Let Us Pray?

Once again we were urged to pray for the people in the path of danger, this time Hurricane Laura. And again, I have to ask: really? Do those who do such urging ever think about what they are saying? Would an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity really need to hear from us before deciding whether to keep people safe from Mother Nature, which after all is supposedly the deity's creation and fully under its control? No matter how hard I try, I can make no sense of this. Is the deity so narcissistic or whatever that it would let people die horrible deaths or suffer devastating damage unless lots of people pleaded for it not to happen? If that is the case, I would like to hear why this deity is worthy of adoration and worship.

Comments

  1. JoeAugust 30, 2020 at 11:35 AM

    Well, you need to "stretch" your thinking a bit. According to the Credo, God is almighty (omnipotentem, all powerful), and creator of heaven and earth (factorem cæli et terræ), and supposedly omniscient (I guess derived from omnipotent). However, he/she/it couldn't be all *that* powerful since he/she/it allowed Satan to sort of betray (?) him/her/it and establish his own "kingdom" in Hell. And of course, his/her/its creation of Adam and Eve wasn't that perfect either, necessitating banishing them and later drowning just about everyone alive. So he/she/it may be kinda omnipotent, but like the men/women who were created in his/her image, he/she/it has some faults.
    Furthermore, a true Catholic (maybe a Christian too), would point out that he/she/it is also supposed to have misericordia (mercy, i.e., be merciful). The Latin stems are heart (meaning feeling) and misery (wretchedness), so having "feeling for the wretched and miserable". My point is that by praying you're not supposed to be massaging his/her/its ego, but rather asking him/her/it to show some misericordia for those unfortunate to be in the path of Laura (thus also showing him/her/it to be somewhat omnipotent).
    I'm not trying to defend this reasoning, just giving my interpretation of teachings I received.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sheldon RichmanAugust 31, 2020 at 8:57 AM

      I appreciate your contribution to the conversation, Joe. I just wonder if the picture is improved by the possibility that praying is rather intended to get God to show some misericordia for the unfortunate. Why must He be beseeched? Still sounds like an ego-massage to me.

      Delete
    2. JoeAugust 31, 2020 at 10:58 AM

      I'm afraid I don't have a good answer. Sometimes I wish I could "roll back film" and ask these kinds of questions to the three priests I used to know in my youth, each quite different from the other. The first one I recall mostly from his "fiery" sermons (fiery as in "you will burn in hell), always with a black cassock. He was not one to talk much about mercy, but rather more about having fear of God. The second was much younger, hip if you will, adopted a white cassock when it became allowed and moved easily to native tongue (Spanish) mass instead of Latin and even guitar music for accompaniment. He was the one who would think more in terms of misericordia. The third was a Jesuit, erudite, used a black business suit with a clerical collar. He would probably argue about this more or less as Aquinas would.
      I'm not sure but I doubt the first or the third would encourage people to pray for the victims of a natural disaster, but the second one probably did.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Impossibility of Illogical Thought

Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically. It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is that we could not say what an 'illogical' world would look like. It is as impossible to represent in language anything that 'contradicts logic' as it is in geometry to represent by its a coordinates a figure that contradicts the laws of space, or to give the coordinates of a point that does not exist.... In a certain sense, we cannot make mistakes in logic.... Self-evidence, which [Bertrand] Russell talked about so much, can be dispensable in logic, only because language itself prevents every logical mistake.--What makes logic a priori is the impossibility of illogical thought. --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus   3.03, 3.031, 3.032, 5.473, 5.4731 (H/T: Roderick T. Long )      
Read more

Is He Having a Laugh?

According to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, the government is God's appointed agent on earth, and each of us owes it allegiance and obedience. If that's so--and I for one don't believe either part of that statement--I'd like some believer to explain what God had in mind when he arranged things so that one of the two major-party clowns running for president will be elected in November. Is He having a laugh?
Read more

Freedom-Saturated Language

Determinists--deniers of free will, that is--apparently don't listen to themselves or read their own words. If they did they'd see that we human beings have no escape from freedom-saturated language. Think of words like should , deliberate , presume , intend , and so on ad infinitum. It is just impossible to speak or think as though determinism were true. And that says a lot. Our freedom is self-evident. You cannot demonstrate it because to demonstrate anything both  presupposes  and requires  freedom. You confirm freedom each time you set out to disconfirm it. "Today I plan to write out my proof that we have no freedom." Nonsense!  In contrast, we are perfectly capable of getting through a day without using God-saturated language.
Read more