Understanding Christian Motivations

[greyl]

...The idea that "God answers prayers" is strictly an artifact of human imagination.

Yet, if you talk to actively practicing Christians, they ignore the evidence. They will tell you that God is answering prayers for them every day. Christian bookstores and Christian magazines are filled with stories of answered prayers. Christians believe that God is reaching down out of heaven and answering billions of prayers on Earth for Christians.

Therefore, the question arises: If there is all of this evidence showing that God is imaginary, why do Christians insist that God is answering prayers for them on a daily basis? What would prompt Christians to make these statements?

more

[niyad]

1. really good drugs???

[Common Sense Party]

2. Sometimes the answer is no. nt

[TwentyFive]

3. Perhaps they like the idea that somebody is also watching them have sex?

If god can read their thoughts and see everything they do...that means he knows all their kinky fantasies too. But the real question is, do they get to the level where kinky fantasies and answered prayers are one in the same?

[rsmith6621]

4. This Is Where I Draw The Line.....

In my trasition to the left.....I get so sick and tired of attack on ones faith by so called liberals....if you are a true liberal then you should be one to appreciate diversity and free choice. I have been a member of DU going on 3 years and I have never attempted to impose my faith on anyone. I am a former Southern Baptist Education director/pastor and have dozens of books that could challenge and prove most of what is in that article is rubbish but I will not as again I beleive in free spirit. I will bet just like me there are many others on DU that are worshipers of Jesus Christ and are not imposing their values upon any of the many other DUers that are memebers here. If the DEMs are going to truly be effective in promoting their agenda then they need to embrace moderate Christians as they do homosexuals.

Trust me when I say...There are many Christians that are feeling betrayed by the repulicons and are back to searching for a political affiliation that closest meets their values......LET NOT BLOW THEM OFF....

[Random_Australian]

7. I find it interesting that you did not think of the possibility that the

OP found that site, had no answer, and then threw it in here to find out what people thought about it.

Or at least, your response was not about ascertaining the intent of the OP.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

9. I'm in and that is the problem here. There are a lot of us that

believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings (many here will defend his teachings). What I have found is that many were brought up in the RW type teachings and have totally abandoned and are thoroughly disgusted with the whole faith system. I understand, because I was brought up Republican, and have abandoned the party and have nothing but contempt for Republicans, (ironically, it was my bible study (later in life) that converted me to the Democratic party)).

It is these people, that make you want to say, WTF. I didn't quit the political process (as they did the faith), I wanted to change myself to make me a better person and found the party that represented my faith/person. They just quit, it's easier!

[greyl]

12. and people that overcome heroin addictions are just quitters too, eh?

Is it easier for you to condemn and dismiss the thoughts at the site I linked to than to discuss them?

[redphish]

46. I agree 100% however...

since the repubs are allowing the most radical elements in the Christian fundie movement (the ones that are basically trying to pervert our government into a theocracy with themselves at the lead) influence in the highest levels of government policy decisions, some people tend to lash out at all Christians. As a party, we have to differentiate between the extreme fundies and the majority that don't share that extreme viewpoint.

[teryang]

5. christianity provides a worldview, a concept of time, rules, ....

...and a system to provide explanations for the human experience, and models for human behavior. It is a cultural transmittal device, with a central mythology, that serves many important purposes.
Not every person has the resources or ability to devine the nature of the world for themselves according to the scientific method or the rationalist tradition. Religion provides a template for reasonable human behavior for those without an independent reference point. Religions often function as systemic collections of stereotypical characters and beliefs which make the world bearable for the poorly educated. What we don't know is unsettling; what we find out by trial and error can also be disturbing. This is why organized religion needs to take somewhat irrational positions in history such as denying that the earth revolves around the sun, or that intelligent design is more meaningful than evolution. Religion harmonizes the human experience.

[nemo137]

10. If it harmonizes the human experience, why is it only for the uneducated?

What do you mean by nature of the world, and why are the scientific method singled or rationalist tradition the keys to it?
Does a rational viewpoint automatically disharmonize the world? Why is what we learn about nature by trial and error more disturbing about what we learn about human actions and motivation by trial and error?

I'm not trying to stir up anything, or cause trouble, or be some sort of Christian spoiler, your post just interested me.

[teryang]

18. Being uneducated is relative in time, religion antedates science

The existence and developement of calendars, clocks, and other time measurement devices, which enable the objective recording of phenomena such as celestial movements are an affront to the authority of religion and its caste of priests, ministers, mystics, and so on as the arbiters of the calendar or time and the social roles, duties, and interrelations dependent upon it.

Except with reference to ordinary custom and biological necessity so much as one chooses to heed its call, science and the rationalist perspective (materialistic education) free one from all clocks but the clock of mortality. If one has been socialized in an educational milieu which is not religion oriented, but scientific or rational, based upon the recorded observations of materialistic and rational culture, (the history of trial and error rather than dogma) one may choose to be religious, mystical, or not. In pre-rational (uneducated) societies, there was no choice, one deferred to religious authority as a matter of course. Religious and civic authority were one and the same.

Religion prescribed the clock and calendar of duties. As such it basically represents a feudal order. As religion progressed from the witch doctor or shaman to the high priesthood, society progressed from itinerant hunting and gathering to agriculture. Thus the gods, and other spiritual beings developed into a hierarchy or pyramidal pantheon, mimicking civilization in the spiritual realm. As commerce, enterprise and science thrive, religion is released from repetitive agricultural cycles into linear time, where the basic cycle of alienation from nature, redemption, and the end of time (infinity) are the one large cycle, released from the obligatory connection to daily, seasonal, and annual calendars, necessary to perform prescribed duties. In other words the calendar loses its mystical connection to the spirit dimension. One does what one needs to, to endure or prosper, without regard to religious prescription because with education, one does not need to hear, "thou shalt not" in order to determine what is best.

[nemo137]

19. I'd never even thought about religion and time before.

Very neat.

[teryang]

20. Thank you

I have a continuing interest in history, science and religion. I do not underestimate the importance of religion, as many of its calendar and prescriptive applications serve individuals and society very well. Of course, it, has great shortcomings as well, as do all human institutions. I think the danger is two fold today. Extemporizing religious opportunists who make up a script as they go along. These are not religious leaders but politicians really of the most dangerous kind, demogogues. You hear these people regularly nowadays, usually on tv or radio, prescribing how you should vote, vilifying enemies and promoting war. Secondly, the willingness of civic leadership to pretend not to understand the secular versus sectarian dicotomy, which abandons the needed relationship of science and commerce to our non sectarian western civic institutions. These politicians embrace the demogogues, to promote their hidden agendas. In other words, it is dangerous to abandon the principle of separation of church and state.

Hannah Arendt, the great political philosopher, has pointed out the great danger in abandoning traditional institutions that are the foundation for the republican form of government. In my opinion, the concept of a civic life which allows commerce and public life separate and distinguished from the private life of religious belief and worship, aka religious freedom, is one of those traditional foundations. To abandon the distinctions for whatever reasons, is a regressive road to authoritarianism, tyranny and even feudalism.

[greyl]

31. It's a mistake to believe humans evolved into agriculturalists.

It may appear to be a technical point, but it exposes a common myth. You haven't described the history of humanity, you've described the history of our culture. Our culture doesn't represent what humans were 'destined' to become, nor does it represent the pinnacle of creation. Our culture is one among thousands, and it's wrong to think those that don't share our particular method of agriculture or city building are less evolved.
Where do you suppose people get that idea?

[teryang]

40. I admit I haven't lived with hunter gatherers

But i have lived in a foreign culture for an extended period and spent a considerable amount of time studying foreign cultures.

So I am very amused to be accused of some sort of chauvinism here. I do prefer science to shamans and witch doctors. I also like modern plumbing and electricity.

[greyl]

41. I wasn't being so personal.

What do you mean by foreign culture?

[bananas]

6. Understanding delusion

Example 1

Let's imagine that I tell you the following story:

- The universe started with a big bang 20 billion years ago
- Before the big bang, there was nothing; Nothing blew up. And that unimaginably powerful explosion of nothing became everything!

This, of course, is the story of The Big Bang.

But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.

What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.

Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that The Big Bang is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about The Big Bang, you are not going to believe that The Big Bang is real. "Something for nothing", for example, is make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly.

Since you are my friend, you might try to help me realize that my belief in The Big Bang is delusional. The way that you would try to shake me from my delusion is to ask me some questions. For example, you might say to me:
"But how can nothingness create enough atoms for everyone in the world?" I say to you that nothingness is magical. It has the ability to do this intrinsically.

blah blah ...

[varkam]

13. My head just exploded.

You're not serious, right?

[bananas]

23. It was a cut-and-paste from the article in the OP

I just replaced a few words to point out how ridiculous the argument was.
I agree with Grannie's post #22 - "juvenile".

[varkam]

25. The difference, my friend, is evidence. eom

[trotsky]

14. If that's all you knew about the "big bang,"

then yeah, you're at a real disadvantage trying to explain it to someone.

Pity religionists display an equally poor knowledge of their gods.

[greyl]

16. "Big bang theorists scoop Nobel prize for physics"

Science forum thread

I'm not linking to it because the Nobel prize authenticates the theory and its evidence, only because the article is informative.

[Bill McBlueState]

43. I'd say the story was crap

The Big Bang wasn't 20 billion years ago, it wasn't an explosion, and it's misleading to say that before the Big Bang there was nothing.

But once your imaginary storyteller gets all that straight, he and his friend could have a great discussion about the Big Bang and the evidence for it.

[struggle4progress]

8. Why won't you heal amputees?

You have provided a link to a website titled "Why won't <G-d> heal amputees."

The site apparently takes itself very seriously, since it identifies its question as "The most important question we can ask about <G-d>."

Perhaps the website's self-importance explains the barrage of silly stereotypes and completely unimportant questions that occupy the remainder of the page.

But neither the stereotypes nor the supposed issues there interest me.

What interests me instead is the immediate question: "Why won't you heal amputees?"

[greyl]

11. I never claimed to always answer prayers in my book.

Nor have I ever said that I'm God's son, sent here to "save" the chosen ones and torture non-believers in hell for eternity.

[varkam]

15. I beg to differ.

I distinctly remember you saying that you are our savior. If I could just find that post...

:evilgrin:

[greyl]

17. Heheh, I remember.

(You're joke was referring to an actual post from several months ago, correct?)

I think that post was in a thread started by the guy hawking a book where he claims to be the Messiah, but my joking response to T-Grannie's suggestion certainly didn't include a promise to reward prayer. ;)

[struggle4progress]

27. Well, that's an evasive non-answer.

My point, not necessarily directed against you, though perhaps directed against you, is really this:

The website is devoted to the complaint, formulated as question, "Why won't so-and-so heal amputees?" But if the site's author is concerned by the situation of amputees, why waste time complaining that somebody else isn't doing enough about the problem? Page after page of drivel have apparently been devoted to this "most important question."

Whether you or the website author choose to consider "G-d" as a meaningless phrase, seems rather unimportant to me. But what I do not understand is why someone who declares something meaningless would then devote substantial effort to a discourse on the subject. Why bother? Why not do something productive instead? If, for example, one is irritated by the plight of amputees, why not do something about that?

[greyl]

28. How do you figure that? I don't think you're getting it.

Do you suppose I'm hiding the truth about why I don't heal amputees? If I don't heal amputees, is that an argument against anything I've ever claimed? Does it call into question the nature of what I am, and what should be made of myths written and spoken about me? Ask the question of me, and it's absurd. You might as well ask why a fish doesn't have wheels.

The question "Why won't God heal amputees?" is a device used as an introduction to some analyses of the existence of God and some tenets of mainstream Christian faith. It appears you don't enjoy pondering such things. No big woop - I forgive you.

The question, "Why won't God heal amputees?" probes into a fundamental aspect of prayer and exposes it for observation. This aspect of prayer has to do with ambiguity and coincidence.

To help you understand why this question is so important, let's look at an example. Let's imagine that you visit your doctor one day, and he tells you that you have cancer. Your doctor is optimistic, and he schedules surgery and chemotherapy to treat your disease. Meanwhile, you are terrified. You don't want to die, so you pray to God day and night for a cure. The surgery is successful, and when your doctor examines you again six months later the cancer is gone. You praise God for answering your prayers. You totally believe with all your heart that God has worked a miracle in your life.

The obvious question to ask is: What cured you? Was it the surgery/chemotherapy, or was it God? Is there any way to know whether God is playing a role or not when we pray?

Unless you take the time to intelligently analyze this situation, it looks ambiguous. God might have miraculously cured your disease, as many Christians believe. But God might also be imaginary, and the chemotherapy drugs and surgery are the things that cured you. Or your body's immune system might have cured the cancer itself.

When your tumor dissappeared, in other words, it might simply have been a complete coincidence that you happened to pray. Your prayer may have had zero effect.

How can we determine whether it is God or coincidence that worked the cure? One way is to eliminate the ambiguity. In a non-ambiguous situation, there is no potential for coincidence. Because there is no ambiguity, we can actually know whether God is answering the prayer or not.

That is what we are doing when we look at amputees. ...
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm

[struggle4progress]

37. It seems clear enough to me. (1) The author (and you) consider certain

ideas vacuous. (2) But instead of spending time on other ideas, the author proceeds to blather in detail on a subject which he (and you) consider meaningless. (3) This is all wrapped in a rhetorical device, namely, outrage that somebody else isn't doing enough to help the plight of amputees. (4) The natural rejoinder is, "If you think this stuff is nonsense, then think about something else; in particular, if you are outraged that somebody else isn't doing enough to help the plight of amputees, then why not do something to help amputees?"

[greyl]

42. You're quite mistaken.

The author isn't outraged that the God described in the Bible and believed in by Christians doesn't heal amputees, because the author doesn't believe in that God.

The amputee angle amounts to about .02% of the content. Based on the weight of your arguments, I'm convinced you haven't gotten past the domain name of the site.

[struggle4progress]

44. Site identifies its domain name as "the most important question"

As for your "correction" that "The author isn't outraged that the God described in the Bible and believed in by Christians doesn't heal amputees, because the author doesn't believe in that God," it seems to me that's exactly what I said: the author considers certain ideas to be vacuous. And so the question I asked in my previous post remains: why would anyone spend time and effort discussing ideas he/she considered to be vacuous?

[greyl]

48. I don't think you understand the implications of the question.

Do you believe God has ever healed anybody?

[struggle4progress]

49. I don't think you understand that the question misses the point

completely, as far as I'm concerned.

[greyl]

50. Do you have an answer for:

Do you believe God has ever healed anybody?

[struggle4progress]

51. (1) My religious ideas do not revolve around "beliefs" of this sort;

(2) I can see no point in having a "belief" that such a statement is true or a "belief" that such a statement is false, because I do not consider that such "beliefs" shape realities;
(3) I am extremely reluctant to discourse casually on the subject of "G-d" for multiple reasons, including intellectual integrity; &c&c&c

I can provide what I consider appropriate theological responses to your question, but you will naturally think I am changing the subject.

On my view, your question makes about as much sense as an invitation to discuss "the luminiferous aether" or "phlogiston."

[greyl]

52. Well, that's an evasive non-answer.

Whatever.

[struggle4progress]

53. I was gonna say "Why won't we heal amputees?" seems like a better

question to me, but perhaps you and I simply are pointlessly talking cross-purposes

[greyl]

54. Productive discussions require a bit of cooperation.

I'm not convinced you care to cooperate.

Do you believe God has ever healed anybody? I don't mean by working through modern medicine, I mean in a supernatural sense.

[neebob]

30. You wrote this, greyl?

I really enjoyed the page with the four stories and am still enjoying the proofs section. It's too bad some people are too busy being offended to absorb and consider what's there.

[greyl]

32. No, just happened upon it.

I haven't read nearly everything there yet, but I thought it could make for some interesting replies. ;)

[neebob]

45. It's very condescending

if the reader is inclined to take it seriously, and way overdone, but it's funny stuff based on solid logic. I'm wondering why such a good and prolific writer would put so much effort into a giant website on one subject when he or she could be making money writing other stuff. Is this a book that failed to get a publisher or what?

I'm picturing someone whose ego gets in the way of his or her success.

[okasha]

47. Is this by any chance your own site?

You do seem terribly fond of it.

Oops. I see you say it's not.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. I definitely DON'T get prayers

"answered" because I really don't ask any questions. I mostly ask for acceptance and understanding and the ways I achieve that appear to me to be beyond coincidence. Believe me, there are hundreds of small experiences I could relate (but won't because they are personal) and taken one at a time, they would seem to be worth little. But when added up over a lifetime..I just have to conclude I've got some sort of a companion, a guide, who is leading me through.

I still can't get him to give me the lottery numbers, though.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. Having now read the entire article

I just don't think it is up to the standards of most of the atheist arguments right here on DU. I think it is sloppy and the word juvenile keeps coming to mind.

I've read way better stuff here.

[bananas]

24. Thanks for explaining that

I usually avoid R/T, so I don't know what's considered good.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

33. Well, that's just MY opinion

and I am not a logic hound. But it was my impression that it was inferior. However, you gotta read the bad ones to recognize the good ones, so thanks for posting it.

[Vidar]

26. Another atheist trying to make converts, which I find just as repulsive as

Christians that do the same.

[greyl]

29. I was under the impression that Christians welcome tests of their faith

"My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing." (James 1:2)

"And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope." (Romans 5:3)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

34. Well Bless Your Heart!

You sweet ole' thang, you!

[Vidar]

35. First of all, I am not a Christian. Secondly, the passages in question

refer to building character through adversity, not welcoming idiotic attacks on personal belief.

[greyl]

36. The site is directed primarily toward Christian beliefs

as evidenced by the title "Understanding Christian Motivations".

Do you have any thoughtful comments or solid arguments you'd like to run up the flag pole?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

38. I've been pondering this since yesterday

I don't think Christians as a group have motivations. I believe the neocons have hijacked a group of gullible folks who are finding society changing too rapidly for them, and used them for their political purposes. Very clever of them.

My motivation as a Christian is to draw closer to God. I want peace for my family. For myself, I crave silence. (this might have something to do with the fact that I am a teacher.) I want to fight the good fight here and either rest eternally or go into the light. I really have no preference. I want to feel the connection NOW to the universe, to the spirit that gives us life and breath. I want a port in the storm and I have found it.

And some folks think that makes me stupid. That's okay. They really don't matter to me.

[greyl]

39. You're arguing with a 3 word title.

The general feelings you express in your post are fairly well known, and I appreciate them, but they don't quite speak to the issues raised at the site linked to in the OP.

For myself, I crave silence. (this might have something to do with the fact that I am a teacher.)

My mom and my girlfriend's mom are both retired teachers, and they both suffer from pressure of speech.
They can't be quiet.