Please learn to follow discussions. The all caps for emphasis doesn't change that the discussion evolved.

And you are totally incorrect (again) about stating "punish". Reward/punish cultures and honor/shame cultures are different. The text stems from honor/shame. NOT punish.

If you don't know the differences in kinds of cultures, do some research. Because no credible scholar is ever going to state that the culture of the ancients (in OT and NT) wasn't honor/shame culture.

And yes, it does matter. If you don't understand the historical culture of the writings and audience, you can't interpret the stories correctly.

THE QUESTION WAS UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS GOD WOULD ANSWER THE PRAYER FOR A NON_BELIEVER, therfore nothing in the bible works maybe you should read the question again if the caps arn't enough to point out that you completley avoid the question and talk about something else...BTW you are very much not alone in this thread as far as avoiding the stated question I gave the only story I ever heard that fit the bill as someone whom did not believe,and prayed to this god,was answered and it was very good for this god. I can think of no part of the text(bible) that fit this question and again say you must look elsewhere for a reason,point,or story...the only reason anyone in that text has to believe is to avoid punishment...and has no stories of an unbeliever be answered by god...I would also question where you get honor/shame from the old trestament..and there is only shame and punishment after the gospels prior to that it's believe or be destroyed.....are you sure you have read the same book I did because I no longer am. I would also point out no matter what the 'culture' was the book tells a hell of a different story.

I explained exactly why Job is an example of prayer and it's purpose. I never stated it was an example of atheist conversion. I was specific: "Job is a great case study on the desire to know "why"." And that "no" should be sufficient.

And the bible doesn't teach punish for disbelief. The bible is from honor/shame culture, not a reward/punish culture. Punish and "shame" are two different things.

If you are specifically talking about prayer to the God of Abraham, you have to use the stories from that text. You might as well suggest looking to the 3 Little Pigs to figure out what color Little Red Riding's cape was.

Won't work.

Don't see how JOB can be used for an example as he was a believer of the highest order,and the whole point of his story was about his strength of belief no matter what happened to him as the result,more or less of a wager between god and satan.

I would suggest THE only way god(whatever one you want to use for this) would do such a thing would be to gain something for god such as the story of Constantine his battle and the result being the acceptance of christianity in the Roman empire and it becoming the state religion. If you want an example that would likely be the best and most well known(not that I accept the story as truth buuuut there you go). How anyone can use any example from the bible is beyond me..those that don't believe are punished, or exterminated usually. You must look outside that book to get anything even reasonable as an example for this question...not outside the faith,but outside the book.

@JonJon

... ahhhh, I understand now with the cannot vs. can. I think I was tied up in my own beliefs which would very much preclude me from having at least a "propositional acceptance of the existence of God."

As for the second part, it may not be that often that we agree exactly on a point but I've never had any problems as long as someone's point of view is based on what I can understand as a rational basis even if I disagree with the overall point. What you've put forward makes sense and it doesn;t fall into the category of "god cannot be tested" etc. Failing rationality, an admittance that a belief isn't rational will do! For example I support a football team and like football in general but if asked why I support a particular team it's very much just because I do. How I wish life's cruel fate had dealt me a better team to support - well up until the last few years anyway!

"(I presumed you meant "God cannot" not "God can") "

Actually, I meant "God can." It makes sense to require of prayer in the abstract whatever it is that is required for prayer to work. I presume that in order for prayer to work, it requires at least propositional acceptance of the existence of God. If such acceptance happens, then I think it is reasonable to assume that such an exercise counts as prayer, even if the person praying would not normally believe in God. Thus, as long as prayer meets this criteria, which could even be folded into the definition of prayer itself, I think it should be possible for God to answer it. This does not preclude non-believers in any way. Even an "If you're really out there..." should work in my opinion.

As for Christianity, I generally assume it, since it is the predominant example of theism in my culture, but I tend toward the idea that multiple faith traditions lead to God: there is doctrinal support for this even in strict evangelical circles, although to a limited extent: Judaism, for example, is regarded (when people are thinking clearly about it) as an acceptable path to God. Obviously this doesn't speak for everyone, but there is justification for the idea.

I think prayer in desperation or as a last-ditch effort counts as a valid form of prayer; I hope it does, because I figure the majority of human prayer occurs in desperation or anger. It would be a shame if all that prayer didn't count or counted negatively.

As for your analysis of the problems with testing prayer, I actually agree with you, I just didn't write it down correctly. I think you and I agree almost exactly on this question. (And how often does that happen, really? We should celebrate somehow!)

@JonBoy

"Now that I've finished with the quasi-rant, I incline toward the idea that God can answer the prayer of a nonbeliever, since in order to effectively pray, one would have to engage with a God as if he exists and is capable of answering prayer."

I presuming that you're really referring to the Christian god here as if it's a generalised god then I don't see why being a believer or non-believer should make any particular difference, nor for that matter would I see our idea of justice being essential. For the Christian god I don't know the answer but from the above I think you believe (I presumed you meant "God cannot" not "God can") that being a non-believer means that it will never happen. Two comments I have, if at a very low point in someone's life they plead to god in a moment of sheer desperation (think of it as the doctor who tries quack remedies - that' not an insult to your beliefs just the best comparison I can think of! - as even though they have no belief in them they also know that conventional medicine has no cure), would (should?) god intervene then; to you does having your prayers answered mean the physical act of praying must of happened or can it be more generalised into helping those that really need help?

"What on earth would be a proper testing procedure for determining that prayer does not work? (Edit: What I mean here is that the phenomenon under consideration (the miraculous answering of prayer) is potentially so rare as to almost never happen. This rarity should be a part of scientific investigations of prayer, and I don't think it currently is.)"

This is probably where I would take issue with you as that's very much your definition of how prayer "works" but that's not the same as everybody's. So yes you can (and people have) tested a version of prayer. If it's a extremely rare event just makes it harder to test not impossible. The real problems lies in how to determine whether something was a miracle or just "weird things happen" combined with it being a extremely rare event i.e. the observed world looks no different to us whether prayers are answered or not.

Job is a great case study on the desire to know "why". Job teaches that why is essentially an irrelevant question. The answer he gets is "where were you. i'm god. you're not." His friends are rebuked for attempting to play god and answer the why. I'm surprised that most theists don't understand that in their attempts to console or answer the question themselves. Since, it's right there in the story. Job isn't faulted for his questions as much as he is simply put in place. I find the bet at the onset to be a beautiful example of the roles of the god and the man. Job is found faithful. Even when his life partner encourages him to curse god, Job won't. Of course, he isn't really rewarded with all he lost. In the end, we find he is blessed with new things. That's pretty much the whole story of life in a nutshell for the believer and answers to prayers. The outcome is to say what Ephesians echos...

exceedingly more than one could even hope to imagine.

That is the core of the "god's will" question. That the God of Abraham truly does have His best interests at heart, and that He also has man's best at heart. The concept of contentment regardless of circumstance is a theme throughout the text. And so, any divine intervention is always said to put God's interests before man's, and man's desires to be God's interests. Romans covers this as well.

The free will doctrine screws this up completely. It's understandable that the doctrine developed, because man's nature is to believe he's got some sort of control over things. Man likes answers, pretty packages, labels, cleaned up stuff. Surrender is a messy concept to wrap the brain around.

Divine intervention doesn't *really* happen. Even in the story of the Exodus, one can't necessarily argue that the timing wasn't God's all along.

I think the story of Joseph is also one of the most perfect examples of prayer and will and the whole theme of "intervention" and supplication. Rachel's barrenness while a burden and heartbreak, while her anguish persisted, while her prayers were "unanswered"...his being sold into slavery, being mistreated, betrayed, wrongfully imprisoned, forgotten so to speak... we don't get to Joseph being at the right place/right time without it.

"you meant it for evil, god meant it for good."

The God of Abraham's will is made clear in the text through many of these stories. But most ignore those themes. They don't *want* a negative answer to their prayer. They don't want to be patient. They don't really want the god is described in the text.

And contrary to the myth, this god is not so much depicted as a "monster", but the god is depicted as simply trumping man and getting to do what he wants to do with his own creation. The story goes, that ultimately what man wants is a king, justice, some sort of reconciliation for things. And the god of abraham promises eventually, with an eternal, patient perspective, man will get that.

I don't know if that answers the question or elaborates enough... but basically... prayers are just cries for someone to hear the plea. And answers to prayers are to be really no more than "yes, i hear you." That is supposed to be enough for the believer.

That it isn't, only further bolsters the theme that man is depraved and not in control, and his god is.

Think JOB.

I agree that Job is the perfect case for analysis; in the other thread, the model of Job as a man angrily demanding an explanation and then (sort of) receiving one is an interesting one, but even moreso in this context because such responses are so rare in being forthcoming as to be excluded statistically. That is to say, Job got an answer, but nobody else does, at least not that directly.

This is what I mean by operate; even if prayer is understood as a psychological method for aligning human will with God's, it is hard to understanding how that alignment takes place unless God's will is made clear to the human so praying, especially if the results of the event which are the putative object of the motivation for the prayer diverge occasionally from what one would expect without divine intervention.

Interesting. Will you expand that more?

Clarify operate: Do you mean how is that "answer" interpreted by the petitioner?

"Positive or Negative answer to prayer" doesn't really exist. Not according to the text.

Judaism teaches that prayer is for introspection. Christianity does as well, but like many things people screw up, that got lost along the way once people tossed good study of their texts.

So, I'm confused what you mean by operate.

Man wants to believe he's been heard by his god. Even if the prayer is answered "negatively" a devout believer will (or should) acknowledge "god said no".

Think JOB.

I assume it would be like an awesome Christmas bonus; to put it another way, the main point of prayer is separate from direct intervention on the part of God, but God may nevertheless intervene. I don't know that I like the common evangelical doctrine that "God answers every prayer, sometimes he just says maybe." I'm inclined to think that God doesn't answer many, many prayers, but that sometimes he does, and that such intervention is correspondingly more awesome.

Ok, that makes some sense, psychologically. But then how does that operate if in fact such prayers are answered positively on occasion?

"It is unclear to me why believers pray for intercession given what they are nearly required to believe of the entity to which they are supplicating."

Praying for intercession is necessary in the process of aligning desire. It is the most authentic part of the prayer. Without it, the petitioner won't be able to surrender. It must be put out there.

The believer is called to pray for this. Unfortunately, most rip that call from it's full context and the overall themes of the text and forget it's purpose.

The story of Jesus battling the flesh in the garden is a perfect illustration of the purpose of prayer. Until there is transparent, authentic fist in the air, sweat to blood and tears... the petitioner can't move on to acknowledgment and acceptance of any outcome.

Really no different than what some say is "admitting it is the first step to recovery" kind of thinking.

I meant from a non-empirical standpoint. (It turns out I concur with Elizabeth and you on this as well: empiricism does not avail when studying putatively non-natural phenomena.) It is unclear to me why believers pray for intercession given what they are nearly required to believe of the entity to which they are supplicating. Other types of prayer (communion with or reception from God) make plenty of sense, but not that one.

Shockingly, I agree with Elizabeth. From what I know, this is also brgulker's position on prayer.

@lmnop

Well, if the conversation is about what *theists* shouldn't believe from a purely empirical standpoint, we're looking at a pretty big list, eh?

The authors of all the studies themselves say the results are not to be taken as conclusive. So, it is silly to say that it has been proven prayer works or doesn't.

According to the biblical text, the purpose of prayer has nothing to do with wishing wells or vending machines. The purpose is not to align god to man's desires, but to align man to god's will. That is taught over and over and over again. And it makes the most sense when you consider what prayer actually does to the human brain. Prayer's purpose is to alter the mindset of the petitioner to "any result that is best".

I imagine the meta-problem with prayer being "non-testable" is a practical one. Given the tradition of God being an all-knowing all-seeing dude who has a plan, the theoretical efficacy of intercessory and/or imprecatory prayer is highly doubtful even from a standpoint of committed theist. This is compounded by the assertion that occasionally it actually is efficacious, which leads to questions of arbitrary selection and/or a deity who is very hard-of-hearing. I agree with you that empirical methods would not avail, but it is not clear to me that theists using a theistic rubric should "believe" in prayer or miracles, as such, either.

The Biblical God didn't answer many prayers in a verifiable way: the whole reason a burning bush is noteworthy is because it's unusual, right? What on earth would be a proper testing procedure for determining that prayer does not work? (Edit: What I mean here is that the phenomenon under consideration (the miraculous answering of prayer) is potentially so rare as to almost never happen. This rarity should be a part of scientific investigations of prayer, and I don't think it currently is.)

I know that *not disproving* a phenomenon doesn't count as proof for it. But attempting to *disprove* the efficacy of prayer is ridiculous and not productive. It isn't possible to scientifically disprove. So an empirical investigation of prayer is going to have to go far, far beyond skeptics praying, deciding nothing has happened, and yelling "aha!" I'd be interested in seeing a full-fledged study of prayer, not on a mass scale, but on people who are well-positioned to have their prayers answered: prophets, the extremely devout, etc. The fact that the vast majority of hospital patients get better or worse primarily due to the level of care they receive from from medical professionals should come as no surprise to anyone.

Now that I've finished with the quasi-rant, I incline toward the idea that God can answer the prayer of a nonbeliever, since in order to effectively pray, one would have to engage with a God as if he exists and is capable of answering prayer.

Unless the real God is insanely jealous and/or childlike...

All of them, and the real god is sure to speak up. Its foolproof!

I guess the first question should be "which god should you pray to?".

Well I think there are certain statements made by the religious that are capable of being scrutinised.

Even if you let the believer lay the ground rules and methodology in determining if 'prayer works' (which is one of many assertions open to scientific enquiry)it fails miserably. I read that the templeton Foundation commissioned a prayer study and found (to their credit that they revealed the results) that prayer was in most part detrimental to the recovery of ill patients.

I am reminded of the James Randi challenge. Although these so called psychics poo poo it, the million dollars are still up for grabs and its no matter of wonder why these so called psychics have never taken up the challenge. Christianity is just woo woo with frocks on.

As this one seems to have got somewhat lost in other threads I thought I would start a new one. A couple of posts to understand the question ...

"Personally I'd be interested in some Christian opinion regarding what Jabster and I were discussing earlier, re: whether belief in God can be approached in an experimental fashion, and whether their conception of God would be one which would be receptive to such an approach."

"Ah, I see. Well, I tend to think yes. In fact, I figure the bulk of human contact with God must be frustration or anger. Yelling at the sky counts as prayer in my book. I have little to no theology backing this up atm, but I don't think God requires a specific sort of mindset like "psychics" occasionally argue ESP requires. "Oh, you weren't really open," etc.

At the same time, though, I do get irritated by the skeptics who "test" prayer. Not only is their methodology incredibly flawed, but in a universe that might contain a personal God, I don't think there is much call for pretending to look for him with pretend science."