Some theists always pray and believe it works. The argument of petitionary prayer tries to prove the point that it is pointless to pray, because it will not influence God’s decision anyway. Personally, I think the argument of petitionary prayer appears more convincing to me, so this paper would mainly about some responses to the objections to petitionary prayer arguments. Specifically, one is the parody and one is the institutional challenge. First, I would present the exact argument as demonstrated in Howard-Snyder’s paper(Howard-Snyder, Daniel; Howard-Snyder, Frances 2010) , which is as follows:
1. Either doing something is the best God can do or it is not.
2. If it is the best God can do, then your asking won’t make any difference to whether he does it.
3. If it is not the best God can do, then your asking won’t make any difference to whether he does it.
4. So, your asking won’t make any difference to whether God does it.
This argument needs some assumptions to be built. First, we need to assume that God must do the best he can. Second, we need to assume that petition to God makes no difference to what he does. Another crucial assumption(CA) Howar-Snyder mentioned is that “God’s bringing about a state of affairs in response to a petition cannot be better than the
…show more content…
alternatives, and asking God to do something cannot change the moral status of his doing it, all by itself, independently of any other reason he has to do it.” One thing before the discussion: I am an agnostic, but since the discussion about petitionary prayer must assume that God exist. I would to accept this assumption for argument purpose. Obviously most practical theists wouldn’t like the petitionary prayer argument, so there are a lot of proposed objections to it. In the following part of this paper, I would point out my responses and analysis to the parody and institutional challenge to petitionary prayer argument. The first one objection is the parody of the petitionary prayer argument. The details(Kenneth Boyce 2016) are as follow: 1. If you know the answers, then you will pass the test regardless of whether or not you study. 2. If you don’t know the answers, then you won’t pass the test regardless of whether or not you study. 3. If (1) and (2) are true, then whether or not you study makes no difference as to whether or not you pass the test. 4. Therefore, whether or not you study makes no difference as to whether or not you pass the test. It seems to make sense when in the first glance, but here are some potential problems that I found worth discussing. First, the second premise doesn’t stand. The action of study will happen before the test. We have to specify the timeline to make the argument clear. Suppose at T1, the person choose to study or not. At T2, which is later than T1, the person take the test. If premise 2 is stated at T2, it doesn't stand because the fact that individual studied or not is already decided. It is no longer a conditional proposition as suggested in the premise. If premise 2 is stated at T1, it doesn’t stand either because the choice of study or not will influence the conditional, that you know the answer or not. Consequently, I think premise 2 is not a true proposition. Second, this parody doesn’t seem to apply to the argument of petitionary prayer. In this parody, study is taking the place of petition and whether you have enough knowledge to pass the test takes the place of whether this is the best decision for God. In the argument of petitionary prayer, it is assumed that request does not have influence on God’s decision of what is the best thing to do. Supposedly in this parody, we need to assume that study have no influence on whether you will have enough information to pass the test. Obviously in this case, this assumption is wrong. Hence, this is not a good parody to use. Second objection I would respond to is the institutional challenge towards the petitionary prayer argument.
The institution of petitionary prayer is some rules set by God that he will sometimes bring about something if and only if we ask.(Howard-Snyder, Daniel; Howard-Snyder, Frances 2010) The institution of petitionary prayer is valuable because (1)it is better for people to be responsible for their own welfare and others welfare than not, and (2)it promotes the relation between God and human.(Kenneth Boyce 2016). One objection mentioned in Howard-Snyder’s paper is the foreseeability objection, which I will not extend in this paper today. What I would suggest is another response to this
objection. First, why is it better for people to be responsible for their own well-being than not? I don’t see why it is better to have this responsibility than not. In order to do this comparison, one have to first set up a standard for the comparison. What is the standard here? It seems to me that this standard is vague that I can apply anything to it. Suppose that Tom is a normal person like us. Tom thinks responsibility is good thing and he strives for it. However, things doesn’t turns to be good for Tom. Because he wants to be responsible for his own well-being and works hard to be happy. It is so upset for him to find out that it didn’t work out and he is still unhappy. One day, Tom decided that he wouldn’t care anymore and let it go. He instead feel released and become happier. Responsibility for one’s well-being isn’t necessarily a good thing. In Tom’s case, it could be a burden to him and make him worse off. Second, the objection indicated that institution of petitionary prayer is a boost for God human relations. I don’t agree on this proposition. In order to figure out whether petition promotes the relations or not, we have to know that what is the God-human relation. Relation, by definition is the way two people are connected or deal with each other. Relation is interactive and apply to both sides of the relation. God, by definition is all good, all known and all powerful. Since God is always at its maximum good, with petition or not, God will treat human beings with maximum love and goodness. Or else, it violates God’s definition. Therefore, if there is a boost of relation, it must be the boost of human side towards God. Does human’s attitude or behavior towards God really promoted by the petition? In the following example, I am assuming that petitionary prayer may work out and may not, because we discussing the truth value of the it and we should not assume the conclusion when trying to prove the premises. Suppose in this case, Tom prayed and hope God would cure his cancer. Tom is a faithful person and he believe in God. Does petition makes him have more beliefs in God? I bet not, because intuitively, only successful petition will reinforce this belief. If the petition didn’t work as Tom expected, supposedly, Tom would not lose his faith because he is faithful. The most possible thing he would do is to pray more. Does the petition makes him treat God better than before? Maybe build a new church for God or anything just because of the petition? I don’t think this make sense. The change of behavior normally is because of the change of thoughts. If Tom’s attitude towards God has not changed, why would his behavior change? Above all, no matter the petition is realised or not, if Tom is faithful, petition is not promoting his relation with God. If Tom is not faithful, he wouldn’t believe God exist in the first place, so we don’t even need to bother this discussion. Back to the institution of petitionary prayer, I think it is not valuable, because first, it doesn’t promote the relation between God and human. Second, even if it promotes the responsibility, the responsibility may not make people better off. Accordingly, the institution of petitionary prayer, even if it exists, would not be decreed by God. In summery, I think the petitionary prayer argument is a solid argument. Even though I am not a theist, given a theist assumption, the argument itself still seems to be the most convincing one compared to all the other objections towards it.
Joseph, Celucien. “The Rhetoric of Prayer: Dutty Boukman, the Discourse of “Freedom from Below,” and the Politics of God”(2011). Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Religion. Vol.2 Issue 9 June 2011.
a. People in accidents, people with cancer, people having surgery and women having babies are saved
In chapter nine, C.S. Lewis expands on the notion of God’s desire for perfection. He states that some people believe that God expects nothing short of perfection from his children and, therefore, finds us hopeless. However, draws attention to the fact that this is not the truth. He explains that God’s desire for excellence is not meant to scare us, but rather act as a comforting message. God will love and work with us until we have achieved perfection. Lewis then goes on and recounts a time in his childhood when he suffered from toothaches. He expressed that in spite of the knowledge that his mother would provide him with pain killers, he would not ask her for her help until he was in excruciating pain, because his mother would inevitably take him to the dentist the next morning. “I could not get what I wanted from her unless I got something more, which I did not want” (Lewis 201). In the same way that his mother did not leave well enough alone, God does not either. God grants us a full treatment when we come to him with our problems. Lewis’ quote reminded me of the apostles. In
much. Many may question God and say he makes mistakes. People must believe that God does
P4: If God is perfectly good and omnipotent, he will use his unlimited power to do and create only good.
A. We both enjoy helping others answer questions they may have about Jesus or salvation.
Mitchell, Curtis C. 1984. "The case for persistence in prayer." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 27, no. 2: 161-168. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed March 16, 2014).
In the Milk Jug video the author claims that prayer has no power, as prayers that do get answered are just coincidence. However, there are some major flaws with his claims like using science to explain why prayer has no power when God is beyond science to begin with Also, a lot of the author’s examples included prayers that were selfish, sinful, and even prayers with no faith nor belief in their prayers, God will only answer the humble and will only answer prayers that will bring His children closer to Him. Lastly, God does everything His way and not anyone else’s.
Maybe you think like that. If you do, I want to show you that such a prayer is not the self-centered act it might appear, but a supremely spiritual one and exactly the k...
Some theists always pray and believe it works. The argument of petitionary prayer tries to prove the point that it is pointless to pray, because it will not influence God’s decision anyway. Given that God is going to do the best he can, God would not change his choice if someone prays, because he is doing his best choice and. God would not change his choice if someone doesn’t pray, which is obvious to see. The behavior of petitionary pray seems to be pointless in this way.
but may not all be answered in the way we would like, praying can be
First, an effectual prayer must be prayed in faith. “But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord.”(James 1: 6-7) Jesus said, “Whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them.” (Mark 11: 24)
give us an insight into the opinion or feelings of God so it is not as
When you deal with God, it is always preferable to ask him more questions. When you need spiritual guidance from the Holy Spirit, more is better than less. If you must be a fool, it is nice to be a fool for the sake of God. When we ask Him more questions, this is a sign that we depend on Him for everything. The Lord would not disappoint us when we ask Him more questions. He will always give us the correct guidance. Our God is a good God and He wants to prosper us in every way
People all over the world have different religions that believe in there is an almighty being. This means that they believe and worship the almighty being. However, there are people who have questioned whether such a being exists. The question has raised several arguments from different philosophers. Each of them came up with their different views about the controversy surrounding the question. God’s ‘existence’ is one of the widely discussed topics over the years. The question came to place due to some occurrences in society. Similarly, different scientific innovations have contributed to the continued debate on the question. God is believed to be ‘all-powerful’ because there is nothing that he cannot do. This means that he is able to perform anything that is beyond human capability. Such beliefs have raised several questions because they are not in line with science or logic in different ways. God’s existence contradicts with humanity, logic, and science.