It's a hard rain

Your Father which is in heaven ... maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
-- Matthew 5:45

Atlanta had about 1/5 of an inch of rain yesterday, which brings the city's total to about 1/2 an inch since Gov. Sonny Perdue gathered "lawmakers and ministers on the steps of the state Capitol to pray for rain."

I can't fault Gov. Perdue for trying. The drought strangling the Southeast is so severe I wouldn't blame him if he'd called in Starbuck* or summoned Georgia's Cherokees to the statehouse for a rain dance. (Unfortunately, Georgia kicked out the Cherokee, even after the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Maybe that's the problem.)

"Pray for rain," is something that I think the governor of Georgia ought to be saying -- and doing -- at this point. I'm just not sure that a semi-official vigil on the steps of the state Capitol was the best way to go about this. You want to pray, go to church or "go into your room, close the door and pray." Prayer as political press conference seems more like an effort to demonstrate piety than an earnest supplication.

"When you pray," Jesus said, "do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."

Part of that reward, it turns out, is also creating a situation in which you invite the conflation of the above measurement of precipitation with an alleged measurement of your God's potency, your personal/communal righteousness/worthiness and/or the efficacy of prayer in the abstract.

I'm also not real keen on the way this semi-official vigil blurs the line between church and state, so I appreciate why the Atlanta Freethought Society decided to protest the prayer session. But like the vigil itself, this objection might have been wiser and more effective had it been conducted in some other, less public fashion that wouldn't make it seem like they were protesting the possibility of rain as much as the mingling of prayer and politics.

Let's just hope it rains and the drought ends, then everybody -- church, state and Freethought Society alike -- is better off, right? Then, if he likes, the governor can thank God for the rain (thus implicitly blaming God for the drought) and the freethinkers can protest his doing so, but at least that bit of theater won't be taking place against the backdrop of a crippling drought.

In the meantime, if you're going to pray for rain, then be sure you take an umbrella.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* That's a Rainmaker reference and not a coffee, Battlestar Galactica or Moby Dick reference.

Comments

[Bugmaster]

Part of that reward, it turns out, is also creating a situation in which you invite the conflation of the above measurement of precipitation with an alleged measurement of your God's potency, your personal/communal righteousness/worthiness and/or the efficacy of prayer in the abstract.

I suppose it depends on how you see prayer. If you see it as a sort of mental exercise, akin to meditation (though obviously more intense), whose purpose is to bring your soul closer to the Divine, then I agree. However, if you believe in a God that actually answers prayers, by changing the world in some way which fullfills the supplicant's request -- then the strength of the rain does, indeed, indicate the strength of your faith, and of your God. The Governor clearly believes (or, at least, appears to believe) in the latter kind of God, as do many other Christians.

As to the Wall of Separation... I have no problem with people praying for rain, individually. Even in sinagogues and on street corners, if they so choose. But when a Governor, in his capacity as the agent of the United States (or, at the very least, Georgia) publically summons clerics to pray -- it sends chills down my spine. What if he prays, and there is no rain ? Is it because the people of Georgia are insufficiently pious ? Is he going to take any steps to correct this lack of piety ?

I sure hope that this whole story is nothing more than a stunt (AFAIK, the rain was in the forecast, after all). The alternative is a bit unnerving.

[Wicked Child]

"And it shall come to pass that if you listen the commandments that I command you this day, to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and all your soul, then I will give rain to your land, the early and the late rains, that you may gather in your grain, your wine and your oil... But if you do not... the anger of the Lord will blaze against you, and he will close the heavens and there will not be rain."

[Salamanda]

Sure, sure, Jesus said that stuff, but there are plenty of examples of and exhortations to public prayer in the Old Timey Testament. If you can justify it with a Bible verse, then BAM! Chicken! It's Biblical.

Ya like that? ;)

[Ecks]

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Because it's IN THE BIBLE, stupid.

[Toby]

Bugmaster: However, if you believe in a God that actually answers prayers, by changing the world in some way which fullfills the supplicant's request -- then the strength of the rain does, indeed, indicate the strength of your faith, and of your God.

Any room in that analysis for God having a will of his own, being unsearchable in his judgments, or otherwise having a degree of personhood surpassing that of a vending or slot machine?

[David Newgreen]

Here in Australia, most of the country has been under drought conditions for a long time. A few months ago, our (now outgoing) Prime Minster, John Howard, made a speech about the drought in which he suggested Australians pray for rain.

Of course, what he meant was "The only way the drought will end is if it rains, but that's out of human control", and what he actually did was devote extra funding to help farms struggling under drought conditions and tightened water restrictions. He didn't stand in Canberra with his cabinent and publically call on God to make it rain. That is because John Howard, while not someone I respect or like, is not insane.

I do not like what Howard did to Australian political culture during his time in office, but reading stories like this one, I'm reminded of how much worse some of the alternatives are...

[Bugmaster]

Any room in that analysis for God having a will of his own, being unsearchable in his judgments, or otherwise having a degree of personhood surpassing that of a vending or slot machine?

Sure, of course. But a God that is completely "unsearchable" in his judgements regarding prayer is quite similiar to a God who doesn't answer prayers at all.

For example, let's say you pray for rain, and it rains. Did God grant your prayer ? Or was the rain all part of his plan from the start ? Was it related to anything you did at all, or was it an answer to an oak tree's prayer ? Or maybe it was a punishment against that one church that got flooded ?

On the other hand, let's say you pray for rain, but it doesn't rain. Has God rejected your prayer ? Or has he, in his ineffable wisdom, granted you what you truly need -- a spirit-building drought ? Or has someone else prayed for drought harder than you've prayed for rain ? Or what ?

I'm not saying that any of the above answers are right; those are just examples. My point is that there has to be some way of figuring out what the right answer is, with a better than chance degree of success. If you do not, and cannot, know what God does in response to your prayer (or whether he does anything at all), then that God is functionally equivalent to a chaotic God (like Tzeentch, but with less feathers) that doesn't answer prayers at all, but just does random things for inscrutable reasons (or just for kicks).

Note also that personhood does entail predictability to some extent. The overwhelming majority of people that you've met, or will meet in the future, act in predictable ways. You type a comment, and I respond. I anticipate that you will read my response, maybe quote some parts of it, and respond in kind; I can even foresee some of your counter-arguments. This kind of predictability is what makes conversation possible -- though, of course, complete predictability would render it boring and monotonous, so it's a good thing that people are not completely predictable. There do, however, exist some people whose actions are completely un-predictable... We non-specialists usually call them "insane".

Note that all of the above is probably irrelevant. I am fairly certain that the kind of people who responded to the governmental prayer call really do see their God as a kind of vending machine.

[Ecks]

You type a comment, and I respond

You will?

[Bugmaster]

You will?

Never !

What's a few verbs between... er... actually, you can have my verbs when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers ! Yar !

[Toby]

Bugmaster: Sure, of course. But a God that is completely "unsearchable" in his judgements regarding prayer is quite similiar to a God who doesn't answer prayers at all.

Depends on what you mean by that. The points you raise suggest that there is no objective criterion according to which we humans could distinguish between active-but-unsearchable-god and detached-deisty-god. But the two sorts of god are in themselves quite dissimilar.

There do, however, exist some people whose actions are completely un-predictable... We non-specialists usually call them "insane".

A label which assumes that we actually know better than them. This is a safe assumption almost all of the time.

[Bugmaster]

The points you raise suggest that there is no objective criterion according to which we humans could distinguish between active-but-unsearchable-god and detached-deisty-god.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "objective", of course, but broadly speaking I'd agree with you. However, if there is truly no way whatsoever that you, personally, could tell which of the two Gods is real... then why do you pray ? Furthermore, I still don't see how an arbitrary God differs from an inscrutable God, and from the non-acting deistic God. Basically, let's model God as a black box:

--Prayer--> [God X] --Effect-->

What you're saying is that, as far as we humans are concerned, the effect does not depend on the prayer at all -- at least, not in a way that we could ever hope to comprehend, even with monumental and hitherto unexpected advances in science and theology. Then, for the purposes of prayer, how will this picture change if we replace "God X" with "God Y" in the diagram above ? The effect still does not depend on the prayer (according to your premise), regardless of whether we're using "God X", "God Y", "Nothing at all", "Nature", or "Karma" or whatever. It seems like the "God X" box is kind of superfluous.

[Ryan Ferneau]

I thought this was an interesting analysis of prayer, in that it shows how prayer seems to be essentially selfish (or worthless): http://www.what-the-hec.com/?p=99

[Dahne]

Any room in that analysis for God having a will of his own, being unsearchable in his judgments, or otherwise having a degree of personhood surpassing that of a vending or slot machine?

I hate it when my prayer gets stuck, but at least then the next person gets two.

[bad Jim]

The rain it falls alike upon
the just and the unjust fella
but mostly on the just because
the unjust stole the other guy's umbrella.

[Tayi]

"In the meantime, if you're going to pray for rain, then be sure you take an umbrella."

Based on the situation in Georgia, wouldn't a conclusion more in line with the evidence be: "If the weather forecast calls for rain, have an umbrella handy, unless the Governor is making a fool of himself holding public prayer meetings to magic down the rain, in which case it probably won't rain as much as the forecast predicts."

Or maybe: "A growing population means increased need for wise management of water resources, but don't worry, because we can always blame God for the drought AND you'll save money not needing umbrellas."

[Praline]

I'm also not real keen on the way this semi-official vigil blurs the line between church and state, so I appreciate why the Atlanta Freethought Society decided to protest the prayer session. But like the vigil itself, this objection might have been wiser and more effective had it been conducted in some other, less public fashion that wouldn't make it seem like they were protesting the possibility of rain as much as the mingling of prayer and politics.

At a guess, the Freethought Society thinks that whether or not it rains is outside human agency; however, the separation of church and state is entirely governed by human agency. As such, it's a human responsibility to do something about it. The issue is political, and as church-and-state unions can produce some awful laws, it's important to stay on the state's case about it. I don't quite see how you can protest about politics without doing it publicly.

Protesting the vigil won't stop the rain, but it might call attention to some unconstitutional behaviour. It might even suggest to the Governor that he might try praying on his own time, and spend his working hours trying to work out what action he, as Governor, might be able to take to help the situation. Being that he's an elected official, he might serve God and man better by staying in his office doing his duty.

I'm entirely on the Freethought Society's side here. Prayer is not a photo opportunity, nor an excuse to misappropriate office hours. It ought to be protested, and a private protest is pretty useless. And honestly, I don't see how their public protest is any more inappropriately public than criticising it on the aptly-named World Wide Web (which I entirely approve of as well). The guy was out of line, and it's good citizenship to point it out.

[Cyllan]

hen, if he likes, the governor can thank God for the rain (thus implicitly blaming God for the drought)

Well, he is blaming God for the drought. He said publicly that he thinks the drought is a Sign From God to Atlanta and the rest of the state telling us that we need to be better stewards of God's resources. The fact that Mr. Perdue has done jack-all to actually be a steward of anything other than big business and uncontrolled growth is, I think, merely another example of his ability to twist words until they scream. (See, the Georgia Flag for another example.)

I will also point out that praying for rain on the one day out of a dozen that actually is predicted to even have a chance for rain is either brilliant political showmanship or cheating.

[damnedyankee]

"When you pray," Jesus said, "do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."

Funny how the televangelists missed this bit in the book they claim to read "literally"...

[Toby]

Bugmaster: However, if there is truly no way whatsoever that you, personally, could tell which of the two Gods is real... then why do you pray ?

You can believe in an active, personal God, without being able to objectively verify his existence.

Basically, let's model God as a black box:

So, under behaviourist premises, there's not a whole lot to say about God? Well, granted. (Behaviourism in psychology didn't work out very well, either.)

It seems like the "God X" box is kind of superfluous.

It only seems that way because you went and painted it black.

[hapax]

I see a god box and I want to paint it black...

[MikhailBorg]

I see the fundies in their ashy sackcloth clothes /
I have to turn away from all their Rapturous throes...

[Raka]

"In the meantime, if you're going to pray for rain, then be sure you take an umbrella."

Seems sorta picayune, even ungrateful. "Please, oh great and mighty lord, provide us with the rain our land so desperately needs!"

[insert miracle here]

"Hey, hey! Not on me! This suit is Italian!"

[Geds]

This is kind of funny.

Toby is arguing that Bugmaster can't see past his own model of the universe while ignoring his own blinders.

The fact of the matter is that Bug is more or less right in the statement: "Sure, of course. But a God that is completely 'unsearchable' in his judgements regarding prayer is quite similiar to a God who doesn't answer prayers at all." This was in response to Toby's question after Bug pointed out that the good governor of Georgia was playing with fire.

Let's say that I build up a vending machine. It looks like a completely normal vending machine, except I made a few minor alterations. You don't know what those alterations are. So one day you go to the vending machine, insert your money, and press B5 to get that bag of Fritos you really want. The little whirly-gig mechanism turns and you get your Fritos. The next day, however, nothing happens. You assume the machine just did one of those vending machine things and try again. You get the Kit Kat bar from G7. You look at your watch and see that it's 2:30. Yesterday you got your bag of chips at 1:30. The next day at 1:30 the Fritos come halfway out, but then when you put your money in again you get two bags of chips. At 1:30 the following day you get a pack of gum.

You consult with your coworkers about the vending machine. They've all had some sort of weird experience with it. Some have decided to give it up entirely. Some have decided to keep trying to get snacks and be happy with whatever they get. Some have developed elaborate rituals that they think help, like going at exactly 2:15, using only quarters and counting to three between pressing the letter and the number. Several people called the vending machine company to complain and ask for a service call.

No matter what the theories are, though, nobody actually knows whether I programmed that vending machine to offer random responses to key inputs, if it's actually on the fritz or if there's a tiny little camera somewhere in the front panel that is programmed to recognize facial features and screw with people who have certain characteristics. Furthermore, assuming there was intentional programming, nobody knows if it's just a prank, if there is some malicious desire to bring down office morale through an evil vending machine behind it, if it's an extended sociological experiment, or if there's a screwed-up machine in every office because I'm trying to bring down the vending machine manufacturer with massive complaints about defective products.

Unless somebody actually meets me and asks, that vending machine is "unsearchable." Furthermore, it doesn't actually matter why the vending machine is screwed up. It only matters that you can't be sure whether or not you'll get your Fritos.

Bug: Basically, let's model God as a black box:

Toby: So, under behaviourist premises, there's not a whole lot to say about God? Well, granted. (Behaviourism in psychology didn't work out very well, either.)

Bug: It seems like the "God X" box is kind of superfluous.

Toby: It only seems that way because you went and painted it black.

I only put the first two quotes in there to point out that Toby's reference to behaviorism seems like a bit of a non-sequitor. I don't know how you get behavior modeling out of the comment quoted and it's even less obvious in the original context. That's modeling in the "scientific model to show a proof" or even a "simplified or scaled down depiction of a really big and complicated object" sort of way.

The second part, though, shows Toby's biases. If the box is painted black, it's not because Bug himself painted it black, it's because there is no need for that particular part of the checklist in Bug's model of the universe. Whether that indicates Bug has a blindness that doesn't allow him to see the theistic standpoint is open for debate, I suppose, but the objections he brings up are completely logical and as scientifically rigorous as you can get in a philosophical/theological debate.

[Jesurgislac]

I see a god box and I want to paint it black...

I want to paint it blue. With flashy lights. And a kind of groany noise.

[ako]

What color is the god box supposed to be, anyways?

[Geds]

And, wow. I mis-spelled non sequitur. Quite badly, might I add.

[MikhailBorg]

I want to paint it blue. With flashy lights. And a kind of groany noise.

The little phone on the front doesn't seem to work, though.

[Raka]

Ryan Ferneau: I dunno, it's a bit reductionist for my taste. Not all prayers have zero-sum outcomes, particularly when one involves a being of supernatural power. I think it's fair to assume that the creator and maintainer of the universe can handle the details of granting a prayer without screwing over other folks as a direct result unless that's what he/she/it wants to do. And seeing "10 extra years of Gramma consuming limited resources" as a valid counterargument to wanting her to live is taking utilitarianism to a sociopathic level. God may not be a vending machine, but he's also not a magical monkey paw.

It's also a depressingly mechanistic view of prayer (although to be fair, no more mechanistic than the vending-machine-christians discussed above). You don't tell a friend or family member your troubles just because you hope they'll step in and make all of those troubles go away. You do it to express yourself, to be reminded that there is someone who cares, and possibly to come up with a solution-- even if it's a solution you come to on your own as you hear yourself putting the situation into words. Similarly, you don't share your joy at positive events, even positive events that the friend is directly or indirectly responsible for, as a method of payment for the good thing. You do it to... well, share your joy. Because it will make them happy to know that you are happy, and it will please them if you recognize their role in your happiness. And you want to please them not just because it increases the probability of future favors, but because you like them. Hell, if nothing else, those who care about us generally like to hear how things are going-- even if they already know. Communication serves many purposes.

I'm not saying there aren't many people who pray the way Rod talks about. I do think praying that way is "doing it wrong", as much as there can be a right and wrong method of prayer. But since he's talking about his personal experience with prayer, he's effectively saying "I did it wrong and it didn't work, so doing it at all is dumb.". Which is rather dumb itself.

[Raka]

ako: What color is the god box supposed to be, anyways?

A sort of viridescent yellow, apparently. With floaty-woman-heads.

[Raka]

ako: What color is the god box supposed to be, anyways?

A sort of viridescent yellow, apparently. With floaty-woman-heads.

[Raka]

Oh, hell. I broke the internets. Must use Preview button!

[hapax]

Geds: Let's say that I build up a vending machine...

Well, the problem here is that you're already assuming that "god" is a mechanism. Let's try another example, and assume that "god" is more like a person. Say you bring your girlfriend flowers today, and she is thrilled and gives you a big hug and a kiss. You think, "Great! Flowers = smoochies!" and bring her the same bouquet tomorrow. She says, "oh, thanks." You bring her the same bouquet the next day and she says, "Umm, Geds, maybe you should save your money to getting your car fixed instead."

Now is Girlfriend being "insane"? Arbitrary? Unpredictable? Or is the fault yours for treating her like an automatic input/output device?

edit: In other words, what Raka said.

[Toby]

Geds: Toby is arguing that Bugmaster can't see past his own model of the universe

I've got nothing against Bugmaster's model of the universe. I'm not sure what it is, but I'd imagine it's pretty cool. But I do think his model of God leaves something to be desired. Even there, I wouldn't say he "can't see past" it.

Let's say that I build up a vending machine.

Which kicks us back to my original response to Bugmaster (Nov 27, 2007 at 12:39 AM): "Any room in that analysis for God having a will of his own, being unsearchable in his judgments, or otherwise having a degree of personhood surpassing that of a vending or slot machine?"

I only put the first two quotes in there to point out that Toby's reference to behaviorism seems like a bit of a non-sequitor.

The black box is an image commonly used to represent how behaviourist psychology approaches the study of its subjects. But maybe he's pulling the image from elsewhere (computer programming, say). It doesn't much matter. If you reduce a creature (or a god) to stimulus-response (as Bugmaster did), how is that not behaviourism?

[MikhailBorg]

Hapax, I see your point; but I suggest that most humans, at least, are fairly predictable as individuals, once you have spent time getting to know them.

If the imaginary Geds and imaginary Girlfriend have been together long enough, he'd certainly know that the second and third set of flowers in a row will be less well-received, and he may wish to space them out a bit more. I'd even go out on a limb and guess that that's likely for most (but by no means all) women.

If we're forcing the vending machine analogy, E7 on the vending machine gives chocolate cake one day, rice cake the second day, and soap cake the third, resetting the cycle after a week or two of disuse. Different individual outcomes to E7, but predictable in the long run.

[Jesurgislac]

Hapax: Now is Girlfriend being "insane"? Arbitrary? Unpredictable? Or is the fault yours for treating her like an automatic input/output device?

The whole concept of praying to God for rain, or a cure for cancer, or death to your enemies, is treating God like a mechanism: plug in the right prayer, God the Vending Machine delivers. If there's any room for God having a will of Its own in this God-model, it's God the Abusive Father, the Fred Phelps of Heaven, who can be nice and charming but is just as likely to beat you till you bleed no matter what you do. The fault is not that of people who point out that the God who answers prayer with miracle is a Divine Vending Machine: it's the people who argue that God does answer prayers: So-and-so was cured of cancer "because we prayed!" or We got rain after months of drought "because we prayed!" or My house was saved when the tornado came through and hit my neighbor's house "because we prayed". Etc. If you don't like God the Vending Machine, take it up with the people who invented GVM, not with the people who point out that this is Divine Vending Machine!

[Geds]

hapax: Now is Girlfriend being "insane"? Arbitrary? Unpredictable? Or is the fault yours for treating her like an automatic input/output device?

Have you ever noticed that a lot of the men who behave as though god is a vending machine also behave as though women are, too? Look up the works of Robert Lewis one of these days. He's the only man I've ever heard of who actually said, "Now I understand women."

The fact is, though, that in my vending machine example you're missing an obvious point. The focus is on the vending machine, but there is an actual creative, intelligent force behind the vending machine. That was what the entire section about my motivation for programming the vending machine is all about and how it's impossible for the guy standing there trying to get a bag of Fritos to know whether the person who programmed the device is doing it to screw with him, whether it's a genuinely broken machine, or whether the programmer has some other motive in which he's just a pawn.

If we look to the mechanisms of the universe and expect that they point to some sort of order that we can ultimately understand. It's the inherent flaw in Paley's argument and the inherent flaw in the argument of anyone who says we can, indeed, pray for rain and expect rain.

If my girlfriend gets pissed at me because all I ever do is give her flowers and expect sex, I can do something about that because I can actually interact with her. I can ask why she's pissed. Then I can attempt to alter her behavior.

When I'm standing in front of the vending machine that refuses to give my my chips, the only thing I can interact with is the vending machine. Sure, I may curse the name of whatever idiot programmed it. I can kick it for being obstinant. I can attempt to break the glass and get what I want, but I can't actually communicate with the person responsible (I could call the customer service number, yes, but they probably won't put me through to the desk of the guy who built the thing).

In the same way, I cannot interact directly with God. And, for the record, that statement is coming from someone who spent the first 26 years of his life in a couple different evangelical churches that taught prayer is effective and that God does, in all actuality, talk to you if you know how to listen/make it happen. I used to firmly believe that I could, in fact, communicate directly with God.

But I can't. I can only communicate with a mechanism that may or may not have been created by God and may or may not have been programmed with some purpose in mind that may or may not include me.

Believe me, I thought of using a pissed off girlfriend example. But I didn't because that example ultimately breaks down when you realize that there is that extra barrier between yourself and the divine. Sometimes it might feel like there's a similar barrier between myself and various members of the human race, but it can ultimately be broken down in the way the barrier between myself and god cannot.

Toby: But maybe he's pulling the image from elsewhere (computer programming, say).

Bug is a computer guy...

[Geds]

Also, what MikhailBorg and Jesu said while I was composing my disgustingly long reply...

[joolya]

Duh, obviously the way to make it rain is to NOT carry an umbrella!
It always rains when I haven't got an umbrella.
Because I control the weather with my actions.
Right.

[hapax]

Okay. I think we're talking past each other. I think we both agree that the fault ultimately lies in the people who "pray for rain" -- iow, who DO see "God as a vending machine." You were saying that "Well, that's a stupid way of operating." I was reading "Well, there's no point to prayer at all." Is that a fair summation?

Y'know, to go back to the God as Girlfrend, the Gov.'s approach is really more like, "Hey, babe! Want smoochies!" -- which is not really a very effective technique under most circumstances. I mean, at least in the Bad Old Days, when the king was going to have the whole country pray for rain, he would declare a week of fasting and penance, give a few acres to a monastery -- y'know, the equivalent of sending flowers first.

So, not only does Gov Perdue have an overly mechanistic view of the Divine, he's also a cheap date.

[Raka]

So, not only does Gov Perdue have an overly mechanistic view of the Divine, he's also a cheap date.

hapax wins the thread?

[Jesurgislac]

Hapax: Okay. I think we're talking past each other. I think we both agree that the fault ultimately lies in the people who "pray for rain" -- iow, who DO see "God as a vending machine." You were saying that "Well, that's a stupid way of operating." I was reading "Well, there's no point to prayer at all." Is that a fair summation?

I think so.

Y'know, to go back to the God as Girlfrend, the Gov.'s approach is really more like, "Hey, babe! Want smoochies!" -- which is not really a very effective technique under most circumstances.

Hee.

[Geds]

Raka: hapax wins the thread?

With that crack, most definitely..

hapax: You were saying that "Well, that's a stupid way of operating." I was reading "Well, there's no point to prayer at all." Is that a fair summation?

I had to think about this for a big, but actually, yes. With a massive asterisk.

I'm not entirely sure that there is a point to prayer at all right now. However, that's because I'm still far too close to the B.S. fundie world I've removed myself from. I was taught, both explicitly and implicitly to believe in the Vending Machine God. Along with the VMG comes the general sense (as Bug pointed out in the very first post) that if you're not getting the thing that's connected to your button combination, you're doing something wrong. This is self-defeating and ultimately dangerous. It also leads, in my humble opinion, to some of the greater dangers we find in, say, LaHaye & Jenkins' worldview and the literal to the point of absurdity Creation Museum.

At the moment god is, to me, roughly a Schroedinger's Cat-level paradox. There might be no god at all or there might be a god who could be indifferent, caring, or malevolent. I don't actually know, as I can't see inside the box. On some days I'm an atheist, on some days I'm a Deist and on some days I'm a little bit closer to actually believing in a god who cares.

The place where I'm coming around on the issue is when the people I care about are hurting. I want to help them but if there's nothing I can possibly do I want to believe that there is some being with enough power and love to step in and help.

Ironically enough, unlike the Chicken Little-esque wailings of the fundies who will tell you that without their version of God the human race will fall apart, I've found that I actually put more effort in to being caring and generous now than I used to. As we've seen with L.B. Fridays, I get the distinct impression that when your main concern is with making sure God is happy with you, you leave everything else on the back burner. I tried to avoid buying in to that mentality, but I couldn't escape it and I think the fact that I didn't want to believe it just made me all that much more worried about the consequences.

In summation, on some level I'd really like to believe prayer is effective. I spent the last couple of years of my time in fundie-land avoiding praying for myself and avoiding prayer for specific things as much as possible and in the times when I want to pray now I still feel the same way. Assuming god even exists, I don't think that much of anything I can say or do will influence god in any way, shape or form. But I do believe that a re-affirmation of my care for those around me and my own powerlessness to shape the universe to my will is a good thing every once in a while. I like to believe that if we can take any direct lessons from the revelation of any Scripture, it's that. Perhaps there is a god, perhaps there isn't. The one thing I can know is that I am not filling that particular role.

[Lee Ratner]

Just want to chime in with a Jewish interpretation.

Judaism, at least the Judaism I was taught, opposses the concept of God as a vending machine. Although my Rabbi referred to this concept as God the Magician. Its generally seen as arrogant for humans to pray to God for material things and very old Jewish folktale concerning a Rabbi Honi who prayed for rain warns against such activity.

As to public prayers, it does blur the distinction between religion and state and as a Jew I oppose such bluring. Jews are not opposed to public prayers, generally ten Jewish men are necessary to pray in Judaism. However, for a state official to call a prayer for rain and back this up with a public ceremony is very unconstitutional.

[Deoridhe]

In my experience, the people we call insane are as predictable and those we don't, thy just don't conform to society's rules in some manner.

[Bugmaster]

I would actually endorse both of hapax's interpretations. A vending-machine God makes no sense at the get-go; I think we can all agree on that. However, I want to go even further and argue that a completely inscrutable God also makes little sense -- at the very least, such a God makes prayer pointless.

The girlfriend example doesn't really work because, as many people have pointed out, the girlfriend is scrutable (that's probably not a word, but it should be) at least to some degree. She's human, you can talk to her, and while you may not be able to understand her completely, you can at least get an idea of what she's thinking. Such is not the case with Tonio's God. I think Geds's awesome vending machine example illustrates this quite well.

Note that this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, or that God must be objectively verifiable, etc. (though it would be nice, don't get me wrong); nor does it mean that prayer is completely useless. It only means that if you, subjectively, believe in a completely inscrutable God, then praying to such a God and expecting actual results seems a bit contradictory.

Bug is a computer guy...

::beep::

[burgundy]

To follow up on Lee Ratner: with the Vending Machine God, you pray for God to do your will. In Judaism, as I have always understood it, you pray for your will to become aligned with God's.

[Geds]

Scrutable should be a word. I think I'm going to start using it whenever possible.

[Cyllan]

In summation, on some level I'd really like to believe prayer is effective.

I think this really depends on what you're praying for. Even on those days when I believe in the Divine, I don't think it exists as a Vending Machine (nice analogy, by the way) that grants processed corn-snacks when the right button combination exists. I don't believe you can get what you want just by reciting the right incant, or by believing in just the right view of God; if that were so, we'd all be in perfect health, live in mansions and weigh exactly what we wanted to. Frankly, if the Vending Machine God were the real one, I would actively hate Him.

I do think that prayer can strengthen the person offering up the prayer. It can lead to insight, provide that necessary calm and peace that will get you through the really hard time, and increase your joy and thanksgiving. I find it comforting, when everything has gone to hell, to know that there are people praying for me -- even though I don't share their faith.

Note that I'm using "prayer" here pretty loosely -- perhaps more akin to meditation than anything else. It needn't be directed at a cosmic force or god or even the universe.

[cjmr's husband]

I think Geds's awesome vending machine example illustrates this quite well.

Our Vending Machine is an Awesome Vending Machine...

[Geds]

Our Vending Machine is an Awesome Vending Machine...

It rains chips on command
With candy, mints and gum
Our Vending Machine is an
Awesome Vending Machine

Hmmm. Loses something in the translation...