Jesus said,

I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete (John 16:23–4).

A few verses later, we read,

Then Jesus’s disciples said, ‘Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech” (:29).

Clearly, we are given no choice but to consider it at face value. “Ask and you will receive”—okay, got it.
National Day of Prayer
The National Day of Prayer task force (“Transforming our Nation Through Prayer!”) is eager to harness this power. It says

We have an unprecedented opportunity to see the Lord’s healing and renewing power made manifest as we call on citizens to humbly come before His throne.

Is this just feel-good handwaving, or are you making specific, testable predictions?

Our theme for 2013 is Pray for America, emphasizing the need for individuals, corporately and individually, to place their faith in the unfailing character of their Creator, who is sovereign over all governments, authorities, and men.

Not in the U.S., pal. Religion operates as it does because, and only because, it is permitted to by the Constitution. You can pretend to elevate your deity above government, but let’s be clear about what document actually governs this country.
This year’s national prayer seems to push all the right buttons. There’s some thanksgiving and praise, there’s some confession and contrition. But, as Jesus recommends, it also asks.

Lord, we need Your help in America. In recent days, we have done our best to remove Your Word and Your counsel from our courtrooms, classrooms and culture. … Lord, You have not forgotten us! You can bless and help and revive our country again.

Just because it’s alliterative doesn’t make it profound. The Constitution prohibits Christianity in government buildings such as courtrooms and classrooms. That’s the way it’s been since ratification 224 years ago—deal with it. But its First Amendment makes Christianity (and other religions) welcome in culture.
In America, the buck stops with the Constitution, not the Bible. Why is this hard to understand? It’s simply unpatriotic to push society in a way prohibited by the Constitution (more here and here).
What does the task force imagine will happen (besides strengthening their brand, I mean)? Let me admit that there may be a benefit to the person praying. Prayer can be beneficial in the same way that meditation can. But when you’re praying for someone else, that’s not the point. The idea behind person A praying for person B isn’t for person A to feel better, it’s for something specific to happen to person B!
Does prayer work?
In Matthew, Jesus says, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” In Mark, Jesus says, “Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” In John, Jesus says, “He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do.”
The New Testament unambiguously claims that prayer works, but we all know that that’s wrong, or, said charitably, prayer doesn’t work that way. Apologists handwave that prayer works … for the person doing the praying. Or we’re told that prayers are always answered, but “not yet” or “maybe” are valid answers. This reinterpretation of reality is worthy of North Korea or Animal Farm.
It’s like Harriett Hall’s Blue Dot cure, where the doctor paints a blue dot on the patient’s nose. Suppose the patient gets better. Great—the blue dot worked! Or suppose the patient gets worse. Ah, the doctor says, you should’ve come to me sooner. Or suppose the condition is unchanged. The doctor recommends continued treatment (and it’s lucky we caught it when we did)!
No outcome will make this imaginary doctor reconsider the treatment. Reality is redefined so that the doctor is immune to evidence that shakes his preconception that the cure works.
If the roles were reversed and it was Christians critiquing the supernatural claim of someone else’s religion, I imagine they’d be as skeptical as me. The simple explanation is that there is no God to answer (or not) your prayers. Prayer is simply talking to yourself. There’s no one on the other end of the phone. (More on prayer here and here.)
I’ll close with the wisdom of Mr. Deity:

Mr. Deity: Prayer is not for me, okay? I mean, I like it and everything, I think it’s sweet that people think of me, but I’ve got a plan, and I’m staying the course. But it’s great for them, it gets them focused on what’s important, it’s meditative, I hear it does wonders for the blood pressure. Plus it’s a chance to connect to me. How’s that not going to be good? You should know.
Jesus: Oh yeah, yeah. So what you’re saying here, sir, is that you never answer any prayers?
Mr. Deity: Not really, no. There’s just no incentive. I mean, look—if somebody prays to me and things go well, who gets the credit? Me, right? But if they pray to me and things don’t go well, who gets the blame? Not me! So it’s all good. I’m going to mess with that by stepping in? Putting my nose where it doesn’t belong?

Thus endeth the lesson for today.

Give a man a fish, and you’ll feed him for a day;
give him a religion, and he’ll starve to death while praying for a fish.
— Anonymous

Photo credit: kymillman

Ever Want to Take a Philosophy Class?

Have you ever considered taking a philosophy class? Dr. Dan Fincke, an atheist blogger at Patheos at Camels with Hammers who teaches at several colleges, is offering affordable private philosophy classes. He summarizes his approach here and here.
If this interests you, contact Dan through this form.
Photo credit: Wikimedia

Televangelists Show Prayer is Useless

Do you ever watch televangelists? Any show is one long infomercial that always ends with a direct appeal in two parts: please pray for us, and send lots of cash, as much as you can.
But why bother with the request for money? People who have the ear of the almighty creator of the universe can tap into a whole lot more than whatever’s in their wallets. Who cares about trifling financial donations when you can get help from the Big Man himself?
Televangelists’ appeals for money make clear that they know what I know: that praying is like waiting for the Great Pumpkin. People can reliably deliver money, but prayer doesn’t deliver anything.
This reminds me of a quote from that persuasive theologian, George Carlin. About God, he says,

But he loves you! He loves you … and he needs money! He always needs money. He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise … but somehow he just can’t handle money.

It starts about one minute into this piece. (Caution: the dialogue is a bit R-rated. It is George Carlin, after all.)

We exist in a bizarre combination of
Stone Age emotions,
medieval beliefs,
and god-like technology.
—Edward O. Wilson

(This is a modified version of a post originally published 10/13/11.) 
Photo credit: Wikipedia

New Commenting System!

The sorcerers behind the scenes at Patheos are changing the commenting engine for all the blogs to Disqus. You might’ve seen Disqus elsewhere on the internet.
Some of the improvements are:

  • You can finally edit your comment. No more zero tolerance for HTML typos.
  • Long comments collapse so that the first hundred words or so are shown, with a “see more” button at the bottom.
  • You can vote comments up or down.
  • Comments can be sorted—Oldest at the top, Newest at the top, or Best (as voted on by readers) at the top.
  • You can share a comment on Twitter or Facebook.

I’m sure there’s more stuff that I don’t understand yet. (Will your old name will still work? How do you get email notification of new comments?)
There’s one temporary downside: old comments are there, but not all of the comments in the past few days have made it over. The sorcerers have assured me that all is well, and any comments you don’t see will, like the proverbial lost sheep, be brought back to the fold.

Do Atheists Borrow From the Christian Worldview?

Consider this parable:
A certain mathematician, in a philosophical mood one day, wondered what grounded his mathematics. The math works, of course, but he wonders if he’s missing something foundational.
He consults a friend of his, a theologian. The theologian knows almost nothing about mathematics, but he knows his Christianity.
The mathematician says, “Mathematics is like an inverted triangle with the most advanced math along the wide top edge. The top layer is grounded on the math below it, which is grounded on what is below, and so on through the layers, down to arithmetic and logic at the point at the bottom. And that’s where it stops.”
The theologian nodded his head wisely. “I see the problem—what does the bottom rest on?”
The mathematician was silent.
“In your view, it rests on nothing,” said the theologian. “It just sits there in midair. But the problem is easily resolved—mathematics and logic comes from God. There’s your grounding.”
“Are you saying that I need to convert to Christianity to be a mathematician?”
“No, just realize that you are borrowing from the Christian worldview every time you make a computation or write an equation.”
Satisfied that this nagging problem has been resolved, the mathematician returns to his work and thinks no more of it.
The End.
So, is the mathematician any better off? Is he faster or more accurate or more creative? Do his proofs work now where they hadn’t before? In short, did he get anything of value from the whole episode? Not at all.
And note, of course, that the axioms at the bottom of the triangle aren’t taken on faith, they’re tested. “1 + 1 = 2” has worked on everything so far, but we’ll take notice if we find a situation where it doesn’t. Some mathematical claims are proven and some are tested, but each is reliable.
I’ve heard this “grounding” or “atheists borrow from the Christian worldview” idea many times, but I’ve yet to discover what this missing thing is that is being borrowed.
If we imagine that 1 + 1 equals 2 only because God says so, that means that a universe is possible where 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 2. That’s a remarkable claim, and I’d like to see it supported by the theologian rather than simply asserted without evidence.
“God did it” is nothing more than a restatement of the problem. “God did it” is precisely as useful as “logic and arithmetic are simply properties of our reality” or “that’s just the way it is” or even “I don’t know.” An interesting question has been suppressed, not resolved. In fact, by the theologian’s own logic, his answer rests in midair because he provides no reason to conclude that God exists. His claim is no more believable than that of any other religion—that is, not at all.
The person who stops at “God did it” has stated an opinion only—an opinion with no evidence to back it up. It doesn’t advance the cause of truth one bit.
Mathematics is tested, and it works. Scratch your head about what grounds it if you want, but God is an unnecessary and unedifying addition to the mix.

God is an ever-receding pocket
of scientific ignorance.
— Neil DeGrasse-Tyson

(This is a modified version of a post originally published 11/25/11.)

Interview an Atheist at Church Day, May 5

I enjoy talking with Christians about what they believe and why. For example, I spent two weeks in Strasbourg at John Warwick Montgomery’s International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism, and Human Rights two years ago. I attended the inhabit conference this weekend. I’ve participated in the Alpha Course four times. I like to engage with the people on the street corner carrying the “Repent or Else” signs. It’s Christians who I’m most eager to connect with through this blog.
Someone else shares my interest and is trying to formalize the process. Kile Jones is organizing “Interview an Atheist at Church” day, planned for May 5. The Friendly Atheist blog gave it a boost with a recent post.
Kile hooked me up with the pastor of a small local church, and I’m looking forward to engaging with that congregation. A church of any significant size likely has atheists in the pews who aren’t able to come out, so this is a chance for them to better understand their own members, as well as non-Christians.
Are you part of a church in the greater Seattle area who’d like to participate? Contact Kile or me. If May 5 doesn’t work out, that’s not a problem. Not even close to Seattle? Atheists and churches can connect through Kile.
Photo credit: Friendly Atheist blog