"Who do you turn to in a crisis?"

seamus

OK, quick one for today. This question is one that has cropped up a couple of times for me recently. As in, I've been asked the question, or seen it written.

Am I the only person who doesn't understand it? When there's a crisis of any kind, I do two things:

1. Do what I can to resolve it, or
2. Otherwise ride it out to conclusion because I have no control over the outcome

Perhaps I'm confused because every time I've seen it written down, it's phrased in such a way that it presumes that everybody turns to some kind of diety or supernatural belief in order to pray/hope/wish their way through the hard times.
But I don't. I will of course hope that everything works out well, I'm still human, but I'm aware that my hoping will have no bearing on the outcome.
Answering the question with "no-one" seems to make people both surprised and uncomfortable that you "go it alone", so to speak.

Maybe it's a symptom of post-Catholic Ireland that people are asking these questions, and trying to figure out how to replace praying to God with something?

Does anyone else understand this question properly?

RedXIV

Probably comes from the same characteristic that most people have that when you have a problem and you have a superior, get them to look at it.

It happens alot in work for example where I've seen one particular issue for example rise through 5 levels in the chain of command.

Alot of people seem to want guidance and when they take the time to pray etc, perhaps the fact that they are presenting their "higher power" with the facts means they can analyze it enough to get an answer thus prompting "divine inspiration"

Penn

seamus wrote: »

OK, quick one for today. This question is one that has cropped up a couple of times for me recently. As in, I've been asked the question, or seen it written.

Am I the only person who doesn't understand it? When there's a crisis of any kind, I do two things:

1. Do what I can to resolve it, or
2. Otherwise ride it out to conclusion because I have no control over the outcome

Perhaps I'm confused because every time I've seen it written down, it's phrased in such a way that it presumes that everybody turns to some kind of diety or supernatural belief in order to pray/hope/wish their way through the hard times.
But I don't. I will of course hope that everything works out well, I'm still human, but I'm aware that my hoping will have no bearing on the outcome.
Answering the question with "no-one" seems to make people both surprised and uncomfortable that you "go it alone", so to speak.

Maybe it's a symptom of post-Catholic Ireland that people are asking these questions, and trying to figure out how to replace praying to God with something?

Does anyone else understand this question properly?

Someone who can actually answer and view things from perhaps a more impartial, logical viewpoint than my own, if I am the one in crisis. Turning to God, while praying etc may make you feel better, doesn't solve the problem. Friends, family etc, they can help lift the burden, whether just with moral support, practical advice or actually helping with the crisis. God has some master plan, which means he wanted it to happen, so why turn to him for help with it? Or if he made the crisis in order for me to ask him for help, I'd rather suffer the crisis than be the subject of God's Puppet Theatre.

Beruthiel

seamus wrote: »

1. Do what I can to resolve it, or
2. Otherwise ride it out to conclusion because I have no control over the outcome

Same as. I turn to me would be the correct answer.

Religious people think they 'turn to god'. That they have a friendly god to guide them.
This calms them down enough to rationally work out their next step. IE - They also turn to themselves, but credit that action on their god.

Logical Fallacy

The actions of the Theist and the Atheist in times of crisis will be quite similar i reckon...first course of action will be to engage in activity or mental process that calms you down, the second will be to seek answers or help.

I always enjoy the argument that praying is basically meditation, solutions are arrived at in a subconscious manner which are then attributed to said deity.

kiffer

actually... I kinda do get it...

I've always said when times are hard you turn to friends or family they help as best they can... but eventually there comes a point where even the best human becomes frustrated and you don't want to burden them with your troubles.
The idea of a friend that can take all your troubles, listen to your fears, anxieties and so on with out becoming jaded or over burdened is very appealing.

Obviously believers still need the actual help of the people around them, and go to counciling and so on if they are under sufficiant strain...

but the idea of a friend that you can lean on no matter what, that already knows what you're thinking and so you can't and don't need to hide things from... I get how feeling like you have a perfectly stedfast friend would help, even if as a nonbeliever it's seems a bit like the end of the film Brasil...

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

1. Do what I can to resolve it, or

2. Otherwise ride it out to conclusion because I have no control over the outcome

The first option is the natural option because experience tells us that if we act we can very often resolve a crisis.

The second option one isn't actually an option because it presumes the crisis is of sufficiently low intensity to permit you sitting around on your hands. Which means it's hardly a crisis.

If you are, for example, terrified out of your wits (the intensity of which is increased by your realisation that option 1 won't work) then it's not good enough to say you'll just sit there on your hands until the crisis passes.

There is a reason for the expression "there are no atheists in foxholes". Neither of your options deals with that. It need not be that every atheist in a foxhole turns to God. It may be that they have a breakdown, it maybe that they go insane.

You need to fill in that blank with some action/reaction or other.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you are, for example, terrified out of your wits (the intensity of which is increased by your realisation that option 1 won't work) then it's not good enough to say you'll just sit there on your hands until the crisis passes.

I don't see why not. You can be terrified out of your wits, but if you know there's nothing can do about it....well there's nothing you can about it.

I fail to see how sitting on your hands and worrying about it is any different to praying to God...and worrying about it. Praying to God may offer something to turn to, but it doesn't remove the fear. If someone is plummetting 50,000 feet in a failed aircraft, prayer may give them something to focus on, but you can bet they're going to be just as scared ****less as the atheist sitting beside them pondering on their life.

"There are no atheists in foxholes" is a fallacy, there indeed have been plenty of atheists when faced with the certainty of their demise, haven't turned around and decided to repent.

It need not be that every atheist in a foxhole turns to God. It may be that they have a breakdown, it maybe that they go insane.

Can it not be that they simply accept the lack of control they have over their situation and roll with it? Why does exceptional stress have to lead to mental breakdown unless you turn to God?

Logical Fallacy

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a reason for the expression "there are no atheists in foxholes". Neither of your options deals with that. It need not be that every atheist in a foxhole turns to God. It may be that they have a breakdown, it maybe that they go insane.

You need to fill in that blank with some action/reaction or other.

Did you not just dispute that phrase with the later part of your post?

Not being a dick so much as looking for some clarity around what you mean, i mean, an insane Atheist is still an Atheist.

Dermo

By turning to some form of deity religious people are removing any responsibility from themselves.
If the crisis turns out positive then it is because they trusted the deity.
If the crisis turns out negative then that is how it is supposed to be.

By turning to a deity religious people are actually not making a choice, they are letting the crisis play out and then come up with an answer afterwards.

For this reason they never give themselves a chance to solve the crisis and can never really better themselves in that regard.

edit: I'm not saying you should always choose Option 1. There are many occasions when you have no possible way or skill to resolve it

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The first option is the natural option because experience tells us that if we act we can very often resolve a crisis.

The second option one isn't actually an option because it presumes the crisis is of sufficiently low intensity to permit you sitting around on your hands. Which means it's hardly a crisis.

If you are, for example, terrified out of your wits (the intensity of which is increased by your realisation that option 1 won't work) then it's not good enough to say you'll just sit there on your hands until the crisis passes.

There is a reason for the expression "there are no atheists in foxholes". Neither of your options deals with that. It need not be that every atheist in a foxhole turns to God. It may be that they have a breakdown, it maybe that they go insane.

You need to fill in that blank with some action/reaction or other.

"Otherwise ride it out to conclusion because I have no control over the outcome" doesn't necessarily mean sitting passively on your hands though - nor does it mean that one must turn to a god. I've ridden out a crises knowing I have no way of making a difference to proceedings but I've still cried and paced and worried and bitten my nails and cried some more until the crises has passed criticality. I'd see no more logic in throwing up a cursory prayer to gods I have no faith exist than I would in asking a magic eight ball what the likely conclusion in going to be.

Logical Fallacy

Dermo wrote: »

By turning to some form of deity religious people are removing any responsibility from themselves.
If the crisis turns out positive then it is because they trusted the deity.
If the crisis turns out negative then that is how it is supposed to be.

By turning to a deity religious people are actually not making a choice, they are letting the crisis play out and then come up with an answer afterwards.

For this reason they never give themselves a chance to solve the crisis and can never really better themselves in that regard.

edit: I'm not saying you should always choose Option 1. There are many occasions when you have no possible way or skill to resolve it

I have to say i completely disagree with your thinking there. If this were the case then Theist would never get anything done, ever, and most certainly would never get anything done in a pressure situation.

It has been my experience with Theists that they will make the choice themselves, they simply justify different after. If an Atheist makes a bad choice they will often consider things like luck, or chance....much in the same way a Theist will consider the will of their god.

Theist : "I opted to do action A but it didn't work out, God has other plans".
Atheist : "I opted to do Action A but it didn't work out, just bad luck i suppose".

Basically Atheist's are just as likely to try and absolve themselves of responsibility in the event of the unfortunate occurring as a result of their choices as a Theist is. They just use a different mechanic.

Dermo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I have to say i completely disagree with your thinking there. If this were the case then Theist would never get anything done, ever, and most certainly would never get anything done in a pressure situation.

I don't believe they do get anything done in a pressure situation. But this is only for those people who consider every move they make "god's work". Look at the Cloyne report, it's a perfect example. The message from the Vatican was pretty much "ok lads, sweep it under the rug. God will look after it all"
Now, I will admit, that isn't true among every theist. My statement was a bit too broad. But I stand by the statement in reference to people who are heavily controlled by their religious beliefs.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Theist : "I opted to do action A but it didn't work out, God has other plans".
Atheist : "I opted to do Action A but it didn't work out, just bad luck i suppose".

Maybe this is true for some Atheists but believing in luck, to me, is believing in the imaginary.

Me : "I opted to do Action A but it didn't work out. Why did this happen? Is there anything else I can do?"
I try and find the rational explanation and not just fall back on "luck". People who put all their faith in luck are the same as people who put their faith in a god

Logical Fallacy

Dermo wrote: »

I don't believe they do get anything done in a pressure situation. But this is only for those people who consider every move they make "god's work". Look at the Cloyne report, it's a perfect example. The message from the Vatican was pretty much "ok lads, sweep it under the rug. God will look after it all"
Now, I will admit, that isn't true among every theist. My statement was a bit too broad. But I stand by the statement in reference to people who are heavily controlled by their religious beliefs.

Cool, cheers for clearing it up. I was only even replying because i know a few religious folk that i would much prefer to have around in a crisis than some of the Atheists i know.:)

Maybe this is true for some Atheists but believing in luck, to me, is believing in the imaginary.

Me : "I opted to do Action A but it didn't work out. Why did this happen? Is there anything else I can do?"
I try and find the rational explanation and not just fall back on "luck". People who put all their faith in luck are the same as people who put their faith in a god

Pretty much exactly the point that i was making...it's definitely be more like yourself in thinking, but once again the evidence i have seen tells me that many people who don't believe in a god will happily cite things like luck and chance etc.

kiffer

or "I opted for Action A, it didn't work out, I made the wrong choice."

Or because Billy actively got in my way, or because the market price of gold fell due to the actions of other people...

When you lose a game of chess it's not bad luck...
And if you lose all your money playing craps it's not bad luck, it was the bad choice to play craps.

seamus

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

the evidence i have seen tells me that many people who don't believe in a god will happily cite things like luck and chance etc.

But that depends on context. Chance is something which does exist. Some might say it's the basis of the universe.

"Luck" as a concept implies some external, caring force. However whether the person saying it, believes that it's anything more than chance is what relevant.

For example, if I say that someone is going to win something because they're lucky person, then I am making a statement that this person is destined to come out favourably in any game of chance. That's nonsense clearly.

However, if someone has very often come out favourably in games of chance and I say that they've been lucky so far, well I'm not making any kind of supernatural statement - they have had good fortune so far because they have consistently beaten the odds.

Likewise if someone has a string of unlikely events occur to them, I would say that was unlucky. I'm not saying that they're an unlucky person or that it was anything more than chance, but it's just a phrase to express "sympathy" with someone who has done poorer than chance would have supposed.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a reason for the expression "there are no atheists in foxholes". Neither of your options deals with that. It need not be that every atheist in a foxhole turns to God. It may be that they have a breakdown, it maybe that they go insane.

These guys seem happy enough:

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

"Otherwise ride it out to conclusion because I have no control over the outcome" doesn't necessarily mean sitting passively on your hands though - nor does it mean that one must turn to a god. I've ridden out a crises knowing I have no way of making a difference to proceedings but I've still cried and paced and worried and bitten my nails and cried some more until the crises has passed criticality. I'd see no more logic in throwing up a cursory prayer to gods I have no faith exist than I would in asking a magic eight ball what the likely conclusion in going to be.

Okay. Now increase the intensity beyond that which is served by crying or biting your nails.

It might be worth reminding you of this particular Christians way of viewing a cry to God. Consider a rubber duck run over by the truck. The duck squeaks as a result. The is no reliance on nor place for the duck finding it logical that he squeak before doing so.

I cal it the duck/truck theology

Logical Fallacy

seamus wrote: »

But that depends on context. Chance is something which does exist. Some might say it's the basis of the universe.

"Luck" as a concept implies some external, caring force. However whether the person saying it, believes that it's anything more than chance is what relevant.

For example, if I say that someone is going to win something because they're lucky person, then I am making a statement that this person is destined to come out favourably in any game of chance. That's nonsense clearly.

However, if someone has very often come out favourably in games of chance and I say that they've been lucky so far, well I'm not making any kind of supernatural statement - they have had good fortune so far because they have consistently beaten the odds.

Likewise if someone has a string of unlikely events occur to them, I would say that was unlucky. I'm not saying that they're an unlucky person or that it was anything more than chance, but it's just a phrase to express "sympathy" with someone who has done poorer than chance would have supposed.

Very true, i guess what i am getting at is that it can be a very human condition to seek an influence outside of what we ourselves can excercise on our circumstances. For some it will manifest as religion, for others...it can manifest as anything at all.

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. Now increase the intensity beyond that which is served by crying or biting your nails.

So, falling 50,000 feet in a doomed aircraft. How does that require any different reaction beyond wailing and lamenting your imminent death?

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. Now increase the intensity beyond that which is served by crying or biting your nails.

It might be worth reminding you of this particular Christians way of viewing a cry to God. Consider a rubber duck run over by the truck. The duck squeaks as a result. The is no reliance on nor place for the duck finding it logical that he squeak before doing so.

I cal it the duck/truck theology

Increase what intensity? I didn't know if my son would live or die - how much more intense do you think things have to get before a god is invoked? Is it just a case of keep pushing back the goal posts to make sure the possibility can get squeezed in? I have never had a god, I don't have your default duck squeak.

Turtwig

The principle is in fact very simple. Humans beings can better withstand pain and suffering when they think have some element of control over their situation. If you have no one to turn to, no gesture or ritual to perform then you will give up easier than someone who does. The inability to act on any level is what is the most distressing of all and a consequence of that is that during those periods we are more prone to seeing "patterns" between random events.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

These guys seem happy enough:

...and the artillery shells landing all round?

Logical Fallacy

antiskeptic wrote: »

...and the artillery shells landing all round?

I have to be honest and say you didn't exactly make your initial point very well, so i'd maybe clarify it before flogging that horse.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Increase what intensity? I didn't know if my son would live or die - how much more intense do you think things have to get before a god is invoked?

That would obviously depend on the person.

Did he die?

Is it just a case of keep pushing back the goal posts to make sure the possibility can get squeezed in? I have never had a god, I don't have your default duck squeak.

Like I say, this possibility lies at the bottom of the barrel. Not at some point on the way down. This objection, like the "God is a crutch" objection function equally well if both crutch and last-port-of-call are true of God.

There is no particular reason to suppose your position any more true than mine. A point worth bearing in mind if unconciously trying to stack up a defence.

antiskeptic

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I have to be honest and say you didn't exactly make your initial point very well, so i'd maybe clarify it before flogging that horse.

The term "there are no atheists in foxholes" would be well known enough not to require explaining. I would have thought

Galvasean

Are we actually debating 'atheists in foxholes'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vxiQ9JCKvE

Logical Fallacy

antiskeptic wrote: »

The term "there are no atheists in foxholes" would be well known enough not to require explaining. I would have thought

Not really, the term "The grass is always greener on the other side" is also quite well known, however it would not be taken that it means the saturation of the colour of the grass is more pronounced on the other side.

Basically you seem to be saying that the fact that a saying exists that "there are no atheists in foxholes" proves that their are no atheists in foxholes?

liamw

Beruthiel wrote: »

Same as. I turn to me would be the correct answer.

Religious people think they 'turn to god'. That they have a friendly god to guide them.
This calms them down enough to rationally work out their next step. IE - They also turn to themselves, but credit that action on their god.

..and there are scientific experiments that show that a believer's brain activity pattern is identical when asked:
'What would you do?' and 'What would God do?'.

The pattern changes when asked 'What would others do?'.

I think Dr Thomson mentioned it in this video.

Turtwig

^^Dear God Please Confirm What I Already Believe.

robindch

liamw wrote: »

..and there are scientific experiments that show that a believer's brain activity pattern is identical when asked: 'What would you do?' and 'What would God do?'.

Urgh, Jesus Camp twice in the one afternoon!

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

Urgh, Jesus Camp twice in the one afternoon!
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/25807/167876.jpg

Surely that's got to be a infractionable offence?:p

18AD

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

...and the artillery shells landing all round?

It says a lot about christianity that some people think that a non-believer needs to to threatened with violent death by high-explosive before they'll believe it.

Doctor DooM

antiskeptic wrote: »

That would obviously depend on the person.

Did he die?

Oh, wow.

This is one of the least empathic replies I have read on the internet, and I've modded forums for years.

Let's forget about the fact that you're actually asking a human being if watching their child potentially die while you can do nothing is... intense enough for some imaginary stress line you seem to keep pushing back, you also throw in a little "so, did your kid die or not?" question.

aidan24326

Beruthiel wrote: »

IE - They also turn to themselves, but credit that action on their god.

That one always bugs me. How god always gets credited with the good stuff but never (for most religious people anyway) held to account for any of the bad stuff that happens. Kinda of a win-win situation for god really.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is a reason for the expression "there are no atheists in foxholes".

There is a reason alright, that whoever coined it was an idiot.

robindch wrote: »

It says a lot about christianity that some people think that a non-believer needs to to threatened with violent death by high-explosive before they'll believe it.

Not to mention the threat of a gazillion years in hell if you still don't.

Beruthiel

antiskeptic wrote: »

...and the artillery shells landing all round?

Here are some atheists who were in foxholes and came out the other side without uttering a single prayer to a god.

Galvasean

Beruthiel wrote: »

Here are some atheists who were in foxholes and came out the other side without uttering a single prayer to a god.

Clearly they're lying. I would turn to God in such a situation, therefore everyone would. :pac:

Penn

Galvasean wrote: »

Clearly they're lying. I would turn to God in such a situation, therefore everyone would. :pac:

Exactly. There's a saying about it, so it must be true. They wouldn't make a saying about it if it wasn't true.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to ask my neighbour how he gets his grass to look so green.

Galvasean

An old tactic practiced by many of the more brutal militarised civilizations was to wipe out an entire settlement/army but leave one survivor. The idea being that said survivor would tell the tale to others, terrifying them and increasing their reputation.
Is that what God does with disaster survivors?

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

That would obviously depend on the person.

Did he die?

So being faced with his death I didn't have to evoke a god - it would only be if he'd actually died? That's probably the most awful and tasteless god of gaps I've heard peddled to date.

And thankfully no, with a complete lack of prayer and entirely due to medical intervention, he lived.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like I say, this possibility lies at the bottom of the barrel. Not at some point on the way down. This objection, like the "God is a crutch" objection function equally well if both crutch and last-port-of-call are true of God.

There is no particular reason to suppose your position any more true than mine. A point worth bearing in mind if unconciously trying to stack up a defence.

I think I've had my fair share of pretty awful crises, despite them not fitting whatever arbitrary definition you give them [ie, must involve invoking a god!] and I've been told by both doctors and dentists that I have a very high pain threshold...whatever it is other people feel the need to invoke, I'm getting on just grand without.

You are wrong on one more thing. I do have reason to suppose my position is right because I've been absolutely desperate, like not able to think straight desperate and it still didn't make me consider theism. That must really gall you but it doesn't stop it being absolutely true.

irishh_bob

seamus wrote: »

But that depends on context. Chance is something which does exist. Some might say it's the basis of the universe.

"Luck" as a concept implies some external, caring force. However whether the person saying it, believes that it's anything more than chance is what relevant.

For example, if I say that someone is going to win something because they're lucky person, then I am making a statement that this person is destined to come out favourably in any game of chance. That's nonsense clearly.

However, if someone has very often come out favourably in games of chance and I say that they've been lucky so far, well I'm not making any kind of supernatural statement - they have had good fortune so far because they have consistently beaten the odds.

Likewise if someone has a string of unlikely events occur to them, I would say that was unlucky. I'm not saying that they're an unlucky person or that it was anything more than chance, but it's just a phrase to express "sympathy" with someone who has done poorer than chance would have supposed.

its a silly cliche to say you make your own luck , if you made your own luck , it wouldnt be luck , just good descision making

philologos

Although I suspect that many of you will find my perspective on this absurd, I will give it anyway:

I think I would say that I would pray to God for a multitude of reasons, not really to ask Him to fix things the way I would of necessity want it to arise. Rather I'd ask God to make things clear to me and to show me which direction He will take things in and to build a relationship with Him not that He might know me, but that I might come to know Him more. I realise that I sometimes may have it wrong, and things won't of necessity arise as I anticipate. In fact given things that have happened over the last few years things happen in a completely different way to how one expects that they should. My perspective on prayer has changed dramatically over the past few years from simply being a wish-list in a sense to an affirmation of trust in God, and that His will might be done. Yes, from time to time one might put a request to God, but ultimately one has to accept that God might have a different plan and ultimately that might be better than the one you have in your mind at a particular juncture.

Relief for me tends to come not necessarily when what I want happens, but simply when I can know that there is some form of direction and that perspective can be found. I believe that God ultimately guides if one is willing to accept it. I believe that there is an ultimate purpose to my existence and that God is showing this to me bit by bit.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So being faced with his death I didn't have to evoke a god - it would only be if he'd actually died? That's probably the most awful and tasteless god of gaps I've heard peddled to date.

You asked what could possibly be more intense than not knowing whether you son would live or die. I pointed out the obvious. Don't misrepresent things.

I also said it depends very much on the person. Some might have a bleeding issue going back years, others might be hanging on a cross looking into the abyss. Some might get to the bottom of their barrel and still not yield.

Salvation is rejectable.

And thankfully no,

Great. Truly.

You are wrong on one more thing. I do have reason to suppose my position is right because I've been absolutely desperate, like not able to think straight desperate and it still didn't make me consider theism. That must really gall you but it doesn't stop it being absolutely true.

I had plenty of desparation in my life before I cried out ot God too - I mean screaming NOOOOOO! at the top of my lungs desparate. There's always lower to sink. In case you missed it earlier..

antiskeptic wrote:

It might be worth reminding you of this particular Christians way of viewing a cry to God. Consider a rubber duck run over by the truck. The duck squeaks as a result. The is no reliance on nor place for the duck finding it logical that he squeak before doing so.

..it's not so much that you decide to give theism a shot. It's that you find yourself pressed to your knees by circumstances.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I also said it depends very much on the person. Some might have a bleeding issue going back years, others might be hanging on a cross looking into the abyss. Some might get to the bottom of their barrel and still not yield.

Or see nothing to yield to.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Salvation is rejectable.

And a made up term - depending on your point of view.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I had plenty of desparation in my life before I cried out ot God too - I mean screaming NOOOOOO! at the top of my lungs desparate. There's always lower to sink. In case you missed it earlier..




..it's not so much that you decide to give theism a shot. It's that you find yourself pressed to your knees by circumstances.

Still sounds suspiciously like you are peddling the true scotsman "crisis".

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

My perspective on prayer has changed dramatically over the past few years from simply being a wish-list in a sense to an affirmation of trust in God

Yes I can imagine if I was praying for things to happen all the time, and that such prayer turned out to be entirely ineffectual and pointless, I would change my perspective on it too. If you try something 100 times and it doesn't do anything then it is indeed time to move on and try something else.

Of course unanswered prayer is one of those comical contradictions in theist thought. If you pray for something and it happens then god is good. If you pray for something and it does not happen then god is also good and he must have a plan which is why he did not answer.

When both success and failure can be used to affirm the truth of a claim, then literally anything can be evidence of anything.

So as you predicted at the opening of your post: Yes, I find your "perspective on this absurd".

irishh_bob

philologos wrote: »

Although I suspect that many of you will find my perspective on this absurd, I will give it anyway:

I think I would say that I would pray to God for a multitude of reasons, not really to ask Him to fix things the way I would of necessity want it to arise. Rather I'd ask God to make things clear to me and to show me which direction He will take things in and to build a relationship with Him not that He might know me, but that I might come to know Him more. I realise that I sometimes may have it wrong, and things won't of necessity arise as I anticipate. In fact given things that have happened over the last few years things happen in a completely different way to how one expects that they should. My perspective on prayer has changed dramatically over the past few years from simply being a wish-list in a sense to an affirmation of trust in God, and that His will might be done. Yes, from time to time one might put a request to God, but ultimately one has to accept that God might have a different plan and ultimately that might be better than the one you have in your mind at a particular juncture.

Relief for me tends to come not necessarily when what I want happens, but simply when I can know that there is some form of direction and that perspective can be found. I believe that God ultimately guides if one is willing to accept it. I believe that there is an ultimate purpose to my existence and that God is showing this to me bit by bit.

that idea of ( god ) showing you direction in reality means going with your gut , i used to be a believer , i asked god to help me with big changes i made in my life which i saw as nesscessery due to my dysfunctional upbringing , trouble is , the changes i made lead to even worse heartache and none of it my own fault , this didnt make me philosophical about life , just bitter , depressed , broken and apathetic , call me selfish but if someone turns out to be useless in thier advice , guidance etc , you eventually dont bother with them

seamus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I also said it depends very much on the person. Some might have a bleeding issue going back years, others might be hanging on a cross looking into the abyss. Some might get to the bottom of their barrel and still not yield.

Salvation is rejectable.

So basically your assertion here is that unless you have considered turning to God, you haven't truly been in a really desperate place?

Goalposts on Rails. You don't happen to go by the name "Paisley", do you?

philologos

irishh_bob: The difference I guess is much of what I'm discussing wouldn't fall into the criteria of "following my gut" because in a sense I've seen things which are largely beyond my control change. I don't know about your situation and I don't pretend to know. I can only give an account of how I feel God has guided in my personal experience.

Beruthiel

philologos wrote: »

I've seen things which are largely beyond my control change.

Things can change all the time that are beyond your control.

philologos

In what seems to be a clear direction would be the caveat.