Considering the Effects of Prayer

The post that was quoted here has been removed

If a person prays without expecting God to respond, however, simply as a ritual that helps oneself feel better (less stressed), then I don't quite
understand why it must be irrational for that person to expect that benefit.

What's at issue are the underlying beliefs. As you said yourself, "...a prayer has no chance of being heard or granted, and therefore prayer always must be irrational". In this scenario, the person presumably still expects to be heard. Not sure how you lost sight of this.

Many competitors and performers have rituals that they like to run through
before their competitions and performances. These rituals might include
eating a favourite meal (which could have a physical explanation) or
putting on a 'lucky' article of clothing (which is based on superstition).
But if someone sincerely believes that wearing a 'lucky' dress, for instance,
could help her sing better and win an opera competition, then could not
her added confidence be considered relevant to her improved performance?

Once again, what's at issue are the underlying beliefs.

Originally posted by JS357
Whether knocking on wood is rational depends on what one thinks it accomplishes. One purpose could be to magically increase the actual likelihood of something happening as one says or hopes it will. Another is to signal one's uncertainty and hopefulness in a somewhat informal and humorous way, after making a favorable prediction or boast. If the latter is the ...[text shortened]... e, sometimes effective, rational invocation of magical forces to have fate fulfill one's wishes.

Not sure what this has to do with what I posted. I was speaking of those "who believe in 'knocking on wood', 'crossing fingers', etc. for luck" - not for other reasons.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You sure you want to ask a believer?

Because prayer is communication with God. God gets involved through the Holy Spirit.

Based on your response, I'll assume that you think those other practices are irrational. The follow up question was regarding the question of why one should consider the other practices as irrational in and of themselves and prayer as rational in and of itself. I'd have thought this would have been clear. Not sure why you instead chose to describe prayer.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes

The post that was quoted here has been removed

And this is the problem. Where do you draw the line? When do you decide that gambling is bad? Casinos around here make an awful lot of money. Its quite hard not to condemn the behaviour that allows this.
I actually agree that a for a lot of people prayer is pretty harmless and may be beneficial, but it seems there are also a lot of people for whom it is detrimental - either to themselves or to others.
For example, I know people who when someone succeeds at something, they do not congratulate that person for their hard work, but instead thank God. I think this is quite bad for children especially.
Also, when something bad happens and action is needed, if the first response is prayer, with actual action a distant second, I think this is often detrimental.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I suspect that few religious people *expect* their prayers to be heard
in the sense that they expect prompt divine intervention in their lives.

Color me "confused". When you said, "...a prayer has no chance of being heard or granted, and therefore prayer always must be irrational", you meant "heard" in the sense of "expect[ing] prompt divine intervention" and "or granted" as an explanation of the sense you intended? And when you said, "therefore prayer always must be irrational" you didn't mean that it "always must be irrational"? Seems more than a bit awkward. Or have you moved the goal posts?

When I said, "...the person presumably still expects to be heard", I meant it in the sense of the person expecting God to lend his ear. So do you believe it irrational for a person to expect God to lend his ear to one's prayers? If not, why not?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I am not advocating that either gambling nor prayer be made illegal. I do think gambling should be controlled. For example it has become normal to allow gambling via cell phones with no age restrictions or controls whatsoever - despite there being laws (in this country at least) against gambling for under 18s.

Whenever, as a child, I achieved something (often something exceptional),
my parents never congratulated me. Instead, they tended to punish me
lest I should ever think highly of myself. And that's not because they told
me to thank God.
I still say giving God all the credit is bad practice.

We even had a poster on here some time back that claimed that he never did anything good, he just allowed God to work through him and it was God that did good. He couldn't even take credit for his own actions.

I also personally know people who fast, or engage in other strenuous forms of prayer with the belief that it leads to personal gain. A related case, although not really prayer was my roommate at university who claimed to be buddhist and did a special chant and he claimed that if he did it often enough he would get whatever he wanted.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Based on your response, I'll assume that you think those other practices are irrational. The follow up question was regarding the question of why one should consider the other practices as irrational in and of themselves and prayer as rational in and of itself. I'd have thought this would have been clear. Not sure why you instead chose to describe prayer.

Because it answers your question. I'd have thought this would have been clear.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Because it answers your question. I'd have thought this would have been clear.

Actually it doesn't. As I said:
"The follow up question was regarding the question of why one should consider the other practices as irrational in and of themselves and prayer as rational in and of itself."

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Answered, no. Heard, yes.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually it doesn't. As I said:
"The follow up question was regarding the question of why one should consider the other practices as irrational in and of themselves and prayer as rational in and of itself."

Precisely. Remember, I'm not referencing your bias like you are.

Therefore, it does answer the question, just not the way you'd like.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Precisely. Remember, I'm not referencing your bias like you are.

Therefore, it does answer the question, just not the way you'd like.

C'mon Suzianne. In order for you to actually address it you'll need to explain why "the other practices as irrational in and of themselves" AND explain why "prayer as rational in and of itself."

This has nothing to do with "[my] bias". If you don't want to answer, then just say so - instead of playing this silly game.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon Suzianne. In order for you to actually address it you'll need to explain why "the other practices as irrational in and of themselves" AND explain why "prayer as rational in and of itself."

This has nothing to do with "bias".

Doesn't it have to do with not believing what I said is true? Then yes, it has plenty to do with bias.

"Because prayer is communication with God. God gets involved through the Holy Spirit." This separates prayer from those other things. The implication here is that those other practices do not "communicate with God", and are therefore nonsensical. This also addresses why prayer is rational. "Because prayer is communication with God. God gets involved through the Holy Spirit."

But you don't believe this. Sure, "this has nothing to do with bias". Yeah, right.

The answer is what it is. You can blow it off as a "non-answer" but that's what lame debaters like robbie carrobie do. Just because you don't believe it or you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm not right.

But yeah, it doesn't have anything to do with bias. Sure.

Now stop with the trolling, you just made me waste ten minutes with an explanation of what should have been obvious.