If you read through the comments in my Reader's Challenge post, you will see something quite interesting.
I think, I am trying to discuss a fact.
Carl is trying to talk about belief.
The two things are very different.
I stated in one of my sermons that Christianity is unique because it alone of all religions and philosophies states that salvation and the satisfaction of justice comes not through any actions of humankind, but solely through the actions of God.
This is a statement of fact. It can be falsified rather easily. If there is another religion that proclaims this, then my statement is untrue. My statement is not narrow, if it is true anymore than the statement two plus two is four is not narrow. It is simply a fact.
Beliefs are another matter. Beliefs are not easily falsified. For instance:
Christianity claims/believes that Jesus is God in flesh. Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice of atonement and was raised from the dead.
Islam claims/believes that Jesus was a prophet; he was not the Son of God; he didn't really die therefore was not raised from the dead.
These are two completely contradictory beliefs/claims.
Either they are both false or one is correct. They both cannot be true. You cannot say that Jesus was the Son of God and he wasn't the Son of God. You cannot say that Jesus was raised from the dead and he was not raised from the dead. Factually, this is impossible.
Similarly, the most basic difference between atheists and theists is the following:
Theists believe there is something beyond this physical universe.
Atheists believe there is nothing beyond this physical universe.
One of these statements is true. The other is false. They cannot both be true.
The question is: which one is ultimately true?
The answer is: we don't know for certain.
There is no way to scientifically test whether or not Jesus was the Son of God or if he was raised from the dead. There is no way to scientifically test what is beyond this physical universe. You can only make that decision based upon how you read evidence and which authorities you trust.
If you trust that Mohammed is Allah's prophet and his words are true, you will be a Muslim and believe Jesus is not God's Son and that he was not raised from the dead.
If you trust the biblical witness you will be a Christian and believe that Jesus is the Son of God and was raised from the dead.
If you look at the evidence and conclude there is nothing beyond this physical universe, you will be an atheist.
If you look at the evidence and conclude there is something beyond this physical universe, you will be a theist.
There is plenty of room to argue the evidence for these matters. There is plenty of room for open dialogue and discussion of these things. Facts can be laid out. Arguments can be made for the authority of the Koran or the Bible. Evidence can be pointed out for something outside the universe, and evidence can be pointed out for the non-existence of something outside this universe. Weaknesses of arguments can be pointed out. Such things can be done because we are dealing with beliefs--points which can be disputed.
But you cannot dispute a fact.
You can show your ignorance.
You can pretend the fact does not exist.
You can uncover evidence to prove that what was thought was fact was indeed wrong. (Science progresses in just this fashion!)
But in the absence of such evidence, you must admit that a fact is true.
2+2=4
Islam and Christianity have very different beliefs about who Jesus is.
Atheists and Theists have very different understandings about what lies beyond this physical universe.
And Christianity is unique among world religions and philosophies in that it claims that salvation and the satisfaction of justice are brought about by God's action alone and not by our own.
Showing posts with label Belief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Belief. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
A New Thought (at Least for Me)
People who are wiser and have deeper understanding have probably articulated it before, but it never sunk in through my skull until a week ago.
On my way back from the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod Assembly (a meeting of church leaders throughout a geographical section of Texas and Louisiana), I reflected upon something I heard during one of the presentations.
"Faith isn't just believing. Faith is action."
I think I understand this particular statement. It's a statement born out of the understanding of cheap grace. Cheap grace basically says, "Jesus died for me. God forgives my sin, so I can do whatever I want to do. I don't have to change what I do; how I act; or how I treat others." Essentially--I believe, but I don't have to act.
Then, of course, there are those who focus on action. Faith is action. God demands action. I have to do something so that my faith is apparent. We must do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God. We must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, etc.
So, which is it? Belief? Action? A combination of the two?
I've written about faith before and its relationship to doubt, and this paragraph talking about Hebrews 11:1 where the author gives the quintessential definition of faith, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen.", I think, still stands:
In Hebrews 11, Christians are encouraged to live with the assurance and conviction that God exists, that Christ is risen from the dead even though they have no visible proof or evidence of such matters. They are to live their lives following Christ with conviction and hopeful assurance that though the surrounding culture acts one particular way, they are called to a different way of life--a way of life that may face ridicule and even persecution. This is no simple matter of opinion--it is a matter of living with the certainty of belief in Jesus Christ--a belief and faith which has consequences in life.
Perhaps stating this in much simpler terms:
Faith is not believing something in an intellectual manner.
Faith is not doing something--some sort of action.
Both of these things fall far short of the reality of faith.
Faith is, I think, a state of being. What do I mean by that?
Faith is a state of trust in some thing or some body. It's not an intellectual assent to something. It's not an action of some sort. It is a deep sense that whatever it is that I am trusting will lead me to understanding ultimate reality and ultimate truth. It's a deep sense that whatever I am trusting will impact me to live my life in a particular fashion. Because I trust a particular thing, it impacts how I think about the world and how I act in it.
For those of us who are Christian, faith is a deep seated trust in God. It's more than just intellectually believing that God exists. It's more than just believing Jesus is Lord and Savior. It's deeper.
It's more than just what we do. Christians certainly do not have a monopoly on doing good things. In fact, there are more than a few organizations which do the exact same things churches do, but they do them a whole lot better. Christians are not the only ones who feed the hungry, work for justice, seek to bring healing and so on and so forth. Some atheists put some Christians to shame when it comes to being a moral being. Faith is not grounded in doing.
Faith lies at the center of one's being--at the core of who a person is. From that core comes forth belief AND action. Belief AND action is rooted and grounded in a person's faith. For the Christian, belief AND action is rooted in the deep faith (see trust) in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
That faith--that trust--did not come to us by any action of our own. It did not arrive because we disciplined ourselves to achieve it. It did not arrive because we poured over Bible verses and commentaries and the latest in Christian writing. It did not take root in our hearts because we started doing good things and helping out those in need.
It only came from one place: from the Holy Spirit.
"No one says Jesus is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit," wrote St. Paul.
"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith," wrote Martin Luther the founder of the Lutheran Church.
Faith, this deep seated trust, is a gift from God Himself. From it flows your actions and your beliefs. I think it is time we stop trying to talk about faith as something we believe or something we do. I think it is time to talk about faith as something we are--those who place our trust in the God who lived and who died and who rose again and who now walks with us each and every day.
On my way back from the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod Assembly (a meeting of church leaders throughout a geographical section of Texas and Louisiana), I reflected upon something I heard during one of the presentations.
"Faith isn't just believing. Faith is action."
I think I understand this particular statement. It's a statement born out of the understanding of cheap grace. Cheap grace basically says, "Jesus died for me. God forgives my sin, so I can do whatever I want to do. I don't have to change what I do; how I act; or how I treat others." Essentially--I believe, but I don't have to act.
Then, of course, there are those who focus on action. Faith is action. God demands action. I have to do something so that my faith is apparent. We must do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God. We must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, etc.
So, which is it? Belief? Action? A combination of the two?
I've written about faith before and its relationship to doubt, and this paragraph talking about Hebrews 11:1 where the author gives the quintessential definition of faith, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for; the conviction of things not seen.", I think, still stands:
In Hebrews 11, Christians are encouraged to live with the assurance and conviction that God exists, that Christ is risen from the dead even though they have no visible proof or evidence of such matters. They are to live their lives following Christ with conviction and hopeful assurance that though the surrounding culture acts one particular way, they are called to a different way of life--a way of life that may face ridicule and even persecution. This is no simple matter of opinion--it is a matter of living with the certainty of belief in Jesus Christ--a belief and faith which has consequences in life.
Perhaps stating this in much simpler terms:
Faith is not believing something in an intellectual manner.
Faith is not doing something--some sort of action.
Both of these things fall far short of the reality of faith.
Faith is, I think, a state of being. What do I mean by that?
Faith is a state of trust in some thing or some body. It's not an intellectual assent to something. It's not an action of some sort. It is a deep sense that whatever it is that I am trusting will lead me to understanding ultimate reality and ultimate truth. It's a deep sense that whatever I am trusting will impact me to live my life in a particular fashion. Because I trust a particular thing, it impacts how I think about the world and how I act in it.
For those of us who are Christian, faith is a deep seated trust in God. It's more than just intellectually believing that God exists. It's more than just believing Jesus is Lord and Savior. It's deeper.
It's more than just what we do. Christians certainly do not have a monopoly on doing good things. In fact, there are more than a few organizations which do the exact same things churches do, but they do them a whole lot better. Christians are not the only ones who feed the hungry, work for justice, seek to bring healing and so on and so forth. Some atheists put some Christians to shame when it comes to being a moral being. Faith is not grounded in doing.
Faith lies at the center of one's being--at the core of who a person is. From that core comes forth belief AND action. Belief AND action is rooted and grounded in a person's faith. For the Christian, belief AND action is rooted in the deep faith (see trust) in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
That faith--that trust--did not come to us by any action of our own. It did not arrive because we disciplined ourselves to achieve it. It did not arrive because we poured over Bible verses and commentaries and the latest in Christian writing. It did not take root in our hearts because we started doing good things and helping out those in need.
It only came from one place: from the Holy Spirit.
"No one says Jesus is Lord except by the power of the Holy Spirit," wrote St. Paul.
"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith," wrote Martin Luther the founder of the Lutheran Church.
Faith, this deep seated trust, is a gift from God Himself. From it flows your actions and your beliefs. I think it is time we stop trying to talk about faith as something we believe or something we do. I think it is time to talk about faith as something we are--those who place our trust in the God who lived and who died and who rose again and who now walks with us each and every day.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Actions Follow Beliefs
I have heard numerous comments from concerned people regarding the need to minimize argumentation over beliefs.
"We just need to set aside our beliefs and simply act in an appropriate manner toward one another."
I understand where this is coming from. I really do.
In a diverse society where there are many conflicting worldviews and beliefs, it is difficult to find a particular common ground. If we emphasize the differences--i.e. the belief systems which vary so much--we will become polarized, divided, eventually see one another as enemies.
If we could just set aside those beliefs and not worry so much about them or trying to get others to agree with our beliefs, then we could just concentrate on what we need to do to work together to make this world a better place for everyone.
Well, first, I think you have to convince everyone of your belief that we don't need to concentrate on beliefs.
Secondly, this goes against how our brains actually function. Reading the book Why God Won't Go Away by Andrew Newberg , Eugene G. D'Aquili, and Vince Rause, I came across this quote:
The inbuilt tendency of the brain is to turn thoughts into actions not vice-versa. It is our thoughts, our beliefs that lead to actions, and it would behoove us to remember this.
If the Church tries to get caught up into the idea that our beliefs don't matter, we will get in trouble.
"We just need to set aside our beliefs and simply act in an appropriate manner toward one another."
I understand where this is coming from. I really do.
In a diverse society where there are many conflicting worldviews and beliefs, it is difficult to find a particular common ground. If we emphasize the differences--i.e. the belief systems which vary so much--we will become polarized, divided, eventually see one another as enemies.
If we could just set aside those beliefs and not worry so much about them or trying to get others to agree with our beliefs, then we could just concentrate on what we need to do to work together to make this world a better place for everyone.
Well, first, I think you have to convince everyone of your belief that we don't need to concentrate on beliefs.
Secondly, this goes against how our brains actually function. Reading the book Why God Won't Go Away by Andrew Newberg , Eugene G. D'Aquili, and Vince Rause, I came across this quote:
The fact that such inhibitors are necessary in the first place to prevent us from slavishly acting out all our thoughts suggests that it is the inbuilt tendency of the brain to turn thoughts into actions. In fact, even when our brains are operating normally, this tendency may break through, as when we talk with our hands, or when we lean and sway in an attempt to coax an errant golf shot back toward the fairway. (Kindle location 1413)
The inbuilt tendency of the brain is to turn thoughts into actions not vice-versa. It is our thoughts, our beliefs that lead to actions, and it would behoove us to remember this.
If the Church tries to get caught up into the idea that our beliefs don't matter, we will get in trouble.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Personal Experience, Proof of God, and Richard Dawkins
In the midst of writing my book, I came to the realization I would need to read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion. I had seen Dawkins debate Christian philosophers and scientists on Youtube, but I had yet to read his works. Necessity drove me to finally purchase the book.
I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post. Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise. What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition. Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God.
Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen. And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.
Dawkins writes:
Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology. (Kindle Location 1397)
What makes Dawkins say such things?
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. (Kindle location 1414)
...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication. And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)
That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings. (Kindle location 1471)
It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works. My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain. In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye. Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears. Our brains fill it in!!!
Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.
But Dawkins has a problem here. A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp. He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution. He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain. And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous." (Kindle location 1403)
So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct? I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.
There is more to be said; however. For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in. What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things. Yes, you heard me correctly. The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.
Please watch the following video as illustration:
If you are like me, you rewound it just to make sure there wasn't some sleight of hand.
Did you see that your brain omitted something important? Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this. Perhaps he does not. If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias. Why?
Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...
And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...
Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life. It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source. It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced. It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be). Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.
I have managed the first quarter of the book so far, and there is much to discuss--too much to manage in a blog post. Dawkins' book actually received scathing reviews by many, and it is no surprise. What perhaps is surprising is Dawkins' apologetics in dealing with those reviews in the Kindle Edition. Basically, as I read him, he believes his critics are simply delusional--as is anyone who believes in God.
Whether or not I am delusional, along with the majority of the world's population remains to be seen. And I am currently writing a book to argue to the contrary; however, there is one item in Dawkins' book which I believe needs to be addressed: his rebuttal of the "Argument from Experience" for the existence of God.
Dawkins writes:
Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him--or of an angel or a virgin in blue--with their own eyes. Or he speaks to them inside their heads. This argument from personal experience is the one that is most convincing to those who claim to have had one. But it is the least convincing to anyone else, and anyone knowledgeable about psychology. (Kindle Location 1397)
What makes Dawkins say such things?
The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don't present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. (Kindle location 1414)
...[The brain] is well capable of constructing 'visions' and 'visitations' of the utmost veridical power. To simulate a ghost or an angel or a Virgin Mary would be child's play to software of this sophistication. And the same works for hearing. (Kindle location 1431)
That is really all that needs to be said about personal 'experiences' of gods or other religious phenomena. If you've had such an experience, you may well find yourself believing firmly that it was real. But don't expect the rest of us to take your word for it, especially if we have the slightest familiarity with the brain and its powerful workings. (Kindle location 1471)
It may surprise you that I will not argue with Dawkins' commentary on the way the brain works. My own studies through Bowen Family Systems Theory confirms exactly this phenomena of the brain. In fact, it is well known that we all have a blind spot in each eye. Yet, if we close one eye, no such spot appears. Our brains fill it in!!!
Yes, indeed, our brains are capable of producing a model of reality, and they do it all the time.
But Dawkins has a problem here. A big problem which he doesn't seem to grasp. He uses this phenomena to argue against any sort of religious phenomena without admitting that his brain is running a model on the observations he too is relating to us about biology and evolution. He may try to argue that he is subjecting his observations to rigorous methodology, but it is still being processed by his own simulator in his own brain. And he certainly cannot argue that others have run the simulation and come up with the same results thereby confirming his own simulation because he admits: "Religious experiences are different only in that the people who claim them are numerous." (Kindle location 1403)
So, applying Dawkins' own argument to his works invalidates them, correct? I hardly think he would agree, yet, this is the logical conclusion.
There is more to be said; however. For Dawkins' only deals with the "simulation software's" ability to add things in. What he does not delve into--either by choice or by ignorance--is that the simulation software in our brain also OMITS things. Yes, you heard me correctly. The simulation software omits things--especially when there is a bias attached; and there is always a bias attached.
Please watch the following video as illustration:
Did you see that your brain omitted something important? Did you see how your simulation software omitted the obvious?
Perhaps Professor Dawkins knows this. Perhaps he does not. If he does and refused to include this important fact, I think he is guilty of major confirmation bias. Why?
Well, if one admits that one's brain simulation software omits things based upon a particular bias...
And Dawkins' particular bias is a singular hatred (believe me, that's not too strong a word) of all things religious...
Then it is not only quite possible, but quite likely his brain omits and overlooks religious experiences that may be happening in his own life. It is possible, even likely, Dawkins is missing something that is obvious to the rest of us: religious experience.
What Dawkins fails to recognize is the trustworthiness of the source. It is quite possible to dismiss religious experiences as false among those who are indeed mentally ill and unbalanced. It is quite another thing to dismiss them among people who live lives full of sanity, regularity, and normalcy (whatever that might be). Dawkins lumps them all together, and in doing so--along with omitting a very important detail in how our brains work--falls far short of offering a dismissal of religious experience as proof of God's existence.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
In Defense of Prayer
I have been intrigued by two stories that appeared on CNN.com in the past few days. Both concerned matters of the spirit. Both concerned the place of God in human suffering. Both deserve commentary, much deeper than can be found in the usual comments section on such websites.
Today, I wish to deal with the topic of prayer.
In this CNN article, there are a few people who are criticizing the practice of prayer, both Christian scholars and atheists.
Pertinent quotes:
"A prayer is supposed to have a consequence for you," said Elizabeth Drescher, a lecturer at Santa Clara University in California. "It's not an act of magic." ...“It seems to express hope and anxiety, and maybe even helplessness,” Drescher said. “At the same time, it evokes this strong response from people who see it as a cop-out, a way of claiming some kind of spiritual space that doesn’t actually have any meaning to the people who are posting the meme or the community they are addressing.”
After MTV tweeted that pop stars Beyonce, Rihanna and Katy Perry are sending their prayers to Oklahoma, Gervais responded, “I feel like an idiot now … I only sent money.”
“If all people are doing is praying, it is worthless,” Hemant Mehta, an Illinois math teacher who writes the blog “Friendly Atheist,” told CNN. “If they are praying and donating to the Red Cross, that’s more like it.”
Why We Pray
First, let's examine the reasons that Christians pray. Of course, we must root our understanding on prayer in the person of Jesus, and it was he who commanded His followers to pray. Jesus Himself prayed, and as imitators of Christ, we are called to do the things He did to the best of our ability.
Drescher is correct in her assessment that prayer is supposed to have a consequence for you, but what she believes that consequence is, I am not sure. What I do know is that prayer, at its best, links a person to God. During our times of prayer, we do not change God, but God changes us. Oftentimes during those moments of intense prayer, God is working around in us rearranging our furniture so that we may come to a fuller knowledge of Him and His will for our lives. This means, we are transformed to produce the fruits of God and His Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, generosity, and self-control.
This process also helps us realize our dependence upon God. The Prayer of prayers given to us by Jesus guides us into realizing what is most important: seeking God's Kingdom, seeking God's will, seeking heaven on earth, depending upon God for daily sustenance, seeking forgive as we have been forgiven, and seeking deliverance from evil.
In such a manner, prayer indeed has consequences for our lives including when we pray for others.
It's Not Worthless to Pray for Others
What are the consequences for us when we pray for others? This question comes to the fore whenever we pray for those involved in natural disasters, are stricken with grief, are diagnosed with illness, cancer, and the like, or who are going through other rough stretches in life. Is there any value in praying for these folks? Are there any consequences? For us? For them?
First, there are direct consequences for us. This may seem like a bit of a stretch, but I can assure you, it is not. Jesus instructed His followers to "pray for your enemies and bless those who persecute you."
Why engage in such an activity? From an atheistic point of view, this truly seems inane! Why pray for someone who actively seeks your harm? Why pray for someone who stands against what you say and do?
Quite simply, Jesus does not want us to forget our human connection to even our enemies. Jesus does not want us to dehumanize even those who are persecuting us. This world is a bed of roses--thorns and all. We are surrounded by immense beauty and harmony, but there are many thorns which cause hurt and suffering. One way we as humans cope with suffering is to dehumanize those who suffer and keep them at arm's length. "I don't know them, so why should I grieve when they hurt?" Jesus says, "Pray for them because they are human, just like you. Your heavenly Father cares for them, just like He cares for you. They deserve your care and concern because they are a part of God's creation, just like you."
But praying for others goes further--much, much further.
Gervais and Mehta criticize prayer as worthless because it actually does nothing for those affected by tragedy. They emphasize money over prayer. This isn't surprising since atheism is inherently materialistic. Atheism denies the existence of the spiritual--and actually anything that cannot be proven by measurement and reason. (This presents a bit of a problem since atheism cannot prove the existence of other minds--other bodies, sure, but other minds--big problem.) The only things that count in regards to such matters is how one deals with material needs. This is why they make claims that money is more important than prayers.
It is indeed true that prayers cannot rebuild homes. Prayer cannot provide food and clothing. Prayers cannot pay for medical bills or funeral arrangements. But--and this is a very important point--people are much more than these things. People are much more than material objects. People have more than material needs.
Again: people have more than material needs.
When we pray for others, we seek healing for their emotional and spiritual needs. Atheism cannot begin to touch this subject with a 10 foot pole because it has absolutely no capability of measuring the success or failure of such things--emotions, spirit, or prayer. Here is where Gervais and Mehta become badly mistaken.
Prayers have an effect.
I cannot tell you the hundreds of times I have heard people say, "I feel the prayers of those around me." Hey, I've even said the exact same thing. The prayers of God's people are very effective at bringing healing to one's emotions and spirits.
This means that even those who are not able to financially and materially assist those who undergo tragedy or illness can affect a situation. They can contribute to the well being of the ENTIRE person, not just one aspect--the material.
Therefore, pray away, my readers. Pray for those affected by the Oklahoma tornadoes. Pray for the parents of Sandy Hook elementary. Pray for mothers and fathers whose children have died. Pray for those who are experiencing suffering and pain and illness. Despite what some would say, you are making a difference.
Today, I wish to deal with the topic of prayer.
In this CNN article, there are a few people who are criticizing the practice of prayer, both Christian scholars and atheists.
Pertinent quotes:
"A prayer is supposed to have a consequence for you," said Elizabeth Drescher, a lecturer at Santa Clara University in California. "It's not an act of magic." ...“It seems to express hope and anxiety, and maybe even helplessness,” Drescher said. “At the same time, it evokes this strong response from people who see it as a cop-out, a way of claiming some kind of spiritual space that doesn’t actually have any meaning to the people who are posting the meme or the community they are addressing.”
After MTV tweeted that pop stars Beyonce, Rihanna and Katy Perry are sending their prayers to Oklahoma, Gervais responded, “I feel like an idiot now … I only sent money.”
“If all people are doing is praying, it is worthless,” Hemant Mehta, an Illinois math teacher who writes the blog “Friendly Atheist,” told CNN. “If they are praying and donating to the Red Cross, that’s more like it.”
Why We Pray
First, let's examine the reasons that Christians pray. Of course, we must root our understanding on prayer in the person of Jesus, and it was he who commanded His followers to pray. Jesus Himself prayed, and as imitators of Christ, we are called to do the things He did to the best of our ability.
Drescher is correct in her assessment that prayer is supposed to have a consequence for you, but what she believes that consequence is, I am not sure. What I do know is that prayer, at its best, links a person to God. During our times of prayer, we do not change God, but God changes us. Oftentimes during those moments of intense prayer, God is working around in us rearranging our furniture so that we may come to a fuller knowledge of Him and His will for our lives. This means, we are transformed to produce the fruits of God and His Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, generosity, and self-control.
This process also helps us realize our dependence upon God. The Prayer of prayers given to us by Jesus guides us into realizing what is most important: seeking God's Kingdom, seeking God's will, seeking heaven on earth, depending upon God for daily sustenance, seeking forgive as we have been forgiven, and seeking deliverance from evil.
In such a manner, prayer indeed has consequences for our lives including when we pray for others.
It's Not Worthless to Pray for Others
What are the consequences for us when we pray for others? This question comes to the fore whenever we pray for those involved in natural disasters, are stricken with grief, are diagnosed with illness, cancer, and the like, or who are going through other rough stretches in life. Is there any value in praying for these folks? Are there any consequences? For us? For them?
First, there are direct consequences for us. This may seem like a bit of a stretch, but I can assure you, it is not. Jesus instructed His followers to "pray for your enemies and bless those who persecute you."
Why engage in such an activity? From an atheistic point of view, this truly seems inane! Why pray for someone who actively seeks your harm? Why pray for someone who stands against what you say and do?
Quite simply, Jesus does not want us to forget our human connection to even our enemies. Jesus does not want us to dehumanize even those who are persecuting us. This world is a bed of roses--thorns and all. We are surrounded by immense beauty and harmony, but there are many thorns which cause hurt and suffering. One way we as humans cope with suffering is to dehumanize those who suffer and keep them at arm's length. "I don't know them, so why should I grieve when they hurt?" Jesus says, "Pray for them because they are human, just like you. Your heavenly Father cares for them, just like He cares for you. They deserve your care and concern because they are a part of God's creation, just like you."
But praying for others goes further--much, much further.
Gervais and Mehta criticize prayer as worthless because it actually does nothing for those affected by tragedy. They emphasize money over prayer. This isn't surprising since atheism is inherently materialistic. Atheism denies the existence of the spiritual--and actually anything that cannot be proven by measurement and reason. (This presents a bit of a problem since atheism cannot prove the existence of other minds--other bodies, sure, but other minds--big problem.) The only things that count in regards to such matters is how one deals with material needs. This is why they make claims that money is more important than prayers.
It is indeed true that prayers cannot rebuild homes. Prayer cannot provide food and clothing. Prayers cannot pay for medical bills or funeral arrangements. But--and this is a very important point--people are much more than these things. People are much more than material objects. People have more than material needs.
Again: people have more than material needs.
When we pray for others, we seek healing for their emotional and spiritual needs. Atheism cannot begin to touch this subject with a 10 foot pole because it has absolutely no capability of measuring the success or failure of such things--emotions, spirit, or prayer. Here is where Gervais and Mehta become badly mistaken.
Prayers have an effect.
I cannot tell you the hundreds of times I have heard people say, "I feel the prayers of those around me." Hey, I've even said the exact same thing. The prayers of God's people are very effective at bringing healing to one's emotions and spirits.
This means that even those who are not able to financially and materially assist those who undergo tragedy or illness can affect a situation. They can contribute to the well being of the ENTIRE person, not just one aspect--the material.
Therefore, pray away, my readers. Pray for those affected by the Oklahoma tornadoes. Pray for the parents of Sandy Hook elementary. Pray for mothers and fathers whose children have died. Pray for those who are experiencing suffering and pain and illness. Despite what some would say, you are making a difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)