Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.



Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

Singularity 1 on 1: Quantum Thief Trilogy

Stanford Laptop Orchestra (1hr 30min)

The Nature of Categories and Concepts (1hr 30min)

Enhancing Virtues: Caring (part 2)

On Steven Pinker’s “The Better Angels of our Nature”

Cyberwarfare ethics, or how Facebook could accidentally make its engineers into targets


ieet books

Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies
Author
by Nick Bostrom


comments

Rick Searle on 'How our police became Storm-troopers' (Aug 31, 2014)

instamatic on 'How our police became Storm-troopers' (Aug 31, 2014)

Rick Searle on 'How our police became Storm-troopers' (Aug 31, 2014)

instamatic on 'How our police became Storm-troopers' (Aug 31, 2014)

Rick Searle on 'How our police became Storm-troopers' (Aug 31, 2014)

instamatic on 'How our police became Storm-troopers' (Aug 31, 2014)

Rick Searle on 'How our police became Storm-troopers' (Aug 31, 2014)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Transhumanism and Marxism: Philosophical Connections

Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee

Technological Unemployment but Still a Lot of Work…

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Enhancing Virtues: Self-Control and Mindfulness
Aug 19, 2014
(7959) Hits
(0) Comments

Is using nano silver to treat Ebola misguided?
Aug 16, 2014
(6815) Hits
(0) Comments

“Lucy”: A Movie Review
Aug 18, 2014
(5852) Hits
(0) Comments

High Tech Jainism
Aug 10, 2014
(5343) Hits
(5) Comments



IEET > Rights > FreeThought > Life > Health > Contributors > Valerie Tarico

Print Email permalink (11) Comments (3675) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


Is Prayer Selfish?


Valerie Tarico
Valerie Tarico
Awaypoint

Posted: Sep 18, 2012

Fall is prayer season. Some folks think of it as football season, and indeed, images of football players circled with heads bowed or pointing to the big guy in the sky are almost as familiar lately as birds flying south.

But the real season kick off this year was the Republican convention, where the fervent supplications of Evangelicals and Pentecostals miraculously diverted Hurricane Isaac, so that the party could go on. Praise the Lord, Tampa was spared, and the death and destruction that might have befallen people who live there . . . befell somebody else. 

Should the families of those who died in Louisiana and Mississippi sue the Republican prayer warriors for not being a little more specific? Couldn’t they have gotten the hurricane to touch down somewhere remote, where the only homes destroyed would be those of, say, birds and non-pet, non-farm and most importantly non-human mammals?

Ironically, the best defense of the prayer warriors might be the evidence (so popular with social scientists, freethinkers, and certain stage magicians) that prayer doesn’t actually work. The first statistical analysis was published over 100 years ago by Sir Francis Galton himself, and in the intervening years, scores of studies and meta-studies (here, here, here, here) and other analyses (e.g.here) have accumulated. The mountain of evidence stacks up one side of the balance. It points to the very same conclusion Galton reached:

*  Despite constant prayer vigils for the sick and dying, the devout—including devout Christians—have a similar life expectancy to everyone else.

*  In aggregate, research on prayer show no overall effect or one so weak that the most that can be said for God is that he – maybe—operates at the margins of statistical significance; not a very impressive claim for an omnipotent, interventionist deity. Put it this way, a pharmaceutical company that made similar claims and had similar results would be sued out of existence.

Oh for the good old days. According to the stories of the ancient Hebrews, their god responded to prayer with dramatic shows of power. One story in 1 Kings, is about a prayer duel. The prophet Elijah and 450 prophets of Baal face off over two pyres, each of which is topped by a slain bull. All day long, the prophets of Baal pray, begging their god to send down fire from heaven to consume their bull as a burnt offering. They dance wildly with the servant-priests of Baal’s female consort, Ashera, and cut themselves with knifes in a show of fervent devotion. Finally, when they have exhausted themselves, their pleas unanswered, Elijah has the audience pour water over his altar. He then prays to Yahweh, who sends down such a fierce fire that it consumes the bull, the wood, and even the water. Eager to show which side they are on, the crowd butchers the devotees of Baal and Ashera.

Today, to get such impressive results Christians have to fake it. And sometimes they do. A group of East Indians once told me about a missionary school bus driver whose bus wouldn’t start after he loaded the last child. He asked the children to pray to the gods of their parents: maybe Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva, Ganesh, Devi or Brahma. Nothing happened. Then, after surreptitiously reconnecting two wires under the steering column (the same two wires he had disconnected a few minutes earlier) he asked them to pray to Jesus. The bus roared to life. In rural Africa, where credulity is in great supply and medical science is scarce, Pentecostals bring people back from the dead. By contrast, in the cities and on the football fields of the West, the power of prayer is roughly equal to the power of suggestion.

So why (Oh, dear God, why) must we be subjected to another season of Tebow-type posturing, and legal battles over invocations, and imprecatory spectacles in which Great Men of Faith publicly exhort God to rain down sterility, death and suffering –in that order– on the families of Barack Obama and Mikey Weinstein?

Why, in other words, is the human prayer habit so intractable?   After millennia in which the natural order has rolled along meting out windfalls and hurricanes, life and death in precise keeping with the laws of biology and barometric pressure, why do people still pray?

The answer for starters is that there is more than one kind of prayer. Not all prayer is an attempt to manipulate whatever Power-that-be on behalf of some baldish bipedal primate or group thereof. Some prayers have another substance and purpose. I’ll come back to that.

But the prayers that are about us getting what we want, the kind of prayers I’ve been talking about, are simply irresistible.  The favor-asking kind of prayer, also known as “intercessory prayer” is unlikely to go away anytime soon because it expresses some very fundamental aspects of the human psyche.

Hierarchy: We humans are social animals, hierarchical social animals. Anyone who’s been subjected to junior high knows that attaching yourself to popular and powerful people has its rewards. Our responses to people up the ladder are to some extent biologically scripted: we are acutely aware of what they want from us and we feel a strong pull to do it. Christians, even those who claim to have highly abstract God concepts, usually relate to God as if he were an alpha male with a human mind and preferences (only bigger and better). Like other underlings, believers draw nigh unto the powerful one, ingratiate themselves, and, in return, expect an increase in their own standing by proximity. They also expect something more concrete. Favors.

Reciprocity: Do you ever get unsolicited stickers or cheap cards in the mail from, say, the Environmental Defense Fund? My parents got free investment advice from Focus on the Family, and years or maybe even decades passed before my mother managed to get them out of her will. One of the core social instincts that keeps human society functioning is the impulse to reciprocate: If you smile at me, it’s hard not to smile back. If you are mean; watch out. If I give you the things you want, anything from investment advice to a burnt bull, I instinctively expect you’ll give back — not exactly in kind, but in proportion as you are able.

Ego-centrism: Each of us lives in a universe with one being at the center, a me.  Everything spirals out from there. Other beings are more valuable if they are of my species, my gender, my color, my nationality and my religion. They are especially valuable if they are close enough to have become, in some small way, a part of me, as in my brother or son or wife. Dick Cheney broke with other Republicans on gay rights after his daughter came out. Nancy Brinkman, founder of Komen, committed to fight breast cancer when the disease struck her sister. What we care about radiates out from each of us like ripples from a pebble in a pond, getting weaker as it gets bigger, until it fades away altogether. 26,000 children will die today of starvation, says the bumper sticker. Why should God answer your prayers? The answer is quite simple: Because the world is about me, and those 26,000 children are so far away and so numerous that I can’t wrap my brain around . . . . Who were we just talking about?

Exceptionalism:  Much of literature is devoted to the fantasy that the rules don’t apply to us. Our dream protagonists are superhuman. They are unconscionably rich, incomparably beautiful, and able to survive blows to their heads and internal organs that would leave any realistic story devoid of characters by the end of the first chapter. In children’s fiction, the Harry Potter series plays out this sort of fantasy for several thousand pages: there are Muggles and then there are those to whom the rules of physics don’t apply. The Twilight series offers a more titillating version of exceptionalism to love-hungry pubescent girls and their adult analogues: the fantasy that some supernaturally beautiful and powerful male who has been around for hundreds of years finds you as addictive as heroin. The ancient texts gathered into the Bible give us a glimpse of how long analogous fantasies have held appeal for people of all ages. Instead of a nubile seventeen-year-old, a tribe of wandering herdsmen is Chosen by the supernatural one. As he fights to protect them (and ultimately bring them into his immortality), the sun stands still, walls fall down, water turns to wine, the blind can see, and poisonous snakes have no effect. Ask anything in prayer, believing, the Chosen are promised, and it shall be done. And death shall have no dominion.

Desire and helplessness. By contrast with fantasy, the real world can be quite a let-down. Life is complicated. We often feel powerless to affect the things that matter to us, large and small. Parking lots get full just when we’re in a hurry. Information we’ve studied disappears when we walk into a test. Kids get hurt. Income and bills won’t line up. Hurricanes come out of nowhere. The human condition is fraught with yearning, frustration, danger, and the specter of our own mortality; and our ability to protect ourselves and those we love is limited. At the same time, most of us have some hazy memory of a time when things were different, when an all-powerful parent or even two could anticipate what we wanted and make it happen. The magic of an omnipotent caretaker kept us safe in a scary world and, when we were hurting, that magic made things better. 

Is it so bad to want such a benefactor again? Is it so bad to ask a favor now and then and to give God a little credit when things go our way?

Unfortunately, I think the answer is yes.

I say this because intercessory prayer doesn’t merely exploit ego-centrism and exceptionalism, it reinforces them.  This is true in part because the subject of many prayers is some form of zero-sum game, football being the obvious example.  Asking for God to stack the odds in my favor is asking him to stack them against someone else.   One team has to lose.  The last parking spot can go to only one driver.  If I want God to improve my SAT score, I want it improved relative to the other test takers.  In ways that are sometimes subtle and sometimes not, prayer frequently seeks advantage in a competition.  It is understandable that each of us wants to come out on top, but to sanctify this desire—to make it holy–is degrading.  It makes both us and the world around us a little meaner.

Ironically, the same problem holds for many prayers of thanksgiving. When orthodox Jewish men thank God each morning that they were not made “a gentile or a slave or a woman,” the ugliness is obvious to everyone except those doing the praying.  But we often miss the self-centeredness in what can seem on the surface like simple expressions of gratitude. When a man can face national television audience and say, Praise God, he made me late for the plane that crashed!– what is he saying about the people who arrived on time? When a sports team gives God credit for their win, what are they inferring about the other team?  When we sit around the dining table in our most slimming jeans and thank God that he has blessed us with pork roast and potatoes, what are we implying about those 26,000 kids who will die tonight for lack of a thin gruel? What is the subtext of the common saying, “There but for the grace of God go I?” 

There is an alternative, another kind of prayer that isn’t about requesting or celebrating special treatment at the hands of an interventionist deity. Instead it is about something within us, about our struggle to live in alignment with our deepest values.  In fact it is about resisting the self-serving impulses that drive so many bowed head moments. This kind of prayer takes many forms.

For the traditional theist, it may begin with the words of St. Francis, “Lord, Make me an instrument of thy peace. . . .” Alternately, the message may be less eloquent, more wry, more hesitant.  It may borrow words from a single wisdom tradition or a mix or none at all.  It doesn’t matter. Because such a prayer is experienced as a sacred conversation, the act of giving voice in prayer to deeply held values and yearnings can be powerful – even self-fulfilling.

Others of us may find that, in the absence of a traditional god concept, our prayers feel more like meditation than invocation, more like being than asking.  We may not even think of them as prayers because the word carries so much sordid, selfish, superstitious baggage; but I think it is ok if we do.  A prayer may be nothing more than a deep, centering breath; a moment of silence; a thrill of delight; or a surge of love that brings tears to our eyes, reminding us beautifully, painfully, quietly of our small place in the greater whole. In a world with gods or without, in our world today or even a world beyond belief, that is a kind of prayer worth praying.


Dr. Valerie Tarico is a psychologist with a passion for personal and social evolution.  In 2005, she co-founded the Progress Alliance of Washington, a collective of future-oriented donors investing in progressive change.  She also is the founder of WisdomCommons.org, an interactive website that showcases humanity’s shared moral core via quotes, poetry, stories and essays from many traditions. Tarico’s book, Trusting Doubt:  A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light, offers personal insight into how we can apply “constructive curiosity” to our most closely guarded beliefs. 

As a social commentator, Tarico writes and speaks on issues ranging from religious fundamentalism to gender roles, to reproductive rights and technologies. A primary focus is on improving access to top tier contraceptive technologies.  To that end, she serves on the board of Advocates for Youth, a D.C. based nonprofit with wide-ranging programs related to reproductive health and justice.  Tarico co-chairs of Washington Women for Choice, serves on the Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest Board of Advocates, and is a Senior Writing Fellow at Sightline Institute, a think tank focused on sustainable prosperity. Her articles appear at sites including the Huffington Post, Jezebel, Salon, AlterNet, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and at her blog, AwayPoint


Print Email permalink (11) Comments (3676) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


Prayer is a minute to minute process since the Supreme Being is omnipresent and omniactive.  Thought, words and deeds intersecting to bring about the harmony of the universe that includes everyone.





Bill Cosby used to tell the story of how Sunday mornings when he was a kid started with a big breakfast preceded by an even bigger prayer (I think from his grandfather.) As the aroma of the gradually cooling food wafted into his nostrils, the prayer went on and on and on and on, leading the young Cosby to wonder, “Why does God need US to tell HIM what to do?”

That’s the fundamental problem with petitionary prayer, efficacy aside. God is just going to stand idly by and allow horrible things to happen if we don’t ask Him to do otherwise? Then if the horrible thing happens, well that’s part of a larger plan and God has to do what He does in order for that plan to become reality. 

The sensible thing would be to start from that position, wouldn’t it? So why ask for anything? “Thy will be done” is apparently the only petitionary prayer that could ever possibly work. And it will work whether somebody says it or not.

However, that assumes that the purpose of petitionary prayer is to try to make things happen. Maybe not. Perhaps it is just another way of getting to that deep centering breath, to that reminder of our small place in a greater whole. Absent an expectation that the thing being asked for is really on its way, it might work. If you’re praying for your team to win—I think very few people actually do that, btw—and suddenly you remember those 26,000 starving children, that’s a good start.





A good article on a misunderstood subject. You can recognize three types of communion experience: petitionary prayer, thanksgiving, and worship. Petitionary prayer is generally misunderstood.

A petitionary prayer can be effective or ineffective. There are certain recognized criteria for effective petitionary prayer:
Unselfish—not alone for oneself.
Believing—according to faith.
Sincere—honest of heart.
Intelligent—according to light.
Trustful—in submission to the all-wise will of the deity.

The result of such prayer is primarily the reinforcement of one’s own insight into the situation and the gradual development on an inner certainty that one will proceed is the best possible way. Such an inner response is enhanced by carrying the communion process through the worship phase, since that is when the petitioner finally stops talking, puts his mind in input mode, and gets the quickest (not necessarily the only) answer.

No one should expect prayerful communion, when effective, to have any effect except on one’s inner understanding and vision, enabling oneself to act appropriately for the benefit of all in the situation. Any exterior effect is impossible to trace or prove, though it may in fact exist.





Great statement of the modern problem of prayer. For most people it is indeed all about themselves. I know a great many atheists who begin their journey away from faith because God doesn’t do what they want.

Prayer that focuses on the other can be a useful technology for increasing empathy and a sense of responsibility for making this world a better place. (Here and now as opposed to in the hereafter) In this way the best prayer for those 26,000 children is to make changes in your lifestyle that will lead to them being fed.

By the time God in the scripture grows up, that is indeed what she demands. (Isaiah 58: 3-7)





IMO prayer is nothing more, or less, than placebo—which does have value. But just to throw out a number, say prayer has .9 percent value in the sum ‘total’ of a given someone’s life:
we can perceive the .9 percent as being of some importance albeit minor; or we can perceive the .9 as being of no import.
I like prayer, but then a Nietszcheian ubermensch—as an advanced being—might not need prayer at all. It might not be a case of weakness, but,  rather, of advancement.





It has been shown, and quoted many times here that meditation has a measurable positive effect on the brain. It stands to follow that meditative prayer;which is very different from the gimme gimme, letter to Santa Claus kind of prayer, can indeed be useful

It is a technology. The fact that many people use the internet for porn, scams and LOL catz doesn’t reduce the potential usefulness of the internet. It does meant that we have to be careful in introducing and using the technology that we sift out the garbage.

The same is true for prayer. It is not a panacea, it is not a replacement for medical science, it does not allow the person praying to subvert the laws of the universe. Yet prayer done to be open and empathetic will make a substantial difference in the person and thus a potential difference in the world.

The biggest challenge to prayer is that most people are all desire and little discipline.





What about the possibility that prayer doesn’t change God, and doesn’t change others, but changes me?

A Santa Claus God would require no faith or human growth. 

(And yet none of this suggests His miracles are impossible or infrequent.)





As I said, prayer makes a difference in the person praying and thus in the world.

We have a distorted idea of what the miraculous is about. In the ancient culture there was little concern about “physical laws” and what was and wasn’t possible. The notion that the sun could stop in place, or that axe heads could float was not bizarre. Where we think of miracles as things that happen outside of the laws of nature, they thought of miracles as occurrences that revealed the divine.





“It has been shown, and quoted many times here that meditation has a measurable positive effect on the brain. It stands to follow that meditative prayer;which is very different from the gimme gimme, letter to Santa Claus kind of prayer, can indeed be useful
It is a technology. The fact that many people use the internet for porn, scams and LOL catz doesn’t reduce the potential usefulness of the internet. It does meant that we have to be careful in introducing and using the technology that we sift out the garbage…”


True, and your entire comment is undeniable. But (and there is always a ‘but’) you could make positive comments about porn and LOL catz as well—perhaps porn and LOL catz are as valuable as prayer or very close to prayer in value. Perhaps prayer is of .9 value in one’s life, porn is at .8, and LOL catz at .7 (just for random numbers’ sake). I have gotten cynical about it, however after realising abortion, gay issues, and the other issues of the religious—too common to be dismissed—are of marginal/no importance, I’m suspicious of even the value of meditation and prayer.
The lyric to the song ‘Incense and Peppermints’ comes to mind:
‘...who cares which things we choose,
little to win and nothing to lose…’
The lyric is a specious countercultural lament—yet it is not completely nihilistic; I’ve always wanted to believe there is some meaning to existence however it now strongly appears the meanings exist in our minds and in the collective subconscious but nowhere else—internally, not externally.
We don’t want to underestimate ‘things’ however we also don’t want to make more of what we consider special than is warranted; I see no reason to think what is special is more prevalent than the random, the arbitrary, the capricious.
At any rate, let’s say faith is a moral and philosophical anchor, the anchor, and leave it at that; though there’s much more to it, that is where I personally want to leave it at. I like priests—but don’t trust them. Can’t speak for anyone else, can only write of how there is something to the Nomos, the Nexus.. something necessary. Unfortunately, will go no further: “unfortunately” because it would be comforting to think what is special is more prevalent than the random, the arbitrary, the capricious, yet no evidence of such exists and it is unacceptable to me to disscuss it at a technoprogressive site. Leave it to the Immanence of the Emmanence Site, the ‘Still Small Voice Within’ Site.





“We have a distorted idea of what the miraculous is about. In the ancient culture there was little concern about ‘physical laws’ and what was and wasn’t possible. The notion that the sun could stop in place, or that axe heads could float was not bizarre. Where we think of miracles as things that happen outside of the laws of nature, they thought of miracles as occurrences that revealed the divine.”


There’s something to this, in the distant past people would have visions, for instance, of Jesus. Joan d’ Arc had auditory hallucinations/auditory revelations (depending on one’s point of view) inspiring her to acts which can be considered miraculous.
People in the Middle Ages would look at the sky and see faces or other things. Yet how much of this can be put down to biochemistry, to say mild ergot intoxication or something similar?: don’t know and it causes skepticism and or cynicism—though related to this is how our lives are not dominated by the extreme positive/negative, but rather, the mundane. Therefore, escaping via spiritualism/religion is quite understandable.. even necessary. However this immediately brings up the question as to what spirituality can be defined as, if spirituality can be defined at all. Porn doesn’t appeal spirituallly to people our age, but to the young today it might have a spiritual dimension and is certainly big business. Literature, music, art, cinema, theater, etc., may be quite spiritual to many enthusiasts, intensely so in some cases. What comes to mind is if there’s no accounting for taste then is there any accounting for spirituality? Are we all Joan d’ Arcs having visions/hallucinations (positive, negative and neutral) causing us to engage in extraordinary, and at the same time, banal, acts which we perceive to be extraordinary?

 

 





Intomorrow, Prayer has been scientifically shown through study to change the human brain in positive terms. I’m not sure there have been any studies on how either porn or LOL catz changed the brain. They probably do, everything we interact with has an effect. The important thing is to see whether the change is measurably positive.

Prayer is a working ‘technology’ for increasing empathy in the human. Whether it works or not is entirely dependent on whether it is used correctly.

Your comments around spirituality and visions are to the point, but I’m afraid you miss my point. The miraculous is not found in visions or voices or in supernatural occurrences. It is in the encounters in which we learn something new about the divine.

Porn most definitely has a spiritual aspect, as does everything else we do. The question is whether it helps us grow as human beings. Like many such questions, there is no simple answer.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Saintly Simulation

Previous entry: KURATAS Robots - Japanese Industry

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376