Yesterday a friend came to me and said his brother was in a coma. This same guy saved my life when I went into coma three years ago,
His brother was on ventilator and not responding. He asked me to pray or him, I did. Two hours latter the brother reaches up and pulls out the vent and opens his eyes and says "where am I?"
In my book this is rational warrant for belief. Not proof. but it is warrant,
it's from God.
26 comments:
I don't think coincidences like this are interesting for many reasons. Imagine if the following counterfactual was true:
If the man was not prayed for, then he would never have regained consciousness.
The unfairness in a world like that would be morally repugnant, IMO. To punish those who do not get prayed for due to their different circumstances would in no sense be fair, and consequently in no sense be just.
If theists want to entertain miracles, then I do not think they should entertain any miracles that has anything to do with prayers being answered, i.e., they should never entertain that counterfactually some miracle would not occur if praying did not occur.
If, say, we cannot accept the counterfactual position (that a miracle would not have occurred if praying did not occur), then the coma situation could not provide any sort of warrant for theism.
But imagine that God performs a miracle by causing the man to come out of the coma but at the same time allows ten other people in comas to die, and that all of this happens without the influence of any prayers involved. That seems no less unfair than causing a miracle due to prayer. One can answer that we can't understand God's will, but God could also conceivably use human action in the form of prayer as an instrument to effect his will.
Blogger 7th Stooge said...
But imagine that God performs a miracle by causing the man to come out of the coma but at the same time allows ten other people in comas to die, and that all of this happens without the influence of any prayers involved. That seems no less unfair than causing a miracle due to prayer. One can answer that we can't understand God's will, but God could also conceivably use human action in the form of prayer as an instrument to effect his will.
why must we think of God's actions wholesale as though God is a force of nature or a mechanism that has to act the same way every time for all people? WHY CAN;T GOD'S ACTIONS BE TAILER TO THE INDIVIUDAL LIFE ?
that should have said given certain universal principles,like good is good.
If you took the time to actually read these posts, you'd see that I was arguing for your position.
That being said, you are using comparative, relative, causal principles in your example, ie "I prayed for x and x happened. Therefore, I have rational warrant in believing that God caused x to happen." You can't use those principles only when they serve your point and abandon them when inconvenient.
That being said, you are using comparative, relative, causal principles in your example, ie "I prayed for x and x happened. Therefore, I have rational warrant in believing that God caused x to happen." You can't use those principles only when they serve your point and abandon them when inconvenient.
you have to do more than just assert that they don't, you have to show they don't in cases where I think they do. You can't assert that non miraculous healing is proof that there is no miraculous healing. Because you can;t show that God has to heal every time we ask him to. you have to how why God would not say no to healing. I God's healing is not automatic if God has discretion then you can;t assert description counts agaisnt the cases where God seems to act,
Blogger Ryan M said...
I don't think coincidences like this are interesting for many reasons. Imagine if the following counterfactual was true:
If the man was not prayed for, then he would never have regained consciousness.
The unfairness in a world like that would be morally repugnant, IMO. To punish those who do not get prayed for due to their different circumstances would in no sense be fair, and consequently in no sense be just.
I disagree. We are all under the same constraints, that there are limits on human life is not unfair, or unjust. Because it comes to us all. The unjust thing would be healing anyone because any healing would change the constraints for some but not all. But if there are considerations anyone fit it's not necessary unjust. It might be unjust tat we have different chances of tragedy befalling us. Unless of course there's a reason why living life is not unjust, being given the gift of life is a gratiuity in the first place,
Ryan M
If theists want to entertain miracles, then I do not think they should entertain any miracles that has anything to do with prayers being answered, i.e., they should never entertain that counterfactually some miracle would not occur if praying did not occur.
That's like saying everyone in the cave should just give up the concept of getting out of the cave because not everyone will figure out that the shadows are not reality,stay away from the light now.
If, say, we cannot accept the counterfactual position (that a miracle would not have occurred if praying did not occur), then the coma situation could not provide any sort of warrant for theism.
God answering a prayer is not evidence that God could not work without prayer, All it means is that God answered a request,
good luck. hope you don;t get sick.
I really don't understand the thinking that God either must never, ever intervene, or if God intervenes even once, God must intervene all the time, for everyone, exactly in the same way, or God is unjust. God must either be completely unresponsive, or must give us a cushioned universe where every bad thing is instantly corrected. Why?
And why would it be unjust for God to give someone a miracle? Is it a "punishment" to not perform a miracle for someone else? I hardly think so.
I think part of the disconnect that often happens is that theists are thinking in terms of an afterlife in addition to this life, while atheists are not. So to an atheist, whatever happens in this life is all there is, so, though they don't believe in God, it's natural to them to think that if there were a God who was actively involved, God should make things fair, or it would be unjust. But if there's an afterlife, then there might be a good reason in Divine wisdom to grant one person a miracle (and thus extended time in this world), and not to another (and maybe to bring the other person into the next world earlier). Of course, this only scratches the surface of theodicy (doctrines addressing why there's suffering), but this is just an attempt to figure out why our perspectives can be so different.
I agree Kristen, I don't think Ryan appreciates my answer about the myth o the cave,I think it pretty answers that concern,also my "God answering a prayer is not evidence that God could not work without prayer, All it means is that God answered a request,"
I think you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that we can never say that God answered a prayer. All I'm saying is that we tend to use the usual rules of inference and probability to back up the strength of our claims that God answered our prayer. Usually when we say that God answered a prayer, it's meant as an expression of faith more than as an expression of literal fact, or even a rational warrant for literal fact, because we usually just don't know enough.
that's a good point but the more unlikely the outcome the greater the probability that it is an answer.
7 I'd like your views on my overview of phenomenology
Causing 10 people to die in a coma while saving 1, all without prayers, would also be unfair. One class of scenario being unfair doesn't make another fair.
If God is to perform a miracle for one person over another, and it is not to be unfair, then there must be some morally relevant difference. Prayers are not morally relevant differences - prayers are privileged.
"I agree Kristen, I don't think Ryan appreciates my answer about the myth o the cave,I think it pretty answers that concern,also my "God answering a prayer is not evidence that God could not work without prayer, All it means is that God answered a request,"
I don't understand what Plato's allegory has to do with this.
So here is what you and Karen seem to think I've asserted:
Proposition 1 - If we have evidence that God answers prayers, then we have evidence that God cannot perform miracles without prayers.
Proposition 2 - It would be unjust for God to perform a miracle.
Proposition 3 - Either God performs no miracles for any person, or God gives everyone miracles.
Proposition 4 - God performs a miracle only if a person prays for a miracle.
I didn't assert any of the above. I specifically said that if theists were going to entertain miracles at all, then they should not entertain miracles that occur as a result of prayer. That alone shows that I wasn't advocating 1, 2, or 4.
With respect to 1, I don't know where you get that from. What you quoted is me saying "If theists cannot entertain X, then X cannot provide warrant for theism". I'm not sure how you managed to interpret that differently.
With respect to 2, I don't know where Karen got that from. I talked about a specific sub-class of miracles, i.e., miracles brought about due to prayer. God healing a sick child because counter-factually that child would grow to save millions of lives is different than God healing a sick child because people prayed for it.
With respect to 3, I don't know where Karen got that from. I will guess that she thinks my point about unfairness somehow applies to every miracle, i.e., it would be unfair to perform a miracle for one person and not every sufficiently similar person, so either God performs no miracles or God performs miracles for everyone. I would agree with that unfairness point, but I would say we cannot know that one miracle is unfair over another when we cannot know whether God has morally sufficient reasons for performing one another another. But I think that God performing miracles due to prayer (where counter-factually God would not have acted) is not something there can be a morally sufficient reason to allow, so is unfair due to inequalities privileging some people over others.
With respect to 4, I don't know where you got that from. Since I specifically said theists should adopt non prayer miracles over prayer miracles, I don't know how you could have interpreted me as advocating 4.
Blogger Ryan M said...
Causing 10 people to die in a coma while saving 1, all without prayers, would also be unfair. One class of scenario being unfair doesn't make another fair.
If God is to perform a miracle for one person over another, and it is not to be unfair, then there must be some morally relevant difference. Prayers are not morally relevant differences - prayers are privileged.
8:02 PM Delete
Prayer is not a competition. If we think of criteria by which God might decide for whom he works a miracle (assuming he has criteria and i don;t claim to know that either way) there is no reason to think that some are excluded, Just because only a few will be in the zone (so to speak) and quality for a miracle doesn't mean anyone is excluded a priori out of malice or prejudice. Anyone can ask and any one could potentially get a miracle, They don;t often find themselves in the right place at the right time or that it fits with God's plan or whatever. A lot of people don't believe. A lot of at the people think God should respond to their anger and cough up the miracle because they have been through so much,God owes me, that attitude is not an attitude of faith,
None of that is any more unfair than some being smarter and some being stronger,
Blogger Ryan M said...
"I agree Kristen, I don't think Ryan appreciates my answer about the myth o the cave,I think it pretty answers that concern,also my "God answering a prayer is not evidence that God could not work without prayer, All it means is that God answered a request,"
I don't understand what Plato's allegory has to do with this.
I am comparing the awareness of miracles and a life of faith to the realization that what we take for reality is really just shadows cast by the radiance of reality we are really in the cave,
So here is what you and Karen seem to think I've asserted:
Proposition 1 - If we have evidence that God answers prayers, then we have evidence that God cannot perform miracles without prayers.
Proposition 2 - It would be unjust for God to perform a miracle.
Proposition 3 - Either God performs no miracles for any person, or God gives everyone miracles.
Proposition 4 - God performs a miracle only if a person prays for a miracle.
I didn't assert any of the above. I specifically said that if theists were going to entertain miracles at all, then they should not entertain miracles that occur as a result of prayer. That alone shows that I wasn't advocating 1, 2, or 4.
With respect to 1, I don't know where you get that from. What you quoted is me saying "If theists cannot entertain X, then X cannot provide warrant for theism". I'm not sure how you managed to interpret that differently.
With respect to 2, I don't know where Karen got that from. I talked about a specific sub-class of miracles, i.e., miracles brought about due to prayer. God healing a sick child because counter-factually that child would grow to save millions of lives is different than God healing a sick child because people prayed for it.
With respect to 3, I don't know where Karen got that from. I will guess that she thinks my point about unfairness somehow applies to every miracle, i.e., it would be unfair to perform a miracle for one person and not every sufficiently similar person, so either God performs no miracles or God performs miracles for everyone. I would agree with that unfairness point, but I would say we cannot know that one miracle is unfair over another when we cannot know whether God has morally sufficient reasons for performing one another another. But I think that God performing miracles due to prayer (where counter-factually God would not have acted) is not something there can be a morally sufficient reason to allow, so is unfair due to inequalities privileging some people over others.
With respect to 4, I don't know where you got that from. Since I specifically said theists should adopt non prayer miracles over prayer miracles, I don't know how you could have interpreted me as advocating 4.
(1) who is Karen?
(2) why don't you just spit out what you are saying?
I would say we cannot know that one miracle is unfair over another when we cannot know whether God has morally sufficient reasons for performing one another another.
Yes we do, because we know who God is. This what faith is about we can assert that God has sufficient moral reasons because we know God is the center of morality, the source of the good.
I think this is an interesting window into what Ryan is getting at,
Joe Hinman said...
7 I'd like your views on my overview of phenomenology
Blogger Ryan M said...
Causing 10 people to die in a coma while saving 1, all without prayers, would also be unfair. One class of scenario being unfair doesn't make another fair.
Shall we distinguish between causing and allowing? That might make a difference at some point. If the 10 who die just happen to be in a place in their lives such that a miracle would conflict with the plan,then would letting them die be immoral or unfair? Would that not depend upon the importance of the plan?
One unfair class does not make another unfair granted. But the believer is in a hard position here because we have to affirm that God is not unfair period.
If God is to perform a miracle for one person over another, and it is not to be unfair, then there must be some morally relevant difference. Prayers are not morally relevant differences - prayers are privileged.
Prayer is communication, prayer is communion most prayer is not asking for things, When one is given answers of some kind in prayer it is a gift of grace. Is it unfair that God gives grace in some cases and not in others? I don't think so since God does give grace to all it's up to us to receive it it;s up to us to Belleek it.
The times and nature and form of Grace will differ according to the occasion and to one;s relation to faith but in the long run God's grace is open to all but not all people will accept it
Prayers are human actions, so I don't see how they can be ruled out as making a morally relevant difference. That being said, I am very wary of claiming that God answered prayers, at least in anything beyond a faith claim, but more as a way of praising and affirming faith in God rather than making an explicit statement of fact. We just don;t know enough.
why? I it's improbable enough and we accept that God could answer a prayer?
I agree, but I think usually such claims should be made modestly and more as ways of affirming faith in God, since they can't possibly be disconfirmed. The more extraordinary the event, the ore confidence I have, and vice versa.
yes I agree
"None of that is any more unfair than some being smarter and some being stronger"
That's right, something also unfair. Like I said before, saying "X is no more unfair than Y" does not make X not unfair.
"(1) who is Karen?
(2) why don't you just spit out what you are saying?"
I meant "Kristen". Her forgettable points made me forget her forgettable name.
My points are quite clear. If you can't understand them, then the issue is with you.
Ryan M said...
"None of that is any more unfair than some being smarter and some being stronger"
That's right, something also unfair. Like I said before, saying "X is no more unfair than Y" does not make X not unfair.
Yes but sometimes unfair is just a matter of necessity. It's a matter of necessity that some will be stronger or smarter than others given the nature of evolution., If God wants a world that evolves naturally then it has to be a world where some have advantages over others. If it really is unfair in the long run and there's no balancing it depends upon how important it is to allow that kind of world. By that I mean its the difference in God not caring and God having to do things a certain way.
"(1) who is Karen?
(2) why don't you just spit out what you are saying?"
I meant "Kristen". Her forgettable points made me forget her forgettable name.
I don't think its so reasonable to get her name right. I also don't like the way you treat my friend. She is a very bright person and it's your loss that you don't pay attention to her view point. this is be neither you.If I spoke that way on your sight you would not post it you would say I.m being insulting.
My points are quite clear. If you can't understand them, then the issue is with you.
No they are not, you only spelled out what you are not saying. This is why apophatic theology is only done by mystics, Because mystics don;t worry about being understood.
Post a Comment