Friday, December 17, 2004

The Power Of Prayer

I saw a story on ABC News last night, that triggered my imagination. It seems there are vast networks of prayer agents operating in the United States, sometimes undercover. These groups target prayers, often quite specifically, in hopes that god (our now-common generic name, though in this case it seems God will do) will intercede on their behalf or on the behalf of the prayer target (it's not always clear which).

So I got to thinking about this, and I came to a logical and somewhat startling revelation. Now, I pray frequently (more than Scrooge, less than any devout Muslim), most often with food, and with a real sense of faith (but I admit without any expectation). Most often it's to express thanks (to Jesus and God, those are my peeps), sometimes to provide guidance for myself, and occasionally to protect my wife and sons. In my life I've probably asked God once or twice for something for myself (bargaining, really) or for intercession for a third party. I admit, I never had much faith in the last, and it always seemed a bit distasteful (even icky). My revelation explains why that is.

Here is the logical experiment: first we determine the nature of a god receptive to prayer, and who would intercede in the world; then what that means for that god. This gives us an idea of the value of prayer, in several forms.

First, either there is a god, or there isn't. If there is no god, prayer is useless as a divine communications tool (prayer may still have many other uses, but it won't express thoughts and ideas if the receiver doesn't exist). So prayer is only a communicative tool for intercession if there is a god.

Second, that god must be able to intercede in our human world. If he's unable to do anything about a prayer target, then communication is still incomplete. Even if there were an answer, it would be, "sorry, I can't help you, you'll need to figure this one out for yourself." So prayer is only a communicative tool for intercession if there is a god who can intercede.

Third, god must be willing to intercede. If he won't touch his creation to divinely alter it, then requests for his intercession won't achieve the desired ends. God just won't do it. So the only opening for successful intercessive prayer is with a powerful, willing creator.

Now, this creator is omnipotent, or he's not. Let's assume he is all-powerful. Then he has the ability to create a perfect world. Given that ability, he either has done that, or he hasn't by choice. If he has done that, then the world is perfect, and there is no reason to intercede. But if he deliberately created an imperfect world, he had a reason. We'll explore this momentarily.

A god who is not omnipotent, might not be able to help in every prayer request. After all, for this god there are impossible tasks. It is also possible that he cannot create an ideal world ever. Plus, this god might not even want to change his creation at the request of a few human beings. So intercessive prayer in this situation is fraught with chance and danger. So while it might help humanity, it also might hurt, and there is arguement to not engage in that type of prayer, or at least make damn sure there's no hubris or arrogance in such a request.

So the only time it is reasonable to believe that intercessive prayer will have a positive divine outcome, is if there is an omnipotent creator, who has created an imperfect existence for humanity, and who is willing to aquiesce to the requests of those very humans he has placed in that existence. But why would such a god do that?

Either he wants us to ask for his help, or he wants us to fix the world ourselves. If he wants us to ask for his help, great, but if he jumps in, he only shows us how ineffective we humans are. I doubt he wants that. Perhaps he wants us to seek his guidance. I think that is a noble request in prayer, but it is also presumptuous to think any of us can ask god to provide that guidance for a third party who may or may not even want it. That's a two-party request; I can ask god to guide me, but it is folly and an insult to god to suggest he give it to someone else (who's to say he hasn't already).

So to even engage in prayers asking for god's intercession on behalf of a third party (beyond protection), is in essence an insult to god. It's mighty pretentious, and dismissive of the power and love embodied in the essence of God (yes, with a "G"). After all, either he's not going to answer anyway; or by answering, he's admitting fault with the universe, and responsibility for fixing it.

So basically asking God to jump in and help "guide" another person, or more boldly take specific divine action to intervene (for reasons other than protection), assumes the person praying has a better grasp of the situation than God, and that that person knows what is right for someone else; basically God's will for that person. That smacks of selfishness and arrogance.

Additionally, how is it that a massive group prayer has any more attention from God than the quietest plea whispered by the smallest child? Such a belief would be a wholly human construct, based on "Might Makes Right," and outside the teachings of Jesus Christ. More likely, any god who would be inclined to intercede for humanity would probably just take offense at such action, and answer the little kid first.

In any case, it defines the phrase, "Holier Than Thou."

To me, that's what makes it so icky.

No comments: