Thread: Prayer for an atheist Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029651
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
A recent Church of England message of goodwill and prayer to a prominent atheist has caused a hooha by those who think that he should not be prayed for.
Should we Christians only pray for fellow Christians? Or only for people of faith, if we think they believe in the same God as us? I think that this idea is ludicrous.
Prayer equates with kindness. I wouldn't foist open prayer upon someone who didn't want it, but I do let people know I am praying for them, and they usually appreciate it even when they don't believe, as they know that it is genuine.
What do you think?
Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on
:
I don't think it was the praying itself (and why would one not pray for an atheist?), but the fact the CofE chose to announce it on Twitter, which seemed like a provocative act.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Point of information: Who are raising the hooha, Christians, or atheists?
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
The CofE regualrly tweets prayers for many different people and situations...
This post was not unusual
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
I don't mind if people pray for me, or they can just shout into the wind if they prefer, or post it on twitter - it is not a problem to me! (it's not my time that is being wasted...)
Neil
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
Matthew 6:3: But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.
And don't announce on Twitter that you are praying for them.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Presumably it isn't the church itself praying, since churches don't pray. The church is suggesting prayers for its members to use. Then there is some reasonable question of why the church is telling its members to pray for someone who doesn't desire/care for their prayer.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
And don't announce on Twitter that you are praying for them.
The point of the C of E's prayer announcements on twitter is to encourage people to join in the prayers. There's no difference between tweeting a prayer for Prof. Dawkins and praying for him in the intercessions on a Sunday morning.
Or, indeed, charity fundraising. If you go to your friends and tell them "here's this great charity that's doing fantastic work and I'd like you to support them" then you are telling your friends about your charitable actions - but you're doing it for a "good" reason.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
Who is there for whom no one should pray?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Who is there for whom no one should pray?
Some would say "the dead."
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If you go to your friends and tell them "here's this great charity that's doing fantastic work and I'd like you to support them" then you are telling your friends about your charitable actions - but you're doing it for a "good" reason.
I don't usually tell my friends which charities I support.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
And don't announce on Twitter that you are praying for them.
The point of the C of E's prayer announcements on twitter is to encourage people to join in the prayers. There's no difference between tweeting a prayer for Prof. Dawkins and praying for him in the intercessions on a Sunday morning.
Of course there is a difference. Twitter is essentially a tannoy. You are equating addressing people in a room v. broadcasting your message in every village square you can.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Point of information: Who are raising the hooha, Christians, or atheists?
All I've heard from Christians is consternation about the hooha, and defence of the prayer extended.
Some Christians do pray for those who have died.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Some Christians do pray for those who have died.
I never claimed otherwise.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I don't usually tell my friends which charities I support.
Just to be inconsistent: I think Lend with Care is great.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course there is a difference. Twitter is essentially a tannoy. You are equating addressing people in a room v. broadcasting your message in every village square you can.
A church is a public space open to anyone wanting to come and pray and worship. Geography limits the possible attendance to those who are nearby.
Someone's tweets occupy a virtual public space open to anyone who chooses to listen. If you don't want to listen, don't - it's a self-selecting audience (In that sense it's not like a tannoy in the public square). And, as you say, there's no geographic limit (although one might assume that the Church of England would attract a larger audience in England than elsewhere).
So when the C of E tweets, it's addressing the set of people who choose to listen to C of E tweets. Very much like someone preaching from the pulpit is addressing the set of people who chose to come to church that day.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I have heard many things that have been tweeted or posted to Instagram or Facebook that I never saw on those apps.
So, yeah.
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on
:
Professor Dawkins describes himself as a cultural Anglican and an agnostic, but he doesn't describe himself as an atheist.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
No prayer said ever actually benefits the person being prayed for. If a person like RD improved in some way - which he will anyway - then it is entirely due to his own mind and 100% coincidental to (with?) any prayers being said.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Interesting, if Dawkins' views have changed. He was a militant atheist for a long time.
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting, if Dawkins' views have changed. He was a militant atheist for a long time.
That's what I understood. If he has mellowed, that is interesting.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doone:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting, if Dawkins' views have changed. He was a militant atheist for a long time.
That's what I understood. If he has mellowed, that is interesting.
Next step: deism!
Posted by Doone (# 18470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Doone:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting, if Dawkins' views have changed. He was a militant atheist for a long time.
That's what I understood. If he has mellowed, that is interesting.
Next step: deism!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Interesting, if Dawkins' views have changed. He was a militant atheist for a long time.
I don't think he's ever described himself as an atheist, let alone a militant one. I think that's been other people's label for him.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No prayer said ever actually benefits the person being prayed for. If a person like RD improved in some way - which he will anyway - then it is entirely due to his own mind and 100% coincidental to (with?) any prayers being said.
Yes we know you believe this. But does it offend you if someone says they will pray for you? Or do you take it as a sign that they care about you and want the best for you, even if you yourself do not believe their prayer will "work"?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No prayer said ever actually benefits the person being prayed for.
This assertion is not the truth. The prayers of others have been of benefit to me, and to many people I know personally.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think Dawkins has often said that he's an agnostic since he admits a very slight possibility that God might exist. But so slight as to be not worth worrying about, which approximates atheism. Every so often there's a breaking news story that he's changed his mind about atheism and become agnostic but I don't think this is anything new.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It makes me feel good to know others are praying for me, and that is of great benefit. Even if their prayers aren't "answered" in the sense of divine intervention, they have benefitted me. Knowing that you are loved is beneficial. I think it would be foolish and unscientific to claim otherwise, given the immense body of evidence supporting this truth.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No prayer said ever actually benefits the person being prayed for.
This assertion is not the truth. The prayers of others have been of benefit to me, and to many people I know personally.
This assertion is not the truth. It is your belief, as is SusanDoris' statement her belief.
Neither statement is verifiable TRUTH.
[ 15. February 2016, 18:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Even if it's not verifiable truth, it can still be true.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No prayer said ever actually benefits the person being prayed for. If a person like RD improved in some way - which he will anyway - then it is entirely due to his own mind and 100% coincidental to (with?) any prayers being said.
Yes we know you believe this. But does it offend you if someone says they will pray for you? Or do you take it as a sign that they care about you and want the best for you, even if you yourself do not believe their prayer will "work"?
On the odd (two?) occasions that people have said they would pray for me since I (partially) came out as a non-believer, YES I was offended - it seemed to me that these individuals were only wishing that I would return to their belief system. I did not detect any care for me as I am . The 'best' that they wanted for me was to become like them.
Fortunately very few Christians have offended me in this way. I hope it stays that way when I fully come out in the next few weeks.
In general terms I think it was unwise to poublicise the fact that the CofE was seeking prayer for Richard Dawkins and I think that is offensive. What Bibaculus said ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It makes me feel good to know others are praying for me, and that is of great benefit. Even if their prayers aren't "answered" in the sense of divine intervention, they have benefitted me. Knowing that you are loved is beneficial. I think it would be foolish and unscientific to claim otherwise, given the immense body of evidence supporting this truth.
Indeed. The fact that you know yourself to feel benefitted obviously makes a lie of the bald statement that prayers don't benefit the people being prayed for. So far as I know my medical condition isn't responding miraculously to the prayers of the many people kindly keeping me in their thoughts and prayers. But the fact they pray for me keeps me encouraged and positive, because of their kindness. So I'm signing in as definitely benefited, too. Not being prayed for, in fact, would make the situation considerably worse.
What SusanDoris is trying to say, I suppose, is that 'prayer', as a thing, isn't a separate power in itself and nothing 'supernatural' occurs when people pray. Beneficial effects felt by those who are being prayed for are apparently down to mere physics, chemical reactions and brain electrics doing its stuff.
Critics of the 'prayer doesn't work' line will point to studies of those who, unaware of being prayed for, don't feel any different, or whose healing path doesn't differ from the average. But maybe trying to analyze prayer scientifically just isn't possible.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
On the odd (two?) occasions that people have said they would pray for me since I (partially) came out as a non-believer, YES I was offended - it seemed to me that these individuals were only wishing that I would return to their belief system. I did not detect any care for me as I am . The 'best' that they wanted for me was to become like them.
Have you ever prayed for anyone? If so, was your motivation that they would become a believer, or that you cared about them?
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I can't really see Dawkins being that put out by being prayed for. I wouldn't mind being prayed for though I (in my less gracious moments) have to bite my tongue and prevent myself from asking what good it does. I think its kind of people to do this for me and shows concern and care.
As for the Atheist vs Agnostic debate there is a passage in 'the God Delusion' where he talks about degrees of belief in a similar way to the Kinsey scale talks about sexuality.
IIRC he talks about hardline Atheism (certainty that God does not exist) as being relatively rare and comparable to certainty that God does exist (theism or conventional religious belief) he rates himself as an Agnostic who is convinced of the lack of evidence to the degree that it does not affect his life but does not state certainty around the non-existence of God as he accepts there isn't convincing evidence either way. I think this is called Atheism in principle and is what most Atheists (including me) are.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
A lot of atheists seem to use the term 'agnostic atheist' which seems accurate for most of them, i.e. they are not 100% sure. 6 on the Dawkins scale, I think, where 7 is sure.
I find it irritated to be informed I will be prayed for. No thanks.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
I don't suppose Dawkins would be that annoyed about being prayed for, but I thought tweeting about praying for him was tactless at best. At worst, it sounded a bit to me like the CofE comms office staff going, "hurr hurr, I know what'll be really funny, hurr hurr, let's pray for Dawkins and then tweet that we're doing it. That'll annoy him, hurr hurr." Point scoring, basically.
I appreciate there are 2 lots of attempted mind-reading in that paragraph! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Why tweet that you're praying at all? We're told, aren't we, that no one should know what we're praying for but God? I would think that someone seeing the news and feeling concerned for Dawkins & wishing him well would pray without being told to do so. And people not much inclined to pray for him are unlikely to do so on the basis of a tweet.
Certain people in the CofE are far too obsessed with Dawkins, and really need to get over him.
And why does the CofE have a comms dept if they put out such rubbish? It's all part of Christianity as product, as mentioned on other threads. And it's infantilising to the congregations, another thing the church can be good at.
Grump grump grump...
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
On the odd (two?) occasions that people have said they would pray for me since I (partially) came out as a non-believer, YES I was offended - it seemed to me that these individuals were only wishing that I would return to their belief system. I did not detect any care for me as I am . The 'best' that they wanted for me was to become like them.
Have you ever prayed for anyone? If so, was your motivation that they would become a believer, or that you cared about them?
I don't ever remember telling a non-believer that I would pray for them though I'm sure I did say such prayers.
This is what one of our friends wrote after learning of the change in my belief system:
quote:
We …… are sorry that your spiritual journey has lead you in this direction. Needless to say, we will continue to pray for you all as a family, but especially that you will allow the Lord who you've served for so many years, to reveal Himself to you again and that you will respond in repentance and faith. Possibly the circles you have ministered in in recent years have not fed you spiritually in the way that could have built up your faith and not diminished it in this way. Possibly too, you are tired at the end of a long period of service. We know that 'pastoring the flock' is not an easy task and sometimes it demands more than we recognise, so we shall continue lifting you up to the Lord Jesus and know He will deal with you in His mercy.
Do you see why I was offended? There is no recognition of the recent journey that I have made nor of the place where I am today. It seems to me to be all about them and what they think is best for me, that I become again like them.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Mark Wuntoo: Do you see why I was offended?
Yes.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Do you see why I was offended? There is no recognition of the recent journey that I have made nor of the place where I am today. It seems to me to be all about them and what they think is best for me, that I become again like them.
I can see why that is how it looks to you, but I can also see their pov. It comes across as if they are puzzled how you could fall away from the happy place of strong faith and ministry that you were in, and are hoping and praying for its restoration as they care about you.
They may well see atheism as a sad place to be, a place of missing out. I used not to believe, and now I do, and I know the joy.
I am fully aware that some atheists think I am at a sad place too, perhaps particularly those who used to believe?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Mark Wuntoo - Come on, man, that's not prayer, it's 24 carat arrogant narcissistic BS. 'We just want to tell you how wrong you are, but in the meantime here are some kind words.' Fuck off.
[ 15. February 2016, 19:14: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
They may well see atheism as a sad place to be, a place of missing out. I used not to believe, and now I do, and I know the joy.
Interesting ... when chatting with friends with whom I share mutual respect, I have sometimes said what a joy I felt when I changed direction - I recall C S Lewis's 'Surprised by joy' which is exactly what I felt. I can see that some Christians might be offended by that, which is why I say it with care!
quote:
I am fully aware that some atheists think I am at a sad place too, perhaps particularly those who used to believe?
My non-theism accepts and respects that others believe (we've had threads on that subject before).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Okay, good call, M.W.
I should have distinguished between "prayer for return to the fold" (or "entry for the first time into the fold") and "prayer for well-being."
I know several people who at one time counted themselves believers but now no longer do. Some I know well enough to say, "I know you may not feel it 'does anything' but I'm going to pray about your job situation/ health/ marriage/ whatever." Some of these, based on my relationship with them, I told "if you don't mind" and some I told "whether you want me to or not" (their knowing me to be a smartarse and my knowing them to have a sense of humor about it). In all instances it was well-received and appreciated.
It has been ages since I grew out of telling people I would try to pray them into the Kingdom. It seems manipulative.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think Dawkins has often said that he's an agnostic since he admits a very slight possibility that God might exist. But so slight as to be not worth worrying about, which approximates atheism. Every so often there's a breaking news story that he's changed his mind about atheism and become agnostic but I don't think this is anything new.
True. He distinguishes between atheism being a belief (or lack of), and agnosticism being a state of knowing (or lack of). So it's perfectly possible to be both agnostic while being an atheist or theist.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
OK sorry if I derailed.
Perhaps to make amends ... I do struggle somewhat with the idea of 'prayer for well-being'. No problem whatsoever if people want to pray for my well-being - just don't tell me. Amongst people who believe in prayer it is likely to work, I believe.
Some years ago, whilst I was still a believer, a member of our family became very, very ill. It happened that a worldwide network of Christians 'appeared', praying for my relative. It was a great experience for all of us and it worked in the sense that we all drew great comfort from knowing that people cared so much. I will never forget that experience and, I hope, will always be grateful to those good people.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
As I see the example given by MW above, this is just people from a particular worldview and language explaining events in the only way they can make sense of them. I don't see that there is any point in getting offended - if you don't believe that prayer does anything, then it has no effect and getting offended is only going to harm the relationship further.
I fully appreciate that leaving one lifestyle and language to another is going to be difficult for everyone to adjust to.
In the example in the OP, I think this was just daft public relations by the CofE. No need to do that, nothing to be gained other than shooting oneself in the foot.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It just seems narcissistic to me. It has to be phrased from their point of view, with little perspective on his, and really, a kind of covert denigration of his.
(I mean the prayer quoted by Mark Wuntoo).
[ 15. February 2016, 20:46: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No prayer said ever actually benefits the person being prayed for. If a person like RD improved in some way - which he will anyway - then it is entirely due to his own mind and 100% coincidental to (with?) any prayers being said.
Well I guess it boils down to how you define "benefit." It would be rather narrow to define benefit as simply being cured of one's disease.
To use a secular equivalent to prayer, saying 'I love you' to your spouse as he or she is going through a difficult illness, will not cure him or her of that disease. So, in terms of physical healing, saying "I love you" is of little benefit, either. But I don't think most people would see it as a reason to not say "I love you" to one's spouse.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I have heard many things that have been tweeted or posted to Instagram or Facebook that I never saw on those apps.
So, yeah.
You mean that people have told you about them, or they have been reported in the press, or something like that? I'm certain that's true, but I'm afraid the relevance eludes me - I don't see how that differs from you reading an account of a public meeting in the press, or a friend telling you all about the crazy thing the priest said in the sermon, or whatever.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Why tweet that you're praying at all? We're told, aren't we, that no one should know what we're praying for but God? I would think that someone seeing the news and feeling concerned for Dawkins & wishing him well would pray without being told to do so.
We have an ongoing thread in All Saints devoted to people asking for prayers. Asking fellow Christians to pray with you is not exactly unusual.
Speaking purely for myself, I hadn't heard that Professor Dawkins had had a stroke. Now I know - and to save your concern about whether my hands are on speaking terms, I won't tell you whether or not I have been / will be praying for him.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Even if it's not verifiable truth, it can still be true.
Just pointing out that neither statement had more weight than the other.
There may well be an ultimate truth, but so far no one has definitive proof of it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
We …… are sorry that your spiritual journey has lead you in this direction. Needless to say, we will continue to pray for you all as a family, but especially that you will allow the Lord who you've served for so many years, to reveal Himself to you again and that you will respond in repentance and faith. Possibly the circles you have ministered in in recent years have not fed you spiritually in the way that could have built up your faith and not diminished it in this way. Possibly too, you are tired at the end of a long period of service. We know that 'pastoring the flock' is not an easy task and sometimes it demands more than we recognise, so we shall continue lifting you up to the Lord Jesus and know He will deal with you in His mercy.
Do you see why I was offended? There is no recognition of the recent journey that I have made nor of the place where I am today. It seems to me to be all about them and what they think is best for me, that I become again like them.
Yes I can. This is an attempt to communicate superiority in the form of spiritual sentiments.
I would find it difficult to write such a note myself but may feel it necessary to communicate something rather than be completely silent. It wouldn't have cost anything to shave the sentiments of their superiority.
I certainly wouldn't refer to repentance, returning to Jesus, or use any heavy religious language. I would think very hard about statements regarding prayer in this situation although part of me would want to express something on those lines. I would try to find the most supportive way of describing a desire to pray that I could, and I would try to acknowledge that it must be a difficult time and not been a decision taken lightly. I'm sure I would fail to get it exactly right but I hope I'd communicate that I'd tried.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
On the Dawkins thing--
All it said was "prayers for Professor Dawkins," right? Am I missing something?
Also I'm assuming that the church is in the habit of putting out similar tweets when a public figure has something painful happen--right? This wasn't a one-off?
Because here's what occurs to me--the church is in a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't position.
If they regularly put out such tweets for other celebrities, and do not do so for Dawkins, people will read evil motives into it.
If they do put one out, well, witness the current furor.
If they change the tweet to something like "Best wishes for Prof. Dawkins", they will have a zillion people up in arms about watering Christianity down, and even giving him less than the best they have to offer.
They can't win.
I really don't see any hint of a "neener, neener" in the tweet as it stands. It's something of a Rorschach test, no? You see in it what you expect to see.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
They can't win.
Yes, which is why it is daft to start off the practice of tweeting that you are praying for particular individuals.
I know a bishop or two, wasn't my stroke serious enough for a public tweet? Do people get tweets for mini-strokes or does it have to be a full blown one? It's a PR disaster waiting to happen.
[ 16. February 2016, 04:37: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes I can. This is an attempt to communicate superiority in the form of spiritual sentiments.
Well, yes and no. Obviously the believer thinks that their position is superior to an atheist position.
But in the context of MW's situation (which appears to be one of a pastor-turned-atheist) these people are talking to someone they know and probably considered a spiritual leader. They may even be using terms that MW himself was using until relatively recently himself.
quote:
I would find it difficult to write such a note myself but may feel it necessary to communicate something rather than be completely silent. It wouldn't have cost anything to shave the sentiments of their superiority.
Yes. I wouldn't ever say this kind of thing to anyone. But then the only time I used (or been around) this kind of language was when I was young-and-insensitive.
I remember well being with another friend who was berating a former believer in public and had to step between them and apologise for his behaviour.
But, all of that said, it is entirely possible that MW's former church was a place where this kind of thing was considered appropriate.
quote:
I certainly wouldn't refer to repentance, returning to Jesus, or use any heavy religious language. I would think very hard about statements regarding prayer in this situation although part of me would want to express something on those lines. I would try to find the most supportive way of describing a desire to pray that I could, and I would try to acknowledge that it must be a difficult time and not been a decision taken lightly. I'm sure I would fail to get it exactly right but I hope I'd communicate that I'd tried.
I generally take the attitude that if prayer works then the person in question doesn't need to know whether they're being prayed for. The only possible situation where it gives any comfort is where prayer itself has no effect and the person is just aware that a bunch of other people are thinking of them.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
OK sorry if I derailed.
I hadn't realized that anyone else used the 'on/off switch' image. It's a bit like finding you have a previously unknown relative. And you've been here a lot longer.
Is there a protocol in these matters? Should I seek some other image? I did always feel that 0 or 1 seemed a bit too definite for me.
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on
:
As an aside, there's a book about atheism in the ancient world published today, which looks quite interesting.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes I can. This is an attempt to communicate superiority in the form of spiritual sentiments.
Well, yes and no. Obviously the believer thinks that their position is superior to an atheist position.
But in the context of MW's situation (which appears to be one of a pastor-turned-atheist) these people are talking to someone they know and probably considered a spiritual leader. They may even be using terms that MW himself was using until relatively recently himself.
It is this 'obviously' that annoys me. I think you are right - they do think their beliefs are superior to mine (not actually atheist if you read my recent post). Yes, they did consider me a spiritual leader in 1966 ( ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
but they have followed my journey for over 50 years and they know full well that I moved away from their narrow-minded fundamentalist views many years ago. It is their insensitivity that saddens me - and their naivity I suppose.
BTW I have taken your use of the word 'obviously' to mean that it is obvious to my friends. If you are using the term to express your own view - I will pray for you.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
It is this 'obviously' that annoys me. I think you are right - they do think their beliefs are superior to mine (not actually atheist if you read my recent post). Yes, they did consider me a spiritual leader in 1966 ( but they have followed my journey for over 50 years and they know full well that I moved away from their narrow-minded fundamentalist views many years ago. It is their insensitivity that saddens me - and their naivity I suppose.
OK sorry I didn't realise the timeframes were that long. I agree, that's totally unacceptable and insensitive.
quote:
BTW I have taken your use of the word 'obviously' to mean that it is obvious to my friends. If you are using the term to express your own view - I will pray for you.
Please don't.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Obviously I think my political views, religious views, children's achievements and various other details to be superior to the other human life forms I meet in everyday life. Otherwise I wouldn't hold them.
However I ought to have a bit of humility in how I express myself to others who don't share my views and I don't actually need to communicate that every time we have a discussion that touches on these issues.
By the way prayer could in theory be emotionally comforting and/or actually effective. These don't seem exclusive properties to me. While it is true that the former requires communication of the intent to pray, it is equally true that if the communication is crap there won't be much comfort given.
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Obviously I think my political views, religious views, children's achievements and various other details to be superior to the other human life forms I meet in everyday life. Otherwise I wouldn't hold them.
I don't understand why 'obviously'. Why not 'equal to' or 'alternative to'?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Obviously in the sense that otherwise I wouldn't have chosen them over the alternatives. So obviously that is my view, but not obviously in the sense that all should agree and are daft if they don't.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
I don't use Twitter so haven't followed the hoo-ha but I have for decades remembered the following: when doing English lit A-level we had a brilliant teacher, who happily called herself an atheist. I can't now remember the context of the conversation, but when asked what she would say to someone who offered to pray for her, she said enthusiastically, 'oh yes, please!'
Now she was not a believer but recognised the compassion and thought behind the offer. I still remember her with affection.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
... brilliant teacher, who happily called herself an atheist. I can't now remember the context of the conversation, but when asked what she would say to someone who offered to pray for her, she said enthusiastically, 'oh yes, please!'
Now she was not a believer but recognised the compassion and thought behind the offer. I still remember her with affection.
Yes, that's fair - to recognise the compassion behind a prayer,
But, better still, the pray-er should simply pray and tell no one about it.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Actually a huge debate in chaplaincy over whether that is right. Some see someone praying for them without their consent as abusive even if they do not know about it.
Jengie
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Would that not preclude things like praying for victims of [today's natural disaster here]? There is no point in pestering victims of floods in Sri Lanka or tunnel collapses in Asia for permission to pray about their plight. But our natural reaction, when learning of calamities, is to pity and pray for the victims. Surely this is a good thing.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Actually a huge debate in chaplaincy over whether that is right. Some see someone praying for them without their consent as abusive even if they do not know about it.
Jengie
How can someone feel abused about something they know nothing about? That makes no sense.
It is surely kinder to offer prayer, and to graciously accept a refusal, than to fail to offer prayer to someone who would appreciate it? As said earlier, it's the loving action of prayer that some find of great benefit, which would not be received if it were pc to say nothing about it!
Surely an atheist would not be so unkind as to try to prevent prayer from being offered?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I guess it depends on your view and experience of prayer.
There will be people who have been aggressively prayed over who will find the thought of anyone praying for them deeply offensive. Those people who have heard the sort of prayer that says "We pray for our brother/sister X, that they see the error of their ways and are brought back into the fold of our particular brand of Christianity" (or the one I've experienced which said "We pray that the other ministers not present see the youth work issue the way we do and start toeing our party line") or words to that effect. The sort of prayer that Mark Wuntoo reported above. I think of it as the shopping list prayer method, telling God what he needs to provide.
Others see prayer as a way to align their will with God's. In this versions, praying is quiet time to listen to what God is telling them. Which may be provision of hands and feet to support the family or sick person.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
When the CofE prayed for Dawkins, perhaps it was thinking of the C.S.Lewis quote:
quote:
It's so much easier to pray for a bore than to go and see one.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Actually a huge debate in chaplaincy over whether that is right. Some see someone praying for them without their consent as abusive even if they do not know about it.
I think that's too close to thought policing.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
... brilliant teacher, who happily called herself an atheist. I can't now remember the context of the conversation, but when asked what she would say to someone who offered to pray for her, she said enthusiastically, 'oh yes, please!'
Now she was not a believer but recognised the compassion and thought behind the offer. I still remember her with affection.
Yes, that's fair - to recognise the compassion behind a prayer,
But, better still, the pray-er should simply pray and tell no one about it.
Well, it's too long ago to remember the context, but it was a theoretical proposal during a lesson (on Shakespeare, probably). She was a lovely, wonderful teacher, with an eccentric dress sense ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on
:
Raptor Eye: Surely an atheist would not be so unkind as to try to prevent prayer from being offered?
Depending on the circumstances, speaking as a non-theist, I probably would politely ask that someone not pray for me if they asked (rather than stated that they were going to pray for me in which case I would be offended if they knew of my non-belief). I wouldn't and couldn't prevent prayers being said if that's what people want to do. As has been stated already, it's whether it is 'in the public eye' which seems to me to be unbiblical and unwise.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Re RD ‘mellowing’! As he doesn’t work so hard now promoting the public understanding of Science for which he was Professor not so long ago, then I’ll bet anything that he is still as clearly an atheist as he was! I’m glad he still does interviews and speaking engagements – long may he do so!
mousethief
I have (still have) dear friends who have prayed for me. Offended? Certainly not. Their belief was a part of who they were. I’m sad to say that three of them have died over the past 12 years. The knowledge that we cared much about each other enriched our lives. quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
This assertion is not the truth. The prayers of others have been of benefit to me, and to many people I know personally.
Their thoughts and good wishes have helped you to feel better, or more confident, or whatever the situation required, but ……
Whether the prayer is said aloud or thought; the person is ‘sending’ this to God; this god is then supposed to hear said prayer, decide on action – or, as in 100% (in my firm opinion) of cases – do absolutely nothing; the sender of the prayer assumes there will be a benefit of some sort; the subject of the prayer believes similarly; psychologically probably benefits. The intermediary, god, is totally redundant. It is not the prayer itself which does anything, it is the thinking that goes on in the subject’s mind that benefits.
Anselmina
Your post says it better than the above!
Macrina
I don’t think – wel, I know! – I wouldn’t say that ‘there is no convincing evidence either way’ since that makes it sound a sort of 50:50 case. I’d put it at 99:1 with 99 as the total lack of any convincing evidence of course!
David Good
That sounds like a book I’d very much like to read! I bet I’ll have to wait a while for an audio version though.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
It has happened that I was sick and someone said a Muslim prayer or did an indigenous ritual for me. I appreciated that.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
This assertion is not the truth. The prayers of others have been of benefit to me, and to many people I know personally.
Their thoughts and good wishes have helped you to feel better, or more confident, or whatever the situation required, but ……
Whether the prayer is said aloud or thought; the person is ‘sending’ this to God; this god is then supposed to hear said prayer, decide on action – or, as in 100% (in my firm opinion) of cases – do absolutely nothing; the sender of the prayer assumes there will be a benefit of some sort; the subject of the prayer believes similarly; psychologically probably benefits. The intermediary, god, is totally redundant. It is not the prayer itself which does anything, it is the thinking that goes on in the subject’s mind that benefits.
I am pleased that you accept that your original assertion, that prayer was of no benefit to anyone, was not the truth.
You now accept that knowing that others care enough to pray for us may be of benefit.
As far as what happens when we pray is concerned, your assertion here again is not the truth from my point of view, but a product of your imagination. Prayer is sharing with God, communication within relationship.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
They can't win.
I really don't see any hint of a "neener, neener" in the tweet as it stands. It's something of a Rorschach test, no? You see in it what you expect to see.
There will always be people who will disapprove, no matter the action. However, it took me only a moment to find a better strategy. Do the prayer within a normal church service.
The Tweet served the church no good.
Is it something of a Rorschach test? No. It is a failure in public outreach.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Whether the prayer is said aloud or thought; the person is ‘sending’ this to God; this god is then supposed to hear said prayer, decide on action – or, as in 100% (in my firm opinion) of cases – do absolutely nothing; the sender of the prayer assumes there will be a benefit of some sort; the subject of the prayer believes similarly; psychologically probably benefits. The intermediary, god, is totally redundant. It is not the prayer itself which does anything, it is the thinking that goes on in the subject’s mind that benefits.
This depiction of prayer is a tad crude and admittedly, many people of faith believe this way. If one accepts divine omniscience, then God knows what one is going to pray for anyway, before one utters a word of prayer.
I would say, from a Trinitarian view, that Christ prays through his people, and that prayer is about entering into the eternal dialogue between Father and Son. Insomuch, we pray for the healing of others, we identify our desire for their well-being with Christ's desire for their well-being.
So when the CofE prays for Richard Dawkins, it is affirming that despite Dawkins' disbelief in what he would perceive as a fictional deity, that "fictional" deity still loves Him, and still holds him in divine concern and grace, even when he debates Christian apologists.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Thank you for your post, Anglican Brat. I'll come back to it later. Today is my visit to the Sisters of Bethany in Southsea.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Susan--
Have a fun, restful time! (Yes, it is possible to have fun at a retreat center. And IME retreat food tends to be good.)
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
David Good
That sounds like a book I’d very much like to read! I bet I’ll have to wait a while for an audio version though.
I've just had a quick word with the author, Professor Whitmarsh, and he's got an audio book of the US edition, published at the end of last calendar year. Please PM with your postal address, or email me with it from this profile page, and I'll send it to you.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
No prayer said ever actually benefits the person being prayed for. If a person like RD improved in some way - which he will anyway - then it is entirely due to his own mind and 100% coincidental to (with?) any prayers being said.
What I love about your posts Susan is how you don't let your own views lead you to complete and total certainty.
It's amazing to be sure that NO prayer EVER made a difference. Now indeed, if God is not real, it seems unlikely (although not impossible) that prayer would have an effect, however, I don't know any way to be so certain about the existence/non-existence of anything, never mind God.
AFZ
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
SusanDoris
Thankyou for your thoughts, you gave me cause to think over what I posted. On balance I stand by it. I am 99.9% certain that the 'all powerful, all loving, all knowing' God of the Abrahamic religions does not exist and will say that quite happily.
I am more willing to allow for the existence of a first cause or universal force (personal or not) which might be described as 'God' by humans even if that cause/force/consciousness had no interest or input into humanity. I am not convinced of its existence or unconvinced so remain a functional Atheist but I think the burden of proof would be lighter for this type of 'God' than for our classic understanding of God.
I am fascinated by physics when it gets into these areas and one of my missions this year is to read more physics and cosmology to get my head around what physics now says about our universe.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It has happened that I was sick and someone said a Muslim prayer or did an indigenous ritual for me. I appreciated that.
Seconded. In fact I remember the Muslim concerned asked first if it would be a comfort or not if they prayed. I was moved by the gesture itself (and of course accepted), but also that the question was put in such a way as to be answerable without implying any belief in their world view but rather in terms of how it would make me feel.
Posted by Celtic Knotweed (# 13008) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
As an aside, there's a book about atheism in the ancient world published today, which looks quite interesting.
Thanks for letting people know about that - now on my wish list for my birthday this summer!
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Raptor Eye: Surely an atheist would not be so unkind as to try to prevent prayer from being offered?
Depending on the circumstances, speaking as a non-theist, I probably would politely ask that someone not pray for me if they asked (rather than stated that they were going to pray for me in which case I would be offended if they knew of my non-belief). I wouldn't and couldn't prevent prayers being said if that's what people want to do. As has been stated already, it's whether it is 'in the public eye' which seems to me to be unbiblical and unwise.
I agree concerning the importance of asking first, sensitively. I think in this case it was a well-meaning gesture, the extension of a hand in prayer that offered friendship.
It is surely a little hypocritical if those who constantly send out messages on social media which mock our faith or make cynical remarks accuse the church of doing the same.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Raptor Eye: Surely an atheist would not be so unkind as to try to prevent prayer from being offered?
Depending on the circumstances, speaking as a non-theist, I probably would politely ask that someone not pray for me if they asked (rather than stated that they were going to pray for me in which case I would be offended if they knew of my non-belief). I wouldn't and couldn't prevent prayers being said if that's what people want to do. As has been stated already, it's whether it is 'in the public eye' which seems to me to be unbiblical and unwise.
I agree concerning the importance of asking first, sensitively. I think in this case it was a well-meaning gesture, the extension of a hand in prayer that offered friendship.
It is surely a little hypocritical if those who constantly send out messages on social media which mock our faith or make cynical remarks accuse the church of doing the same.
If it was a well-meaning gesture, then the person(s) who made
the tweet need social media training because they failed.
The difference between those who mock your faith and the CofE is that one describes a random assortment of individuals and the other a centralised organisation with official representation. So, comparing apples to eyebolts.
That said, it is much ado about very little. The atheist response should be more 'What evs' then 'How dare you'
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on
:
Yes!
It is our charitable duty.
Unreported if there is likely to be a misunderstanding.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If it was a well-meaning gesture, then the person(s) who made
the tweet need social media training because they failed.
The difference between those who mock your faith and the CofE is that one describes a random assortment of individuals and the other a centralised organisation with official representation. So, comparing apples to eyebolts.
That said, it is much ado about very little. The atheist response should be more 'What evs' then 'How dare you'
Those who mock may be individuals or official representatives of associations of atheists.
Much ado about little yes, to score points. Whatever.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The difference between those who mock your faith and the CofE is that one describes a random assortment of individuals and the other a centralised organisation with official representation.
The difference between those who mock our faith and the CofE is that the former mock, and the latter does not. The former feel smugly superior to all religious people. I have seen no evidence that the CofE feels smugly superior to all atheists.
You're comparing mince pies and meteors.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
Daniel Dennett wrote an article called ‘Thank Goodness!’, in which he discussed a heart operation in which he very nearly died. In an interview with Julian Baggini, he discusses the article:
“I suppose my favourite line in it was when I said I excused those who said they prayed for me and I resisted the temptation to say, ‘well thank you very much but did you also sacrifice a goat?’ Because did you think that the praying was any more efficacious than sacrificing a goat or any less preposterous? I don’t. You’re saying you prayed for me and I understand you said that with good intention, but if you really wanted to help, there were other things you could have done and the delusion that this somehow helped, I reject that.”
I don't agree with much of what Dennett writes, but this did make me smile.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The difference between those who mock your faith and the CofE is that one describes a random assortment of individuals and the other a centralised organisation with official representation.
The difference between those who mock our faith and the CofE is that the former mock, and the latter does not. The former feel smugly superior to all religious people. I have seen no evidence that the CofE feels smugly superior to all atheists.
You're comparing mince pies and meteors.
The CofE as an organisation? maybe. Not the impression that I have gotten from some of those who debate atheists. And there are definitely members of the church who do feel so.
I do know, and have observed smug atheists. But not all of those who mock are smug. Some have are frustrated with the "God just is" smugness of some Christians.
I don't think either side has any moral superiority there.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The difference between those who mock your faith and the CofE is that one describes a random assortment of individuals and the other a centralised organisation with official representation.
The difference between those who mock our faith and the CofE is that the former mock, and the latter does not. The former feel smugly superior to all religious people. I have seen no evidence that the CofE feels smugly superior to all atheists.
You're comparing mince pies and meteors.
The CofE as an organisation? maybe.
Well, but you specifically were referring to the CofE as "a centralized organization with official representation."
Either you're referring to the organization qua organization, in which case you are wrong, or you're referring to individuals and not the organization qua organization, in which case you are trying to eat your cake and have it.
Posted by AlexaHof (# 18555) on
:
Just come to this after a difficult log in.
Fascinated by this debate, but there's an important aspect that's ignored when it's discussed purely in terms of giving offence by making the prayer public. Yes, it strikes as a little mischievous of the Anglian church to pray publicly for Dawkins, but perhaps this is forgivable - akin to theological banter - given how provocative D has been in his public statements.
BUT coming now from another, pagan tradition, and taking prayer very seriously, as an act, is it right to pray for others without their consent? If you belief that prayer/healing is powerful (whole issue goes away if you don't) then praying for someone against their wishes, and for a particular outcome, is the worst kind of interference and so unethical.
My full workings-out on this point, and some links to some pertinent pieces on the ethics of prayer in non-Christian traditions, are here: http://www.thesecretlifeofgod.net/pray-not-pray-richard-dawkins-prayer-affair/
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Prayer is surely simply the act of the church breathing, thinking, etc. - the means by which the church metabolises, lives, exists.
The C of E shows a remarkable lack of ability to find its own arse with both hands on a distressing number of occasions. Without prayer as a reflex, I can only imagine how pronounced this tendency would be.
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
Given some of the comments on this thread I have an image of a Prayer Police roaming the pews looking for unauthorised intersessions.
"Sir, please stop kneeling and take your hands apart, we have reason to believe you have been praying for Professor Dawkins..."
Neil
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AlexaHof:
BUT coming now from another, pagan tradition, and taking prayer very seriously, as an act, is it right to pray for others without their consent? If you belief that prayer/healing is powerful (whole issue goes away if you don't) then praying for someone against their wishes, and for a particular outcome, is the worst kind of interference and so unethical.
If someone has specifically requested that they not be prayed for, I can see this. But shy of that, I think it goes too far. If I pass a car accident on the highway, I don't stop and ask the victims if it's okay to pay for them. I offer up a prayer as I drive by. This would also make it immoral to pray for the unconscious, as they are unable to give consent. In fact it's basically treating prayer like sex. It appears to be saying that without explicit, verbal, ongoing permission (for the prayee is free to change their mind at any point), prayer is a form of rape.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AlexaHof:
If you belief that prayer/healing is powerful (whole issue goes away if you don't) then praying for someone against their wishes, and for a particular outcome, is the worst kind of interference and so unethical.
Welcome aboard, AlexaHof.
I would answer you this way: Prayers are not magic. Prayers are powerful - the prayer of a righteous man availeth much - but prayers for specific outcomes are at the root asking God to do something, and God's not going to act against that person's will.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0