Board index ‹ Prayer

[Griffin]

Why won't God reveal scientific knowledge? Why are his revelations always moral/ethical, real estate, war, or vague predictions about the future?

Millions of people worldwide pray fervently for cures to diseases like AIDS, cancer, and all manner of terrible illnesses. Why doesn't god answer these prayers? What about Malaria, which kills millions of children each year? Why can't he help us with real, practical issues?

Note: Unless it is a sophisticated argument, please don't bring up the tired cliché of "god inspires people to find answers". I have a background in science and I can personally guarantee that this is not the case. Every breakthrough in science is backed up by the hard work (grossly under-appreciated and often uncredited) of hundreds of individuals.

[jimwalton]

First of all, the Bible is the record of God's contract with humanity: who he is, who we are, what the contract is, and the results of compliance or defiance. That's why it's not about science, and even really about morals, real estate, war, or predictions. He only talks about all of those as they relate to the contract (the covenant).

Secondly, since God's purpose is to communicate, He accommodates his message to the culture and understanding of the people to whom is talking. It would hardly make sense for him to talk computers with Moses, planets with Joseph, or photosynthesis with Daniel. You'll notice in the Bible that God never introduces new scientific information to them, or that he ever corrects their fallacious scientific understandings. His point is to communicate a message about the contract, and the science is peripheral to the message, so he accommodates it in his communications. Why confuse them with information that would cause his message to be ignored or misunderstood?

Thirdly, the mandate to "subdue the earth" in Gen. 1.28 implies a measure of control and direction over nature, to advance civilization and regulate natural forces. It is a clear endorsement of science and scientific inquiry. The phrase also justifies a significant degree of responsible human intervention in the created world. Science is not opposed to religion, but is one of the blessings of it. According to Genesis, the universe was created with forces, regularity, precision, repetition, and cause-and-effect that make science both possible and valuable.

Lastly (trying to keep this brief), you'll notice by reading the Bible that God is not so much in the business of healing. In the OT, he heals only about 3 people, and in the NT, about 12. (Except during the ministry of Jesus, when people were healed by the thousands.) God is in the business of saving people's souls. He's all about resurrection to life. He hardly ever gets into the healing business. We still pray about these things, because you never know, but God is about inner life more than he is about physical health.

[Griffin]

You misunderstand my post if you think I am suggesting that Yahweh have a conversation about computers with Moses. I am referring to the daily prayers of contemporary Christians. The woman lying in the hospital bed with cancer. The parents of a child with a terminal illness. The Christian biochemist who is desperately trying to find the cure to the disease that took his father. Christians often claim that god heals the sick, on an individual level. One can only wonder why the individual, selfish requests for health are answered by god, but the altruistic requests for a universal cure are left unanswered. Why did Jesus heal a few lepers, only to leave the rest to suffer? Why bring back a dead child only to let millions of parents suffer the death of their children on a daily basis?

You suggest that god is concerned with "saving souls". Why then did he heal/resurrect those 15 people that you mention? Why save them, and not others? Why bring back one child from death and not the millions who die from malaria? Was he showing off, or was there something special about that single child? If the missionaries in Africa taught the locals to pray to god for the safety of their children (and the prayer worked) wouldn't that be more effective at "saving souls" than ignoring their pleas en mass?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the clarification. For some odd reason I thought your question was primarily "Why won't god reveal scientific knowledge?" Instead, your question seems to be about the nature of prayer and how God intervenes in our world with the sick. Again, thanks for the clarification. That's a very different question.

You'll notice in the gospels that people lined up to be healed by Jesus. Why didn't he just wave his hand over the whole line, heal them all in a flash, and be done with it? For that matter, why not wave his hand over the whole town (even those who didn't come), or the whole COUNTRY, aw, heck, why not over the whole WORLD? It makes sense to look at this. It's because the healing wasn't really the issue at hand; it was people's relationship with him. The "healing" provided an opportunity for him to meet each one personally, to talk to them, to establish some kind of relationship. What matters to Jesus is the relationship. Now, he did heal them while they were there (he wasn't a jerk about it), but the healing was peripheral. What matters is people's souls. You'll notice the guy that was let down through the roof (Mark 2.1-12), the first thing Jesus said was, "Your sins are forgiven." That's what really matters, even if the guy never walked again.

You dis the idea that God often works through people and very normal and natural processes, but you shouldn't brush that aside so quickly and easily. The Bible is clear that most of what God does on this earth he accomplishes through normal people in normal ways. When he wants to get his people out of Egypt, he doesn't just get them out, he sends Moses and says, "Get them out. I'll help ya." Generally when he wants to heal people, he sends a doctor. It's not a cop-out answer; it's the way things work. God works through normal people doing normal things.

Why didn't he just heal all the lepers? Why not rid the earth of all disease? There are LONG answers to these questions, so I'll try to keep it short: God messing with the cause-and-effect processes of the earth to that extent would ruin life as we know it, steal away our humanity, and invalidate science as a discipline. I won't take the time to explain each of these in detail, but we can pursue them if you want. (I'm trying to accommodate my communication to the context.) And why not bring back every child from the dead? You mean, get rid of death for everyone for all time so that there is no such thing? Can you imagine what our planet would be like if that were the case? Disastrous. But then you also must understand that that's what his death and resurrection were all about: to pronounce the death-knell on death itself.

Why does he save some and not others? First of all, as I explained, to rid the world of all disease and death would bring about a disruption of life-ruining proportions. Second, there actually is some value to suffering in our perspectives and character (that's another very long discussion). Thirdly, we are never informed about the divine rationale for selection in these matters. Sometimes we can infer it based on the request, the situation, and the context, but often we're left clueless. Almost always, though, Jesus' healings pertain to a person's spiritual condition. If I had to isolate an important factor, that would be it.

[Griffin]

> Thanks for the clarification. For some odd reason I thought your question was primarily "Why won't god reveal scientific knowledge?" Instead, your question seems to be about the nature of prayer and how God intervenes in our world with the sick. Again, thanks for the clarification. That's a very different question.

It really isn't a "very different question". It is a sub-question of the original post. God reveals things to us through prayer, or some other telepathic means (call it what you will). Disease is directly related to human suffering, so I focused on medical science.

> You'll notice in the gospels that people lined up to be healed by Jesus. Why didn't he just wave his hand over the whole line, heal them all in a flash, and be done with it? For that matter, why not wave his hand over the whole town (even those who didn't come), or the whole COUNTRY, aw, heck, why not over the whole WORLD? It makes sense to look at this.

Yes, now you are getting it.

> It's because the healing wasn't really the issue at hand; it was people's relationship with him. The "healing" provided an opportunity for him to meet each one personally, to talk to them, to establish some kind of relationship. What matters to Jesus is the relationship. Now, he did heal them while they were there (he wasn't a jerk about it), but the healing was peripheral. What matters is people's souls. You'll notice the guy that was let down through the roof (Mark 2.1-12), the first thing Jesus said was, "Your sins are forgiven." That's what really matters, even if the guy never walked again.

You are making my point for me. You are suggesting that by healing these people, Jesus was making an impact...an impact that would help establish a relationship with Jesus/God and ultimately save their soul (and possible the souls of those who witnessed the event). This is precisely the point I was making when I asked why god doesn't continue to answer the prayers of those who desperately seek his help. If god healed children who were dying of malaria after they prayed and asked for his help, do you not think that would cause a stir around the entire world? If Christians had a significantly lower mortality rates, or rates of illness, wouldn't that be a clear sign that he was the one true god? He was willing to make this apparent in the past...why not now?

> You dis the idea that God often works through people and very normal and natural processes, but you shouldn't brush that aside so quickly and easily.

Only if "dis" is shorthand for "dismiss", because I certainly meant no disrespect. I dismiss it because it is indistinguishable from ordinary human achievement.

> The Bible is clear that most of what God does on this earth he accomplishes through normal people in normal ways.

Whatever the Bible is, it certainly isn't "clear". The Bible is full of vicarious miracles. Taking your example, just look at Moses and Aaron and the miraculous things they were able to do. If I had witnessed their abilities, I wouldn't need much faith to take them seriously. Unfortunately, no one parts seas for me, or leads me around with pillars of fire.

> When he wants to get his people out of Egypt, he doesn't just get them out, he sends Moses and says, "Get them out. I'll help ya." Generally when he wants to heal people, he sends a doctor. It's not a cop-out answer; it's the way things work. God works through normal people doing normal things.

This is highly glossed and does nothing to make your point. God first allows "his people" to be enslaved, then sends two guys equipped with magical powers to confront a political leader. Moses and Aaron were not experts in magic in the same sense that a doctor is an expert in medicine. God does not "send doctors" to see patients via telepathy (they call and schedule appointments), nor does he whisper medical knowledge in their ear or endow them with magical healing powers so that they may heal their patients. Doctors work very hard to learn and apply medicine, and to suggest that god simply endows them with magical healing powers is simply a failure to recognize their efforts to educate and better themselves.

> Why didn't he just heal all the lepers? Why not rid the earth of all disease? There are LONG answers to these questions, so I'll try to keep it short: God messing with the cause-and-effect processes of the earth to that extent would ruin life as we know it, steal away our humanity, and invalidate science as a discipline.

Back to your example... Did god consider this when he tampered with the Pharaoh's free will? Furthermore, I fully hope that curing disease will ruin life as we know it. I would be happy to see death and suffering from disease "ruined". The idea that revealing the cure to a disease would invalidate science is not to understand science. Christianity would become the new science. Medical science (all science, in fact) would resort to fervent prayer and meditation rather than the slow process of empirical research. After all, god rewarding faithful "scientists" with answers would go a lot farther toward his goal of "saving souls" than allowing secular scientists to chip away at the mysteries of the universe on their own.

> ...Long answers...and resisting the temptation to explain things in detail...

Don't hold back. I am a fast reader, so let me have it.

> And why not bring back every child from the dead?

Doesn't this beg the question of why Jesus brought any back at all? If it were to "save souls" then, why wouldn't it continue to be effective at "saving souls" now?

> You mean, get rid of death for everyone for all time so that there is no such thing?

I wasn't asking that specifically, but we can explore it. Although, I assume that overcoming the "heat death" of the universe would then become humanity's major concern.

> Can you imagine what our planet would be like if that were the case? Disastrous.

Not necessarily. It may have temporary implications with respect to overpopulation, but humanity is smart enough to adapt. It would also allow single humans to amass immense intellects and problem solving would become much faster. Lifetime's of accumulated knowledge and experience would not be lost upon death. I can see humanity expanding beyond Earth, and developing exciting new technologies to help better manage resources. I like to ponder about trans-humanism as well, so this stuff is right up my alley.

> But then you also must understand that that's what his death and resurrection were all about: to pronounce the death-knell on death itself.

But then you also must understand that an omnibenovolent god would not need bronze age theatre (in the form of blood sacrifice, scapegoating, and vicarious redemption) in order to forgive its creation. We are "sinful" because of the very things we need answers for. Unlike god (who does not suffer from our problems), we are forced to deal with mental illness, physical handicaps, disease, emotions, sexual urges, hunger, thirst, finite resources, finite abilities, finite knowledge, and ultimately death. Heaven (and god) are free of these issues, presumably, which is why we want to go there so badly.

> Second, there actually is some value to suffering in our perspectives and character (that's another very long discussion).

Describe this "value". I don't see any value in a child dying of an otherwise preventable disease.

> Thirdly, we are never informed about the divine rationale for selection in these matters.

This doesn't seem to stop Christians from making assertions about the rationale...as you have about his primary goal of "saving souls". By your logic, god selects individuals to heal or resurrect by the number of souls that will be saved via the impact it has on them, and the eye witnesses.

> Sometimes we can infer it based on the request, the situation, and the context, but often we're left clueless. Almost always, though, Jesus' healings pertain to a person's spiritual condition. If I had to isolate an important factor, that would be it.

This is a game played only by those who do not understand statistics. Christians die, contract diseases, and heal at the same rates as the rest of the human population. There is no indication that praying to Yahweh has any effect on health or longevity. This is evidenced by a number of studies on intercessory prayer.

[jimwalton]

Wow, you've asked WAY too much to fit into the 10,000 word limit for a forum like this. I can't possibly comment adequately within the parameters. I will split my answers up into a series of replies to your queries, and hopefully they'll all get through, otherwise I'll be writing for nothing and you won't get to see what I've written. I'll start with this one, and deal with different pieces on different replies.

> You are suggesting that by healing these people, Jesus was making an impact...an impact that would help establish a relationship with Jesus/God and ultimately save their soul (and possible the souls of those who witnessed the event). This is precisely the point I was making when I asked why god doesn't continue to answer the prayers of those who desperately seek his help. If god healed children who were dying of malaria after they prayed and asked for his help, do you not think that would cause a stir around the entire world? If Christians had a significantly lower mortality rates, or rates of illness, wouldn't that be a clear sign that he was the one true god? He was willing to make this apparent in the past...why not now?

The book of Job deals with this very issue,but a slightly different nuance of it. The philosophical/theological question of the book of the Job is the Retribution Principle: Do all righteous people get rewarded for their righteousness in this life, and do all wicked people get punished? Can we expect and even plan that if do good, I'll get good stuff in return, and if I'm bad, I'll get bad? Stay with me because it pertains to your comments about prayer.

If it's true that the good people are going to prosper and the wicked people suffer, the motives of all good people come under scrutiny, since we could be corrupted so easily by the lure of prosperity, and if we only prosper because we're good, then true goodness is just an illusion. People will only do good and be good to get good things, which means rewarding goodness actually subverts goodness. We turn into "What's in it for me?" Therefore, it becomes realistically counter-productive for God to reward good and punish bad in this life, because it makes us all less-than-good. But then we find out that it's counter-productive for good people to suffer, too, because then we think, "How is this fair?" So God is caught in the middle: he gets criticized for blessing people for being good, and actually ruins them in the process, or he gets criticized for allowing suffering. That's what the book of Job then sorts out. The book wants to transform how we think about God's work in the world and about our responses in times of suffering.

Now let's go to your question about prayer. Why doesn't God answer to sincere prayer of the child who is dying of malaria? Wouldn't that cause a stir around the world? Indeed it would, especially if we could count on the fact that God would answer every such prayer. The power to manipulate God just by asking would be the most corrupting power known to humanity. If Christians got answers to prayer (especially about illness and suffering) more than non-Christians, people would flock to Christ, not out of of love or devotion, or even out of sincerity, but to get what they wanted. It would be a travesty to end all travesties.

On the other hand, when God DOESN'T answer such prayers, he is pilloried for being callous, not omnipotent, and that he doesn't even exist. "What kind of a cruel beast is he to not answer the prayers of an innocent child?" It turns out he creates a monster if he blesses, and gets accused of being a monster if he doesn't. We clearly have to overhaul our way of thinking about this.

[jimwalton]

> Whatever the Bible is, it certainly isn't "clear". The Bible is full of vicarious miracles. Taking your example, just look at Moses and Aaron and the miraculous things they were able to do. If I had witnessed their abilities, I wouldn't need much faith to take them seriously. Unfortunately, no one parts seas for me, or leads me around with pillars of fire.


Obviously, these things were not ultimately convincing. Moses and Aaron did these miracles. There was the pillar of cloud and fire, as you have mentioned. Moses goes up on the mountain to meet with God. He's gone for a while and people turn against him and against God (Ex. 32). He comes back down. There are more miracles. The people rebel (Num. 14 & 16).

Elijah does great miracles. The queen tries to kill him for it (1 Ki. 19.1-2).

Daniel is a man of great wisdom and visions. He has helped the king and advisors many times with his wisdom. The other advisors, instead of respecting him, want him out of there, and they plot against him (Dan. 6).

Same thing during the time of Jesus. He does all these miracles and healings and helps people, and the Pharisees plot to have him bumped off (Mt. 12.14). He raises Lazarus from the dead, and they make plans to kill Lazarus too (Jn. 12.10). Then Jesus comes back from the dead, yet "some doubted" (Mt. 28.17).

Lots of people, apparently, witnesses the abilities of miracle workers and were nonplussed. It didn't convince them, didn't even seem to change the way they were thinking, and even made them more hostile in some situations. I'm confident, based on the evidence, that predictable and miraculous answers to prayer would fall into the same categories, especially if it happened all the time. People would start to take it for granted and say, "Well, that's just the way things work!"

[jimwalton]

> This is highly glossed and does nothing to make your point. God first allows "his people" to be enslaved, then sends two guys equipped with magical powers to confront a political leader. Moses and Aaron were not experts in magic in the same sense that a doctor is an expert in medicine. God does not "send doctors" to see patients via telepathy (they call and schedule appointments), nor does he whisper medical knowledge in their ear or endow them with magical healing powers so that they may heal their patients. Doctors work very hard to learn and apply medicine, and to suggest that god simply endows them with magical healing powers is simply a failure to recognize their efforts to educate and better themselves.

"God first allows his people to be enslaved." What's going on here is that God is preserving his people and making them into a people. We have 12 brothers who are hostile, jealous, and violent. If they keep going in the direction they are going, they will certainly and predictably devolve in tribal warfare and stop existing as a people group if they don't kill each other off or send each other into slavery. Instead, God humbles them and put them into the fires of slavery. What better way to bond people together and through the centuries, specifically because of shared oppression, become a nation of people who cry out to God. God "allowing them to become enslaved," as you say, is really God saving them. African-Americans in the US today feel the same bond with each other as having at one time been slaves and abused. Some feel a sense of entitlement because of it; others are vary appreciative of the freedom they have now that their forefathers didn't. But blacks in the US share a bond that whites don't, that's for sure.

> Moses and Aaron were not experts in magic

You're right, and that's exactly the point. They were nobodies. It was clear to all that what was happening was the power of God in them, not their trained expertise and years of practice to become competent.

> God does not "send doctors" to see patients via telepathy (they call and schedule appointments), nor does he whisper medical knowledge in their ear or endow them with magical healing powers so that they may heal their patients. Doctors work very hard to learn and apply medicine...

You're right. In the book of James he talks about praying for people who are sick, but he also endorses medical care (James 5.14-15). "God doesn't send doctors." But he has designed our bodies to heal themselves. Without that, doctors couldn't do diddly. He has also supplied our world with natural elements and chemicals that bring healing, and he has given humans a mandate to pursue scientific inquiry to learn these things for our benefit (Gn. 1.28). He has also created a world with enough regularity and predictability to make science even possible. If God were intervening at every turn, nothing would be predictable, and things such as science and medicine would be completely impossible. Doctors and scientists work very hard to know what the know and do what they do. That our world works the way it does it what enables that to happen.

> Did god consider this when he tampered with the Pharaoh's free will?

God didn't tamper with Pharaoh's free will. When people pursue their own course, ignoring God, God exactly DOESN'T interfere, and he lets them go the way their free will has chosen. The Bible says he turns them over the futility of their minds to do what they want to do (Rom. 1.21ff.).

You'll notice in the Exodus account that Pharaoh hardens his own heart in Ex. 7.13. Then Pharaoh hardens his own heart in Ex. 7.22. Then Pharaoh hardened his own heart in 8.15. Then Pharaoh hardened his own heart in 8.19. Then Pharaoh hardened his own heart in 8.32. Then in 9.12,for the first time, it says the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. Don't blame God for tampering with Pharaoh's free will.

[jimwalton]

> I would be happy to see death and suffering from disease "ruined". The idea that revealing the cure to a disease would invalidate science is not to understand science. Christianity would become the new science. Medical science (all science, in fact) would resort to fervent prayer and meditation rather than the slow process of empirical research. After all, god rewarding faithful "scientists" with answers would go a lot farther toward his goal of "saving souls" than allowing secular scientists to chip away at the mysteries of the universe on their own.

OK, let's talk about this. Some people get sick as a result of their own choices: sexually transmitted diseases, too much alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, eating the wrong things. In your "Better world," would these things just not exist? Would people never get sick or ill from overeating, over-drinking, eating just candy, keeping rodents in the house as pets? Just wondering. God would always take care of these, answer the prayers, and bingo they're better? No such thing as disease—people could do whatever they wanted? I predict a world rampant with self-abusive behavior and asinine indulgence. There would certainly be no need for doctors: Do whatever you want, pray to God, and it'll go away. And how would people perceive God? As the loving Father who wants a relationship with them, or as the omnipresent pharmacy to endorse whatever behavior they choose? I foresee option "B".

"Christianity would become the new science." Yeah, not to have a relationship with God, but just to get out of him what we wanted. The ultimate dispensary. Souls saved? Nah. Who would care. Eat and drink merrily. Nothing will ever happen to you. After all we've discussed (hopefully you've been able to read the other posts), this is a world of of preposterous unreality.

[jimwalton]

> "Long answers...and resisting the temptation to explain things in detail..."
> Don't hold back. I am a fast reader, so let me have it.

OK, we'll give a shot at it. If God is going to get rid of all suffering, he has to control our bodies. We can be contacting any viruses or bacteria—we might get sick. We can't stub our toe or crack into the corner of the table. We certainly can never fall, hit our heads, or any of that stuff. Every organ and cell in our bodies would always work perfectly. So God has to control us like robots. After all, we might hurt ourselves if we're left to our own devices. When Ip lay basketball of volleyball, he'll prevent me from jamming a finger or twisting an ankle. I'll never get hit with a baseball. We're all robots.

But we also cause each other emotional pain from the way we treat each other. Harsh words said that would have to be controlled. He'd have to control our tongues. But sometimes people say things innocently and I misconstrue them and feel hurt by them. So he's have to control the way I think. We'd always have to be loving and kind. But if someone was loving to me I wouldn't believe it because I'll know they didn't choose it. They were being made to do it. They were made to say those things. So now there's no such thing as love. But would that hurt my feelings? No, it couldn't. God would have to make it so that I wasn't hurt by that. You know what? At this point we aren't even human anymore. I have a robot body, a mechanistic mind, and a determined life. We're all Stepford Wives. This is not life. This is not desirable.

The elimination of suffering from the world creates a world of mind-numbing stupidity. I shouldn't say mind-numbing because we really wouldn't have minds.