What's the Point of Prayer?

SKEPTIC: A Wisconsin man and his wife were recently convicted of second-degree reckless homicide in the death of their 11-year-old daughter. When the girl, who suffered from undiagnosed diabetes, couldn't walk, talk, eat, or drink, the parents didn't take her to the hospital. They just stood around and prayed for her, believing that God would heal her. When she stopped breathing, someone finally called 911, but it was too late. What is your opinion of this case? Do you think the verdict (and a possible 25-year prison sentence) is justified?

PREACHER: The couple were obviously misguided and did what seemed right in their own eyes. I think that they failed to understand that God is Lord of everything and uses the medical proffession to heal, too. Reputable faith healers that I know of encourage the ones they pray for to also get medical help. I am reminded of one of the temptations that Jesus faced when the Devil tempted Him to jump off the pinacle of the temple. The Devil even quoted Scripture to Him, but He answered that you should not tempt the Lord your God. I really wonder what the underlining motive was for this couple to choose to not seek medical help. It could have been just to save money since medicine is so expensive these days. Was there an underlining mistrust of doctors? The Bible does teach to pray for the sick, but the apostle Paul prayed for healing of his "thorn in the flesh" and never got it, so doctor Luke was with him most of his journeys. It think the verdict is a bit harsh, but it should stand.

SKEPTIC: To me, this case is a good example of the danger of believing in prayer. If you believe that God will perform miracles or somehow change the laws of nature to accommodate your wishes, you're setting yourself up for a big fall. But on the other hand, why shouldn't the father rely on prayer? Doesn't the Bible say that God is able to do all things for those who believe in him? Is God not powerful enough to cure a small girl of her diabetes? Why should God need helpers in the form of doctors?

And what exactly is the deal with religious faith healers like Oral Roberts and others who claim to be able to heal folks of just about any physical malady through faith only? Are they for real or are they frauds? (I'm gonna go with the latter.)

To me, praying is just basically just the manifestation of the power of suggestion. And sometimes it even works. But it's just the power of your mind and not some mystical communication with the creator of the universe.

PREACHER: You have two assumptions that you can't prove. One, you assume that the Creator of this universe doesn't really exist. And, if He did, He would have to be one who would always be accommodating to the wishes of men. God listens to us, but has a mind of His own that doesn't always jibe with our thoughts whether we believe in Him or not. He may also choose to do things that seem cruel to us in our limited understanding. Two, you assume there has to be a dichotomy between the spiritual and the physical. Interestingly, that was the same mistake that the father of the girl made. He assumed that God (the spiritual) would not want him to use the work of doctors (the physical) who were also created by God to do His will.

SKEPTIC: Well, Christians have certainly done a good job at putting God in a win-win situation: If you pray for someone to get better, for example, and he does get better, it's an answer to prayer and proves how great God is. But if the person gets worse or maybe even dies, it's because God has a greater plan, or there's a reason for everything he does, or it's all beyond our "limited understanding." Win-win for the Big Guy. But here's the key point: You said that God has "a mind of his own." So if God's gonna do what God wants to do, no matter what, then there really is no point in praying, is there? God's already made up his mind.

As to your point that I can't prove that God doesn't exist, you're right - just as you can't prove that he does exist. Of course, normally, the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the person making an extraordinary claim, doesn't it?

PREACHER: Since God is the creator and the Lord of the universe, He doesn't need to play games (win-win situation etc.) with us. He already knows about everything. Jesus even said that He knew our requests before we asked. So,what is the purpose of prayer anyway? It is more to develop our relationship with Him than to get something from Him. That relationship is so fulfilling and wonderful that even if all the people in the world had it, it would still be extraordinary. Since the majority of people who have ever lived on this planet believe in some kind of diety, simple belief in God is just ordinary. Unbelief should be labeled sub-ordinary. The burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the person taking the greatest risk.

SKEPTIC: Of course God doesn't need to play games. I'm sure he's got better things to do. My point was that Christians are very good at justifying whatever happens in regard to God and prayer in order to put God in the best possible light. Of course, what they're really doing is just making excuses for God when things don't go their way or don't make any sense.

In regard to your contention that "the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the person taking the greatest risk," that sounds suspiciously like something you just made up. And I find it interesting that you're willing to enlist the rest of the world to your side in their belief in a deity, but then you turn around and say to those other religions, "Sorry, but you all believe in the WRONG God and are going to Hell." In reality, though, as you can see from this pie chart, the number of "nonreligious" people in the world represent a pretty sizable chunk and, indeed, is rapidly growing larger.

Should We Have a "National Day of Prayer?"

SKEPTIC: Some Christians are hopping mad at President Obama because he declined to observe this year's National Day of Prayer with an event at the White House. He issued the proclamation urging Americans to pray (which is required by law), but skipped the annual butt-kissing of religious right leaders that Bush had engaged in by inviting them to the White House each year. By doing so, Obama was doing exactly the same thing as every other president before Bush, going back to Truman, who established the first observance of the day in 1952.

But of course, there are plenty of folks, myself included, who believe that the government has no business telling anyone when to pray, how to pray, or to pray at all. The separation of church and state is a concept that is central to our democracy. Add to that the fact that the observance has been hijacked by the religous right (Shirley Dobson, wife of James Dobson, is the chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force), and what you've got is really The National Day of Christian Prayer. If you happen to believe in a different religion, I guess you're on your own.

PREACHER: Historically, America has been strongly influenced by the Christian religion. So, it is not surprising that such events as a national day of prayer have a strong Christian flavor. The historical concept of the separation of church and state, or freedom of religion (not to be confused with the concept of freedom from religion which is impossible to guarantee) was that the government wouldn't institute a national religion, but would not pass laws against religious activities either. I would suggest that those who aren't of the Christian persuasion stop complaining and institute parallel observances showing their appreciation and solidarity with the nation.

SKEPTIC: You're right that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a state religion, and the government is required to permit the free exercise of religion. However, the courts have generally held that the government cannot favor one religion over another, and also cannot favor religion over irreligion (or vice versa). This is why public prayers in government schools are not allowed, and is also why local governments get in trouble when they erect things like a nativity scene or The 10 Commandments on government property.

But to get back to the matter at hand - what is the real purpose of The National Day of Prayer? Do Christians really need a special day set aside to pray? Isn't it just an elaborate commercial for Christianity?

PREACHER: Christians see the National Day of Prayer as a way to encourage people to follow the advice in the Bible that says: If My people will humble themselves and pray and turn from their wicked ways, then God will hear from heaven and hear their prayers and heal their land. We really do believe in a God that listens to humble prayers, and that concerted prayer does make a difference. Then there is a large group of people who see a day of prayer as just a cultural event. Those are the people that unbelievers should try to reach. If instead of complaining and going to court about religious events and objects on public places (which causes a backlash), you were creative at producing what we missionaries call dynamic cultural equivalents you might be able to win over the majority of the population.

SKEPTIC: A "dynamic cultural equivalent..." That's an interesting idea. So we nonbelievers should come up with something along the same lines as the National Day of Prayer that we can celebrate. Hmm...Okay, how about this? I think the U.S. government should declare the second Sunday in June each year as a "National Day of Darwin." On this day, the government will issue a proclamation imploring Americans to meditate on Charles Darwin and thank him for giving us a rational understanding of how the world works. Teachers can have special classes for students to make sure they understand why Darwin is so revered. People can send special Happy Darwin Day cards to each other and maybe even give each other presents. Cake would be optional.

PREACHER: And don't forget the music! How is this title? "In the Name of Darwin We have the Victory." Then you could quote slogans from his world famous book translated into the tongues of all people almost instantly through modern technology: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Surely in a few years there could be a mass turning to atheism. A new age of rationality and peace would emerge. 

I think hell will freeze over before that happens though.