Prayer in a Pandemic: What’s the Point? A Response to Atheist’s Viral Post
Category: Religion & Ethics
Via: heartland-american • 6 years ago • 436 commentsBy: Tré Goins-Phillips
Atheists have been using this pandemic to attack the existence of God and or challenge whether He is good. They have openly mocked Christianity and questioned the value of prayer. Theyare wrong.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Perhaps not since 9/11 have people been so gripped by the problem of evil — the seemingly conflicting coexistence of God and suffering. For some, the ongoing coronavirus pandemic has called into question the presence of a Creator, because why would He allow such pain and tragedy in this world? But I’m convinced it’s Christianity that offers the best response to that difficult question.
There’s one tweet in particular that has gotten a lot of traction over the last couple days. Showing a steep climb in the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the U.S., Ali Rizvi suggested prayer just doesn’t work. Others, like CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, who has tested positive for COVID-19, have pondered aloud what value prayer has if it’s not accompanied by action — and he’s right: Scripture tells us faith without works “is dead” (James 2:17). If we believe, as we say we do, in the value of human life, in the authority God has given us as His image bearers, we have a responsibility to take ownership of the trials we face. This coronavirus is no different.
But to assume, as Rizvi does, that prayer is pointless reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the faith.
Nevertheless, it’s an age-old question. In the Old Testament, the prophet Habakkuk asked: “How long, Lord, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, ‘Violence!’ but you do not save? Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrongdoing? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife and conflict abounds.”
Faith is trusting when proof isn’t present, when tangible evidence is fleeting.
The author of Hebrews 11:1 described it this way: “Faith is the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”
The apostle Paul wrestled with this every issue himself. In 2 Corinthians 4:17, though, he determined: “For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.” He understood this life is “a vapor” that’s here today and gone tomorrow (James 4:14) and whatever experiences define this moment pale in comparison to the ultimate value of knowing God eternally, which is the true joy of our existence.
To suggest our prayers aren’t having the immediate result we deem to be correct is the ultimate show of arrogance. God operates outside time and space, so proof of the good, ultimate value in God’s allowance of things — like this coronavirus pandemic — might not be seen even in our lifetimes.
Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig explained :
To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations. A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome. The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child’s dying of leukemia could produce a sort of ripple effect through history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later and perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.
It’s possible, too, our prayers aren’t about immediate outward changes (though sometimes they are) but inward restorations. Rather than asking God why He’s allowed something, perhaps our job is to determine what we can do in the midst of it.
The Western church, for example, is used to meeting on Sunday mornings in buildings all across the country. Now, we’re having to find new and different ways to minister to one another, often through technology. Instead of having access only to the people who fill the pews on Sundays, pastors and worship leaders in California streaming their services online now have to opportunity to speak truth to a struggling single mother in North Dakota who’s at her wits’ end. Young, healthy Christians today have the chance to go pick up groceries for the elderly, at-risk neighbors they’ve seen but never met. Though we can’t meet face-to-face, we all have quite a bit more free time on our hands, so we can catch up with that friend or family member we haven’t spoken to in weeks, months, or maybe years. New data from the Pew Research Center has shown more than half of all adults in the country (55%) are praying to God for the coronavirus epidemic to end. That includes the 86% of Americans who already pray regularly, as well as 15% who said they pray rarely but have turned to God during this crisis.
Even an MSNBC host asked the Rev. T.D. Jakes to pray for the country during a live television broadcast the other day. “For folks who aren’t able to get to church yesterday, I’ve never actually done this on the air: can you lead us in prayer for 30 seconds?” asked anchor Craig Melvin.
“Our Father and our God, we bow our heads to you in humility, understanding that we are not competent in and of ourselves to handle this kind of global calamity,” prayed Jakes. “We look to You, Lord, to be the source, the strength, the help, the light that we need, strengthen our first responders, strengthen even our broadcast people, strengthen all of us whose lives have been devastated and disrupted and give us the peace that passes all understanding. In Christ’s name we pray, amen.”
People are desperate for hope right now, and Christians know the ultimate Hope. Evil exists, but there is an ultimate good for those who know Jesus Christ. This pain may last for a night, but “joy comes in the morning” (Psalm 30:5).
Tags
Who is online
126 visitors
God can't fix stupid. God didn't create this mess; we did. People want God to fix our own stupidity. Perhaps God can do that. But then there wouldn't be a need for the Bible, churches, prayer, or Christ.
The purpose of prayer is to remind ourselves just how stupid we all are. We are allowed to choose. And this is the reality we have chosen.
If god chooses not to, then there is no need for a god.
If God chooses to intervene, then there is no such thing as human rights or freedom.
Good for you.
What does God have to do with rights or freedom?
Rather than making an ambiguous statement, how about you elaborate, then back up your claims with evidence.
Indeed.
Prayer is comforting; that is probably the end of it. If someone has any evidence that prayer in some way encourages God to take a different course of action, then let's see it. Logically, however, it is a bit ridiculous to think that God would ever change His mind given He is defined by Christianity as omniscient. What could possibly influence an omniscient entity to change its mind? (Answer: nothing — the entity is omniscient)
Also, if god changed his "perfect" mind (or his "Plan," as is sometimes referred), then that means said plan was not perfect to begin with, as a change was indicated or influenced. Logically, god is therefore imperfect.
And still nothing empirical to support that. People can choose to alter their behavior. They can tell themselves it's due to god or whatever. But it's merely a case of mind over matter.
Philipians 4:6-7 discusses this, with regard to peace.
I have never interpreted the Bible to convey the sentiment that God changes his mind; rather, I have understood that He is unwavering, unchanging, etc. The story of Lazarus is an example. When Mary and Martha sent word to Jesus about Lazarus' sickness, they were praying for a healing. His response? He stayed where he was for 2 more days, then returned after Lazarus had been dead for 4. When he returned, Mary basically told him that he had not listened to their prayers, and that he could have saved him had he been there. You may know the rest. Jesus then calls Lazarus out of his tomb.
What do we see? An apparent non-answering of a prayer, but the fulfillment of a plan. So, I agree, God did not change his mind. Lazarus died. The rest was a demonstration.
The entire series of comments about the effects of prayer on COVID-19...we know what we know. Does my praying hinder anything? Not in the least. I am praying from the comforts of my home, while doing my part not to contribute to the spread. Do I have demonstrable proof that there is an effect? No. Although, as some point out, there is also no demonstrable proof that there is no effect. We know what we know. Could be, without prayer, the number of world cases would be more than quadruple what they are. At the end of the day, if I choose to believe there is an effect, it matters not to someone who does not believe.
By the same token, Gordy quite reasonably observed that since COVID-19 continues to rise (this is a certain fact) in spite of prayers, the evidence suggests prayers are not having an effect. The evidence is not conclusive, but it certainly suggests that prayers have not been effective.
How much higher would Covid 19numbers be if there had not been any prayers?
There is zero data on that so nobody could possibly know.
You are using Tacos!' argument so I will give you the response I gave him.
Speculating that COVID-19 might have been worse without prayer is flawed reasoning (it is technically the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy). Because the speculation is based on zero evidence, one could also speculate that COVID-19 is worsening because of prayer. There is no data on which to base the speculation so it is entirely unguided — 360° of freedom.
That said, prayer could be helping; nobody has stated it was impossible. Gordy has noted that the evidence suggests prayer is not working and he is correct. That is indeed what the evidence suggests. Should we see a decline, then you might argue that prayer did have an effect based on the evidence. Your argument would certainly not be conclusive but when the virus starts diminishing at least the evidence would now be in favor of your argument.
Actually, when cases do start to decline, the evidence that prayer played a role in that is even less compelling, as there are now more certain effective factors to take into account, such as: immune responses, medical management, symptom support, quarantine, ect.. All of which can reduce number of cases and deaths. Prayer is more of an afterthought.
That same reasoning then says that Gordy is wrong also because there is no data that says that the Corona virus statistics would not be different (higher) if no one prayed. He is speculating just as much as any of those that it has hand will have an effect. We will never know for sure whether prayer had any effect it not. My true feelings in the subject is "so what". If prayer has an effect on the outcome great! If it does not that's OK to ! If it gives those that are praying some comfort and a feeling that they are contributing to the fight ,good for them. Those that pray for divine intervention do not deserve to be criticized or denigrated. There prayers have no effect on you and Gordy or ant other if the prayer naysayers. Why does it matter to you if someone else prays.
I just explained this @4.3.3. Yes, it is possible that praying has helped. I do not see how I could have been clearer yet you respond as if I had not even acknowledged this point.
Gordy's point is that —based on the increasing rate of infections— prayer does not seem to be having an effect. He did not write that prayer could not possibly have an effect, he wrote that the numbers suggest it is not having an effect.
You are very clear. Much more than I. I don't know how many times we have to explain the same thing over & over.
That's what I tell my wife when I refuse the flu shot each year. Hell, 16 thousand have died from the flu this year already, certainly suggesting that the vaccine has not been effective?
Depends. What is the percentage of the population who actually gets their flu shot? I'm betting it's nowhere near 100%
That is what that metric suggests to you? In this case we have quite a bit more data to go on. We have scientific data on the efficacy of the vaccine against known variants of the flu. We have metrics on spread factors (1.3), typical infection counts per locale, etc. We can clearly determine if the vaccine is effective (or not) and even calculate its efficacy.
Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the flu kills 290,000 to 650,000 people per year. The population is currently 7.8 billion people making the mortality rate of the flu worldwide to be at worst .008333%. And this is under normal conditions where human beings are gathering with no special precautions. If the mortality rate were to jump from that baseline we would be warranted to reduce the efficacy rating of the vaccine.
Let's apply this to Gordy's point now with an accurate analogy. A new strand of flu arises and has achieved a pandemic status. Worse, the infections continue to rise. Those numbers suggest the flu vaccine has not been effective against this strand. If it was effective we would expect the numbers to be consistent with past seasonal flu infections and to not spread at a rate that requires extreme worldwide actions, shutting down economies and with all that still reaching pandemic proportions with infections still increasing.
How many of those who died received the flu vaccine? The vaccine is also only effective against certain strains of flu. And there are many strains. Were precautions used to prevent the flu? What are the patient populations like? But medical science has data to demonstrate the effectiveness of the flu vaccine. No doubt the same should hold true if a covid vaccine is developed.
Not sure what to make of it, to be quite honest. By the CDC's admission, or chest thumping, whichever you prefer, apparently half the population received a vaccine during the 2018-19 flu season, resulting in an estimated 3,500 fewer deaths. 34,200 still died. I'll slow clap for that.
I'll agree on a point TiG, the vaccine is apparently effective against a known variant. Trouble is...34,200 died from the flu in 2018-19, an apparent example of success.
What is effective? Apparently, 34,200 deaths is the result of an effective vaccine. Sorry, I'm being a bit of a smart ass. But if we are going to discuss effectiveness, I have a hard time buying the 2018-19 vaccine was effective when the mortality rate in the US was .0106%, when it could have been an estimated .0114% without the shot. Difference of .008% (I'll note that I am not intentionally implying that you are asserting the effectiveness of the 2018-19 vaccine, only that there was no hint of a shut down during a time when the Flu killed over 34K, indicating the CDC considered it a success)
This deal is serious, and I thought that the first time I saw a quack on the news claiming it was not as bad as the SARS outbreak, with a graph to disprove the words coming out of his mouth, prominently displayed on the screen.
However, I have gone far afield. The question is whether or not my prayer is effective. If .008%, based on all of the metrics, is considered effective, then the peace I receive through prayer is also effective. It positively impacts my health during this crisis, allowing for good sleep, giving me a generally positive feeling and reducing anxiety and stress. I'm fairly certain anxiety and stress in a person may lead to health issues which increase the risk of contracting a communicable disease. My peace may just be the thing that keeps me from being a statistic.
Ok, so 34,200 died. And only half the population was vaccinated, so I'm going to assume that if we'd had a higher vaccination rate, we'd have had even fewer deaths. We still don't know how many of those 34,200 were vaccinated. That would be interesting data to have on hand.
Let's also consider another effect of the vaccine - less severe disease in those who do get the flu. I'm one of those. About a month ago, I had the flu, confirmed by nasal swab. Yes, I had the flu vaccine last fall. Instead of the 5-7 days of illness one can normally expect from the flu, I had 3. Three days of fever, aches, and a cough, and then the fever was gone. The cough lingered a bit longer, but that's typical of flu. Other times I've had the flu, before I started getting the vaccine, my symptoms were much worse and lasted longer.
My son didn't get it at all. He also had his flu shot. Neither did any of my employees, and they all get their flu shots. I was an outlier.
The reason we don't shut down for flu (although sometimes, there are limited shutdowns, such as school closures, nursing home lockdowns, etc.) is that there are no precautions similar to flu that we can take for Covid-19. There is no vaccine. It has a longer prodromal stage during which an infected person can potentially spread the virus without knowing it. There is no medicine repeatedly shown to improve the course of the disease, while we have Tamiflu for flu. Covid-19 has been shown to be more infectious than influenza - it's easier to catch. And it has a higher overall fatality rate.
If your prayers comfort you, that's great. But there is much more evidence supporting the effectiveness of vaccines than of prayers, when speaking of diseases for which vaccines exist.
In my scenario, this new strand of flu has reached a pandemic status compared to the known strands of flu which are very well contained. So comparing a pandemic to containment suggests to me that the hypothetical vaccine has not been effective. In short, I cannot deem a vaccine effective if it fails to stop a pandemic.
I have several times in this seed noted that prayer likely does have a personal calming effect for some people (maybe most). But that is not what Gordy was referring to. He was talking about prayer actually mitigating the spread of COVID-19. The metrics do not support the hypothesis that prayer is helping.
We do not have any metrics to support your hypothesis that prayer indirectly causes the individual praying to have an improved immune system. Of course that is a possibility, but without any data we can only speculate. Gordy limited his comment to the data.
No big deal, right?
I can't disagree with that Sandy, but what I can point out is the CDC's admission that the vaccinations given only saved an estimated 3500.
Don't misconstrue my thoughts as anti-vaccine or anti-science. I'll admit that I don't take a flu shot. So happens, the only time I have had the flu is the only year I had the shot. Although, I probably picked it up in the doctor's office, which is why the drive by venues are nice.
I never said it was no big deal. I said that because I don't think we're getting the whole picture here. We don't know how many of those people were vaccinated. We don't know what comorbidities they might have had. We also know that some years, the vaccine is more effective than others. IIRC, that was a year in which we knew the vaccine wasn't particularly effective. Most years, it's more effective.
And no vaccine can be effective if it's not utilized.
As far as the effectiveness of prayer, your prayer may relax you. My long walks in the country relax me. So while prayer is considered to involve a request to a deity, it may be that the deity, if it exists, has no direct effect on infection rates or fatalities. It may just be that we all need to find a way to cope with our stress. If it's prayer, fine, but let's not make the mistake of assuming that there is a supernatural component, nor, as the author does, insult those who dismiss that unproven supernatural component.
I'll agree, I can't find a study specifically on prayer's effects on the immune system.
Questions:
Does the above fact foreclose the issue?
Would you agree that there are studies showing the negative effects of stress on the immune system? (I have always heard this, but never looked. I included a link I found below, which appeared among many, this is the first one I opened)
If reducing stress positively effects the immune system, does it matter what the stress reduction is attributable to? Or, do we need a clinical study on each and every stress reduction method to determine the effects?
That I did not find, but did search. There may be a page on the CDC's website that has that info, but I'll admit that I stopped looking. The info I found was not even on the same page. Seems like information I'd include in one location.
If my memory serves, the news reports indicated that the shot was not the same strain as that going around, but everyone was still encouraged to get the shot anyway.
I'm am not saying concern over COVID-19 is unwarranted. As I have noted before, I was concerned in January when I first saw the numbers China was reporting. However, 35.5 million cases, 16.5 million people in the hospital, and 34,200 dead in the US, and there is hardly an eye batted because its flu.
Which is why I point out the flu numbers. Let's hope efforts against covid are more effective. I'm no doctor, scientist, etc., but from what I have heard, the annual flu vaccine is a crap shoot. I'm not confidant a crap shoot will work against this.
Seems possible to me. I also accept the idea that prayer can help reduce stress.
So we are not in disagreement, but remember that my focus here is on Gordy’s point which was based on the known metrics of COVID-19 infections. Gordy no doubt would offer a different opinion as additional real information becomes available.
Sandy, I am a smart ass, and I tend to read the written word as I would speak it. I took your words as "so what?" If mistaken, I apologize.
As far as the rest goes, we could go on and on about what we don't know. What we do know is that the CDC estimates that doing nothing would have changed the number of deaths by 3500. May be a "glass half full" assessment, but seems like doing nothing would result in more deaths if the annual flu vaccine was truly effective. I'm like you, and a couple of others, in that I'd like to see the CDC's estimate on what the number would have been with 100% vaccination. Either that number is too hard to come by, or the estimate would support my interpretation, which sounds like a losing performance on the Price is Right. (not only am I a smart ass, but I'm also a cynic)
I took the article as an insult to Christians, or possibly better, a stepping on the toes thereof.
This line of discussion has prompted me to look at the effects of stress and anxiety. I read a study that concluded that action, on top of positive outlook, did show positive effects to the immune system. The study also warned that falling off of the cliff of positivity could have potentially worse effects than stress in the first place. Or, as I read it, don't get too cocky.
Yes. I am fairly confident that we will not see any information on the effect prayer had on the pandemic.
I am extremely confident that if the someone actually does a study, it will be pooh poohed.
LOL, you need to check the seeder's history, and his intro. It's meant to be an insult to nonbelievers.
A standard flu shot only inoculates against a few of the more common strains. It may not help against others. Even if someone has the flu vaccine, they can still get the flu. But their symptoms will probably be more mild and their recovery faster, as their immune system has been primed by the vaccine. Still, some protection is better than none.
Another factor to consider is what comorbidities people might have if they become infected with the flu? Existing health problems complicates recovery or can itself be exacerbated. Looking at the deaths from Covid, many causes of death ate not exclusively from the Covid virus itself, but from the complications it can cause, such as pneumonia. People with existing respiratory, circulatory, or immune compromise are at particular risk. Not to mention there is no "cure" for a virus in the same way we can give antibiotics to cure an exsiting bacterial infection.
Not necessarily. Any study conducted will of course need scientific peer reviewand analysis of the results. Outside factors will also need to be considered too. If such a study was produced, there will probably be repeat studies to validate or refute the results.
It depends on the specifics of the study. For example, if the study is conducted by Answers in Genesis then it no doubt will be bullshit. But if conducted by a reputable actual scientific source, then the study would be worth investigating to see if it is persuasive.
I may have relayed it here. The one time I had a confirmed case of the flu happened to be the same year I got my one and only flu shot. Multiple unknowns with regard to actually getting the flu that year. Anecdotally, I use that fact to argue against getting the shot with my wife.
Admittedly, I didn't bother to look at what is added, but went straight to the article linked. The seeder may be challenging nonbelievers. I still take the article as addressing Christians. It is written to a Christian audience. Rizvi's Tweet is referenced for the purpose of leading into the position that prayer is not pointless, so don't stop simply because the impact is not readily apparent to you, and, in fact, help someone while you are at it.
The term "militant secularist" can be deemed an insult, especially since I doubt you mean in in a cordial way.
Sweeping generalization. Also much how some theists view challenges to their beliefs or claims.
Your intro says that's bullshit.
So does your next sentence.
Got anything other than juvenile name-calling, petty insults and other obnoxious tactics?
Per TiG @12.1.20:
Do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly (per Texan: "... a wishing well ...")?
Repeatedly dodging a probative question is as good as answering it.
It is understandable why you refuse to admit you think praying to God for divine favors is silly.
Based on the subsequent posts and replies, obviously not! It's quite childish actually.
So? Your point?
What makes you think secularists are militant or feeling insulted?
You've repeatedly demonstrated your understanding of logic to be quite limited. So your statement means very little.
Wow, great article. Good find.
This article can be summed up in three words. Tit for tat.
If religious people have a right to pray and talk about it, atheists have a right to their opinion as well.
The coexistence of "God" and suffering is defined right in the bible that Christians hold dearly. Since quoting the bible is running rampant in this seed take a look at Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light and create the darkness. I make peace and create evil. I, the lord, do all these things".
The very god that christians hold so dearly is responsible for the most vile humans that have walked the earth. It is also responsible for every plague, pandemic, sickness and death that has occurred.
That's right ladies and gentlemen, the "God' of the bible is responsible for ALL OF IT. Quit deluding yourselves by cherry picking your verses. It's all or nothing.
Sorry friend but it’s not that simple. Do you really think God picks who’s a good person and who’s bad? Who becomes a rapist and who puts the rapist in jail?
I don’t. That is “free will” by definition. We choose to steal that candy bar or we choose pay for it. God has nothing to do with that or at least very little.
Nothing could be more clear to me in this world.
A thoughtful comment!!
You are simply offering your opinion with no supporting argument, but at least it was a thoughtful response.
Free will either exists or is an extremely effective illusion.
Thing is, as we continue to learn about our reality, the notion of free will as an illusion has become a serious question of science. Lots to say here ...
We can also apply logic. To have free will, reality cannot be deterministic. That is, the future cannot be knowable. A knowable future means a direct causal chain and thus knowing the present state makes it possible to compute a future state. No free will under those circumstances.
If we ever determine that the future is knowable then we would logically know that free will is simply an illusion.
If we discover that the future is not knowable then that means we might have free will (but no guarantee because we might all be complex entities responding to genetic, biochemical and environmental stimuli — biochemical automata).
Hey! I exist! Although I sometime feel like an extremely effective illusion.
TiG, remember the long, long, long discussion you and I had on that subject on Newsvine? I think the conclusion I came to back then was, so what? Whether free will is real, or whether it is an illusion, or an infinitely complicated series of cause and effect, it nonetheless appears to the human brain as though decisions and actions are freely willed (not necessarily the same as free will I know). People need to be held responsible for their decisions or actions in any case. If reality were strictly deterministic, then how can we be held responsible for our actions (they would be predetermined), and why can't we see or at least predict the future with any sort of accuracy? Haven't we already discovered that the future is not knowable? At least we have no evidence that it is thus far. A subject for another article of course.
That was one of the best discussions I think I ever had in these venues. That and the one we had about Libertarian Socialism.
As research progresses, I predict that society will face that very question. It is already a topic of serious discussion. My position is that if we cannot be held responsible for our actions legitimately then that is just the luck of the draw. Those whose brains lead them to do bad things will suffer the consequences whether or not it is ultimately their fault. And in one very important sense, I think my position is sensible. Even if we have no free will, our actions are a function of many factors including the reactions of others. Thus the negative consequences will influence behavior — part of the input to an incredibly complex function.
But this could only come to pass if those who would make or influence the laws are predestined to make decisions along these lines. Without free will, they are simply following the script too. Which means that what ultimately takes place was determined by the first mover — the non-causal event that began the long deterministic chain.
Now, given we have seen how human beings operate, we can draw some conclusions about our predetermined behavior. We do indeed follow a principle of negative and positive consequences for actions. Thus we do seem to be wired that way and it thus makes sense that even with certain knowledge that we do not have free will, the movie (so to speak) will continue the same way. Human nature will remain human nature.
Ultimately though, this all depends on whether or not the future is knowable. If it is knowable then we absolutely do not have free will. If it is not knowable then we might have free will, but that is not guaranteed.
Well, as you know, a good discussion is a function of the interlocutors. You can see the challenges of having any sort of meaningful discussion when an interlocutor cannot disagree without getting emotional.
If you don't cherry pick, yes.
That defeats the whole " Omniscient god". If this god were omniscient then why the need to "confess"? Supposedly it already knows what I've done and if I were to believe what the followers tell me, I've been forgiven already. So why confess and do pennence? It renders the "It's God's plan" excuse moot.
So you are telling me that Isaiah 45:7 is false? The BIBLE is false?
Some people do not seem to recognize, understand, or accept the logical contradictions and inconsistencies between god, the bible, or the beliefs or claim's based on them. Instead, you get excuses, cherry picking, or twisting of words or meanings just so it can fit their own biases and narratives. It's like the epitome of intellectual laziness or dishonesty.
Spot on.
Confession is not in the Bible per se. It’s a specially a Catholic ritual for one. If you disagree feel free to show me where the Bible requires it.
Lol .... who’s cherry picking now? I could get into all the verses that do directly support the concept of free will but that isn’t the topic is it. And there is really no point to it as you won’t agree with me and I won’t with you.
Thank you.
What? The bible contradicts itself? Say it isn't so. One would think the biblical writers would have gotten their stories straight?
I think many don't accept those contradictions and / or inconsistencies so that they can get to a desired result. Many times I've seen people get irate or offended when that desired result isn't achieved.
I had this conversation with a friend a while back.
1 John 1:9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive us our sins, and purify us from all unrighteousnous.
His position was that the Bible only identified one sin, and that his faith was essentially a get out of jail free card for everything else. The idea that God needs a confession to understand or learn of what a person has done is not found in the Bible. However, the idea that a person needs to stop and take a sincere look at what they have done, confess and repent is in the Bible. May be a poor analogy, but it makes me think of Private Pyle eating the jelly donut, while the rest of the platoon does pushups. They're paying for it. You eat it.
The problem with that approach is the presumption that the Bible is the divine word of a perfect God. If the Bible says X in one spot and ¬X in another then that means it contradicts itself and is thus errant. Quoting any portion of the Bible is then suspect.
So you can deliver verses that support the concept of free will, but doing so simply demonstrates that the Bible is errant and thus not divine.
Exactly. There is a bias on their part.
They do seem to get defensive and/or emotional about it. Especially when their beliefs or claims are challenged or shown to be logically flawed.
It is actually the focus of the plot of this season of WestWorld. The quantum computer Rehoboam calculates all future outcomes based on detailed bio-metric data and controls all human interaction via programmed response. Of course there are many thousands who are considered "divergent" or "outliers" and they of course must be kept out of society lest they corrupt it. A real mind-bender that thought.
Dr. Craig is correct. If there is a sentient creator who is perfect, omniscient and omnipotent, then this entity (God) would know all the causal relationships over time. God would know that allowing a particular child to die of leukemia ends up with a future rise of a beneficial leader who turns her nation from a brutal theocracy into a democratic system based on liberty.
But under Dr. Craig's scenario, there is no free will. God's perfect understanding of cause & effect is not possible if human beings are able to exercise free will — to act in a way that God did not know and plan for. Per Dr. Craig's argument, if a butterfly can have such amazing future effects, imagine how God's plans could be changed by ~8 billion people daily making decisions and taking actions that God did not know they would take.
And if one argues, but God does know what actions every person on the planet will take, then one is simply stating that people do not actually have free will.
Free will and a knowable future are mutually exclusive. This is not a function of religion, it is pure logic.
“ But under Dr. Craig's scenario, there is no free will. God's perfect understanding of cause & effect is not possible if human beings are able to exercise free will — to act in a way that God did not know and plan for. ”
But what if that free will was part of the original design? Perhaps that entity, God, put the origin of cause and effect into motion, and has the ability to simply recalculate the likely outcome for every perturbation of the system as they occur including those perturbations caused by the free will of every human being. No need to “know“ or plan plan for it, just the ability to recalculate the nearly infinite range of outcomes in order to “see” into the future. And then of course the ability to contribute to those perturbations to create or guide a desired outcome.
This would still be consistent with the concept of chaos theory whereby an observer of, or creator of, a perturbation or a cause cannot possibly understand the impact on the future, but such a God can by recalculating the resultant effect. It appears like chaos to those observers who haven’t the ability to recalculate the effects, but might be part of the “plan” for one who can.
Of course one could argue if free will exists and it can alter the flow of cause and effect, then isn’t it possible that there are an infinitely large number of possible outcomes or future realities as a result? Maybe I’ve watched Men in Black 2 one too many times. The one with the character who can see an infinite number of realities at any given time depending on the slightest changes in the flow of cause and effect.
Ok my brain hurts now. Time for bed.
You posit that God then is not omniscient since God does not know what will happen only all the possible things that might happen. I think that veers from Dr. Craig's position.
If we go with your posit, God will contribute at certain points in order to achieve His purpose. That might be akin to dynamically changing the rules of a game while it is being played. The players have free will to make game decisions, but the constraints imposed upon them have changed. In reality, people could have free will but constraints upon us influence the actual decisions to be more in line with God's purpose. A modern example of this would be the COVID-19 virus. We all have free will, but the constraints of reality have certainly changed our behavior. Maybe God wants us to better realize our effects on the environment.
1. I wrote my post at 3:00 am so it is entirely possible that I was/am full of shit.
2. I am at best an amateur philosopher and prone to spiff-balling, and throwing shit out there just to generate discussion.
So here I go:
Knowing everything (omniscience) seems to me to be theoretical in the first place, since the only thing we do know is that we (humans) aren't omniscient. So how might a being actually be considered "omniscient"? Perhaps by knowing everything, all data, from the past and then using that data to predict or "know" the future as perturbations occur. Incredibly complex for sure, but certainly no more complex than the idea that all of the events that have lead you and I to this very discussion happened all by chance (unguided cause and effect from the beginning of time). It isn't much of a stretch from there then to imagine that such a being could contribute to such perturbations and recalculations itself to guide and re-guide the future and achieve certain goals. Goals that certainly we could not possibly imagine/understand, not being able to see the much bigger picture as this entity could.
Yeah, something like that.
Chaos theory does not speak to the origin or originator of a perturbation and its effect then on future events. Such perturbations could originate with the free will of a human being which our God/entity might be able to predict with some accuracy based on complete knowledge of the past, but also then be able to recalculate the effect (future) were the perturbation not quite what was originally expected/predicted. Such a being/entity could also re-guide if the free will perturbation results in a future outcome not in line with that being/entities general plan. Again, we wouldn't know/understand that plan or even whether that plan is to simply let the chips fall where they may as far as free will perturbations are concerned. So I don't see that my posit necessarily veers from Dr. Craig's position.
Being able to calculate the future requires knowledge of all the little butterflies who contribute to the future. That is something that is logically possible if reality is deterministic. In theory, if all the rules of reality are known, a deterministic reality at state Sn could be calculated from state Sn-1. This notion was first proposed by Laplace and is nowadays known as Laplace's Demon:
To calculate the future requires perfect information and perfect computation. It also, crucially, requires that the future is knowable - that reality is indeed deterministic. If the future is knowable, even if no entity can calculate it, free will is logically impossible. If it is possible to know that I would mention Laplace in this reply to you then my mentioning of Laplace is simply a consequence of an incredibly complex cause/effect chain. If it is possible to know the future then my extremely convincing view that I have free will is merely an illusion. The choices I might reason to have will not be the choice I make; the choice I make will be the one that is knowable.
Another way to look at this is as a movie. If reality is deterministic then the events and decisions are all simply an endless change of state where we move from one instant of reality (Sn) to the next (Sn+1). Each state (S) is analogous to a 'frame' in the movie. Even though the ending of the movie is totally a surprise when viewed without knowledge (having never seen the movie) the causal relationship will always yield the same result no matter how often the movie is played. The hero will always make that fatal mistake from which s/he must recover even though much better choices were available.
Being able to predict is different from knowing. Prediction is necessarily < 100% certainty. Thus the difference is where free will could live. If it is possible to predict the future with 93% certainty then that 7% wiggle room is the 'noise' where a hypothetical free will might exist.
Because Dr. Craig holds that God knows everything: 100% certainty.
Does he? What he actually said, according to your quote was:
My hypothesis also supposes that such an entity would have providence over the whole of history, and would have the ability to accurately predict the future based on that knowledge, and also the ability to recalculate that future as each perturbation takes place. Just before his statement about God's providence over the whole of history, he says:
But he suggests in the next couple of sentences that perhaps God can predict such an outcome. From that we could conclude that this is the way God "knows" the future, by prediction based on all of history and the ability to recalculate the probable outcome as the present unfolds. Something we mere mortals cannot fathom.
Yes
The quote came from the seed. My comment is based on my observation of Dr. Craig over the years. The seed quotes from a book and part of that book is on Dr. Craig's website. Thus we can expand the context and see what Dr. Craig has in mind (here he is trying to explain the problem of evil):
Dr. Craig is arguing that just because a child dying of leukemia seems unusually cruel to us that God has a reason for it; that the death leads to a greater divine good. In his explanation, Dr. Craig holds (as is his belief) to an omniscient God who, as per my movie analogy, sees all of time (akin to our knowledge of a movie after watching it). But God, like a movie editor, has the ability to manipulate events such as changing the order of history, inserting new events, etc. Dr. Craig describes a God who ostensibly allows for free will but then tinkers to achieve His divine purpose. God can do this because He can see ( knows ) the causal relationships over time. Per Dr. Craig, God knows the 'free will' decisions / actions that everyone will make and works around that to achieve His purpose. God knows with perfect clarity everything that has and will happen: biblical omniscience. This is not probability , this is certain knowledge .
Dr. Craig speaking of our inability to predict; his use of the word probability does not mean that he believes God is predicting. It would be unusual for Dr. Craig to argue that God is just a very good guesser. I have read through this and the broader context and do not see where you see Dr. Craig arguing that God operates on probability and not certainty. Logically too, if God is managing events over time to achieve His divine purpose then God knows that the death of a child enables a causal chain that leads to some greater good. I very much doubt that Dr. Craig would claim that God operates on probabilities and that sometimes God guesses wrong and allows an evil (as we see it) to exist that did not actually lead to the greater good. That is, I doubt you will find Dr. Craig ever suggesting that God is imperfect in any way.
By the way, Dr. Craig speaks of human free decisions because he thinks we have free will. That, however, is a logical contradiction. If God knows what decisions we will make then that means the future is knowable. If the future is knowable, free will is impossible. If it is possible to know that you will impulsively buy a miracle tool from a pop-up advertisement at 3am due to having too many beers then that is precisely what will happen at 3am. Your free will 'choice' is a very persuasive illusion. The only way for free will to exist is for you to spontaneously make that call at 3am. If you were truly spontaneous then the future is indeed not predictable because your spontaneity chose a specific branch (among many). With free will, the future cannot be knowable ( predictable to some degree, but not knowable ).
“ God sees the end from the beginning and providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions .”
Later in your comment you indicated that Dr. Craig’s theory leads to a logical contradiction because there can be no free will if the future is knowable.
So what if I were to suggest that his statement in blue above is at the core of his logical fallacy? First of all, how would such a being re-order history if it had already happened? It makes more logical sense to imagine that He recalculates and re-orders the future so that his purposes are ultimately achieved through or despite human free decisions. He can “see” the end from the beginning and all points in between because he has the ability to both recalculate and redirect the ultimate outcome. In that way we can account for free will and the idea that the future is knowable but ONLY to this being/entity that can exist for all time.
I get the movie analogy which also assumes by the way that history is fixed. The ending will not change unless the director produces a series of alternate endings.
What if instead we consider the analogy of your Google maps navigation app. Your destination is entered and the app recalculates the path based on where you have been, the deviations you make that may not have followed the suggested path, and its ability to predict the best route based on satellite, traffic and other data of which you are completely unaware and only the navigation system can see. In any case, despite the many perturbations along the way, it still ends up delivering you to the desired destination. What if the concept of God is like Google Maps on massive steroids?
First, if the future is knowable only to God that still would mean that the future is knowable. That is a profound statement about reality. A knowable future means that knowing state Sn allows one (if one has the ability of course) to calculate (with certainty) state Sn+1. If the future is knowable, how can free will be anything other than an illusion?
To be clearer, if we follow the reasoning that God works around free will actions then does that reasoning also hold that God knows what those free will actions are before the agent actually performs them? If so, then it is known that the agent will perform the actions before the agent even considers them. How could that be considered free will? In contrast, if the agent is truly free to spontaneously choose between any number of actions at any instant, then how could the future be knowable (certain knowledge)?
Free Will = spontaneity; future is unknowable because the agent(s) decide the paths at the moment. No way to know ahead of time what choices will be made by each agent and thus the best one can do is predict (imperfectly) what the future(s) might be.
Knowable Future = determinism; a causal chain wherein Sn determines Sn+1 which determines Sn+2 ad infinitum. A knowable future means that it is theoretically possible to determine an arbitrary future state Sn given an earlier state Sn-m.
For free will and omniscience to coexist, one must dilute the meaning of one or both of the terms. One might define omniscience to be all knowledge of the present and the past and an amazing ability to predict the most likely future(s). That would be imperfect knowledge and I do not see Dr. Craig proposing such a view. Alternatively, one might deem free will to be little pockets of variability wherein God has provided each agent some degree of freedom of choice. The agent actually can choose but none of the choices will affect God's divine plan. This supports the notion of God tinkering as well as actual choices, but it overlooks the logical fact that God is still, after all, omniscient and actually does know which choice each agent will make. The choices are, again, simply an illusion.
All sorts of variations are possible, but ultimately if the future is knowable then free will is simply an illusion. For free will to exist, the future cannot be knowable.
I have understood your position from your first post.
In your analogy, the end point is known; that equates with God's divine plan. Your analogy has God not knowing the driving decisions you will make but He remains vigilant in His tinkering to ensure His end goal (divine plan) is achieved.
That is free will with a less-than omniscient God. Imperfect knowledge.
If you consider God to be omniscient, then per your analogy God knows all the perturbations and includes perfunctory actions on His part along the way to ensure His end is achieved. In this case, your driving decisions were an illusion because God knew you would take a detour to find a gas station for little Billy to visit the restroom.
That is an omniscient God sans free will. God knew Billy would have to pee when your current route places you nowhere near a station and that you would choose to detour rather than have him try to hold it for 20 miles.
Maybe. Or at least the meanings of those terms need to be discussed further first, since they are in fact both purely theoretical or philosophical concepts (certainly no proven example of either that we can point to), and then perhaps discussion from there can be more focused. Your comments here are a great start! Not sure how far down that rabbit hole you want to go with me here, but perhaps we should take it elsewhere since we have already taken this way off the seeder's topic.
Maybe one of us could start a new article for discussion perhaps entitled "A Discussion on Omniscience and Free Will", or something to that effect? I would very much like to participate, although I will admit I have a heavy work week coming up.
As a primer, I would tend to agree with your argument that so-called "divine omniscience" which includes the idea of foreknowledge appears to be incompatible with the idea of human free-will. But my thinking is somewhat more along the lines of philosophers like Boethius who posit that perhaps divine omniscience does not include foreknowledge, at least not in the way that we humans imagine it, and not such that it necessarily robs us of agency in our freedom of will.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Craig disagrees with both of us in his examination entitled:
Divine Foreknowledge and Newcomb's Paradox
Where he concludes:
Talk to you on the other article, but gotta go fetch dinner for the family. Thanks!
The definitions are always key. I am going by the biblical definition of omniscience and the colloquial definition of free will. In a sense those would be extreme definitions since biblical omniscience = perfect knowledge of everything over all time. And colloquial definition of free will means the ability to make actual choices that instantaneously open a single fork in the causal chain and close all others.
I was working on that but decided to not do it since you joined me here. Your views are substantially more thoughtful than what I would expect in response to an article (from past experience) so I basically lost interest in the article and chose to just discuss this with you. Very few people are willing to actually try to think this through. Most just give superficial declarations with no supporting reason other than 'it just is' or get emotional about it.
Maybe we can discuss Newcomb's Paradox in an article. I will investigate.
I would like to see your article on free will. No doubt some will reply emotionally rather than logically (or with convoluted "logic"). It would still be a good read though. Just saying.
Okay, that encourages me.