This is another example of why nobody really believes you're interested in learning anything.

If you wanted to know why they believe what they believe, then you would have no problem accepting the statement as an expression of why they believe what they believe. They [at least a subset of they] believe it based on their interpretation of the Bible.

But then you reject it and insist that there *MUST* be other reasons. And then you make counter-claims, like this:

and

And so you are demonstrably not interested in learning.

This isn't necessarily the case. One way to resolve the dilemma is that god lives in an eternal 'now'. You may not know what you're going to do tomorrow, and there may be many choices, but by tomorrow night, you will have made them. God, who lives in an eternal now where that has already happened because there is no past, present or future, already knows exactly what you will, have, did choose. So, you have free will, and god knows what you will choose.

How then do you surprise god, or cause him to change his mind in this scenario?

This isn't necessarily not the case.

Notice how your analysis is pinned to your particular concepts of God. You have made claims about how God is and how God behaves, and you've accepted your own (yet to be defined) concept of omniscience. You are the one imposing this idea of the "eternal now" (unless I missed it and that was brought up by someone else earlier).

Until you stop this, you're really not going to learn anything at all.

As far as Mightyboosh is concerned, you're mistaken. Did it not tarry you to consider sometimes that you are the one learning, the one honing your craft against something implacable yet yielding of reachable flaw?



More like a turnip.

And, uke_master, asides are not tangents.

There is obviously an amount of mystery in the tension between God's
sovereignty, and His purposing to use men's prayers as a vehicle for
change. God is never surprised.

Oh, surprise and suspense are possible. Startle, no.

First, I don't think omniscience is very Biblical, so that is not a necessary assumption.

Second, even if we grant omniscience, that isn't enough. Knowledge on its own doesn't determine action. Two judges, knowing all the facts of a case, can give different verdicts based on how merciful they are. Similarly, a prayer can be viewed as a plea for God to treat someone mercifully, which God can decide to accept or not on grounds other than his knowledge.

Third, even if we grant omnibenevolence and omnipotence along with omniscience, it can still be the case that it is better for God to do x, unless someone requests that he do y. Perhaps the act of requesting mercy from God for others is sufficiently positive that God incentivizes it by sometimes only granting mercy upon request.

And of course, this is only relevant if we understand intercessory prayer in this most literal sense, which I don't think it has for many Christians.

Honestly, I am not that interested in the topic. I would much rather talk about specific theologies than deal in the possible space of theology.

If you are exploring the logic of a position, you have to grant them some minimum number of basic premises. Here I would say that since most Christians would reject your claims about the Bible, that you haven't really shown a contradiction in their views about intercessory prayer, but rather that they believe a false claim about the Bible.

This isn't my view.

Ok, I'm going to respond to your comments and if you don't reply I'll know why. Or maybe I'l figure out a way to make it more interesting.


Would this be a specific theology? I'm happy to discuss the issue of omniscience because I believe that it relates directly to the efficacy of prayer. The position that I've taken is that prayer can not influence the actions of an omniscient god, and is therefore pointless from that perspective, leaving only the other reasons for praying (providing comfort etc) that can also be achieved without invoking a deity.

One biblical passage that supports the idea that god is omniscient is Matthew 10:30, which tells us that even the hairs on our head are numbered. No matter how carefully we keep secrets from others, we have no secrets from God. That being the case, there's nothing we can tell god that he doesn't already know which seems to render prayer fairly useless from that perspective.


The judges exist in our mortal timeline where they are using that information to come to a conclusion. God already knows what his conclusions are, and they cannot be wrong because he is god and god can't be wrong, so the prayer cannot change anything. It seems that god cannot, based on information received in a prayer (that he should already know anyway) then decide that a different conclusion is preferable to his original conclusion. That would be a failure to have reached the perfect conclusion on the first attempt and god doesn't make mistakes.


But if god already knows that he will grant mercy based on the prayer, and that the prayer will take place, then the prayer didn't change anything that wasn't already going to happen? It's this 'already knows' bit that's really causing me a problem.

Then I come back to my original question about why they do it and is it anything more than a meaningless platitude?


Ok.

How do you know?

How do you know?

Do you think you are so special-snowflakey that you don't need any backup to your claims?

Content(-ish) Warning: The follow paragraphs might actually contain information that's useful. Or not.

Your concept of "knowing" is a problem. At 4:55 PM, I know that 5 PM is 5 minutes away. I know that in 5 minutes, the end-of-the-workday whistle will blow, and I will get up and leave. But at this time, I'm still at work. I know everything I need to know about this situation, but right now, I'm at work.

On the one hand, you can say that things will change at 5 PM because I'll no longer be at work. On the other hand, we can also say that nothing changes at 5 PM because I had already known I was leaving at 5 PM and I also knew the whistle was going to blow. But it's 4:55, and my decision right now is to stay at work. Why? Because the whistle hasn't blown yet. Once the whistle blows, then my decision to stay at work will change.

Yet, we knew this was going to happen all along. In this situation, everyone is fully omniscient about the deterministic sequence of events that's about to unfold. Nothing about the scenario is changing. But at the same time, it's clear that my thoughts about whether to stay at work or leave has changed.

Did I change my mind about staying at work? Yes. There was a time at which I was choosing to stay at work, and then there was a time at which I was choosing not to stay at work. Does this scenario contradict omniscience? Nope.

And about this "eternal now" concept, it can be said that my character in that situation exists in an eternal now in the same sense that it is probably applied towards God. (It's worth noting that this particular idea is not exactly standard language, and there are many things one might mean by it -- not all of which are part of Christian orthodoxy.)

Everything about who I am in the scenario is fixed. There was not some change in who I am at 5 PM. My judgment about the situation changed, but I did not. I knew 5 PM was coming all along, and I already knew in advance what I was going to do at 5 PM. But at 4:55 PM, I thought one thing about leaving and then at 5 PM I thought something else about it.

Round and round and round he goes. Where will he stop, maybe God doesn't know.

MB: Why do they promise to pray?
Response: Because they're intending to pray.

MB: Why do they pray?
Response: Because even if they don't believe in strict forms of intercessory prayer, they still believe it is of benefit to do so.

MB: Why do they believe it's of benefit to pray if they don't believe in strict forms of intercessory prayer?
Response: Because they believe the communication of support and encouragement is beneficial.

MB: Why do they invoke God instead of saying it in a non-religious way?
Response: Because religious people use religious language to describe their thoughts and behaviors.

MB: Doesn't that make it a meaningless platitude?
Response: Nope. Because they are communicating meaningful support to others by promising to pray and following through with that promise.

MB: Couldn't they do that without invoking God?
Response: Yes. There are many way they could do it, but they choose to do it like this.

MB: Why do they choose to do it like that?
Response: Because the words they use describe what they're going to do.

MB: And that brings me back to my original question -- Why do they promise to pray?

Let's completely grant every part of Mighyboosh's argument on the theological side. Let's grant that there is a glaring logical error with the efficacy of prayer given Christian theological beliefs. Let's grant that any Christian believing that praying for someone doesn't make any sense.

How on earth do we get from that to that Christians are selfish, or self promoting?

To be more accurate, there are passages in the Bible that can be taken to imply omniscience. But there are also passages in the Bible which portray God as not being omniscient. This isn't surprising to me as the Bible is a collection of books, letters, poems, legends and prophecies written over a span of hundreds of years. I wouldn't expect that everyone involved had the same view of god. However, this is obviously more problematic to more conservative Christians who believe the Bible is inspired and largely accurate.

In my opinion, the idea that God is omniscient for most Christians is believed for theological reasons rather than just from Biblical interpretation. Interpretation is generally malleable enough that they can read the passages that indicate otherwise as being compatible with this theological position. But I think other open theistic theologies that don't make this assumption about God are able to find roughly similar scriptural support for their view--they just have to fudge different passages in the Bible.

This is confused. Take the question out of the theistic context for a second and think about the physical deterministic view that is common among atheists. Does this view imply that our actions are pointless or have no causal impact? No. Just because we are determined to do x doesn't mean that our doing x didn't cause y to happen. It just means that our doing x was determined to happen based on prior events, and so y was also determined to happen. But in the counterfactual universe where we weren't determined to do x, but rather determined to do z, then y might not happen.

In the same way, God's foreknowledge that we will do x (pray) doesn't mean that doing x isn't causally efficacious in causing y (God's granting mercy) to happen. Thus, it can still be counterfactually true that if we didn't pray, then God wouldn't grant mercy.

I think there is a general problem here, which is, How is human free will compatible with divine foreknowledge? This is what I mean by specific theologies. Different theologians answer this question in different ways. Some more or less give up free will, others give up divine foreknowledge, others give speculative answers about God's relationship with time, or limit the kinds of things that can be known, and so on.

Well, two points here. First, I don't think these are the only two options. As I talked about previously, I think there is a potentially value in praying for other people even as a confirmed atheist.

Second, this is part of why I thought you were talking about the meaning of the statement rather than prayer itself. Not really sure how the act of praying can be a "meaningless platitude." I can see how saying "Our thoughts and prayers are with you" can be a meaningless platitude, but prayer itself, even if it is inconsistent with the official theology of a religious group, is an action not a statement and so not a platitude.

Properly defined altruism includes a very strong "me and then mine first" element. It is primate psychology; barely merits a need for conscious control over actions, even if they become increasingly complex. It's just expression continuing a mathematical tree of richness of context.

As for the first paragraph, do you believe in quantum mechanics? Then the observer effect will have a dual nature: absorbency then reaction, or sometimes reaction before the absorbency. Just about every sentient being on this polluted organic rock has (or has had) a singular common experience.

And, no, it is not as simple as birth.

Consider Mightyboosh to be a self-recognizing block of marble with a chisel in his hand and aware of others' chisels and their ranges and that's the thread.

These claims regarding of "altruism" merely borders on a framework of thought that define all human action as self-serving. The "theory" is known as psychological egoism. As a framework of properly understanding anything it is meaningless, as it is tautological and can't be falsified. If you accept tautological claims, then you also accept that someone gets to say "you are always wrong, thus you are wrong".

And really, the whole thing just boils down "self-serving" translating into "human action". So what you (and the surprisingly large number of people who make this claim in general) are saying is merely that "human action is human action". Which is about as profound as a peanut (meaning not very, outside some very obscure discussions).

Also (and this probably grinds my gears more to be honest), I really wish people would stop saying altruism stems from being self-serving. What you mean to say is that altruism does not exist in humans. Altruism is an antonym of self-serving, it translates to something aka "selflessness". If you don't want to believe humans can commit selfless acts, do so all you want (though I really don't see the value in views that can't be challenged), but at least recognize the term in the abstract.

You could, but I'd prefer to actually explore those issues too.

Are you saying that you can't imagine someone benefiting personally from prayer, from the performing of the act itself, or because they're praying for something that want, or that there are people who might benefit from publicly demonstrating their faith by promising a prayer? I already suggested that US politicians might be an example of the latter.

You can imagine all sorts of motives. But imagining and making an argument are two quite different standards.

Well you would say that, because you would say that.

Also continuing on this path is that when people come up with reasons for why an act is not really altruistic, it often results in needlessly convoluted explanations.

An example I remember discussing in a tutorial was a thought experiment of a mother caring for a sickly child in tough conditions. The child's constant needs prevent the mother from working, making them poorer. It takes food that the mother could eat. It needs cloth that she could fashion for her own clothing. It drains her of all her time, effort, and resources. It's nothing but a burden and the child won't live to adulthood. Nonetheless she painstakingly devotes all she can. We can imagine all sorts of selfish reasons for why she might do this: fear of recrimination for not caring for the child, some pleasure she gets from having control, narcissistic enjoyment of another's dependency.

But, isn't it a much simpler, more elegant, solution to say: she loves him. Aren't all explanations less satisfying than that?

And that's all the soppy crap you'll ever get from me.

Self-serving as a term is poorly defined English. Just as there are degrees of altruism, the fundamental point I make in my statement "me and then mine" is that it has nothing to do with selfishness across a vast amount of the altruism Venn spectra.

Sure selflessness is possible, but this is a case of two extremes: Either a person within normal psychological boundaries put into an impossible situation that pushes them out of their comfort zone. Especially prevalent in situations where people they love, or for some, concepts and credo they love.

It's standard milpsych.

And then there's Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu...

The Venn expresses in group dynamics. Girls into women like Bojaxhiu, who are not uncommon (thankfully) make up a gap in human personality that has the apparent logical visiblity that UV/IR do in EM to most humans.

Better?

You said this:

As in, you deduced two options, selfish and something that seems like a repetition of selfish. You latter changed this to say there were a couple other unspecified options.

OF COURSE there are some people who are self promoting, like politicians, and I already suggested as much earlier in the thread. But the point is that you can't deduce that people are selfish just because they pray! As has been explained to you since the beginning of the thread by many of us, there are an enormous number of people people for whom saying they will pray is things like genuine expression of empathy and care for someone - much like anyone might make - that happens to be expressed in the context of their religious beliefs, as we should expect. To deduce that people are just being selfish because you don't think their religious beliefs make sense is utter nonsense.

Sometimes you have to be somebody you're not to get to where you need to be.

Good politicians know this. And then there's individuals like: Freddie Dalton Thompson.

So, tame_deuces, there's good reason to extend Maslow into extra-dimensional space. In Fred's case, I need to. He's quite ****ing dead, you see.


I mean, I listened to and mostly tried to show my best to a kid from the Nashville 'burbs I met on here for just about a decade.

So eh.

If you make arguments, you should put them on the line for debate. Regressing into rebuses seems rather insubstantial. Psychological egoism, or whatever you want to call it, can't be falsified. What is the point of a view on human action that can't be challenged? That sort of logic affirms any worldview, from superstitious to horrific.

Also, if you are actually interested in the subject beyond stating riddles, there is no generalized support for Maslow's pyramid across cultures. That is the risk of actually challenging one's claims though, they might come up short.

Re-read #169.

What riddles?

Try disproving a single statement in that post and don't bother doing ^. It's juvenile.

Enjoy the chew.

Ok. That aside, do you actually understand my position?

Haven't deduced either of those things, not much else to say about that.

Do you understand your position?

It has often been said that there is a disconnect between how you think people experience or understand their religion and how they actually do. Here for instance you are suggesting that people are offering to pray for selfish reasons because it makes them feel like they are doing something useful because they can't actually be doing something useful because God's mind can't be changed.