Prayer in a Pandemic: What’s the Point? A Response to Atheist’s Viral Post
Category: Religion & Ethics
Via: heartland-american • 4 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
301 visitors
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:
It’s possible, too, our prayers aren’t about immediate outward changes (though sometimes they are) but inward restorations. Rather than asking God whyHe’s allowed something, perhaps our job is to determine what we can do in the midst of it.
What "results" are prayers having? The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result. It might make someone "feel" better or fell like they're doing something. But that's about it.
Maybe you should do some research as to the amount of social good churches and their committed members do and support and be glad we are here even if you don’t believe as we do.
A strawman argument. I was not referring to churches or religious institutions. I was specifically addressing the prayer aspect. Besides, one does not need religion or churches to do good. Being a decent human being in general is a good way.
The record says otherwise . Prayer isn’t all about signs and wonders or miracles being sought after. There’s so much more as described elsewhere. Also as described in great detail secularists can in no way match or replace what believers do or give
You are mocking many religious people worldwide. Praying for divine blessings does indeed seem illogical but surely you realize that not everyone prays for guidance and wisdom. Surely you have observed people praying for an ill person to recover, for a recession to end, for a loved one to return safely from war, for their football team to win, ....
I am surprised that you mock these people.
If I misunderstood then why not correct my misunderstanding rather than insult my intelligence?
And your source for that declaration of course comes from a religious site. Confirmation bias.
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”.
Then try to rebut the facts they point out if you can. You can’t begin to deny the positive impact we have on the world and your belief system can’t begin to match it either.
From your comment @1.1.4
Some of those people are religious people. Those who pray for healing, pray for a sports victory, pray for prosperity - all are treating God as a wishing well. But they're still religious, and you're still mocking them. Unless you meant "Some folks think God is supposed to be a wishing well of sorts." as praise. If so, please correct our interpretation of your words.
Uh huh. Here is your entire comment @1.1.4:
I noted that there are indeed many people who pray to God for divine favors:
Atheists do not usually pray so these folks who do pray for divine favors are theists (not necessarily Christian either). These people do believe God might answer their prayers. But you call these: 'folks [who] think God is supposed to be a wishing well of sorts'. Apparently you scoff at their beliefs: "don't really know much about it" as ignorance that provides mean atheists fodder to criticize their divine wishing.
Sure reads as though you think those who pray for divine favors are being silly. And since you refuse to clarify, I will go with what you wrote.
In short the question in effect was: do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly ("... a wishing well ...")?
So, you have either a favorable or neutral opinion of religious people who see God as a wishing well?
That’s for sure. We owe our secular humanist opposition nothing more than already stated.
Mmmhmmm. Way to change the subject of your mockery. It's unfortunate that your attempt to insult nonbelievers ended up encompassing those believers who actually do treat God as a wishing well. Nonbelievers, if one cares to apply simple logic, do not.
I believe they are the same thing.
Sad thing is, I was actually going to agree with you for once, but, then you made no actual point.
And again, no point to anything.
Must be sad.
Seems to be an MO.
Here's the problem with your explanation.
Those who don't pray or believe in prayer by definition don't treat God as a wishing well. Nonbelievers don't ask God for anything. Why would they?
That would be those who pray, or at least some of them. Religious people. The subjects of your mockery. Just for praying.
Again, nothing.
Starting to see an empty vessel.
At least you admit it. Way more than most do...
It is a wildly different thing to live by faith and pray to meet immediate and direct needs and praying for wealth by gambling in the lottery.
The good thing is one can grow. One just needs to grow a backbone and not follow the herd.
I know that is hard for some fox watchers.
No it is the same.
How is praying for money different than praying on gambling?
Ridiculous in itself to try to make a distinction.
And again, empty vessel.
Sadly I keep thinking there may be something more.
The preacher Joel Osteen told his congregation on his tv show today that God will hide them from the coronavirus.
Why would God "hide" some people and not others?
btw, the death rate in the US for the confirmed cases is almost 3% - 9000 deaths/ 322000 cases .
Sure you did.
Just like you mocked religious people who ask God for things.
Everybody can read what you typed. Backpedaling won't change it.
I can understand why they don't wish to see themselves as having been unintentionally mocked by you, and I also can understand that they may feel an unexplained sense of solidarity with you that may make them unlikely to outwardly recognize the mockery.
But you mocked some of them. I doubt you intended to at the time. You intended to mock nonbelievers. You just forgot that your insult can't apply to nonbelievers, who ask nothing of God.
Whoops.
Logic.
"not follow the herd."
Says someone who religiously follows the liberal herd.
All in black and white, Tex. I can understand why you wouldn't want to admit it. I doubt it was intentional on your part. I think it more likely that you didn't consider the implication of your words, and would now like to deny that they meant what they meant.
Insulting me doesn't negate the fact that you mocked some religious people.
Repeatedly labeling Sandy obtuse and repeatedly claiming she is lying accomplishes nothing of value. Instead of dodging and attacking, you could have simply set the record straight.
Do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly (per @1.1.4 — "... a wishing well ...")?
I have asked you the same direct question twice and you deflect both times:
Do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly (per @ 1.1.4 — "... a wishing well ...")?
Claiming people do not understand you when you refuse to answer direct questions is not the problem of others.
Except that whole "wishing well" thing doesn't apply to me, or other nonbelievers. A key point you choose to ignore, since your eagerness to insult nonbelievers led you to inadvertently insult some believers.
So, you meant to insult me but are almost sorry that you did?
That's about as consistent as the rest of your comments here.
It does seem that they are determined to have the last word. They seem to think that there is any thing they can say to dissuade us from our beliefs and faith or anything they can do to stop us from expressing the fulfillment, joy, hope that we have because of what we believe or that there is power in a prayer life. If they think that during a time like this that we will hide what we have under a bushel, they have another thing coming. We are going to let our light shine come what may from them.
It’s Holy Week so I expect that the sworn enemies of our faith and the expression of hope we share even during a pandemic will be out in numbers in a show of force.
You are correct in all your points in your post. Well said.
that herd is one of lemmings.
[deleted]
It’s their immersion into the false doctrines of reason and logic to the exclusion of all else.
All objective observers know exactly what you meant and what you said and you are exactly right.
Because if a real believer who has a relationship with God and prays regularly and has a need come up and asks God to help find a way to make the legitimate need be met, He May well find a way for it to happen. Praying for instant wealth by gambling which itself is an immoral act to most believers via buying any number of lottery tickets is asking God to reward wrong doing such as wasting much needed earned money on the tickets and presuming God to grant that wish.
Yeah, that’s why I try to ignore them. But you know, cue the attack on my inability to think logically in 3, 2, 1 . . .
[deleted]
Yes, it was.
I think sometimes people aren’t looking for a discussion, but are really looking to “win an argument.” Sometimes to do that, they have to pretend you said something rude or stupid.
Really?
You like evidence and proof. Can you give some definitive proof or evidence that it isn’t?
Be specific please.
We forget who we were dealing with on that particular matter. One even more militant in their secularism thaneven Gordy is
Do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly (per @ 1.1.4 — "... a wishing well ...")?
Considering covid cases are only and have been on the rise, including deaths, it's clear that prayer is having no effect on the crisis. If anything, things have only gotten worse. So if someone is praying for covid to be cured or go away or whatever, they're obviously wasting their time. But I'll bet they probably think they're doing something constructive or making themselves feel better. There's certainly no evidence to suggest, much less support the idea that prayer might be helping with the number of cases.
That is not evidence or proof that prayer isn't helping make it better.
Please defend your comment with verifiable evidence or proof or take it back.
Actually, it is. The current numbers contradict any notion or claim that prayer is helping things. There is certainly nothing to suggest otherwise that prayer is helping. So if someone is going to claim prayer is going to help, then the numbers do not support that.
I don't know what is worse: him making such a stupid and dangerous claim, or people who actually believe that nonsense.
No its not, not in the least but i'm not going to argue with you about it. Thats a fools errand and i'm no a fool.
Suffice it to say your comment is absolutely unprovable and considering your proclivity to demand proof in other matters, is about as hypocritical as one can get. And that's all i have to say about that ....
Gordy's point is that the evidence suggests prayer is not helping and, in fact, suggests it is worsening the situation. He is not claiming this as a certain fact. He is stating the obvious — if one equates prayer with the reduction in COVID-19 cases then the evidence suggests prayer is at best doing nothing.
There is a major difference between noting correlations based on evidence and making a grand claim of certainty. No doubt you know this yet you nonetheless falsely accuse Gordy of being a hypocrite. Nice.
And here comes the usual Atheist dosey doe ......... 3, 2,1 now report it!
I clearly understand what he is trying to say and it changes nothing. And as usual i don't need a lecture. His comment i quoted in 1.1.71 was definitive.
A comment that can not be proven no matter how hard either of you try to rationalize that it can.
No debate about it. Put up or shut up and save the absurd rationalizations for someone who doesn't know better.
Let's examine this then, shall we? Let's start with the premise the prayer will either cause a positive outcome of covid cases (reduced number of cases/deaths) or have no effect or even a negative outcome (increasing number of cases/deaths). We must start with the assumption that people are praying for covid to either be cured or eliminated. Now we take a population sample and determine the number of cases/deaths over time. Covid was first identified in December 2019. But let's say March 2020 and in the US, just to keep it simpler, as March is when cases started occurring exponentially. According to the CDC, there were 30 cased reported March 1. As of April 4, there were 304,826 cases reported. As of March 7, there were 18 reported deaths. As of April 4, there are a total of 1,889 deaths reported specifically due to covid (not including deaths from covid complications-those numbers are much higher). Presumably, people were praying during the month of March, especially after VP Pence urged for prayers. But as we can see by the numbers, prayer has had no effect in reducing the number of covid cases and deaths.
Lets use the KISS principle to exam this. Always the best method when possible. Nothing more is required in this case
Can you prove prayer is not helping reduce covid cases? Yes or no? Its that simple.
And if yes please provide ANY definitive proof or evidence you have to back your assertion up. So far i've seen no compelling evidence or proof to back your comment up ...... only conjecture and mere opinions.
Exactly. You will notice i never claimed otherwise.
Some seem to have a chronic need to do that. Its very telling to me.
I have hope for some but not all.
If you think Gordy made a claim of certainty then you do not understand what he wrote.
Of course he cannot prove that. But he never claimed as a certainty that prayer is not helping COVID-19 cases. He stated that the evidence suggests that prayer is having at best no effect.
You claim to understand the difference between correlation of evidence and a claim of certainty but your comments conflate the two.
I understand the words he wrote just fine. Once again no need for a lecture or more word games from you.
His comment was definitive in that it clearly stated the covid crisis was not diminishing due to prayer. Clearly a definitive statement by any reasonable interpretation and obviously not something that can be proven one way or the other.
Not unless you or Gordy are omniscient of course ..... are you?
Boy, you sure have a better "between the lines" reader than i do. /s Perhaps you should have written it for him as well.
The words mean what they mean Tig but you can keep trying to craft them into something else if you want. I'm not buying it. Not in the least.
At least you manned up and admitted what was said can't be proven. Perhaps Gordy will now as well but i doubt it.
Yeah, this is SOSDD considering .....
A claim of certainty means declaring something to be truth. Evidence suggesting a conclusion is not a claim of certainty, it is an observation. A claim of certainty in this case would be: 'prayer does not reduce the number of COVID-19 cases'. Gordy, if you even read what you quoted, is stating that the numbers suggest that prayer is having no effect. Gordy's claim is that the numbers suggest no effect. If you want to challenge his claim then you would ask him to deliver the numbers that suggest prayer is not reducing the number of COVID-19 cases.
How ironic that you deem my explanations of the obvious to be word games.
Wrong, Gordy wrote that the evidence suggests COVID-19 cases are not diminishing due to prayer. He is clearly talking about the statistics which show COVID-19 cases on the rise in spite of prayers. That is fundamentally different than an unqualified, stand-alone claim such as: 'prayer has no effect on COVID-19 cases'.
His claim is of evidence. You certainly could legitimately question his statistical evidence (in which case he could provide you stats showing that COVID-19 cases continue to rise). His claim is not that prayer cannot possibly have any effect on the numbers of COVID-19 cases.
Horseshit. Again, this is what he said:
There is no "suggest" mentioned. Certainly means, in a manner that is certain. Certain means, known or proved to be true which we have already agreed here that it can't be proven true.
So just stop it Tig. You are embarrassing yourself with your word games.
You are putting words in his mouth:
Where does he claim this is proof? He is talking about statistics and trends. The evidence shows ... These are observations as of today. When someone makes a clear statement such as:
Your refusal to acknowledge this is an observation of evidence is your failure. Trying to deem this as a certain declaration (carrying the burden of proof) that prayer cannot possibly help in the spread of COVID-19 is ridiculous.
Note: I am confident that Gordy does not believe prayer will make any difference in the spread of COVID-19. That is my opinion too. That opinion correlates well with the available evidence. But there is not sufficient information to declare with certainty that prayer cannot possibly have an effect.
Then what the hell are you arguing about?
That was my only point to begin with.
I like how you are talking for Gordy but perhaps next time you should write his comment for him. Then you could have left the word "certainly" out.
Looks to me as though you wish to simply declare that you are right. Sorry, that is not how it works. You cherry-pick one sentence from Gordy's opening comment ignoring the context and ignoring everything else he has written to explain his meaning to you. You are purposely ignoring what the man has written.
Opening statement:
The quoted statement is demonstrably true based on the stats. "The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result. " The COVID-19 cases are indeed not diminishing, the are still increasing. That is a fact, right? So if someone attributes prayer to helping diminish the COVID-19 cases, then prayer is not having any effect in the statistics.
As I have noted, Gordy's claim is about the evidence. His claim of certainty is that the evidence shows COVID-19 cases rising, not falling. That is his claim of certainty. He uses that evidence to suggest that prayer does not seem to be having any effect. A logical interpretation.
I repeatedly asked you a direct question that would set the record straight on what you meant. You chose to deflect, complain, go personal, etc. That is your failure.
Here, I am providing direct quotes with baby step explanations that you fail to rebut and instead simply repeat your claim.
Here is an idea, ask Gordy if he asserts that prayer cannot possibly have an effect on COVID-19 cases. If he answers ‘yes’ then you have a claim of certainty. He believes prayer has no effect, so see if he asserts his belief as absolute truth.
If you are trying to be honest and fair you would ask a question of the author, just as I did for you.
I am rebutting your claim that Gordy declared with certainty that prayer cannot help fight the spread of COVID-19. His declaration of certainty was that the cases are increasing; not that prayer could not possibly have any effect.
And what does 'certainly' apply to? (hint: see above)
This is the key to your failure: cherry-picking a word or a sentence. Instead of asking the author a clarifying question, you stubbornly push your desired narrative in spite of the actual words written.
You could offer a rebuttal. But you do not do so.
You could ask Gordy for clarification. But you do not do so.
You have nothing.
Lol, i have no problem standing behind everything i have written here as accurate and sincere. I also have no burning desire to always be right all the time but i usually don't post unless i think i am right so there you go. Thing is i expect that others here who always demand a high standard of proof, to offer the same in return when questioned.
That hasn't happened here and it appears some involved truly ARE very interested in always being right no matter what and/or just intent on playing word games for the sake of playing games. For what reason i have no idea.
Again, i stand by all my comments here and categorically disagree with all of yours unless noted otherwise.
I out ..... peace and health!
To be blunt, no I don’t.
A meaningless declaration in lieu of a direct, factual rebuttal. You can stand by your comments ad infinitum but that will not make them true.
So predictable ... so trite ..... yawn!
Me too just from reading all the spin cycles they are. Going through.
Agreed. The claims made by “the logical people” are absurd, unsupportable hate speech, as far as I’m concerned. For example, the claim that the numbers support their position:
The numbers contradict nothing. No one has grounds for interpreting the numbers because they lack a baseline to compare them to. For all anyone knows, the pandemic might be ten times worse but for prayer. Their unequivocal declarations that prayer is having no effect, or that the crisis is not diminishing as a result, or that people who pray are wasting their time cannot be substantiated.
Of course, when you call them on it enough, they try to team up and pretend they aren’t making factual claims, just being skeptical, or even open-minded, which is laughable. The plain language of their comments shows what an obvious lie that is.
Absurd, unsupportable hate speech? Such drama in response to calm, logical rebuttals and explanations.
Your scenario is possible. But you are speculating without a shred of supporting evidence. We do not have numbers for the pandemic effects sans prayer. We only have numbers for the pandemic with prayer and the numbers have been increasing. Gordy looked as the available evidence and has suggested that prayer, per the metrics, does not seem to be working. You, et. al. translate that into a claim of certainty: 'prayer cannot possibly work'. That is intellectually dishonest given the clear explanations that have been provided.
If we are to allow pure speculation then one could speculate that the pandemic might have already died out on its own if not for the prayers. Pure speculation is not information.
Amazing. Nobody has made an unequivocal declaration that prayer is having no effect. The opinion has been rendered based on the available evidence. No claim of certainty that prayer cannot work has been made. Why is it that some insist on putting forth a false narrative while ignoring the explanations and rebuttals?
[deleted]
Quite a liberal use of emotive words, accusations and demands in response to an unemotional, thoughtful response from me.
If someone makes a comment on a public forum, anyone has the right to reply. Given your above comment, I suggest you put me on ignore. I will reply to comments regardless, but you will no longer be tempted to produce presumptive, incorrect and emotional responses like that @1.1.116
Prove it.
[deleted]
When do you plan to start your new policy of not replying to me?
My comment was not directed to you. I will not read your reply. I assume in advance that it is trolling and nothing more. I am not interested in speaking with you on religious topics anymore. I am not interested in feeding trolling. Do not address me again. I assume you are only looking for a fight.
If what he says offends you so much just put him on ignore. Seems very simple. Then you wouldn't see any of his comments.
Instead you just insult.
Indeed, you beat me to it Ender. Responding to public comments in a rational and reasonable manner is not "trolling". If the reader doesn't wish to see those responses, then the ignore feature is ready and waiting to be used. Asking why it hasn't been used after a thrice repeated response of dismissal is also not trolling. But I think it might be best if TiG not respond any further to Tacos as well since he has made it clear that he doesn't want to engage in any further discussion on this matter.
That was the choice I made after the third repetition. But, moving forward, if someone makes a comment on a public site then we all have the right to freely reply. Especially if the reply is thoughtful. If an individual cannot live with that, then that is the key reason we built the IGNORE function.
Completely agree.
We are reaching the same conclusion.
And you are free to put me on ignore.
The numbers speak for themselves. Plus there is no evidence to suggest prayer has cured anything or prevented infection & deaths.
Your opinion is correct.
What numbers?
Mind you I do not believe in God or Gods or some mythical Creator. But saying prayer hasn't prevented infection or deaths is just religion bashing which you so often do. Albeit no great being IMO has prevented infections or deaths but where is your proof that prayer hasn't? You can't prove that. Now go get tig to tell me what you meant to say.
I did keep is simple. I analyzed the trends based on the numbers provided over time within a population. Then I applied that to the premise that prayer has an effect. So bases on the numbers, prayer is not having a positive effect. There's your evidence. I can't make it simpler than that.
The numbers I provided in post 1.1.81.
And saying prayer isn't preventing infections or deaths isn't bashing. It's an anays is of the trends as it relates to the premise of prayer having a positive effect on infections and death. I'm not sure how that can be interpreted as bashing. But I note very said I have proof, as that is too high a standard to meet. But I go by the current available evidence, which actually shows an opposite correlation between prayer and infections or deaths. This demonstrates that prayer is not having an effect. There is also no evidence to suguest prayer is preventing infections or deaths either. So if someone is going to claim or support the notion that prayer is preventing infections and deaths, then the number trends directly contradict that and the lack of supporting evidence for said notion makes it nothing more than mere belief or opinion.
This is not a matter of simplifying your message or explaining what you mean. Given the amount of ignored explanation, there is demonstrably no interest in actually understanding your point.
Instead of 'the evidence suggests that prayer is not working' we see the strawman of 'prayer cannot possibly work'. Clearly one cannot challenge your point directly since you are correct; the metrics of rising infection suggests prayer is having no effect. So instead, out comes the usual strawman.
Always the same game. Back to the mining for gold analogy.
You are correct as usual. Although, I wonder if it's a case of not wanting to understand the explanation, or simply being unable to understand?
Nah, you a have a theory based on available evidence. It IS NOT proof of the statement you made. Not even close. I can’t make it any easier to understand than that.
I find it interesting that one who claims to operate on “facts” would make such an erroneous statement.
Correct!! It is not proof. It is evidence (as Gordy has repeatedly stated) that correlates with the hypothesis that prayer has no effect on the virus.
Not proof, evidence. There is a difference.
And it is not a theory, it is an hypothesis. You know the meaning of these words so to misuse them is curious.
Since you replied to Gordy @1.1.133 and somehow found 'proof' in what he wrote, here is his comment in its entirety:
The problem is not Gordy making a claim of certainty, it is people inserting their own words and their own meaning in direct contradiction to what the man actually wrote.
At this point, I have no doubt that it is a desire to push a false narrative.
Good God, now you want to argue about the definition of Theory vs Hypothesis. Will the disingenuousness never end?
That said you’ve got that wrong in this case as well but it’s pointless to explain it to you as you’ll just rationalize another BS excuse why you are correct. Which again, you aren’t. The words mean what they mean. You can try to change the meaning all you want but it changes nothing.
SOSDD, I get more unwarranted lectures from a source that I could less about. So save the sanctimonious platitudes for someone who gives a shit what your opinion is because I don’t. I find it entirely too disingenuous.
Still talking for Gordy though I see ....... The erroneous nature of your comment has already been clearly pointed out earlier. Sad you keep coming back to it and embarrassing yourself.
Really sad that’s all you got. That and ridiculous redefinitions of words. Sad!
Nah, just calling out bullshit when see it.
[deleted]
It seems you do not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. And no, TiG isn't speaking for me (although I have no problem with that). But he does perfectly relate my position. But since that doesn't seem to be good enough for you, I'll say it myself then: The problem is not I making a claim of certainty. There, satisfied? And for you to comment on the "meaning" of words, it's obvious you did not understand the meaning of mine, and simply interpret it to suit your own narrative. TiG happens to be exactly correct in his analysis too
And no, I never said I had proof. Neither did I propose a theory. I provided and analyzed hard data to support a hypothesis. It's also far more than anything you've offered and neither have you offered anything to refute me, much less support the opposite position. So any notion that prayer is improving infection/death rates is clearly contradicted by the FACTS I provided. No amount of arguing or complaining from you or anyone else will change that fact.
Translation: you have nothing! Only personal attacks.
Lol ..... still can’t admit you were proven wrong. Sad, really sad.
Then trying some candy assed personal attack deflection snark ..... now that is some extra weak shit there but ..... SOSDD.
Nothing new there .... nothing new at all.
Then you shouldn’t have used the word “certainly” if that’s not what you meant to say.
It was. What he meant to say until you called him out on it 👍
There is nothing to argue about. The words are well defined. Seeking clarity is the opposite of being disingenuous.
Your comment evaded my point that proof is very different from evidence and that Gordy stated evidence and did not state proof.
Instead of recognizing your mistake of putting words in Gordy's mouth, you come back with snark and ridiculous allegations such as claims that I am redefining words like theory, hypothesis, proof and evidence.
No thoughtful response, no rebuttal, just snark and the endless stream of false allegations.
Nothing but their missionary zeal to proselytize believers in the religions of The Book to abandon our faith and join their religion of reason.
Reread what I originally wrote! I said "the covid crisis isn't diminishing as a result." The data figures I provided and which anyone can look up supports that. I did not make a claim of certainty such as "prayer has absolutely yes/no effect on the covid crisis," as that would be quite difficult to determine experimentally. Your problem seems to be a lack of comprehension.
You presume too much, especially since he did no such thing. His challenges were addressed and his counter arguments either soundly defeated or showed to be flawed.
The epitome of cherry-picking: taking one word out of context and using it as your argument. Again I put the actual words in front of your face:
The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result is a true statement because the Covid crisis in still increasing. The word 'certainly' refers to the observation that the Covid crisis is increasing (not diminishing). And it is increasing! That much is indeed certain.
Prayer has not, per current evidence, caused the Covid crisis to diminish. Clearly this is true because the crisis is not diminishing. (Not yet.)
Now you can always speculate as Tacos! did that the Covid crisis might have been worse if not for prayer. But that is pure speculation — not based on a shred of evidence. One could also speculate that prayer has made the Covid crisis worse. See how speculation is a flawed approach? The smart move is to not speculate and to simply interpret the evidence as it currently stands. That is what Gordy did.
Per the evidence, a point Gordy has made throughout, the Covid crisis continues to increase. Thus, per the evidence, there is nothing that suggests prayer is having any positive effect. Thus it is perfectly logical to conclude that thus far, prayer has had no effect.
When the Covid crisis starts to diminish, and it will, it will no longer be possible to observe that the evidence suggests prayer is not being effective. Until then, while the crisis grows, the evidence flies in the face of the hypothesis that prayer is causing the crisis to diminish.
Now that's just paranoid delusion, with a hint of sweeping generalization. Also quite laughable, as it clearly demonstrates you have no effective or logical rebuttal to make. Instead of debating the facts or arguments presented, you instead attack those presenting said facts and arguments.
As I noted, I am confident there is no intention to acknowledge your point. Given your and my responses there is no excuse for anyone to think you are claiming certain truth here. You, the author, told them your intent and they keep insisting they know your intent better than you. The signature of arguing for the sake of arguing.
Well said TiG. You summed it up logically and clearly. But I have a feeling we'll continue to see the same intellectually disingenuous (if not outright emotional) responses we've received throughout this exchange.
I tend to agree. And it will probably continue too until someone takes the "cowards way out" with an "Impasse."
Except that I wasnt proven wrong. Except maybe in your own imagination. But, whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better. Yep, nothing new there.
Lol .... you left out the word “certainly” in your quote. What a joke.
[deleted]
My comment @1.1.151 pointed out the flaw in your cherry-picking a single word and ignoring the context.
Here are a few sentences to compare:
Which of the three is a statement of truth (certainty) of the existence of God (a claim of certainty that God exists)?
Yeah I know you will not answer this directly. This is to illustrate by simple example the flaw of arguing that the use of 'certainly' in a sentence means that every part of the sentence is declared as certain truth.
That's the best you can do? Pick out a word? It doesn't change, much less refute, anything I said. But it does show how you've got nothing in the way of a logical rebuttal or argument and are just desperate now. Then you follow up with a personal attack. Yeah, What a joke indeed!
So in my opinion prayer is a form a meditation for some that use it. If thru prayer they are focusing on dealing with the Corona virus and conscious of avoiding it, prayer has in effect reduced the possible numbers of those being infected. That is one reason why I disagree with your broad statement that prayer has had no effect on the Covid virus.
I don't feel like going into other examples at the moment, but you get the gist on how I feel prayer has helped. I'm not religious but I hope and pray that someone I come into contact with working doesn't infect me and I'm conscious of my environment while working.
And why would this be any more effective than avoiding it through nonreligious social distancing? Prayer in this scenario is the equivalent of staying home and watching Netflix.
Sparty I don't believe you have any evidence of this as neither has reported a bowel blockage or even the slightest bit of constipation. Now if that were the case I would tend to agree....it's not funny.
On a more serious note, I have read through this entire exchange and I do not understand why some of you can't see their point, and understand that if your faith is strong, such discussion should not undermine your faith. Evidence and faith do not always live on the same plane, surely you understand this. TiG and Gordy do not claim, as perhaps some others might, that God absolutely does not exist or that prayer absolutely does not work, all they are pointing out is a current lack of evidence that God exists or that prayer works. They simply don't have faith in those ideas like you and many others do without the evidence to prove it. As much as you are free to explain to others your faith and how you believe it works for you, so are they free to explain why they don't share that faith until they have good reason to. They look at it from a purely scientific perspective, a perspective that if one so believes, God must have given them.
I too tend to lean toward faith (although I'll admit probably not as strongly as many) and the idea that prayer can be soothing, uplifting, hopeful, and also thankful of course. But I don't think it's just my faith that leads me to do good works, or to treat people with kindness and respect, as is attributed to those of the Christian faith elsewhere in this article. I know a great many people of no particular religious faith who do as much good, if not more, than most Christians I know. I also know a great many Christians who do not do good works or even treat people as Christ taught. I firmly believe, as you do I'm sure, that faith can help guide people in that direction. But as human beings we all have the potential for goodness regardless of whether we subscribe fully, partially or not at all to any specific religion.
When people like TiG or Gordy ask me for my proof that God exists, or that the Bible is the word of God, or proof that prayer works, I just say I don't have any. That's the truth. I simply tell them that I like the idea that something like a God gave us this world and this wonderful life and that I find comfort in the words attributed to Christ and his message to love others as yourself. And I believe that I want to lead my life as best I can by those words regardless of where they came from, or who wrote them. Maybe that is foolish, but I don't think so. I like to think that my faith makes me a better person, but I keep open the possibility that I might be the same person without it. I have joked with TiG before that I am an agnostic deist.
I do have one concern though with the specific idea that prayer can eradicate this virus, not that I won't go ahead and pray for that anyway just out of sheer hope. I am concerned (perhaps unnecessarily) that some may believe so deeply that prayer will protect them, that they won't follow the known protocols for avoiding and preventing the spread of this disease. I do love and respect my religion but I'm also a scientist, and I have seen both in today's time and through-out history where religion (not just Christianity) has gone terribly wrong. While religion and faith are not necessarily the same thing, both must be carefully considered and tempered using all the tools that God gave us, or nature gave us if one prefers.
Well you might want to go back and read it again. This is nothing new for those involved when it comes to questions of faith.
i asked a simple yes or no question and never got a direct answer. I did get a lot of deflection, redirection, rationalization, obfuscation, attempted redefinition ..... you get the point. None of which was needed for a simple yes or no question.
Bottom line, the comment made clearly stated prayer wasn’t helping. Every trick in the book was then employed in an attempt to “redefine” what was said but the words used, mean what they mean. And I have NO doubt that was the original intent no matter what is said here. One can no more know if prayer is helping than claiming that it isn’t. That’s just the way it is.
So no honest answers were forthcoming and I don’t expect them. Which is telling for people who regularly demand proof and evidence here while going into debate attack mode.
I knew that comment was going to get ticketed but it needed to be said imo and I stand by it. If you read the exchange you should see what I’m talking about. If you don’t, no skin off my nose but I’m sure the usual attack mode will be ongoing from the players involved continuing the defense of the indefensible. That’s their M.O.
To that I say .... meh ... SOSDD considering. I’ve said my piece and again I stand by every single word. No more words are needed from me. And no more are forthcoming.
Prayer is comforting and that is often a good thing.
I hope you recognize that Gordy is saying that according to the current metrics, prayer seems to have had no effect on the virus. He is just looking at the fact that the virus continues to spread (we have not yet hit the turning point) so based on that prayer does not seem to be working.
We have no metrics for this so all one can say is ... 'that is a possibility'. Note also that if we are going to speculate sans metrics, prayer may comfort people and cause them to be less vigil about being infected. To be clear, if one holds that this virus can only be beaten by human efforts alone, then we are likely to be quite vigil. If, however, one is comforted through prayer that God is monitoring/handling the situation then one might not be as vigil. So I accept your speculation that prayer might make people more focused but you should on the same grounds accept my speculation that it could possibly work the other way. Neither of us have metrics on this so we are both merely offering speculation.
As usual I don't need you to tell me what someone means. He made the broad statement that prayer has had no effect.
That is false. period. You can not definitively say that not one case of Corvid 19 was avoided because of prayer.
Now spin it how you want.
Good grief.
What was your question?
Yes, Gordy does not believe prayer is helping. His comment was based on the continued rise in infections. Of course, he does not believe prayer helps anyway given he does not believe a god exists to hear the prayers. But that is a different topic ...
What fascinates me is that Gordy and I have consistently explained this. Gordy, the author, has clearly explained his intent. But instead of dealing with calm, logical, clear responses you flat out ignore them sans logical rebuttal and then repeatedly return with the same false allegations, snark, etc. On top of that , you actually try to suggest that it is Gordy and I who are doing the very things you are doing.
Why you think this is advantageous to you is a mystery.
You made a thoughtful comment and I responded accordingly. We had a decent exchange. Why, now, do you return with snark?
Did you see the part where he notes that he is basing this on the metrics? There is a monster difference between:
Here is his opening comment:
He notes even in his opening comment, and continues to refer to metrics in subsequent comments, that his opinion is based on the fact (and it is a certain fact) that the Covid crisis is not currently diminishing. That is true. Right?
He concludes that the "results' of prayer have been at best nothing. Based, again, on the metrics.
You accuse me of spin, yet his opening comment is clear and, importantly, Gordy has provided plenty of subsequent explanation of this point. So how can you stick with a narrative that is wholly unsupported by what Gordy has written in this thread?
Do you not see how absurd it is to argue that, in effect, Gordy is lying in this thread when he explains that he was not making a declaration of certainty that prayer cannot help but rather that based on what he (we) can observe it does not appear to be helping?
Is it not reasonable to hold that Gordy knows his position better than anyone else? If he consistently returns with 'conclusion based on the metrics' on what grounds can one claim that he is mistaken about his own position?
Here we go: weee! Weee! Weee! Are they dizzy yet from all their son?
Gordy and I have provided direct, thoughtful responses backed up with actual quotes. When challenged we have directly responded. In contrast, our interlocutors typically provide responses exemplified by the platitude of @1.1.169 and the juvenile tone of @1.1.168
Your comment has no thoughtful content, no attempt to provide a rebuttal, just snark.
It is obvious that you have no argument. Why you wish to portray yourself in this manner remains an interesting curiosity. I would be embarrassed.
I have always said that Christianity is a faith based religion and thus I will never attempt to “prove” God exists or how prayer works. That they will believe by faith or they will never believe at all whatever the consequences of each. Why they demand proof when I tell them I have none is beyond me. I am not though going to be silenced by them into not saying what I believe or why in the face of either a crisis like this or because they don’t like our belief or to see us verbalize it. I’m no longer going to argue about logic or reason of non belief. They say that they don’t rule out that God might somehow exist they just rule out the existence of the God of the Book and that The Christian Bible and likely the Koran and Torah are of any value. We disagree and will point out like was mentioned all the great good that genuine Christianity has brought and is bringing to the world and to our society.
The capacity of religion to motivate pro-social behavior goes way beyond volunteering. Religious people are more involved in community groups. They have stronger links with their neighbors. They are more engaged with their own families. Pew has found that among Americans who attend worship weekly and pray daily, about half gather with extended family members at least once a month. For the rest of our population, it’s 30 percent. (See graph 8)
Of all the “associational” activity that takes place in the U.S., almost half is church-related, according to Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam. “As a whole,” notes Tim Keller, “secularism is not good for society.” Secularism “makes people very fragmented—they might talk about community, but they aren’t sacrificing their own personal goals for community, as religion requires you to do.”
Religious practice links us in webs of mutual knowledge, responsibility, and support like no other influence. Seven out of ten weekly church attenders told Pew they consider “work to help the needy” an “essential part” of their faith. Most of them put their money and time where their mouth is: 65 percent of weekly church attenders were found to have donated either volunteer hours or money or goods to the poor within the previous week. (See graph 9)
Philanthropic studies show that people with a religious affiliation give away several times as much every year as other Americans. Research by the Lilly School at Indiana University found Americans with any religious affiliation made average annual charitable donations of $1,590, versus $695 for those with no religious affiliation. Another report using data from the Panel Study for Income Dynamics juxtaposed Americans who do not attend religious services with those who attend worship at least twice a month, and made fine-tunings to compare demographic apples to apples. The results: $2,935 of annual charitable giving for the church attenders, versus $704 for the non-attenders. (See graph 10) In addition to giving larger amounts, the religious give more often—making gifts about half again as frequently.
In study after study, religious practice is the behavioral variable with the strongest and most consistent association with generous giving. And people with religious motivations don’t give just to faith-based causes—they are also much likelier to give to secular causes than the nonreligious. Two thirds of people who worship at least twice a month give to secular causes, compared to less than half of non-attenders, and the average secular gift by a church attender is 20 percent bigger. (See graph 11)
These giving levels vary by particular faith. Mormons are the most generous Americans, both by participation level and by size of gifts. Evangelical Christians are next. Then come mainline Protestants. Catholics lag both. Jews give high dollar amounts on average, because they have high earnings, while trailing Protestant givers in donations as a share of income. (See “Who Gives Most to Charity?” in the Almanac of American Philanthropy.)
Religious charity dominates U.S. philanthropy
America’s tradition of voluntary charitable giving is one of the clearest markers of U.S. exceptionalism. As a fraction of our income, we donate over two and a half times as much as Britons do, more than eight times as much as the Germans, and at 12 times the rate of the Japanese. American religiosity plays a central role in that distinctive pattern.
The annual Giving USA tabulations show a third of our donations as going to religious causes. But Giving USA statisticians acknowledge that this is a gross underestimate. Their calculations include only gifts to houses of worship and related mission organizations. Excluded from their total, they point out, are gifts to faith-based organizations like the Salvation Army and gospel missions for the homeless, to religious schools of all sorts, to Catholic hospitals, to the Jewish federations, to missionary organizations that serve the poor abroad, and so forth.
A consortium of Jewish funders and other independent foundations called Connected to Give commissioned studies to produce a more inclusive and accurate estimate of religiously driven giving. Its 2013 report conglomerated gifts to churches and synagogues with gifts to faith charities and found that 73 percent of all charitable giving in the U.S. goes to organizations that are explicitly religious. (See graph 12) Other research shows that of America’s top 50 charities, 40 percent are faith-based.
An even more inclusive 2016 study by Georgetown University economist Brian Grim calculated the economic value of all U.S. religious activity. Its midrange estimate was that religion annually contributes $1.2 trillion of socioeconomic value to the U.S. economy. This estimate includes not only the fair market value of activity connected to churches (like $91 billion of religious schooling and daycare), and by non-church religious institutions (faith-based charities, hospitals, and colleges), but also activity by faith-related commercial organizations. That $1.2 trillion is more than the combined revenue of America’s ten biggest tech giants. It is bigger than the total economy of all but 14 entire nations.
Ways the religious help others
To get a sense of the often-invisible ways in which persons of faith help others, consider giving to the poorest of the poor overseas. The most conspicuous philanthropy done in this area is carried out by the Gates Foundation. Gates contributions in Africa and other low-income countries are the signature effort of the world’s largest charitable foundation, and have had heroic effects, in areas ranging from malaria protection to HIV control to eradicating polio.
With the marvelous Gates generosity in mind, now absorb this: members of U.S. churches and synagogues send four and a half times as much money overseas to needy people every year as the Gates Foundation does! Much of this religious charity is applied in the hardest places, with high efficiency and low overhead, by Christians who “go the last mile” into rural, extremely poor, or dangerous areas where governments and international bureaucracies have no effective reach. (See “Modern Missionaries” in the Spring 2018 issue of Philanthropy.)
It is easy to overlook this giving, because it comes not in megagifts from billionaires but rather in millions of $50 checks written by faithful donors to groups like Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, International Justice Mission, Mercy Ships, American Jewish World Service, Compassion International, Catholic Medical Mission Board, MAP International, and so forth. Over the last couple decades, soaring interest in the poorest of the poor by evangelical Christians in particular has made overseas giving the fastest growing corner of American charity. One result: U.S. voluntary giving to the overseas poor now totals $44 billion annually—far more than the $33 billion of official aid distributed by the U.S. government.
There are many other types of charity and social healing where religious givers are dominant influences.
One strength of religious philanthropy is sheer numbers.
I hope you didn’t expect me to argue about any of that. It doesn’t surprise me at all. It is one of the primary reasons I enjoy Mass on Sundays and participating in other charitable events sponsored by our Church. I am the first to point out facts like these when others criticize the Church or only focus on the terrible things that some priests have done, or other corruptions or terrible alliances of the Church centuries ago. There are always going to be bad or corrupt people in any organization from time to time, but the one constant over the centuries has been the good that the Church has done in caring for the sick, the poor, and the down-trodden. That is why I think it is important to consider the whole picture rather than just the dark frame when discussing the value of any religion, not just Christianity. I believe that holds true in considering any group of people for that matter, including those who do not subscribe to any religion. An open mind will always allow one to better see the good in other people.
It has been shown to produce similar effects as meditation.
Proper precautions such as social distancing and self quarantine has reduced the number of potential infections. Prayer by itself is unlikely to prevent infection.
There is no evidence to suggest it has any effect, as we can see by the continuously increasing number of cases.
I'm sure you think it has.
If you're conscious of your environment (and hopefully others are conscious of theirs), then that is a conscious precaution taken to prevent infection. Prayer is irrelevant to that.
Then demonstrate where prayer has had an (positive) effect. I produced actual numbers to support my position that prayer is not having any positive effect. I already explained that in detail in a previous post.
All religions (deity-centric) are faith-based.
An easy way to avoid a challenge for supporting evidence of God's existence is to not make a claim of certainty on God's existence. For example:
Statement 1 is a claim of certainty that God exists. The other two are not.
Statement 2 is a claim of certainty that the Bible declares that God exists. So if challenged, your response is simply to show how the Bible claims God exists. Easy.
Statement 3 is a claim of certainty in your own belief. You are claiming with certainty that you believe God exists, not that God exists.
Only statement 1 is a claim that would warrant a challenge to deliver supporting evidence that God exists.
My point was not to get you to argue but to show that while believers detractors attack what we believe and why we believe they have no answer for the things we do because we believe or how society would replace what we do because we believe if we didn’t and instead act per capita as they do. How would society make up the difference if all that we do because we believe so illogically and without reason simply disappeared?
I think society could do exceptionally well if believers were to take an honest, fact-based approach to religious beliefs. Imagine a world where nobody claims to know the grandest possible entity (God) on a personal basis or to know the mind of such an entity? Instead, what if everyone used their 'God-given' brains, with circa-2020 information and held this belief:
It is possible that a sentient creator exists. If so, we would consider this creator God. God, so defined, is demonstrably awesome in terms of power and knowledge (given what God created) — well beyond our capabilities.
But that is it ... that is all we would know (hypothetically even).
We would not know what God intends with us or expects of us. We would not have contradictory stories, rules, consequences, etc. all coming from God. We would all realize that even if God, so defined, exists that we must take care of each other and our planet because we have no guarantee that God is even watching over us.
Now that would be an honest, credible belief system. Instead of following the rules of men who pretend to speak for God, we could instead attempt to understand the mind of God through the reality God ostensibly created.
It would also be logical in comparison to the ridiculous plethora of contradictory religions that are themselves internally contradictory.
When asked what God wants of us, the honest answer would be 'I do not know'. When asked if God exists, the honest answer would be 'I do not know'. Some might add '... but I believe it makes sense that God does exist' while others might add '... and oddly for such a grand entity, we have yet to have credible evidence that God exists'.
And importantly, Ken Ham and his band will no longer be working overtime to dumb down the next generation. Kenneth Copeland and the other despicable, slime-bucket prosperity gospel televangelists would be appropriately ignored, etc. On a different note, Islamic terrorists would not have divine instruction to kill as many infidels as possible because that is the will of Allah.
The critical thinking that would ensue strikes me as highly beneficial.
Why would it simply disappear? First, nobody is talking about eradicating Christianity. Second, why do you believe that the very same people who gave of their time and money before would not continue to do so even if the churches were somehow shut down? Now I will agree that organizations like Catholic Relief Services or others as you have described are very good at assembling people of like mind to their charitable efforts. But the same people who participate in those organizations could very well do so under a different form of organization. What makes these organizations work so well is people, people with time, funds, and a caring heart which they freely donate. And those same people will not simply disappear even if an atheist somehow comes to power, deletes the Constitution, and abolishes all religion. Do you really think that is likely in the U.S.? It doesn't sound like a rational fear to me.
Lastly, do you really believe that the people who do good through these organizations do so ONLY because they believe? Are you saying that if they didn't believe in God or Christ that they would not treat people the same way or be as charitable? How do you know that?
I’m saying that there is a huge difference in volunteering, donating personal items, and monetary contributions to charities between a regularly attending church believer and a secularist. The stuff I’ve posted regarding philanthropy shows the huge differences. Less God, less giving is a statistical fact. What I was saying is that of organized religion did disappear not by extermination but by persuasion from secularists, and our organizations went with us, how would secularists make up the difference? Secularists have no organizational infrastructure like believers do and they per capita give less. If secularists persuaded believers to be secular and we no longer have because of Who and what we believe in and reverted tontheir norm, who would make up the difference?
Sorry but we believers as long as we and our children and grandchildren shall live will never comport our rational faith to your particular fantasy. You will never see your dream realized.
sorry, god ignores the prayers of hypocrites.
Secularist have been using this pandemic as a go to reason to attack the very existence of God and then challenge whether He is good if He actually does exist. They have openly mocked Christianity and theism in general. They openly mock and challenge the value of prayer while questioning the sanity of those who do believe. They are wrong.
Who says? You? Laughable. Prove there's a god and maybe you'll shut up any naysayer regarding god.
Then he has no credibility for his claims.
I'm just saying, anyone can claim anything. But it means nothing when there is nothing to support the claim. No support equals no credibility. That's just simple fact.
Prove there is no God
Why would you ask Gordy to do that? Has he claimed there is no God?
Ah, gotta love the logical fallacies.
Yes, yes he has.
Quotes?
Then show me with a link to prove you are not just making this up.
[deleted]
Here’s another illustration of what we do no matter where we live: and it’s a faith and belief in One some believe doesn’t even exist that motivates these selfless acts of kindness.
Lending a hand
INTERNATIONAL | Christian leaders and mission groups across Africa join the fight against coronavirus by Onize OhikerePosted 4/03/20, 03:17 pm
ABUJA, Nigeria—As lockdowns began this week to slow the spread of COVID-19 in Nigeria, one megachurch near the capital city donated hospital beds, diagnostic sets, sanitizers, oxygen and regular face masks, and other items to health officials.
“We are not just going to pray and trust in God to save us, but we must come out to support the constituted authorities,” saidPaul Eneche, senior pastor of the Dunamis International Gospel Centre in Abuja.
Churches and mission groups across Africa are turning their attention to the fight against the new coronavirus. In western Kenya, Houston-based Living Water International, which has formed partnerships with local churches to provide access to clean water while sharing the gospel, has continued its water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) program.
Maitabel Okumu, an Africa program specialist with the group, said it has a COVID-19 guide fluent in Swahili to help church leaders encourage their members and educate them on the virus. Translators are working on similar efforts in other communities across the continent. Kenya has at least 81 cases of the coronavirus so far. Health Ministry Director-General Patrick Amoth on Monday said the country could record up to 10,000 cases by the end of April and urged Kenyans to remain vigilant.
In Sierra Leone, where officials recorded the first two cases of COVID-19 this week, Living Water delivered sanitizers and other emergency supplies to church communities. In Ghana, the Presbyterian church in North Kaneshie provided food and hand sanitizers to more than 300 needy people, hoping to encourage them to stay home. The country has counted more than 195 cases. As the number of infections in the country rose to 10 in Mozambique, Grace Missions, which runs an annual conference for church leaders and a Christian bookshop, offered its uncommissioned, 32-bed surgical hospital and two respirators to aid the response in Nampula province.
Hannah Malone, an administrative staff member with the group, said officials from the provincial health department visited the facility this week to inspect it and see if it would work as the city’s treatment base: “We want to be helpful to people around us with our resources.”
As international groups rally to help Africa during the pandemic, they also are condemning some government responses to the threat. Police officials in Kenya have used batons to beat people and fired tear gas at several others who violated the lockdown. On Monday, a 13-year-old boy died after a police officer enforcing a curfew fired his gun in a crowded neighborhood and struck him as he stood on a balcony.
Otsieno Namwaya with Human Rights Watch said authorities should respect the law and abstain from abuse, “otherwise, excess use of force could undermine government’s ability to win popular support and cooperation in an effort to control the spread of the virus.”
Collaboration and compassion
India’s Christians are offering the use of hospitals and trained staff to take care of coronavirus patients. A Catholic media group is also raising money to feed the suffering homeless.
The Coalition for Christian Health offered to work with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to supply 1,000 hospitals and 60,000 beds, the Union of Catholic Asian News reported. It has Catholic and Protestant healthcare facilities across India, including in rural villages, with 1,000 doctors and 50,000 nurses.
“The Christian community always stood in the forefront to fight any national calamity or crisis, and COVID-19 is no exception,” said the Rev. George Kannanthanam, a coalition official.
With the nation on lockdown, India’s homeless are going hungry. Atmadarshan TV launched a “feed a stomach” campaign to raise funds. The Catholic channel sends out volunteers daily with food in central India.
“This has created a serious survival problem for the thousands of abandoned who are dependent on alms for their sustenance,” the Rev. Anand Chirayath said. —Julia A. Seymour
[deleted]
One is free to explain what one believes as long as it does not include statements like others will "...get theirs on final judgement day", as though threatening others with your beliefs. Such are the strong arm tactics of hardcore proselytizers preying primarily on the fear of those who may be on the fence about what they believe. Instead of that, perhaps a message of love and compassion and the ways in which faith can be a comfort to people, rather than a cudgel with which to beat them over the head might be a better approach?
That is because it is not a religion. It is the absence of religion by its very definition. So there is no double standard. What there is, is a standard of decorum, honesty, and respect. Practice that and all is well.
That is demonstrably false; evidenced by the abundance of religious declarations on this site (mostly from you in fact).
Proselytization is against the CoC and is subject to deletion. But you are free (and have done so repeatedly) to make claims such as:
The fact that comments like these remain disputes your claim of censorship. Indeed, these type of comments are challenged and you complain that they are challenged. Clearly one cannot challenge that which has been censored.
Your allegation of improper censorship by site moderation is false.
That's nice. Prove it! The most you'll probably find is either me saying there is probably not a god or that I do not believe in a god. But I have made no declarations of certainty such as "there is no god!" I have also said I am open to any evidence for a god. Not surprisingly, none has ever been put forth.
Some complain when challenged to back up their claims of certainty (e.g. 'COVID-19 is the result of sin') and then turn around and magically translate stated opinions of others into claims of certainty so they can demand proof. They recast a statement such as: 'I am not convinced there is a god' into 'There is no god' in what appears to be a desperate attempt to find a contradiction (where none exists).
You nailed it.
A classic and unending tactic of ideologues of any stripe and on any subject in venues like this, as I'm sure you are keenly aware. In this case, perhaps a refresher on the difference between an "atheist" and an "agnostic", might be helpful?
Nobody is listening Freewill. At this point, I am here simply to rebut the dishonesty (pet peeve).
Understood. How old is your pet peeve? Mine is getting up there, shedding like crazy and losing its teeth. Also starting to suffer from hip dysplasia, but what can ya do? (-:
Decades old.
When your claims are challenged with logic you claim this is mocking. Why, then, do you insist on seeding such articles and making these claims of certainty?
When you seed and comment in a public forum you invite challenges from those who do not share your viewpoint. That is the purpose of such forums. Seeding and then complaining of disagreement is ridiculous. If you do not want disagreement, seed to an exclusively Christian forum.
I’m not going to shy away from expressing faith in a crisis like this or share hope for people or hide what we believe and why or what we do to help the human condition and suffering here on earth out of fear that some will make of themselves a plague and a pestilence vs such expressions
I don’t care what you believe and don’t care what you think about anything. Your viewpoint on this topic are less than meaningless to me. I posted about how a majority of are responding in part to the pandemic and how it affects many. The seed also dealt with mockers such as yourself and the one named in the article and how in this time of trouble to respond to the likes of him. We believers not only have faith and pray but as a result do works and take precautions as well because we believe. Instead of being critical o what we believe and why, why not match us per capita in our charity and works instead?
That is a false allegation. Logical disagreement, debate and challenges is not mockery.
I will continue to be critical of what you post. You always have the option to post to an exclusively Christian forum.
And you can freely post in an exclusively secular forum. No one but you compels you to respond to or wish to silence or censor viewpoints you disagree with or don’t like.
It’s why they are here. They can’t stand that we are here freely expressing ourselves and that there is nothing that they can say or do that will persuade us out of our belief. It’s time to simply challenge them to act to the benefit of society because of their beliefs in the same manner as we do to because of ours instead of what they are doing
I am not the one complaining. I offered a remedy for your complaints.
Another false allegation.
As evidenced by the abundance of claims made and the complaints that these claims are challenged. If these claims are censored then they would not exist to be challenged.
Some people have been told that they'll be persecuted. They see it as a prophecy, and as proof of their worthiness for rewards in the afterlife. In the absence of actual persecution, they are left with inventing it.
Yeah, I see them as wanting it, as some sort of justification.
Or some sort of delusion.
There is plenty of evidence regarding massive persecution of Christians all over the world. It is very real.
No one wants persecution. That’s just ridiculous. The thing is though that persecution has when it happened historically caused revival and more rapid church growth in the face of it.
With all due respect, there is plenty of evidence of massive persecution of other faith, too. It is probably nothing more than bigotry against those faiths.
Of course Christians are persecuted — and almost exclusively by other religious people. Think about that.
Now putting aside the historical and planetary persecution of Christians and focusing here on NT, challenging claims of certainty is not persecution. Calling such challenges persecution is gratuitous drama.
The worst persecution of Christians has come from state atheism governments. There has been persecution from countries what are controlled literally or figuratively by a state or majority other religion as well. Atheist regimes have been the most murderous of us over the last 100 years.
“Atheist regimes have been the most murderous of us over the last 100 years. ”
Just out of sheer curiosity, which regimes would those have been Mr. Trump?
If you were really curious, you'd search 'state atheism' and not look so obtuse.
The 'Communist state' as defined by the former USSR (Stalin) Red China (Zedong) and Cuba (Castro) was anti-theist (all religions, not just Christianity) and, crucially, was also anti- anything that challenged its power. Religious leaders were murdered and religious gathering spots were restricted or destroyed for the express purpose of eliminating opposition to the authoritarian state (controlling the message). This took place in the middle of the 20th century. Part of history; not the entirety of history.
My point was that when you look around today or when you consider all of history (not just a sliver) you will find that religious persecution is typically the result of 'us vs. them' among religions. It is religious groups fighting over disagreement on religion. The most widely known example involving Christianity is where Christians murdered each other (Catholics vs. Protestants) for centuries (16th through 18th century) subsequent to the Protestant reformation. The key issue here, by the way, was that Protestants read directly from the Bible whereas Catholic leaders prohibited ordinary people from reading the Bible (they wanted to control the message).
In short, the worst enemy of a religion are the other religions.
Now, applying this to NT, what you find here are challenges to claims of certainty. Almost invariably this starts with someone (typically you) seeding an article that is either proselytizing, attacking atheists (those who are not convinced a god exists) or attacking science when it clashes with your very specific beliefs. You make a claim and that claim is challenged. To label that persecution is ridiculous. Disagreement and counter-arguments is not persecution. And if you find a logical challenge to a claim to be persecution the best remedy is to not put forth the claim in the first place.
In a public forum, when one posts an article or comment one should not be freaked out when others put forth an opposing view or make an opposing argument.
Here is an interesting take on this matter , or am I being obtuse? Underlined emphasis mine.
Yup.
In short, life is complicated. Trying to understand human nature and the workings of societies based on mere slogans and superficial 'truths' will leave one ignorant and naive. Getting to the truth is difficult. And the first step is intellectual honesty. The truth is typically nuanced and complex. One must be willing to get out of one's comfort zone and look objectively at facts and apply well-founded reasoning.
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.
Indeed. We all have free will and all to often we mess things up. Thus repentance and seeking what we can do in the here and now is more about what prayer is to the seeking of miracles or personal gain.
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?
I’m not even going to talk to them about logic vs. faith debates anymore but rather describe who we are and what we do because we both believe, have faith, pray and as a result do things and give because we believe that they can’t or won’t begin to replicate or replace if we believers weren’t here acting and doing because we believe.
Just everything
Rather than making an ambiguous statement, how about you elaborate, then back up your claims with evidence.
Here is what prayer and faith with action as Cuomo questioned above in the seed. Here’s a bit with link the whole research is in the bashing prayer seed. It’s clear that America’s unusual religiosity and extraordinary generosity are closely linked. As faith spirals downward, voluntary giving is very likely to follow. An obvious question for philanthropists is whether the causation arrow can be reversed.
Might there be ways that savvy donors could reinforce religious practice, yielding a range of pro-social results including more charitable generosity? We gave that question serious thought and came up with some practical proposals for philanthropists interested in rebuilding faith and generosity in tandem. For some rays of hope on this somewhat gloomy subject, turn to “Ways Philanthropy Can Reinforce Faith and Its Good Works” in the Ideas section of this magazine.
Less God, Less Giving
Karl Zinsmeister | Winter 2019
From its founding, the United States has been the most religious modern nation on earth. And that devotion has fueled many successes in character development, mutual aid, social reform, and national productivity. Yet right from the beginning, American religious activity has been cyclical—flowing and ebbing and flowing again. Historians have identified up to four “great awakenings” in U.S. history where religious conviction surged. In between were periods of backsliding.
Today, we are in a period of decline. Steep decline.
Open antagonism toward faith is increasingly common in the U.S. There are now regular calls for crimping longstanding religious protections. New York Times religion columnist Mark Oppenheimer urged that the peak of the gay marriage debate was a good occasion to end the historic tax exemption for houses of worship. The insistence that expressions of faith must be expunged from national discussions, from education, even from sporting and other public events, is on the rise. “There are a lot of nonbelievers who want religious views kept out of the public square entirely. That’s a big problem,” pastor Tim Keller recently told Philanthropy.
Underlying this resistance to religion is an assumption that faith is not important to the functioning of our nation. It has little social value, according to this view, and may even be harmful to citizens and the republic in various ways. Rising numbers of Americans believe that religious activity can be stopped or pushed entirely into private sanctums without any public cost.
Those Americans are mistaken.
American Faith Takes A Tumble
As recently as 1972, 95 percent of Americans affirmed a religious affiliation. By 2016 that had fallen to 76 percent. ( See graph 1 ) The proportion of adults who attend religious services weekly is now down to 36 percent. ( See graph 2 )
Younger Americans in particular are falling away. Just 27 percent of adults under 30 attend services weekly. And nearly four out of ten 18-29-year-olds now say they have no religious affiliation. ( See graph 3 )
What does it mean to be religiously unaffiliated? Well, roughly six out of ten of this group consider themselves secular, and three out of ten are active atheists or agnostics. The small remainder identify as “religious” but with no particular faith. Most of the unaffiliated are suspicious of religion.
A large majority of today’s religiously unaffiliated Americans believe that religious institutions do little or nothing to solve social problems. ( See graph 4 ) As a result, more of the U.S. population as a whole now say religion is “part of the problem” than say it is “part of the solution.” ( See graph 5 )
When it comes specifically to philanthropy, 57 percent of all Americans today believe that efforts to help the poor, comfort the needy, relieve disaster victims, and otherwise serve the common good would be just as prevalent “if there were no people of faith or religious organizations to do them.” (See graph 6) As a factual matter, is that accurate?
The Humanitarian Habits Of Religious People
When researchers document how people spend their hours and their money, religious Americans look very different from others. Pew Research Center investigators examined the behavior of a large sample of the public across a typical seven-day period. They found that among Americans who attend services weekly and pray daily, 45 percent had done volunteer work during the previous week. Among all other Americans, only 27 percent had volunteered somewhere. ( See graph 7 )
The capacity of religion to motivate pro-social behavior goes way beyond volunteering. Religious people are more involved in community groups. They have stronger links with their neighbors. They are more engaged with their own families. Pew has found that among Americans who attend worship weekly and pray daily, about half gather with extended family members at least once a month. For the rest of our population, it’s 30 percent. ( See graph 8 )
Of all the “associational” activity that takes place in the U.S., almost half is church-related, according to Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam. “As a whole,” notes Tim Keller, “secularism is not good for society.” Secularism “makes people very fragmented—they might talk about community, but they aren’t sacrificing their own personal goals for community, as religion requires you to do.”
Religious practice links us in webs of mutual knowledge, responsibility, and support like no other influence. Seven out of ten weekly church attenders told Pew they consider “work to help the needy” an “essential part” of their faith. Most of them put their money and time where their mouth is: 65 percent of weekly church attenders were found to have donated either volunteer hours or money or goods to the poor within the previous week. (See graph 9 )
Philanthropic studies show that people with a religious affiliation give away several times as much every year as other Americans. Research by the Lilly School at Indiana University found Americans with any religious affiliation made average annual charitable donations of $1,590, versus $695 for those with no religious affiliation. Another report using data from the Panel Study for Income Dynamics juxtaposed Americans who do not attend religious services with those who attend worship at least twice a month, and made fine-tunings to compare demographic apples to apples. The results: $2,935 of annual charitable giving for the church attenders, versus $704 for the non-attenders. ( See graph 10 ) In addition to giving larger amounts, the religious give more often—making gifts about half again as frequently.
In study after study, religious practice is the behavioral variable with the strongest and most consistent association with generous giving. And people with religious motivations don’t give just to faith-based causes—they are also much likelier to give to secular causes than the nonreligious. Two thirds of people who worship at least twice a month give to secular causes, compared to less than half of non-attenders, and the average secular gift by a church attender is 20 percent bigger. (See graph 11 )
These giving levels vary by particular faith. Mormons are the most generous Americans, both by participation level and by size of gifts. Evangelical Christians are next. Then come
mainline Protestants. Catholics lag both. Jews give high dollar amounts on average, because they have high earnings, while trailing Protestant givers in donations as a share of income. (See “Who Gives Most to Charity?” in the Almanac of American Philanthropy .)
Religious Charity Dominates U.S. Philanthropy
America’s tradition of voluntary charitable giving is one of the clearest markers of U.S. exceptionalism. As a fraction of our income, we donate over two and a half times as much as Britons do, more than eight times as much as the Germans, and at 12 times the rate of the Japanese. American religiosity plays a central role in that distinctive pattern.
The annual Giving USA tabulations show a third of our donations as going to religious causes. But Giving USAstatisticians acknowledge that this is a gross underestimate. Their calculations include only gifts to houses of worship and related mission organizations. Excluded from their total, they point out, are gifts to faith-based organizations like the Salvation Army and gospel missions for the homeless, to religious schools of all sorts, to Catholic hospitals, to the Jewish federations, to missionary organizations that serve the poor abroad, and so forth.
A consortium of Jewish funders and other independent foundations called Connected to Give commissioned studies to produce a more inclusive and accurate estimate of religiously driven giving. Its 2013 report conglomerated gifts to churches and synagogues with gifts to faith charities and found that 73 percent of all charitable giving in the U.S. goes to organizations that are explicitly religious. ( See graph 12 ) Other research shows that of America’s top 50 charities, 40 percent are faith-based.
An even more inclusive 2016 study by Georgetown University economist Brian Grim calculated the economic value of all U.S. religious activity. Its midrange estimate was that religion annually contributes $1.2 trillion of socioeconomic value to the U.S. economy. This estimate includes not only the fair market value of activity connected to churches (like $91 billion of religious schooling and daycare), and by non-church religious institutions (faith-based charities, hospitals, and colleges), but also activity by faith-related commercial organizations. That $1.2 trillion is more than the combined revenue of America’s ten biggest tech giants. It is bigger than the total economy of all but 14 entire nations.
Ways The Religious Help Others
To get a sense of the often-invisible ways in which persons of faith help others, consider giving to the poorest of the poor overseas. The most conspicuous philanthropy done in this area is carried out by the Gates Foundation. Gates contributions in Africa and other low-income countries are the signature effort of the world’s largest charitable foundation, and have had heroic effects, in areas ranging from malaria protection to HIV control to eradicating polio.
With the marvelous Gates generosity in mind, now absorb this: members of U.S. churches and synagogues send four and a half times as much money overseas to needy people every year as the Gates Foundation does! Much of this religious charity is applied in the hardest places, with high efficiency and low overhead, by Christians who “go the last mile” into rural, extremely poor, or dangerous areas where governments and international bureaucracies have no effective reach. (See “Modern Missionaries” in the Spring 2018 issue of Philanthropy .)
It is easy to overlook this giving, because it comes not in megagifts from billionaires but rather in millions of $50 checks written by faithful donors to groups like Samaritan’s Purse, World Vision, International Justice Mission, Mercy Ships, American Jewish World Service, Compassion International, Catholic Medical Mission Board, MAP International, and so forth. Over the last couple decades, soaring interest in the poorest of the poor by evangelical Christians in particular has made overseas giving the fastest growing corner of American charity. One result: U.S. voluntary giving to the overseas poor now totals $44 billion annually—far more than the $33 billion of official aid distributed by the U.S. government.
There are many other types of charity and social healing where religious givers are dominant influences.
One strength of religious philanthropy is sheer numbers. There are approximately 345,000 congregations stretched across our nation. If you wander America, notes economist Brian Grim, you will pass 25 churches for every Starbucks you come across. ( See graph 17 ) The millions of decentralized services provided by those houses of worship include things like free or below-market space provided to community groups, preschool and daycare offerings, many types of social services, arts events, Boy Scout and sports-team sponsorships, and cash and in-kind support for neighborhood causes and needy individuals.
Multi-decade research led by University of Pennsylvania professor Ram Cnaan has found large human and economic benefits from church operations. One of his studies of older urban churches found that 89 percent of total visits to these institutions were to take part in a program, educational offering, or community event, rather than for worship. Nine out of ten beneficiaries of these community programs were not members of the religious congregation. Cnaan estimated that the economic impact alone these houses of worship have on their locale averages $1.7 million per year. Multiply that by many thousands of churches nationwide, and then add in non-economic improvements in social life and individual behavior, and you can see the potential for large effects. ( See graph 18)
Not surprisingly, studies of church closures .
conducted by Nancy Kinney and others find that shutting down a city congregation will often damage a neighborhood’s viability and socioeconomic health. Conversely, active churches, religious schools sponsored by churches, and church-aided neighborhood ministries (like the Zarephath Health Center profiled in “Medical Matchmaking” in the Fall 2017 issue of Philanthropy ) can often have strong effects in stabilizing and revitalizing communities.
It isn’t just a matter of serving and healing others. People of faith also behave differently themselves. There is lots of evidence that in addition to encouraging a “brother’s keeper” attitude that manifests itself in philanthropy and volunteering, religious participation also inculcates healthy habits that help individuals resist destructive personal behavior themselves.
A classic study by Harvard economist James Freeman found that black males living in inner-city poverty tracts were far less likely to engage in crime and drug use if they attended church. Church attendance was also associated with better academic performance and more success in holding jobs. Follow-up studies found that regular church attendance could even help counterbalance threats to child success like parental absence, low school quality, local drug traffic, and crime in the neighborhood.
Regular religious participation is correlated with many positive social outcomes: less poverty, fewer divorces and more marital happiness, fewer births out of wedlock, less suicide, reduced binge-drinking, less depression, better relationships. This is true among Americans of all demographic backgrounds.
Causes For Concern
Given all the evidence linking religious practice with both healthy individual behavior and generosity toward others, recent patterns of religious decline are concerning. The generational trends—a third of 18-29-year-olds saying they are religiously unaffiliated, and only a quarter attending services weekly—suggest that the philanthropic sharing that has long powered social reform and self-improvement in America could sag in the future. Indeed, recent research on voluntary giving says that future is already here.
Four important investigations in the last year or so uncovered alarming declines in the breadth of American giving. A Lilly School of Philanthropy report found that the fraction of U.S. households giving to charity dropped from 68 to 56 percent from 2003 to 2015. A similar 2018 study at the University of Maryland confirmed that tumble, and added evidence that the national volunteering rate is also deteriorating. By 2015 there were 10 million fewer volunteers in the U.S. than there would have been if the 2005 rate had just held constant. Meanwhile, analysis of the last ten years of IRS data by the Chronicle of Philanthropy showed a drop in charitable-deduction itemizing from 30 percent of all filers to 24 percent. And a study by Texas A&M academics reported “sharp declines in overall donative behavior” over the past decade. ( See graph 19 )
It appears that not only generational change but also wealth effects are depressing religious philanthropy. While giving by the whole population has recently declined, gifts from the rich continue to be strong. The rich, however, tend to give to different causes than everyday Americans. Data from the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy show that households making $140,000 or more in current dollars donate only 30 percent of their charity to causes connected to religion—while other Americans channel 60 percent in that direction. If giving by moderate-income households continues to fade and donations by the wealthy become more dominant in the future, expect a bigger flow of philanthropy to colleges and art galleries, and less to charities motivated by religious concern for the least and the lost. ( See graph 20 )
It’s clear that America’s unusual religiosity and extraordinary generosity are closely linked. As faith spirals downward, voluntary giving is very likely to follow. An obvious question for philanthropists is whether the causation arrow can be reversed.
This is what people who pray do. Prayer and faith with works and action.
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.
As has been stated before there are numerous times when Gods actions were in fact conditioned upon human behavior where the action happened or didn’t based on human behavior. Our mission as believers is two fold. It’s to spread our message to all the world and save souls to make the transition from this sinful evil world to the perfect one to come and while here pray and act to relieve human suffering through our faith based charities as described above regarding our philanthropy
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.
See 3.3 thread and then try to challenge who we are and what we do and give because of what we believe.
Nobody is going to read the volume you posted @3.3 so if you have a true point to make, I suggest you express it in a sentence or two.
Further I am not here to challenge who you are or what you do so retire that strawman.
Less God, Less Giving the bottom line.
You just know how much practicing Christians, Jews, Muslims contribute to poverty relief globally, to food pantries, AIDSbanks, homeless shelters, disaster relief, education, medical clinics and hospitals as well as micro development in poverty areas, the role we play in foster care and adoption, blood donations and time physically providing help in person and giving personal relief items in addition to money. So instead of being a critic of what we believe or why we do, why not try to match our actions we do as a result of our beliefs as a result of yours?
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.
It was not meant to be and was not an insult to anyone. To a militant secularist any positive mention of theistic belief is a direct personal insult.
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.
I’ll take the last option for $500 Alex.
This quote from a Catholic publication, Patheos describes our friends here perfectly: Healthy secularism keeps government out of faith and allows people space to believe and practice their faith in peace and harmony. Militant secularism, is the antithesis to this.
Its practitioners use the tools of unjust discrimination to further their aims, including hate speech, verbal harassment, shunning, social isolation and legal discrimination to further their goal of driving those who don’t share their ideas from the public sphere. They also show up at religious discussions and try to take over the discussion and hijack the debate, thus making it impossible to religious people to interact in a positive manner. This is especially widespread in on-line discussions such as this blog.
All this tawdry behavior is done in the name of a utopian claim that if only religion were driven from the world, evil would go away along with it. One of the many debating tricks these people use is to hold God (who they say does not exist) guilty for human depravity. Thus, if children die of starvation, they ask why a “god” would allow this. If five men rape and torture a young girl, they condemn god for allowing it, not the five men for doing it.
Underlying this logic is an extreme disrespect for human freedom. This disrespect for human freedom manifests in their attempts to use the law, shunning, slander, and verbal hijacking to silence anyone who speaks about faith. They don’t believe that other ideas should be heard, and they use every tool available to them to stop this from happening. The things they try to blame on God are results of human freedom, used to sinful aims.
The question arises, what if they win? What if they succeed in driving faith and people of faith into intellectual and actual ghettos of silence and subservience?
God has commissioned us to pray for our county or others besides ourselves, for our national leaders on both sides, as well as repentance. Asking for miracles or signs and wonders Is not all that prayer is about.
We as believers are to serve Him by bringing aid and relief as well as comfort to those who are in need
Wow, great article. Good find.
Thanks! I’m glad you liked it. That’s why it’s here to provide comfort in a time like this that so many need and to confront the naysayers who would silence such expressions of hope of only they could.
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.
Feel free to dump on those of us who use prayer to express faith and hope in a crisis like this where so many are sick and dying to your hearts content. Have at it. Feel free to take revenge against us for daring to express ourselves and then try to match us in your acts to help others because of what you believe in or don’t believe to match what we do in addition to faith and prayer because of what we believe. Let’s compete by giving to charity because of what we each believe instead of arguing about it without either side trying to stifle the free expression of the other.
Oh for shit sake.
Feel free to show me where I have 'dumped' on anyone wanting to pray.
You completely ignored everything I said and act with false persecution.
Do Atheists not have a right to their opinion?
They do and no one said otherwise.
Then why take it as a personal assault?
We're back to that invented persecution.
[deleted] it’s sad really and we do have Christian compassion for such people.
Bullshit. Blaming people on a void?
I could call all of religion as people needing to fill a void.
I feel sad for people that feel like this as I feel I have no voids that need to be filled.
Nor would I pray to God to fill such things. If one actually listened to scripture, it is up to one to define ones self, life.
Not others, nor is it defined by some preconceived notion.
So why are you here? What was the point you are trying to make?
I thought it was simple.
Religious people have their view.
Atheist people have their view.
One is not above the other.
Unless one would rather theirs be.
I call them all assholes.
Live and let live.
I look forward to openly commenting on your next atheist view point seed.
You might have to wait a while.
I usually don't seed nor care about religious vs non religious things.
Futile.
Right, but I don't see the religious people on this site going into atheist seeds and trying to tell those people they should pray. But repeatedly on seeds about praying, atheists show up to tell believers they are wasting their time when they pray or that prayer does nothing. They even demand that believers prove the existence of God or the efficacy of prayer.
But these seeds are to celebrate what we already believe, not to convince atheists they should do likewise. In spite of being told over and over that no one here cares if they believe or pray, they keep at it. So if you want to say,
and
That's fine. I'm all for it. But I think it's the atheists who need hear it.
Don't even try with that bullshit.
These seeds are here because someone keeps posting them.
To act like people should just shut up about it is the epitome of ignorance.
You'll need to be more specific. Try to improve your language when you do.
Yes. So?
I didn't say people should shut up. You just said "live and let live." I'm just pointing out to you that the Christians here already practice that. It's certain atheists who don't agree with that.
In other words, you have nothing. Typical and expected.
I actually wish you all would try harder. As of now it is just pathetic.
[removed]
I follow whatever donald says, I am just pathetic that way....
Bravo 👏! Well said.
That was kind of rude.
The bottom line...
It never ends.
Have you noticed 'atheist seeds' here? There is an occasional article offered that would qualify as an 'atheist article' but they are rare. Compare that now with the steady stream of religious articles seeded to make claims sans supporting evidence.
If someone puts forth a religious article or an anti-atheist/skeptic article in a public forum, they should not complain when opposing viewpoints challenge claims of truth sans evidence.
'Live and let live' does not mean self-censoring when an opposing viewpoint has been freely offered in a public forum.
Some here seem to want self-censoring only from proponents of one side of the debate. Ridiculous double standard.
I suppose if I put forth claims that I could not support I might be frustrated by challenges. But, then again, I would not knowingly put forth grand claims that I could not defend. But that is just me.
"I am the great and powerful Oz! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" Odd that we expect recognition and even amusement at such a weak tactic in a movie aimed primarily at children, but some don't think adults should either recognize it or call it out when they see it.
Happy Palm Sunday everyone. A message of hope during this time from a gold star widow on Fox Nation.
[deleted]
By this (assuming you read before copying and pasting the words of others) do you recognize that COVID-19 exists because God (as you define 'God') knowingly allowed it to manifest and continues to allow it to do so?
When skeptics point out this consequence of common religious belief, you deem it to be blaming God. Accordingly, you then are blaming God (via your proxy).
Sin is present in this world and it has to run its course before the devils revolt is put down for ever. Jesus died to save us from all our sins but not from the effects of living with it in this life. God has given Satan his season here and can’t intervene in everything to save everyone all the time from its effects until it all ends. We know who orchestrated all the evil that ever happened and we know that good people die at the hands of bad people, natural disasters, diseases, accidents and that if we die before old age natural causes we have the assurance of eternal life. No one wants to die but except the saved at the 2nd coming we all will at some point. It’s the faith and the assurance of the hereafter that makes the sin and suffering here something we can live through while we wait while doing what we can to help ease human suffering with volunteering and charity to every cause supporting others in need
So God is in charge of everything, knows everything that will happen before it happens, has the power to prevent things like COVID-19, but God really is not ultimately responsible for COVID-19?
Because you directly contradict yourself you are ipso facto incorrect.
and yet you are here discussing what you say that you don’t care about. What’s up with that?
Whatever you say. Have a nice day.
I don’t need a lecture about what I believe from you so don’t expect any discussion on these kind of issues from me in the future. It will be as if you are not here unless I talk to another believer about something you might say. I can’t stop you from being on these seeds and you can’t stop me from seeding them but on these matters you no longer exist to me. Sports, politics, the weather or other topics we may have a productive conversation but onthis you will no longer get a reply from me to your condescending arrogance toward believers. You might as well talk to the hand. 🖐🏻
I am not telling you what you believe (strawman), I am pointing out the contradiction in what you have claimed. And it does not matter to me if you respond. If I disagree with something you have claimed I will opine. Indeed, I prefer you not respond since your response rarely addresses what I wrote.
Award-winning contemporary Christian singer Jeremy Camp and his wife, Adrienne, are encouraging Christians to stay focused of Jesus amid the coronavirus pandemic because He is “in it all, right here with us.”
In an interview with The Christian Post, Camp said he’s “learned a lot” about himself and the faithfulness of God as COVID-19 continues to sweep across the United States, causing thousands of deaths and prompting a record 6.6 million Americans to apply for unemployment in the last two weeks.
“In these times, I’ve loved John 16:33, where Jesus says we shouldn’t be surprised when we go through trials and says, ‘I tell you these things so you will have peace,’” Camp told CP. “He’s essentially telling us, ‘Guys, you’ll have trials in this life, whatever they may be. That’s a guarantee. But take heart: I’ve overcome the world.’”
“The reason we have trials,” the "I Still Believe" singer said, “is because we live in a fallen world. There will be sickness and death. There will be financial issues, unknowns, and confusion. But Jesus reminds us that even in all of that, He’s defeated death and the sting of death.”
Jesus’ promises are “key” to hold onto amid the uncertainty, fear, and anxiety surrounding the coronavirus, Camp said.
“We shouldn’t be surprised, but instead say to Jesus, ‘You will always be my source of everything,” he stressed. “If you look at God’s Word from Genesis through Revelation, Jesus is all through the Bible with various names: the Alpha and Omega, Shield of Comfort, Prince of Peace, the Way, the Truth, and the Life — He’s saying, ‘Whatever you need, that’s what I am.”
“That is the most important thing we need to learn from this virus. Whatever we need, Jesus is there. He’s in it all right here with us," he added.
I love his music when it’s on our local K-Love radio stations. He accompanied Franklin Graham on his recent Crusade California a couple of years ago and both came to my community. That was a real blessing as was their support for our area after the Carr fire a month later.
So what. He is saying keep the faith. That is fine. What is not fine is saying faith knows better. That faith will keep you save beyond guidelines.
So keep it real if you want. Stop being fake.
But no one asked you to sit in judgement over what is real or what is fake.
Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more delivered daily to your inbox. Sign up here.
The escalating daily tally of coronavirus-related deaths is a sobering reminder of the human toll of this global pandemic. We’ve never seen anything like it in our lifetime.
As the figures increase every day, I think it’s important to remember that behind every number is a name of somebody who means the world to someone else. We’ve learned that this virulent pathogendoesn’t discriminate – it’s claimed the lives of people of countless nations and of all races, creeds and color – both men and women, young and old.
By now, some of you may know someone who has succumbed to the virus. If so, I am so very sorry for your loss.
PAUL BATURA: THE PALM SUNDAY THAT GAVE ME HOPE THE SUN WOULD SHINE AGAIN
My heart hurts when I see the rising number of fatalities. As a Christian, though, I can’t help but think about Heaven whenever I think about death. That’s because I strongly believe that death is not a final destination, but rather a transitionary step along life’s long and never-ending journey.
There’s an old saying that’s been put to music: “Everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die.”
We have this hope...not despair in the face of this pandemic.
and nothing godless atheists and secular humanists can say or do to take that hope away. Not going to happen.
The hope comes from scientists and engineers who will find a cure and make it available for mass distribution. The hope then rests on the political forces to ensure the distribution actually takes place.
Clearly the hope cannot come from God because God has chosen to allow this virus to spread across the planet. Since God has chosen to not kill the virus all hope rests on human beings.
You do not realize this?
Do you really think that if God intended to bring this pandemic upon us for whatever reason that our human science could kill it before He willed it to end?
Our real hope is for life eternal on resurrection day. Everything about who and what we Christians are is based on that premise and it’s aftermath for all humanity and the universe.
I realize that if it is Gods intent as you allege to bring this particular Chinese caused virus upon us that there is not a thing you i our all the science in the world could do to stop it until God was good and ready to allow it to end or remove it Himself. Do you really think that all of human science, reason, logic combined is a match for the power of the creator to impose his will upon us. So no, God did not bring this upon us nor will he allow it to destroy the human race.
No. If God exists and is as you define Him, then if God wants this pandemic to run for a particular course there is absolutely nothing science will be able to do. God makes all the rules, stacks the deck, serves as the dealer and sees all the cards.
So do you also realize that praying to God to stop the virus is pointless? Do you realize that this virus exists because God allows it to exist? God is in control and this virus, per your beliefs, is necessarily knowingly allowed by God.
How do you know this?
I do not allege that. I am stating the logical consequences of your stated beliefs. The virus is necessarily the knowing consequence of decisions made by a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God.
No. That is pretty much the point I have made. Hello?
How do you know that God will put a stop to this virus? Do you run about in your community without taking precautions because you 'know' nothing you do matters ... that ultimately this is under God's control and nothing you (or scientists) can do will make a difference?
If so, this is a prime example of the problem of religious faith. Realistically this virus will be defeated by human actions alone. It is a good thing that there exist many sensible people on this planet who take the necessary precautions and do not let their faith guide them into apathy.
i always thought 'god' was somehow cheatin !
God gave us free will to make choices on our own. He also didn’t destroy sin and those engaged in it yet giving all a chance to choose Him instead in their our lifetime until said lifetime ends whatever the cause of end of life.
Heaven is (not yet) a place on earth, but it is glorious and beautiful.
God gave us free will to make choices on our own. He also didn’t destroy sin and those engaged in it yet giving all a chance to choose Him instead in their our lifetime until said lifetime ends whatever the cause of end of life.
How odd? God originally didn't want us to sin, but knew we would, right? So rather than not creating or allowing sin in the first place, he let's it happen knowing full well what would happen and whom would do what. Talk about stacking the deck and setting some up for failure.
Man doesnt have free will when God already set events in motion with no possibility of being altered. Any "choice" we make is either/or already determined and makes absolutely no difference.
Well let's see if you can engage Gordy in an intellectual discussion on free will so that you might understand his position better.
I am due for a good shock; such an engagement would shock me.
I do not know if I have free will. To know, I would first need to know if reality is deterministic. That is, is the future knowable? If the future is knowable then none of us have free will. If the future is not knowable, we still would not know if we have free will. Neuroscience shows that a substantial amount of what we do is not driven from our conscious minds. When you scratch your nose you might not even be aware you did it. Further, and more impressive, are the scientific experiments on consciousness that indicate our physical brains have made a decision before our consciousness takes credit for the decision. This suggests that our consciousness might be in whole or in part an illusion. That decisions are made that our consciousness only thinks it has made.
And then we have the enormously interesting research in behavioral biology that suggests our decisions are largely the result of biochemical mechanisms, genetics and the environment.
In short, none of us know if we have free will. But if the future is knowable, then the answer is obvious — free will would be impossible (and this is Gordy's point in case you do not realize that).
Try to offer a thoughtful response.
I have said before that free will is impossible if there is an omniscient god. But if there is no god, then there is free will. So I'm not sure why you find that surprising.
Which means either there is no god then, or you're just seeing an illusion.
See first statement.
That much is obvious.
You said it, we didn't.
Then why do you keep responding?
Where did I say I have free will or not? I said there can be no free will if there is an omniscient god. So once again you seem to be making things up. As well as offering nothing but your usual blend of snark.
SOP considering.
Charge snark and personal attacks, report posts, continue with the snark and personal attacks.
That's the modus operandi in an attempt to censor "the discussion."
Very yawn worthy these day ........
Texan, when someone pretends to be obtuse and one's interlocutor dials down his/her response to the level of understanding commensurate with one's pretense, labeling that as 'condescending' is flat out intellectual dishonesty. If one engages people honestly at an adult level then most of the time, I believe, one will get a reciprocal response.
If you want to engage in thoughtful, adult discourse then make comments at that level. Gordy and I both are here providing answers as best as one can given your responses. If you want to seriously discuss free will then Gordy and I are willing and able to do so.
Show that you are here to seriously engage in honest discussion and not simply trying to be obnoxious.
Yeah, i have a couple of those as well but mine were pretty well deserved by "the rules."
Still worth it all day long ......
An alternative to your current approach of ignoring responses, repeating false allegations and similar behavior is to engage us honestly and thoughtfully.
Making obnoxious, CoC violating posts does not really harm anyone but yourself. I certainly can tell when someone is purposely trying to attack using whatever means they think they can get away with versus someone who is trying to be honest and thoughtful. When one is simply trying to be obnoxious, their words carry no significance to me.
If you really find the need to 'get back at' us (for daring to make a good argument) then I recommend debate. Use facts, logic and reason to demonstrate we are wrong. Don't just make claims or cherry-pick quotes or produce strawman arguments, etc. Put forth an objective, unemotional, honest argument instead.
You mean this?:
Well let's see here. I repeatedly asked you to be clear on your intent and you refused to do so. That suggests you realize that you were in effect mocking those folks who do think God will answer their prayers. When a family member prays to God to help their loved one recover from cancer they are praying for a favor from God. When a fan prays that his/her team wins the next game, they are praying for a favor. When a candidate prays to God asking to get the job they just interviewed for, they are asking a favor. And when a player prays to God to win the lottery, s/he is praying for a divine favor.
Clearly, many people do indeed pray to God for favors ("a wishing well of sorts"). But you, in your comment, speak of that form of praying with disdain. You argue that irreligious people who argue that God does not do favors do not really know much about prayers and have pseudo-intellectual brains that cannot fathom a power greater than themselves.
Well, if that is your assessment of the irreligious then it also applies to the religious who actually believe that asking God for favors in prayer is meaningful.
Now you can always explain yourself and state that you really did not mean to imply this. But if you do, then your attack on the irreligious pseudo-intellectuals loses all potency.
So, clear things up. As I noted @1.1.13 and subsequent posts, the following question would help clarify your intent:
Do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly ("... a wishing well ...")?
Will you continue to refuse to answer?
What condescension? I simply made a matter of fact statement. Don't blame me for what you say. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully next time then.
Spot on target. 👍👏
Not sure what they think they are proving. And the disingenuous ticket bait continues.
I love a good, sincere, honest conversation. Not possible with some here when it comes to faith based discussions. Sad part is, on other topics they can be fine.
Too bad the tactics employed on faith based topics make any reasonable, respectful conversation impossible.
C’est la vie .....
What do you hope to accomplish with these ridiculous claims? Ticket bait now? If you are getting tickets then write thoughtful comments. I know I have been encouraging you to write honest, thoughtful comments.
You consider your comments in this thread to be serious attempts at honest conversation? For example, this recent comment from you speaking of tickets you have earned:
I went back looking for the last thoughtful comment from you; I did not find one. Lots of snark, venom and ugly tactics but "good, sincere, honest conversation" seems to be entirely missing from your contributions in this seed.
EDIT: I refreshed and see that you just now wrote a thoughtful comment!! ... @13.1
I ask a simple question and all you do is evade and throw a tantrum. How typical.
More disingenuous debate tactics. Boring, and typical indeed.
Then why do you continue to respond to my posts if you aren't "worthy" (or willing) to debate? I ask a simple question and you continuously dodge and evade and make it personal.
That’s the bottom line.
It seems rather silly to continue to engage in a discussion in which you don't consider yourself "worthy" to debate. To be fair though, you haven't actually debated anything.
Nope, just simple fact, which you continue to demonstrate by not answering the question.
I did answer it. Clearly you either weren't paying attention or didn't understand it. Perhaps that explains why you're "not worthy of debating."
I just hear you making excuses, personal attacks, and whining.
Here's another question then: how can you truly determine if you have free will or not?
So this God that you don’t believe exists has taken away your free will and is coercing you to be an atheist and deny that he exists because he knew eons ago that you would?
[deleted]
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.
We need to repent of or confess our sins to God directly. We need no human intermediating between us and God. In fact the Pope himself told followers of his denomination to confess directly to God during the pandemic. If our sin directly affected another person we do need to make matters right in any event. We also have to be willing to forgive others in order for God to forgive us.
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.
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 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 :
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.
Do you recognize that faith enables one to believe as truth that which is not necessarily true?
Indeed! So with faith, one can think that prayer accomplishes something but that belief might be false.
If someone prays for God to stop COVID-19 and God does not do so, what effect has the prayer had? It is not arrogant to look at the evidence and note that the prayers to God to stop the virus do not seem to be having any effect. Nobody suggested that anyone was praying that the COVID-19 virus will have a greater good; your argument is confused.
What is arrogance, amazing arrogance even, is for some mere human being to claim to know the mind of God; to state with certainty what God has planned.
Yes, those people who pray for guidance were explicitly noted in the discussion. Did you not see that? Praying for guidance can have a positive psychological effect. So you are arguing a point that is not in disagreement. Here is one of my comments to that effect made one month ago in this seed:
And here is Gordy one month ago making his clear observation:
Note that he is not talking about people praying for the greater long-term good as per your contrived argument.
Rinse, lather 🧼 🧽, repeat....
You clearly have no rebuttal so why come back with your favorite platitude? It is far better to just not respond. At least then readers will not know (with certainty) you cannot defend your position.
I think readers already know with certainty that he cannot defend his position. Such tactics are well known and even expected.