What is intercessory prayer meant to accomplish?

[BurtWorm]

An ignorant atheist asks. When you pray for someone who is in the hospital, for instance, what are you praying for exactly?

[htuttle]

1. How about when people pray for a football victory?

Or success in war?

[Theres-a]

3. That's a whole different thread!

:hi:

[Theres-a]

2. Only speaking for myself here

I pray for others because it puts me in touch with God.I don't believe God picks and chooses who gets help by how many prayers are recieved on their behalf,like some sort of popularity contest.That would be one shallow God.I believe there is comfort for myself in prayer for others,and maybe there is some sort of positive energy released,who knows.I mean,bad things happen to good people all the time.And good things happen to bad people all the time.Is it because of human petitions,or lack of?Somehow I don't think we're that powerful.To pray for the sake of contact with God,that's my deal.It gives me comfort,and it doesn't hurt the one being prayed for any.(Of course I'll go visit them,too!)

[Az]

4. Can you clarify the term "I'll pray for you"

It certainly seems as though it is suggesting that the person is asking god to change or alter something. As if God had not noticed something amiss.

There are also verses in the bible that quite clearly suggest that praying for things makes them so. As if they are not just a form of communing with God. Any comments on this? Does God change things in the world because of prayer?

I understand its just your opinion we are going to get on this and I appreciate any insite you have on the issue.

[papau]

5. To be "blessed" is to be noticed by God - and the prayer is always "Let not

my will but your will Dear Lord, be done" and "comfort the afflicted"

To ask for mercy also seems appropriate.

[Az]

9. That seems problematic to me

What doesn't God notice?

[papau]

11. Worship seems to be requested - assuming God should notice and

whatever happens happens is a bit too "Eastern" for my tastes

So I go with a more "Western" approach.

But whatever floats your boat.

[Theres-a]

6. Just me

The bible is the bible,and those folks who read it and pray for people are the ones to ask.Me,I pray to pray.It puts me in contact with God.I'm not of the belief that prayers are to get my way.When someone is hurt,I feel for them.I turn to prayer,and feel better.I go visit,or do something tangible,for the other person.The prayers are for me.

[Az]

10. If I may another question

Where did you come by your notion of prayer from?

[Theres-a]

15. Personal experiences

[Az]

17. Thanks

:)

[papau]

12. Same feelings here! :-)

:-)

[BurtWorm]

7. That makes sense to me.

Intercessory prayer--praying to change the circumstances of what is--has never made much sense to me. Though it does seem "natural" to plead with the universe or the gods or what have you to help someone who is hurting, it doesn't make sense that the gods or the universe would really stoop to do anything about it on the basis of being appealed to. But it does make sense to use prayer to comfort oneself, to use it as a form of meditation.

[papau]

13. Intercessory prayer follows from free will - God's free will

"stoop to do anything" - ???

Well there is a whole lot of thought out there on that topic!

:-)

[BurtWorm]

14. Pagans believed that the gods would stoop

because they saw the gods as directly involved in history as it unfolded. But I thought people of the book had a more intellectual view of God as already complete and unto itself. Praying to such a being to alter the course of history seems patently futile to me. No?

[papau]

18. no - not futile in my belief system - what you are describing is a deist

viewpoint.

[BurtWorm]

19. So in your world--or cosmic--view, God doesn't know what happens next?

He's still able to alter the future based on the prayers of human beings?

[papau]

21. God know all possible futures - and choose what he wants for folks

- just as we can choose what we want to do.

there is indeed interaction beyond the Eastern "oneness".

[Selwynn]

8. I have no idea. But here's a thought or two

I have trouble with the idea of "intercessory" prayer. For instance, I don't believe religious folk really want to be acting like our "prayer" directly goes to meeting some specific need for the following reasons:

1) Let's say we "intercede" in pray for someone in the hospital and they die - did we just not pray hard enough?
2) Related to the point above, to we really want to act like our act of praying for someone literally has the power to change events? So what if enough people don't pray for me when I'm in the hospital? Is god saying, "Well god man, I really wanted to heal you, but lets check the prayer-o-meter... oops! I'm sorry, not enough pray juice for a miracle today."
3) I don't believe gods ability to meet the personal needs of my life is limited or in any way dependant on other people "praying" enough.

Here are a couple thoughts I have on what I think prayer is usually about:

First, It is good for our hearts to talk about our feelings and concerns - praying out our wishes and desires for others is comforting for our own worries and fears.

Second, it is good for the hearts of others to feel and know that there are people "praying" for them -- it is simply an affirmation that they are in the conscious thoughts and hearts of others - they are not alone. They ability not to feel alone in the middle of adversity is one of the most important things we can have.

Third and most importantly, I believe prayer (even prayer on behalf of others) is about changing the person doing the praying, and preparing the person doing the praying. I believe that the more we pray about and mediate on the needs of others, the more empathy and compassion and insight we develop towards them. The more I make another persons needs and concerns my own needs and concerns (which is what happens through prayer) the more sensitive I am to the opportunities I may have in my life to bring them cheer, help, comfort or even counsel that I might never have been in a place to provide before I was so consciously concerned with the needs of that other person.

Prayer changes the pray-er. That's what I think its about.
Sel

[Theres-a]

16. yes.lovely.

:hi:

[RUDUing2]

20. that they will be given the comfort and grace they need..and to add

my thoughts to those of others...

kind of like when someone adds an ITA to a post...

[Stunster]

22. Good question

Let me put my conclusion at the start of this post, since the post is lengthy, and some may not want to read it all, though of course it does explain how I reach my conclusion. But anyway, my conclusion is:

CONCLUSION
In sum, God does answer prayer, but not in ways that would compromise the possibility of the best favor being granted. There has to be nature, and there has to be moral autonomy, if humans are to get to heaven.

One way God does answer prayer is through non-controlling providential arrangements that affect consciousness but do not determine the will. Another way is through designing nature to allow for low probability quantum events that can be beneficial for people, and appear to be unusual or extraordinary because of their necessary relative rarity.

FULL TEXT OF ANSWER
I think prayer is, or ought to be, a way of conforming the will of the person praying to the will of God. There are tremendous depths in that seemingly simple notion.

If we could change the course of events external to ourselves simply by praying, that would imply that we could control God. I do not believe that we can control God.

But we are familiar with the notion of asking someone for a favor. If we ask, and the favor is granted, we do not assume that we have control over the person granting the favor. So, can God grant favors because someone asks? I think the answer is yes, but it needs some qualification.

I start with the idea that God is timeless. All events in time are 'compresent' to God's infinite and timeless consciousness. Hence all prayers are present to God's timeless consciousness.

Here's what I think God does with them. God builds into the world his timeless response to all the prayers offered by humans. But this response is constrained by God's overall purposes in creating the world. One purpose God has is the creation of beings like us---that is, physical beings endowed with intellect and free will, capable of rational understanding and of love and enjoying moral autonomy. Since the best favor we could ask for is heaven, and heaven is a state of freely willed loving union with God, then God does not grant favors that are incompatible with that state being realized for humans. So, favors, the granting of which would necessitate changing physical laws so radically as to render life impossible, would not be granted. Nor would favors that require the abolition of moral autonomy, nor favors that made nature appear so un-lawlike that it would undermine the possibility of rational agency.

However, nature is not fully deterministic. There are some quantum events of low probability. Let's say extraordinary forms of healing from illness, and extraordinary escapes from other forms of harm at least sometimes depend on these low probability quantum events. Well, God perhaps builds into the quantum mechanics governing the world certain low probability quantum events that are very beneficial for some individuals, and does so in response to the prayers that are timelessly compresent to the divine consciousness and thus also compresent to the will of God as far as how he creates and orders the world.

But notice that by definition, these low probability quantum events are not part of the 'regularities of nature', which are determined by high probability quantum events. They must be relatively infrequent, though over long stretches of time there will accumulate a good many of them.

Many of these low probability quantum events can be viewed as God's answer to petitionary prayers. God does not want to upset nature too much, since that would make human life and/or rational agency impossible. There has to be regularity and a high degree of lawlikeness in nature, and nature has to have more or less the quantum probabilistic laws of physics governing it that it has, in order for there to be creatures like us. But by deciding to make the universe a quantum mechanical universe, God has responded to our petitionary prayers that he timelessly receives.

Another way God responds to prayers is on the level of consciousness. God providentially arranges human life in such a way that many things, events, experiences etc enter into our consciousness and without violating our free will, prod us in a certain direction. They're like hints or prompts---we can ignore them. So we remain autonomous. But they are often providential, or 'moments of grace'.

However, God's overall purposes must override certain sorts of prayer. For example, someone is approaching you holding a knife with murderous intent. Let's say you pray that God will take away the would-be murderer's free will and moral autonomy, and turn him into a harmless puppet. If God granted this prayer request, then it would be unjust of him not to grant it systematically. Let's say a group of people prayed that all would-be murderers be found, arrested, and imprisoned. Well, God would have to grant that too. But then suppose that people prayed that God ensure that no-one ever sinned or behaved badly or did anything harmful, even unintentionally. Well, in fairness God would have to grant that too. But if he did, he'd be defeating his purpose of creating beings with free will and moral autonomy.

The highest good on the Christian view lies in personal union with God in love, freely given. But if morally autonomous beings are invited to participate in this highest good, it must be possible for them to reject it. In rejecting God, what the autonomous individual is doing is rejecting goodness, truth, beauty, love, peace, joy etc. When someone does this on earth, it creates hell on earth. They murder, lie, exploit, and try to destroy what is good and beautiful. God allows us to choose the type of person we will be, to choose our character, etc, because God wants to create persons who can choose to be loving and good, and choose to be united with God in love.

If God controls human wills so that nothing bad ever happens, then that's just tantamount to God abolishing the human will. Because
with even just one human will allowed to operate without being controlled, it's quite possible for something bad to happen. A free-willed person could stick a baby in the washing machine, or
shoot dead 2000 people a day, or say something hurtful, etc. If God always made us do whatever God wants us to do, we'd essentially be machines, or toys.

So when the God-rejecter says, I refuse to bend my will to some supernatural being, what is the he really saying? That he's not a machine or toy and doesn't want to be and is proud of the fact that he possesses an autonomous will? Ok, and if he's not a machine or toy, and happily possesses an autonomous will, then he can't consistently
hold that if God existed, God would be morally required to abolish the autonomy of his will. And there is a Kantian argument that if one wills one's own autonomy, then morally one must will the autonomy of all rational beings---morality consists in consistently willing for others what one wills for oneself.

So, first, if you will your own existence, then you will the conditions of your existence, and hence you will the laws of physics of your universe. Second, if you will the autonomy of your own will, then morally you ought to will the autonomy of other rational agents' wills. And all the natural and moral evil of the world flows from the laws of physics plus the autonomous wills of rational individuals.

It is easy to imagine that there might be an alternative physics that would produce us, but with less suffering. Specifying that physics in any detail whatsoever is impossible, however. Another illusion is that God can intervene 'to suspend natural laws'. Nothing can 'violate' a natural law, because 'natural law' is just a description of what happens, and if something happens, then it has to be consistent with a description of what happens. If something 'violated' a natural law, that would just be a way of saying it actually wasn't a law.

But perhaps what is meant is that God should make the regularities of nature less law-like, so as to minimize harm. But maybe that's exactly what God does, via quantum physics. Maybe God chooses that physics be quantum mechanical so that loads of people escape harm, while preserving enough law-likeness in nature to ground rational expectations and thus things like rational agency and science. If we picked up a knife, and sometimes it flew out of our hands, and sometimes it didn't, it would be possible to form a rational expectation about how one might kill someone with a knife.

In sum, God does answer prayer, but not in ways that would compromise the possibility of the best favor being granted. There has to be nature, and there has to be moral autonomy, if humans are to get to heaven.

One way God does answer prayer is through non-controlling providential arrangements that affect consciousness but do not determine the will. Another way is through designing nature to allow for low probability quantum events that can be beneficial for people, and appear to be unusual or extraordinary because of their necessary relative rarity.

[BurtWorm]

23. "non-controlling providential arrangements that affect consciousness

but do not determine the will."

Ooookay...

:crazy:

[Stunster]

24. Are there things that enter

your consciousness, but do not determine your will?

Or do you buy everything you see advertized?

:eyes:

[BurtWorm]

26. Non-controlling providential arrangements are advertisements?

Oh.

[Az]

27. You mean God really put up those billboards?

And here I thought it was a PR firm from Florida.

[Stunster]

28. Yeah

God answers prayer sometimes through 'advertizing' certain options.

You're catching on now.

You seemed to think that God couldn't respond to prayer by providentially affecting our consciousness without controlling our will. But the example of advertizing shows how this can be done, and is done every day in the lives of billions of people. So your original response of "Ooookay...:crazy:" is easily shown to be very silly.

For a moment there, I thought you were being deliberately obtuse because you knew my answer was a good one, and you had previously thought that there couldn't be a good answer to your question, and so decided to react sulkily.

But with this latest response, I'm glad to see that you're really just intent on having an open-minded, serious dialog. :eyes:

And now it's time for a :beer:

[Az]

29. Thats an awefully fine line you are trying to tread there

Perhaps a bit too fine. I don't know that I would not consider such an invasion to not violate the nature of freewill. You basically are talking about voices in your head or perhaps images. If the individual cannot distinguish from their own ideas and ideas popping up in their head from God then freewill is violated.

And it also brings up the question does the adversary have the ability to plant such suggestions as well. If so how does one distinguish between God and him. There are certainly enough individuals that claimed God told them to kill. This either indicates that the voices were simply delusions in their case or from down below.

Thing is we can trigger these type of communions in people's brains through simple electromagnetic manipulation. We actually have been able to determine that there is a module within the brain that governs our sense of self. Individuals who partake in various rituals such as prayer or meditation seem to be able to switch this off.

When it is dormant the brain continues to function. Ideas flow but they are not identified as coming from self. The brain tags them with whatever culturally learned identity is associated with such displaced communication.

Now, this does not eliminate the possibility that God communicates in this way. But it does create a very plausible alternative. And considering the flirtacious encroachment on freewill from God planting such thoughts it may not be him communicating through the voices in your head.

[Stunster]

31. An example

It's not just directly planting thoughts in your head.

It could involve external events, meetings, 'coincidences', opportunities, etc. God needn't issue an order as to what to do, but the external event or opportunity or whatever will impinge on your consciousness to some extent, and maybe raise the question quite naturally in your mind.

Here's an example: you pray to find a good wife. Ten minutes later a married friend calls you up to tell you there's this great woman who just started work at his office, maybe you might like to meet her. You do end up meeting her and she becomes your wife, and you have a great marriage. Now the order of events is quite natural. There are no 'miracles' involved. But it does appear to you providential that your friend should call and mention this new employee. So from your point of view, your prayer was 'answered' without God planting any thoughts in your head. But maybe God did 'remind' your friend by quantum mechanically jiggling his brain that you were looking for a good wife. That is, let's say a relatively low probability quantum event took place in your friend's brain. It did not force him to call you, but it did suggest the idea. Let's say God collapsed the wave function by 'observing' your friend's brain to produce that quantum event.

So, in this little story I produce an example which includes both the "providential events affecting consciousness without negating free will" type of response to prayer, and the "low probability quantum event" type of response to prayer.

What I find interesting is the relation between consciousness and quantum mechanics. That is a huge, difficult topic. But it may be that there is a deep connection, and that God's consciousness affects the quantum fields, etc, in a way analogous to how creaturely consciousness may do so. Admittedly, that's speculation on my part, but I don't think it's out of the question. Far from it.

[Az]

32. Just because someone else's freewill was taken

does not eleviate the problem. You have just removed the issue from your own pervue. There is still the fact that freewill has been tampered with.

Tampering with the potential of thought within a person's mind is a clear violation of freewill. Unless you are willing to change the parameters of God to allow for such a violation your case is jeopardized. If this is the methodology then we are just God's puppets (entirely plausible within the notions of gods).

[Stunster]

33. If I remind you

to call your mother, how am I taking away your free will?

You could surely still not call her.

[Az]

34. If your remind me by causing me

to have an involuntary thought to do so you have violated my freewill.

[Stunster]

35. We do that all the time

I scream at you and say "Call your mother, dammit!"

If your argument was valid, just talking with someone would be a violation of their free will.

That's absurd.

[Az]

36. Voices in your head are different than talking to someone

It is indistinguishable from your own thoughts.

[Stunster]

37. Yes they are

So what?

God is not planting voices in your head. He's causing your brain to recall a memory, which you could have done anyway, only now you're recalling it just after your friend prayed to find a good wife.

When I tell you to call your mother, I am causing your brain to have a certain thought---a thought about calling your mother---which you could have had anyway. Only now you're having the thought now, because my speech sent a signal which jiggered your brain, etc.

There's simply no violation of free will involved in either case.

[Az]

38. Not controlling your thoughts is a clear violation of freewill

Of course as I said you are more than welcome to change the nature
of the god you are claiming.

When you tell me to call my mother you are attempting to cause my brain to have a certain thought. How I react to your suggestion is beyond your control. When God plants a thought in my head it is beyond my control and thus a violation of freewill.

Think of it as the prime directive. James God Kirk cannot interfere with the natural development of the minds of the people. Having ArchAngel Spock glom onto someone's mind and implanting a thought is a violation of the prime directive.

[Stunster]

40. When I scream at you

"Call your mom", your response is not under my control.

So, if God screamed at you, "Call your mom", why would your response be under his control?

You're clutching at straws, only there aren't any straws.

[Az]

41. I am reminded of an old joke

An atheist and a believer are arguing. They argue for hours. After some time the believer tells the atheist "You are like a blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn't there." The atheist looks him in the eye and says "We are very similar. You are like a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn't there. Only you found it."

I need clutch at no straws. The direct manipulation of a person's brain cannot help but change their will without their knowledge. Without announcing himself and making it very clear that these thoughts entering the mind are not their own, freewill is being violated.

[Stunster]

42. Your argument is totally absurd

People do things all the time that directly affect other people's brains without the latter people realizing it.

Growing up in a family will generate countless instances of people doing things which will affect a person's consciousness, and even their long-term personality, in ways that they will never realize. It does not follow at all that the person's free will or autonomy have been violated.

The idea that nothing can even affect our consciousness via subconscious routes without it also negating our free will has to be one of the silliest things I've heard in my life.

A stray cat crosses my path. Subconsciously, this experience affects my brain. Later on, partly because of that alteration of my brain state (of which I'm not aware), I find myself having the thought, "It's about time I fed my cat." I do not consciously connect the thought to the earlier encounter with said feline. But, having been reminded (via subconscious processes originating with the first cat crossing my path) in a general way of the concept of cat, I nevertheless decide not to feed my cat because it's too fat, and needs to go on a diet.

On your account, the original encounter with the stray cat crossing my path has violated or negated my freedom. Which is completely absurd. :crazy:

[Az]

43. You seem to be missing the meaning of the word directly

You do not directly affect my brain. You create events that my senses percieve. These are interpretted by my brain and enter into my stream of consciousness. This information passes through nunerous filters before we become consciously aware of it. The manner in which it is recieved in my brain is under no control of yours.

This is entirely different from God. Your attempts to communicate are indirect to my brain. It must pass through the world, in through my senses and eventually through to my brain. You have no direct impact on my brain. You do not control the action of neurons within my head. But you have God directly manipulating my brain to create a message in there. Its a world of difference.

[Stunster]

44. It's not a difference

A) Our brains are part of the world. The distinction you're drawing between our brains and the rest of the world is artificial.

B) Let's say the stray cat whose path you cross is a very special cat, endowed with the gift of telepathy. The brain alteration that led you to recall the cat concept and then led you to have the thought (though without consciously connecting it with your ealier encounter) about feeding your own cat was not caused by your perception of the cat. You didn't even notice it. No light signals from the cat to you were involved in altering your brain state. Those signals did occur, but they did not play the recall role. Instead, the recall role was played entirely by the cat's telepathic signal to your brain. In one case, the cause of the brain alteration was light signals. In the other case, it was telepathy. If the light signals controlling your brain reactions don't take away your freedom, why should the fact that the signal is telepathic take away your freedom?

A signal reaches your brain. How it got there simply doesn't matter. Maybe it got there because of some dark energy we don't know about. Maybe it got there by electromagnetic radiation. Maybe it got there by God 'observing' a quantum superposition of your brain and thus collapsing the wave function. But now your brain is in the state it is in. That state is the same regardless of what caused it. But if the state it's now in does not negate your freedom in the cases of non-divine causes, it does negate your freedom in the case of divine causation either.

[Az]

46. But it does matter

Unfortunately though you are not seeing my point and your argument is unconvincing to me. I quite understand what you are trying to say but I suspect you simply are too close to the issue to see the problem. Cie la guerre.

[Stunster]

48. LOL

"I suspect you simply are too close to the issue to see the problem."

Your gift for projection is truly awesome, and I love the way you insinuate that your argument is a good one but I'm just too thick to comprehend it properly.

Good one. ;-)

The simple fact is that loads of things affect human consciousness via subconscious routes without destroying free will or human autonomy. It happens numberless times. If one of the things doing that is God, it still doesn't destroy free will or human autonomy.

Let's say the brain event in question is simply a standard quantum fluctuation of some sort within the brain itself, not caused by anything inside the brain or outside it (on the standard interpretation that some quantum events don't have any cause). I know nothing about it. But now I'm not free? Nothing happened outside of the brain causing it to be in the state it's now in. No signals were transmitted through the world outside of my brain. On your account, I'm now not free, because something happened directly to my brain that I was not aware of. Your account is absurd.

For your argument to have any hope of working, what you'd have to do is show that there's no such thing as free will or autonomy at all, because all events in the brain (including those caused by internal quantum events within the brain itself), regardless of their causal origin, negate freedom. But that's really a separate argument altogether. If you're going to allow free will in the case of encountering stray cats, and people telling you to call your mom, then you've given no reason to show that it shouldn't be allowed in the case of God affecting your consciousness. And remember, just having a concept of cat in your head does not determine what you do---either feeding it, or not feeding it. That is still far removed from violating free will or autonomy.

[Stunster]

45. And by the way

I have had two extraordinary experiences of God communicating with me.

My free will survived both, and is in great shape, just like it has survived countless instances of communication with lots of people.

I suppose it's possible to think that none of those people were really conscious---that they were all just robots, with no interior life. And maybe they were interfering with my brain in a way that negated my freedom and autonomy. But that's bordering on the schizophrenic. I see no reason to think such schizophrenic thoughts about God either.

[Az]

47. I have no doubts that you have had such an experience

It is not uncommon.

[Stunster]

49. And....

What about my free will? Are you doubting that I have it now, or had it during the experiences?

If you don't doubt I had the experiences, but you don't believe God caused them, but you do believe something else caused them, what would be the difference as regards the question of my freedom?

"Well, if something else caused them, then you'd still be free. But if God caused them, then hell no, you wouldn't be free."

----"My dad told me, son, whatever happens on the road ahead, I will be with you"

"Good. That means your free will is still intact."

----"God told me, son, whatever happens on the road ahead, I will be with you."

"Oh no! You realize that your free will has been taken away now, don't you?"

"Why?"

"Because it was God that told you. That means you have no freedom now."

"Sure I do. I know that my dad exists. I know that God exists. But I'm free not to love my dad, or God. I'm free to imagine that you are just a robot devoid of consciousness but are interfering with my mind. I'm free to rape my sister. What's not free about me?"

----"You had an involuntary thought."

"But everyone does, all the time."

----"Ah, but this involuntary thought was caused by GOD"

"Yeah, so?

---"But don't you see how if it was caused by God, that would violate your freedom?"

"No."

---"Well, it would, but you're maybe not able to see how ingenious my argument is."

:shrug:

[Az]

50. Calm down. I never said your freewill was taken away

I just acknowledged that you had a very powerful experience. They do happen. I already gave a very plausible explanation earlier. I have no idea what your experiences were so I really cannot comment on them any further.

[Beetwasher]

52. "I have had two extraordinary experiences of God communicating with me."

LOL!!!!!!!!!

Well, that sorta explains everything now, doesn't it? You're so very special. :eyes:

How do you know you're not just crazy? :crazy:

LOL!

[Az]

53. Because countless people have had such experiences

I may differ with Stunster on issues and dislike his debating style. But such experiences are historically shown to be quite common. Expected even.

Crazy implies an abnormal condition. There is something going on here on a regular basis. Now it's either God communing with his followers or its a relatively normal (if infrequent) neurological activity.

[trotsky]

54. Religious experiences and Epilepsy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm

God on the Brain
Why do people experience religious visions? BBC Two's Horizon suggests that in some cases the cause may be a strange brain disorder.

Controversial new research suggests that whether we believe in a God may not just be a matter of free will. Scientists now believe there may be physical differences in the brains of ardent believers.

Inspiration for this work has come from a group of patients who have a brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy. In a minority of patients, this condition induces bizarre religious hallucinations - something that patient Rudi Affolter has experienced vividly.

...

"What we suggested was that there are certain circuits within the temporal lobes which have been selectively activated in these patients and somehow the activity of these specific neural circuits makes them more prone to religious belief."

[Stunster]

67. Epilepsy, schmepilepsy

My experiences didn't involve hallucinations. My visual surroundings didn't change at all.

But even if they had, it wouldn't follow that they were caused by a brain abnormality.

My best friend actually has been diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy. He's been a militant atheist for years.

If a small child suddenly believed that 2+2=4 because its mother had dropped it on its head (and not because it had learned and understood some basic arithmetic), it wouldn't follow that 2+2 not=4.

Abnormal brain states are often associated with paranoid delusional beliefs that the subject is being persecuted. But many beliefs that sane persons have to the effect that they are being persecuted are, in fact, well-founded. And even in the case of paranoid people, it may actually be the case that some of them are being persecuted.

Moreover, it is obviously the case that a person having a religious experience must be in some brain-state or other while having it. Their brains do not suddenly dematerialize or vanish while they're having them. So one could always point to the person's brain-state as that which is responsible for the experience. But one could also do this in the case of every non-religious experience as well. In neither case would it follow in the least that the associated experience was non-veridical, simply because it depended on some brain-state or other.

Furthermore, let's suppose religious experiences are different from all other kinds of experiences. Then it's likely that the underlying brain-states will also be different from the brain-states associated with other types of experience. Hence it would always be open to an investigator simply to declare by fiat that the relevant brain-states were 'abnormal', simply because they were different. But even that wouldn't show that the 'abnormality' of the brain-state entails that the experience it gives rise to is non-veridical, any more than the unusualness or uncommonness of any other, non-religiously associated brain-state entailed the non-veridicality of the resulting experience.

In short, the epilepsy article proves nothing general about religious experiences.

[Beetwasher]

56. Well...

I was joking (sort of) :evilgrin:

[BurtWorm]

59. I've had those experiences. Twice in my life.

Very powerful experiences, once when I was about 20 and once at about 30. The first was the result of a meditation and lasted just a night. The second was far more intense and lasted about a month. It came about while I was at school, starving, speeding on coffee, and ruminating about the culmination of my college education, my work on a novel, and my work on my own psyche. At the time I classified these as mystical experiences, but now I've come to see them as slightly manic episodes, or certainly more as mental than cosmic events.

[Beetwasher]

62. Liquid Acid

Now THAT was a mystical experience!

[BurtWorm]

64. I think of all the things shamans do to their bodies

to get in touch with the "spirit world": sleep deprivation, fasting, sweating in sweat lodges, eating peyote. I think of whirling dervishes, making themselves dizzy. Throat singers, hyperventilating. The connection between the body and the "spirit world" is direct!

[Stunster]

58. How do you know you're not? (n/t)

[Beetwasher]

60. I Just Assume I Am

And that takes care of that...

[Stunster]

61. Same here (n/t)

[BurtWorm]

30. I can't believe I'm the only person who didn't understand what

that phrase meant. I didn't get much beyond it, so I didn't really know how you arrived at that ponderous conclusion, to be honest with you. The word "quantum" was like a stop sign. Maybe after you've had your beer you could summarize your points as clearly as you're able. I'd appreciate that.

[Stunster]

39. A summary

There are many places where you could pick up the basics about quantum mechanics. QM is the most rigorously and precisely confirmed scientific theory of all time, so I'm simply taking it as read.

God can answer prayers in two ways:

1) Providential arrangements of external circumstances which affect someone's consciousness (as advertizing does), but do not compel the person's will (as advertizing does not). A hint, a prompt, a reminder. It may also be more direct interaction with a person's consciousness---directly causing a thought or emotion to arise in consciousness, etc. Such thoughts and emotions, both directly and indirectly caused, need not be acted upon of course, any more than thoughts or emotions suggested to us by other people compel us to act in a particular way or negate our autonomy. And so free will is preserved. This generally will be very readily possible if materialism about the mind-body problem is false---which there are very good, well known arguments in philosophy of mind for believing to be the case.

2) Via low probability quantum events. A lot of quantum physics interpretation centers upon the relation between quantum events and consciousness (or observation). Maybe not only human consciousness, but also divine consciousness interacts with quantum systems to produce a collapse of the wave function. And the places where the divine consciousness 'observes' are selected timelessly in response to human prayers. Or more simply, God merely instantiates quantum physics, with the quantum probabilities that it has, and this instantiation is compresent to the timeless divine mind along with the prayers of humans in time, and the probabilities are arranged so as to produce the universe, but also to benefit humans in certain circumstances. Timelessness, by the way, is a perfectly respectable scientific concept. You might want to take a look at the work of Huw Price by scrolling down here: http://www.usyd.edu.au/time/price/TAAP.html

What we informally call the 'laws of nature' represent high probability quantum events. But if nature is quantum mechanical, which science tells us it is, then low probability events are also part of nature. But their quantum probabilities are built into the Schrodinger equation by God.

However, there are limits to how God will respond to prayer. He will not respond in ways that compromise the possibility of rational agency by making nature too unpredictable, nor by changing the laws of physics so much that they render life impossible or mathematically irrational, nor by abolishing human moral autonomy. And that's because the best favor God could grant would be heaven---and heaven is the perfect loving union of a human person with God, freely entered into. But to have human persons you need laws of physics like the ones in this universe (albeit they are quantum mechanical and probabilistic rather than deterministic), and for them to attain heaven they must have moral autonomy.

[aneerkoinos]

51. Prayer and Magic

God is naming the unnamable, interconnected whole, Holy Holism that is now perceived most convincingly in the quantum domain, in individual consciousness and various interconnected levels of subconsciousness, which are not separate from material manifestations, but slightly different aspects of "holomovement". Where our knowledge, will and freedom of action are limited by the very fundamental Uncertainty Principle.

Prayer and magical willing work by the same principle of indirect causation, pushing the odds by realizing an intention and then leaving it be, letting it do the job without further disturbance.

[indigobusiness]

69. Would you elaborate

on how:

"...our knowledge, will and freedom of action are limited by the very fundamental Uncertainty Principle."

I'm having a bit of trouble with exactly what you mean with that part, but I'm onboard here. And I've never heard your final point expressed quite that succinctly, nor as well.

[aneerkoinos]

71. UP

What I exactly mean is of course impossible to express, as that is also limited by Uncertainty Principle.

My intuition tells me that UP is the logical consequense of division into Self and Other, and the consequent (near) simultaneous double measurement, Self measuring the Self and the Self measuring Other, with illusion of continuous consciouss self as the cause and effect of that process.

What generalized UP means here is that because division between Self and Other is illusionary, they are a whole so they cannot be measured accurately and independently by the measurer that is part of the same whole.

[indigobusiness]

72. Doesn't quantum entanglement

confirm the illusion?

[aneerkoinos]

73. Again?

I don't understand the question. Put the question in the context of what was just said and refrase.

[indigobusiness]

75. You declare

"What generalized UP means here is that because division between Self and Other is illusionary.."

You base that on your previous statement:

"My intuition tells me that UP is the logical consequense of division into Self and Other, and the consequent (near) simultaneous double measurement, Self measuring the Self and the Self measuring Other, with illusion of continuous consciouss self as the cause and effect of that process."

It seems to me the significance in the interconnectdness of quantum entanglement is primarily the very confirmation that "division between Self and Other is illusionary".

There is no true Other.

My intuition tells me there is no Other, only an interconnected field of arising potential.

[aneerkoinos]

77. And/Or

>>There is no true Other.<<

Or just as well: there is no true Self. These concepts are codependent.


>>It seems to me the significance in the interconnectdness of quantum entanglement is primarily the very confirmation that "division between Self and Other is illusionary".<<

Yes, what we PERCEIVE AS interconnectedness in some frames of observation. However words 'interconnected' and 'entenglement' should not be understood to presuppose independent beings that can be interconnected and entangled. Language is constantly veiling and deceptive...

[indigobusiness]

79. I guess that's true in that self is contained within other

in the unified whole. But, that's very unZen.

The interconnectedness of QE particles is the fundamental fabric of ruder and more complex forms of being; nevertheless, as above - so below.
(And vice versa.)

Perception and language aren't all that deceive, but these concepts are rooted in meaning, or they are not. Putting a finer point on them, if they do, is a task of language and perception.

edit- to add 'of'.
re-edit- Self and other are, apparently, meaningless coping mechanisms. As unreal, but practically useful, as other useful perceptual constructs/tools such as Time. If we do realize our true nature, what is the point of all our foolish fun?

[indigobusiness]

81. I guess, in this way, self and other are only meaningful perceptually

and not actually.

Do we perceive the interconnectdness? When did we perceive this?

Entanglement, in terms of QM is a physical fact, not a perception.
Unless our concepts of the Physical are insubstantial.

[aneerkoinos]

82. QM

In QM it does little sense to talk about "physical facts". Quantum scientist, when they attempt to talk as precisely as possible and making as few (metaphysical) presumptions as possible, they call their empirical measurments "perception events".

Terms like "entanglement" make only sense in the frame they are intended, against their theoretical background.

[indigobusiness]

84. Quantum theory has yet to fail in practical examination.

The fractal implications are a confirmation of the "as above, so below" notions of physical, not metaphysical, reality.

The patterns are mirrored. Scale is a hall of mirrors.

No?

[aneerkoinos]

87. Sure babe

Way too deep for poor me. But I never understood the difference between physical and metaphysical.

[indigobusiness]

89. Good point...finally.

The distinction is in what has been defined, and what has yet to be. I don't subscribe to ideas of Supernature.

But I do subscribe to ideas along the lines of Huxley's "Mind at Large":

(Some people) seem born with a kind of bypass that circumvents the reducing valve. In others, temporary bypasses may be acquired...through there flows, not indeed the perception of "everything that is happening everywhere in the universe",...but something more than, and above all something different from, the carefully selected, utilitarian material which our narrow minds regard as a complete, or at least sufficient, picture of reality.

[davekriss]

90. "Do we perceive the interconnectdness?"

"Do we perceive the interconnectdness? When did we perceive this?"

Actually I think we do -- as a variety of religious experience (if I can borrow from William James). I repeat here a post I made several years ago on another board. The subject was, "Is there life after death?":

Way back in ancient history during my early undergraduate days, I thought a lot (for me) about questions such as this. I was also practicing Zen meditation daily. I was contemplating pursuing biology and medical school (ended up in eng lit) when, in a cellular biology class where the professor was articulating the many complex activities that go on in every cell (e.g., molecules, like fingers, stacking themselves end over end to push a mitochondria exactly where and when needed), I began to think science was wonderful at describing "what" was happening and "how", but offered no satisfying explanation of "why". Why such grandly coordinated dancing within every living cell? And I needed the why.

Walking home from class along a street with towering oak trees that formed a canopy above me (a favorite street!), I started thinking about those mitochondria again. They have their own DNA which have more in common with eachother, across the continuum of species, than they had with me.

I noticed squirrels scampering in the branches above; chirping birds swooping down from the canopy; the wind in the trees and light dappled by dancing leaves. I started thinking about the mitochondria within me, within the squirrels, the birds, within the trees; a kind of life within life, a solid connection between us, as if the life within me was inseparable from the life within them -- I understood that it's all the same life.

Then suddenly, with every breath, with every step, I felt as if I could feel the movement of the earth spinning on its axis while racing around the sun. I was somehow extended, a greater space unfolded, everything in perfect and exquisite synchronized motion. I no longer sensed myself as before, but instead I seemed to be at the top of my head, radiating out through the trees and light all around me. Then I heard myself thinking, "this is great!", "what is this?", and I felt as if I tumbled down, back to where I was before, back to the mundane drudgery of daily life.

What did it mean? Nothing. And everything. I walked away from that radiant moment feeling that it was a gift. Perhaps from those giant oaks that comforted me every day as I walked home!

I also understood that nothing changed, that I still had all my worries and duties and daily stresses -- that this is it, there is no place to go except where we are now. No exit. But things became lighter; joy bloomed where there was emptiness before. Contemplating the possibilities of an after-life became simply unimportant.

Instead, being here is all important. Joy is found right here, not in some mythical promise of a future that cheats unavoidable non-being. Listen to your childrens' laughter; as your parents once listened to yours; and their parents to them -- laughter echoing down time. Connections. Don't fret over the possibilities of an unknowable after-life. Be here now.

A few years later I was willing to talk about this to some. I recall telling a devout Christian; he declared that it was God's Grace flowing through me. I told a Hindu and he told me that I opened my eighth Chakra and did experience (a kind of) enlightenment, adding that people in his culture sometimes stumble on these experiences without following the disciplines. My thought? It had nothing to do with either of their belief systems, which were irrelevant. The experience was what it was; interpretation is unnecessary. But I find myself gladly giving thanks for every breath I take, every beat of my heart. Life is a gift. Cherish the moment.

Since then I've become an ardent follower of Jesus Christ, but how I got from there to here is a long story (perhaps for another time). What I'd like to say here is that moment in my Cathedral of the Oaks, that moment 27 years ago -- it was amongst other things a moment of intensely perceived interconnectedness, of fundamental inseparable interconnectedness.

Much more than a "net of jewels" wherein every being is reflected in every other, we are "net", "being", and "jewel" all at once and in every present moment.

[BurtWorm]

55. My question was simply what do you pray for when you pray for someone

not what are the physics of prayer or is prayer rational. Those are indeed interesting questions, but that's not what I asked.

[Stunster]

57. I'm trying to think

I tend not to bother too much with praying for specific outcomes, because I figure that God knows better than I do what specific outcomes would be best for people.

So in intercessory prayer, I usually just commend the persons I'm praying for to the goodness and love of God, and believe that in doing so I am conforming myself to the will of God, and consciously and specifically participating in God's will that there be goodness and love in those people's lives--I'm entering into and sharing in the love God has for those persons. Thus, in intercessory prayer I am drawn closer both to God and to the people I'm praying for.

[Parahandy]

66. Praying is thinking about God

When I pray, I think about God.Perhaps its the only time.Prayer isnt a regular part of my everyday routine, but I find that when I want to express heartfelt thanks for the times when great things happen, or when I have had bad things happen to me, or am going through a rough period of life,I pray to God at those times.
It is often asking for help,wanting wrongs to be righted,but then again it's also showing and expressing gratitude.
Prayer is a very very special thing,a sacred thing, a thing we shouldnt take for granted,and should make more use of, not only for ourselves, but for everyone.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. Okay, I'll answer Burt's question

I'm too sophisticated to say "God, you've just gotta cure X's illness" or "You've just gotta give me such-and-such." That's a childish level of prayer. God is not a short-order cook.

When I pray for someone who is ill or in physical danger, I pray that God may grant them strength to face whatever they are facing and that those who care for them or are responsible for their safety may be wise and compassionate.

If someone is in emotional turmoil or a dicey personal situation, I pray that they may be guided to do the right thing and that their eyes may be opened to the possibilities for making the best of the situation.

When praying for myself, I ask to be shown what I need to do.

As for the answers, sometimes they come in the form of powerful gut feelings that won't leave me alone. I find that ignoring them has always gotten me into trouble.

More often, they come from other people, who seem to say exactly what I need to hear at the right time. Of course, they do not know that they are giving me a message. Occasionally they are speaking directly to me, but in the most recent instance that I can think of, an overheard remark in a discussion about a complete stranger's similar situation gave me an insight into an interpersonal conflict that I was facing. It was not what I wanted to hear, but I knew that it was the only ethical option. (BTW, the people talking did not know about my situation.)

For a time, i was in a women's spirituality group in Portland. We would end each meeting with a "circle of blessing." We would sit in a circle, and each woman would state the concern that was weighing most heavily on her mind that week. The next woman in the circle would then offer a prayer for her. The feeling of emotional support generated was tremendous, and often the second person's prayer shed a new light on the situation.

For example, before I had my tenure process interview, I was so nervous that I hadn't slept for two nights. I went to the meeting, and when the time came for the circle of blessing, I expressed my sense of panic. The woman who prayed for me prayed that I might face the interview calmly and with dignity, and that if my destiny lay someplace other than that college, that I might find a new path that would make use of my talents.

Going home that night, I was so relaxed that I fell asleep right away. The next day, I walked into the interview without the least sense of stage fright. In the end, I did not get tenure, but that rejection led to new, more interesting life.

I don't know the exact mechanism by which these things work, other than being convinced that there's a non-material world that operates on principles we can't fathom.

[BurtWorm]

65. It seems to me that prayer for you is a concentration of the mind.

You may be receiving random information from the world as usual, but because your mind is focused on an idea or a problem, you're heightened to receiving messages pertaining to it. Whether or not "God" has anything to do with the message is a matter of faith, of course. Very interesting.

I appreciate your answer.

[papau]

25. An excellent answer!

:-)

I wish I could write well!

:-)

[Shadow Drifter]

68. I pray...

...only to keep my thoughts in order. Sometimes I will ask the mother goddess for guidance through hard times. But its mostly for a self helping type of thing. At least for me.

[indigobusiness]

70. The only prayer is: Thy will be done.

Everything else is backseat driving.

A prayer is the generation of a resonant frequency, amplified exponentially by groups, and realized in the manifestation of practical results such as healing and other pragmatic forms.

The context of harmony with God's will is at the root of prayer. How could one respect God's will and yet deign to direct it? Sincere wishing that God's will be done, in general, and that what one hopes for is a part of that doing: that is prayer.

[aneerkoinos]

74. Thelemic

Alistair Crowley phrased that "only prayer" thus:

Do what thou willt, and that shall be the whole of the law.

[indigobusiness]

76. I pray that AlestairCrowley will rise from the dead...

just long enough to kiss my ass.

[aneerkoinos]

78. Watch what you wish ...

I'm sure there's no other Will that Alestair Crowley would now rather follow than your prayer - or perhaps he did allready, making all those Kundalin juices of yours flowing... :headbang:

(Oogh, the the Demiurge of English syntax must have been a very garbleminded maniac...)

[indigobusiness]

80. I doubt Alestair Crowley rathers anything at this point.

And, even if whatever druthers are potentialy realized, I doubt they will do much stirring of any or all of my "Kundalin juices". But one can always hope.

[aneerkoinos]

83. Druthers?

Well, for a moment i thought your rectal bad self held something against Mr. Royal Asshole Himself...

But what does "druthers" mean, praytell?

[indigobusiness]

85. Leave my badself out of this, at least in those terms.

You always descend into the rectal, even when it is of no consequence or bearing.

I have nothing against anyone who brings something to the table, but everything against those who only seek to contribute to the mess. re: His Royal Assholeness

You said "he'd rather"...ergo 'd rather...'druther...druthers. (Common parlance, among the more eloquent.)


edit-sp

[aneerkoinos]

86. Moi?! Moi???!!!

It was not me that brought up his Most Kissable Ass, and there certainly was no mention about descending it!!! (Are you now standing on your head BTW - or even worse, are you calling me a poop in the bowels?)

You should know by now, I take no metaphors, it's all plain surface to me, babe...

[indigobusiness]

88. I most assuredly did not.

What I did bring up was the prospect of his kissing...of MY ass. And there is nothing rectal in that metaphor, wherever (or however) you take it.

In your dreams...babe.







(I am calling you nothing...you am what you am.)