Should atheists pray? A debate in the New York Times

June 29, 2013 • 7:50 am

Thursday’s New York Times op-ed section posed a curious question to five people: “Should atheists pray?”  The question:

With atheist church services this month in Louisiana and New York, nonbelievers are borrowing some of the rituals of believers: gathering, singing, sermons.

Would it be fruitful for atheists to pray? For believers and others, what is the point of prayer?

Now this is bizarre.  If you’re an atheist, you don’t believe in prayer, which is an explicit address to a deity. The Oxford English Dictionary gives its first meaning it as:

 A solemn request to God, a god, or other object of worship; a supplication or thanksgiving addressed to God or a god.

And there are in fact no secular meanings in the OED save the common one of “asking someone for something,” as in the archaic expression, “I pray you spare my life.” Of course there may be benefits to atheists in meditating, and I suppose you can meditate by pretending to talk to God, or ask him something, but that’s no better than pretending to talk to Santa Claus or Harvey, your invisible friend. It’s hypocritical, and I don’t know any atheists who do that.

So why the stupid question? It’s just another way that, in an age of declining faith, newspapers try to reassure the religious that they’re okay. After all, even atheists should pray.

The people asked, and part of their answers, are these:

Kevin L. Ladd, associate professor of psychology at Indiana University, South Bend and a former pastor, and co-author of “The Psychology of Prayer: A Scientific Approach.” Ladd’s view, expressed in “Prayer is ubiquitious for a reason,” is basically, “Well, it has psychological and physical benefits  for some, and perhaps even answers from God, but who knows?”:

Is prayer effective, for believers or atheists? Multiple sacred teachings indicate that prayer’s benefits are often beyond the physical realm; that claim is, by definition, not subject to scientific evaluation. Regarding physical benefits, the data are ambiguous. Very ill, very devout people pray hard every day. Some sick people live (including those who never pray). All of us eventually die (including those who pray).

The bottom line is that prayer is a paradoxical spiritual practice that does not guarantee predictably discernible efficacy at every turn. It’s not a cosmic vending machine. So why do people pray? Because they have faith that it is the right thing for them to do.

I can’t construe the phrase “benefits often beyond the physical realm,” since all benefits of prayer are physical: it either helps your mental state (which can be measured by psychological tests or brain scans) or it has tangible benefits in fulfilling your desires, which can also be tested.  The former benefits, if real, are no evidence for a God, while the latter are.  But the whole piece is confused.

Deepak Chopra, woomeister and quantum obfuscator, contributes an essay called, “Try silence and see where it leads.”  Deepak says the obvious: that prayer and meditation (which may have the same physiological effects though directed toward different ends), but then messes up his essay, as he always does, by talking about “higher realities”. What, exactly, is a “higher” reality.  There’s just reality.

Prayer and meditation both come with user’s manuals written by sages, seers and saints. The manuals point to a higher reality.. . .

. . . The next frontier is spiritual, drawing us into the mystery and excitement of higher consciousness, which is where the game really lies. Prayer is directed to an external God. Meditation is directed to the higher self. In the end, this distinction may not matter. As the spiritual teacher J. Krishnamurti reputedly said, “I used to pray to God, until I realized that I was praying to myself.”

Now there’s a Deepity! Or should I say “Deepakity”?

Rev. Joy J. Moore, described as  “the associate dean for African-American church studies and an assistant professor of preaching at Fuller Theological Seminary.” Her essay, “Prayer is not a monologue,”  She gives the only honest answer among the believers and accommodationists, for she sees it as a genuine interaction with an existing God:

Prayer should not be just a therapeutic mantra of positive thinking, as it might be for atheists. It is through prayer that theistic believers acknowledge both the existence and the intervening concern of a deity. Both reveal who we think is listening and what we believe the listener is capable of and willing to do.

. . . A belief that God is both just and influential invites petitioners to request a demonstration of that presence in the midst of a tragically dysfunctional world. Requests, then, acknowledge a power outside of ourselves whose concern for the good of creation is demonstrated by intervening to bring healing and restoration.

Prayer is not only a request of God, but a conversation with God. . . The efficacy of the act of prayer may indeed be quantified scientifically. But for those who believe in a deity, prayer is as much as a response to God as a request of God.

The last two sentences are bizarre. Tests of the efficacy of prayer have shown no effect.  Given that, she saves the day by arguing that even if it has no effect, it still reinforces your hope and faith. But if it doesn’t work, and it’s supposed to be a dialogue, then God isn’t talking back—so why believe?

Hal Taussig, described as “a visiting professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary and co-pastor of Chestnut Hill United Church in Philadelphia.” His piece, “An outpouring, not a loyalty oath,” sees the benefits of prayer as both social and psychological:

Prayer is not just one thing, but an inexact set of practices that allow people to connect more deeply to lived experience.

So, the main point of prayer is human aliveness. . . Although in some circumstances praying can be boring, pretentious or silly, it mostly contributes to people shining, growing, reflecting, seizing the moment, resisting numbness, opening themselves, facing pain and problems, and coming closer to one another.

And his answer seems to be “Yes, atheists can pray,” but only because he redefines “prayer” as meditation:

Perhaps even more surprising is that prayer does not require conscious allegiance to God. That some want prayer to be a kind of loyalty oath to God robs prayer of much of its power to orient and energize people. The urge to pray comes not so much from some divine policing of our behavior as from needs to cry out in pain, roar with joy upon landing a job, or stand still to remember a friend.

Hemant Mehta, the”Friendly Atheist.” We all know Hemant, and I’ve saved him for last, since he pulls no punches in his piece, “A useless habit with a dark side.” I’ll reproduce his pice in its entirety because it’s good, and it expresses my own sentiments exactly. It’s also a good palliative for the weaseling of the other commenters. In effect, Hemant says that not only should atheists not pray, but neither should anyone else.

While the main purpose of prayer may be to help others, it never demonstrably does that. Prayers benefit only those believers who say or hear them. Prayer gives them comfort. It lets them think they have some control over a situation that may be out of their hands. It’s the last resort of people who have run out of ideas, and the first resort of people who never bothered to think about how they could actually fix the problem at hand.

This is not harmless. There’s a very real downside to praying. It lulls believers into a false sense of accomplishment. We cannot solve our problems – much less the world’s – through prayer. We often see people with good intentions praying for victims in the wake of a tragedy, but prayer is useless without action, and those actions make the prayers irrelevant. To paraphrase the great Robert Green Ingersoll, hands that help are far better than lips that pray.

I have no problem with “prayer” as an act of meditation. In fact, many atheists can tell you the benefit of silent self-reflection. The delusion occurs when you think someone else is hearing your thoughts and acting on them.

When it comes down to it, prayer is illogical, even in religious terms. If God has a plan, why try to thwart it? If God can be swayed by prayers, what kind of God would allow the horrors we see in the world? And if two devout believers pray for different things, how does God choose the winner? (I’m sure the San Antonio Spurs would love to know the answer to that.)

Prayer is nothing but a powerful placebo. We’d all be better off accepting that.

Save Hemant’s fusillade against prayer, the whole NYT dialogue was a useless exercise. The only rational answer to the question asked, ‘Should atheists pray?” is “No, because they don’t believe in God, but they may get some benefits from meditation.”  All else is deepity.

h/t: Diane G.

126 thoughts on “Should atheists pray? A debate in the New York Times”

  1. What I find striking is that, in considering the question of whether or not atheists should pray, they asked four believers and only one atheist — and with the obviously-predictable results.

    To me, that’s as offensive as pondering whether or not Jews should take Communion, and asking four priests from different Christian denominations and only one rabbi.

    b&

    1. Yes, quite!

      Or in fact, that the question is asked at all.
      Should Muslims have Confession?
      Should Scientologists say the rosary?
      Should Buddhists take up circumcision?
      Should Wiccans observe Lent?
      Should Southern Baptists participate in Ramadan?

      1. Should vegetarians eat meat?

        Should pacifists take up arms?

        Should doctors poison their patients?

        Should recovered alcoholics drink wine?

        Should engineers toss their calculating machines?

        Cheers,

        b&

        1. your analogies are false. “An atheist believing in a god” would be the same as those. likewise an atheist singing hymns, going on missions or celebrating Christmas aren’t.

    2. Be careful there. To some people this way of reasoning may lend support to the idea that atheism is just another religion.

      1. Those promoting atheism as “just another religion” are either going for a cheap rhetorical point, in which case they’re scoring an own goal; or they’re too stupid to understand that bald isn’t an hair color and not collecting stamps isn’t an hobby. Neither case is worth getting worked up over.

        b&

          4. It just boggles my mind that someone so apparently clear-headed could be an anti-vaxxer.

          6. I’d give him more credit on the vaccination question if he could point to actual significant harm from vaccines. Instead, it’s the exact same “Z0MG! Nasty ingredients in vaccines! Kids get three times as many vaccines today as they did a half a century ago! And it’s all injected into your precious bodily fluids” bullshit that Jenny McCarthy spews.

            The “nasty ingredients” are trace amounts, and you can probably find more of them in a single meal from a fast food restaurant. Kids get more vaccines today because we’ve figured out how to protect against more diseases today — and vaccinated kids have lower incidences of those diseases. And fear of injection is just a fear of needles.

            Are there precautions associated with vaccines? Of course. And if certain precautions apply, you shouldn’t get vaccinated.

            But if those precautions don’t apply and you don’t get vaccinated, you’re engaging in horrible anti-social behavior. Those who can’t get vaccinated are at risk, but that risk is dramatically lowered if enough of their peers are vaccinated. But when the overall vaccination rates drop, everybody is at increased risk.

            Personally, I’d be for involuntary quarantine of unvaccinated individuals, with exemptions for those with actual and demonstrable adverse reactions to vaccination. If it’s right and proper to quarantine Typhoid Mary — and it is — then it’s even more right to quarantine those who are intentionally turning themselves into infectious agents.

            Cheers,

            b&

          7. I think he took the position you’re advocating in his long response I linked to. Some of it is a bit misguided as you say – the whole fear of a bit of mercury in vaccines – but he elucidates his position a bit more as he doesn’t know if flu shots are always warranted but he isn’t against all the other vaccines. He had a few good points like he thinks you should be free to question the necessity of vaccines (beyond the essential ones) and I get that – is it really necessary that I get that vaccine for shingles? In this way he is no Jenny McCarthy who advocated not getting vaccines because of an incorrect link to autism then convinced thousands to do the same.

          8. Yeah, I read the article. I didn’t find any actual objections beyond the same ones McCarthy makes.

            You could possibly make an argument that healthy individuals don’t personally need a flu shot…except that those healthy individuals who wouldn’t get stuck in bed after getting infected with the flu will now be up and about spreading it to uninfected individuals. They’re the ones most in need of involuntary quarantine. If they all got vaccinated, then they’d never become (as) infectious, themselves, and the disease wouldn’t have a chance to spread to the vulnerable people — many of whom don’t have a physiology capable of withstanding the vaccination or the infection.

            And if you’ve ever known anybody who’s had shingles, you wouldn’t be wondering if you need the shot. It’s typically described as the worst pain a person ever feels. I got my shot when I was 40, and I plan on getting a booster when I turn 50 or 60.

            Cheers,

            b&

          9. True but some of those are personal choices and I think he is advocating making the best choices for the individual. For me, when I was a young anorexic, I got the flu shot all the time because I got sick constantly (ha! but my doctor never caught me being anorexic because I was tricky) now I can’t get it because I have an over active immune system and I’ve gotten horribly ill whenever I’ve gotten the shot. I tend to only get the vaccines I really need because of my immune reaction and if I had a job where I was forced into the flu shot, I’d have to leave that job.

          10. …and, because you personally have an adverse reaction to the flu shut, everybody else who doesn’t have an adverse reaction needs to get vaccinated so you never get exposed to the flu in the first place.

            You might consider experimenting (with your doctor’s advice) with the nasal spray flu vaccination. It could be that whatever makes you personally sick has more to do with the carrier than the vaccine, and the nasal spray uses an entirely different carrier.

            b&

          11. Being in the Bay Area in Northern California, I am in a veritable hotbed of anti-vaxxers. It has me highly concerned. Dr. Paul Offit, a long-standing voice on the importance of vaccines and the dangers of the anti-vax movement, personally gave me 4 of his books on the subject (very kind man). It makes me irate that people can use the religious exemption to place their unvaccinated kids in public schools. If they don’t want to engage in their civic duties, they should just go live in a bubble somewhere away from the rest of us. We have had several children die of fucking whooping cough in this area. The whole anti-vax movement is a shining example of idiocy and ego. How big of an ego do you have to have to think you are smarter than all the doctors, scientists, the CDC, etc? When you have a kid in this day and age, you will no doubt get sucked into various online mommy forums/boards. Anti-vax sentiments are just oh so strong in these arenas, as are a bunch of other woo-based approaches. I’ve seen it all from the homebirth advocates, elimination communication, amber teething necklaces, oh…and every one of their children has severe food allergies, diagnosed not by a doctor, but by themselves. It’s beyond aggravating and frustrating.

    3. Great point!

      In fact, it almost seems like a back-handed slap in the face. It might even be implying that it is a question for only the religious to answer. Like, “well, you know, they are going to hell–we all know that. But, what if they pray? Do you think that maybe God would give them a second chance then?”

      This probably isn’t the point that’s being made, and it seems less likely being that they evoke responses from more than just believers (such as Deepak). But, it seems like a thought that might inhabit some people’s heads. Like, say, the readers’.

      1. If you can watch, BBC Horizon Are We Still Evolving? in minute 37.48 the point they are making about vaccination, in an study done with chickens, is that some vaccines might be allowing viruses to evolve more rapidly and out of control, in many cases viruses are not disappearing but becoming superstrong. Andree Reed remind us that we are not the only ones evolving It is not only us against the environment but there is a lot of ongoing arms races between different species that evolve,and as they evolve they change the world of each other.

  2. “Prayer” is one of those silly words that has a billion different definitions depending on who you ask.

    Should atheists pray?

    No of course not, because who or what would you be praying to and what would the purpose be?

  3. Should atheists pray? Oh come on! They can only get away with such ridiculousness because atheists are so easy to pick on, and they seem to be confused by what atheism is about.

    But why stop there?

    Should Muslims eat pork?

    Should Muslims pray to Vishnu besides praying to Allah?

    Should Christians acknowledge Muhammed as God’s final prophet?

    Should Muslims take communion at Catholic churches?

    Should Sikhs eat kosher?

    Should atheists even bother to read the NY Times anymore?

    Its possible that a few of these questions could lead to extreme anger, to death threats, or even riots, and I think you know which questions these are. Obviously, not by atheists though.

    1. This atheist still reads the New York Times (It’s a long-standing habit), but these days, with idiotic pieces like this one and continuing slushy apologetic op-ed pieces from Prof. T. M. Luhrmann every few weeks, it’s getting harder for me to avoid a little heartburn when I see my monthly subscription charge ($35.00) show up on my bank statement.

      1. My sentiments exactly. I used to love the Times; now I read a lot of it through clenched teeth.

          2. As soon as I posted I cringed. Why does that never happen just before I post? 🙁

        2. Ditto. I stopped my subscription back in the early Iraq War days. The NY Times puts guys like Douthat and Brooks on their payroll. It is sad.

  5. I’ve been known to do it, but only during the last five minutes of big football matches (US:’soccer games’), usually when my team is 1-0 up and the other lot are pressing. Never know to whom I’m praying but it seems a natural superstitious reaction when trying to influence something more-or-less out of your control. Harmless in sport, very destructive in life.

    1. Oh, that’s easy.

      Within the fictional context of religious literature? As many as the author wants.

      In reality? The exact same number as there are real angels: zero.

      Cheers,

      b&

    2. Precisely.

      What a waste of time, effort, print-space, you-name-it…

      The crap people think passes for intelligent discourse makes me want to curl up in a ball and sob uncontrollably.

    3. That’s a trick question. The answer is zero, because, as everyone knows, angels do not have feet.

      2. Ah, but are feet really necessary for dancing?

        I do love intellectual discussion. I can’t wait to get to the bottom of this compelling issue!

  7. By defintion an atheist cannot honestly participate in prayer. It’s like writing a letter to santa in the full knowledge that santa doesn’t exist: pointless. That an atheist might practice meditation doesn’t change this, since meditation is an act of contemplation, not of communication.

  9. Wow. What a pile of douchery. It baffles me that grown up adults actually continue to entertain these superstitious ideals. At what point is it time to grow up. Even to ask if Atheists should pray is complete nonsense. Well at least Hemant got to be there to take everyone back to earth. Jeez.

  13. I suspect this piece was written because the believing majority are trying to reinforce their participation in group rituals as “normal” now that they’ve been exposed to alternatives.

    How strange these atheists seem! They live happy lives without going to church (even oxymoronic atheists ones). What’s wrong with these atheists? How can they be different? They MUST deep down WANT to pray because if they don’t maybe I’M the one that’s different. I don’t want to be different! Let’s just believe atheists also pray….or should. There, now I feel better.

  14. I’m also not getting the desire for atheist churches in the first place. Seems to me a much better use of one’s time is actually living life, rather than having some authority figure tell a room full of people how to live life.

    Join a community choir or orchestra or band if you’re looking for a shared musical experience. Volunteer for the Red Cross or even join the Peace Corps if you feel a call to charity. Take a trip to the local art museum if it’s the joy of admiring beautiful things you’re after. Or even just hang out with friends or throw a party if you’re just in it for the socialization.

    Why on Earth do you need somebody to tell you every week that you should be doing these things when you can just go and do them?

    b&

    1. Authoritarianism, RWA.

      ” 1) submission to legitimated authorities; 2) aggression towards sanctioned targeted minority groups; and 3) adherence to values and beliefs perceived as endorsed by followed leadership.”

    2. It does seem like a useful endeavor if your coming from a church background.

      I mean, I would love to have the feeling of solidarity that comes from meeting many like-minded people. It’d be nice to have a big group of friends that could just make fun of Intelligent Design (or lack there of) and share a much needed laugh.

      Creating an atheist church doesn’t necessarily entail electing a leader to tell them what to do. I mean, to me, it seems like just a way to get together with friends and make fun of the dire and quite bizarre position we’re in as human beings, and, perhaps even rallying up enough people to change the situation we’re in.

      1. What I don’t get is why mimicking a church is an effective way to do any of that.

        Why not have a science club where you bring in speakers to stay on top of current developments and coordinate efforts to help with amateur-friendly basic research?

        Why not join the Freedom From Religion Foundation and actively keep religion out of the public sphere rather than just snicker at the silliest examples?

        Why not work up an anti-religious routine for your local open-mic comedy club?

        Of all the ways to do productive things about these important issues, sitting around on a Sunday morning being lectured at seems to me to be the least effective means of actually getting anything done.

        b&

        1. This could all be true, and all of those activities could be something that an atheist group would likely participate in.

          The first thought that comes to mind when I think of church is “tax-exempt building” (well, actually, it’s a very wrinkly old man wielding a scepter). Nevertheless, while holding a “sermon” every week might seem a little monotonous, it might be useful as way to create a community. Maybe holding a “service” every week might be a bit too much, it provides more than just and online petition signing via the FFRF website.

          Churches typically aren’t used as a place to rally political opinions or sharpen agendas (to my knowledge), but as a place to just indulge in community. If a church has any meaning, it’s that.

          1. Oh, and I would add that atheists typically don’t know enough other atheists to actually charge up a group to go to a local comedy club or collectively engage in science experiments.

            A church would also prove useful for helping atheist’s find their footing in a society draped in odd beliefs.

            It seems also a great starting place or “motherly figure” of all these activities. Have a science club in the church, etc.

            Although, after using the word church so many times, I’m starting to feel a bit dreary and dull myself.

          3. Churches typically aren’t used as a place to rally political opinions or sharpen agendas (to my knowledge), but as a place to just indulge in community.

            But why do you need a church to indulge in community? And aren’t there much more effective ways to indulge in community?

            Seems to me that churches — religious or otherwise — can only get in the way of community. Anything the community might want to do, it can do better without the baggage of the church.

            Unless, of course, what the community wants is to ritually kiss the ass of an abusive imaginary friend….

            b&

      2. we’ve shown that simply being an atheist is not enough to form a meaningful community. Though certainly a mocking community would satisfy a few personality types. just as a nonstamp collector club is doomed except for a few neurotics.

  15. It’s interesting that some of the respondents seem to blur the distinctions between prayer and meditation. I’d think a discussion of the similarities and differences between them would be more useful. Mr. Mehta seems to be the only one doing that, but then, he’s the only one who has nothing to gain by conflating the two.

      1. True. But the relevant thing is that they are two very different activities. And that most of the contributors to this article are being disingenuous by suggesting that they are similar.

        1. Good point Sabio. I think it would be productive to examine the different types of meditation to find where the deluded views and expectations are and what practices might be useful. Then, one might drop the silly question, “Should atheists pray?” and ask, “Should atheists (and perhaps the religious as well) meditate?”

  16. I think praying is a kind of meditation.

    Praying, in the sense of a conversation with god, is a misinterpretation of meditation, due to the belief in the existence of god.

    They both are forms of rituals.

    I meditate listening to instrumental music – I reach a state of thought without words. Of course, the thoughts are the music it self with the accompanying emotions.

    That’s all folks!

  17. It’s a religionist tactic to conflate the literal and metaphorical usage of terms, and thereby claim validity for the literal meaning on the merits of the metaphorical. For example, ask them if they believe in angels. And they will say yes because a kind-hearted person once helped them. So therefore those creatures from heaven in white with wings do exist!

  18. I find the idea of prayer blasphemous. As an atheist I find it amusing that people think there is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent bloke who created everything, yet he still wants or needs our help, he has a plan for everything and everyone, yet we can change his mind. How is that not blasphemous?
    I can see a need to talk to ourselves, I spend quite a lot of the day debating with myself, but there is no need to make it that pretentious mess.

  19. Just when I was thinking that any text that mentions Deepak Chopra must be a terrible waste of my valuable time, here comes this:

    prayer is useless without action, and those actions make the prayers irrelevant

    So well put. This made it worth reading the post to the end.

    1. if prayer leads to actions which prayer itself can’t do then it still may be useful for perhaps some important actions may not be taken without serious self-talk first.

      1. Self-reflection is not the same as prayer, at least not in the most commonly used sense of the word. It is obvious from the context of Hemant Mehta’s comment, that he used the standard meaning of “prayer”, which is an appeal to a deity.

          1. imagine prayers like “God please…”

            I don’t understand what you mean. I was referring to Mehta’s statement that appeals to a deity are useless. Do you agree or disagree?

          2. Sorry, no time to go look up his quote, but maybe this helps: I do not think there are gods or spirits to help, hinder or effect this world. Praying to expect this is naive and often dangerous if you are relying on that rather than what would be actually effective. BUT, there is much more going on in some forms of prayer, even when it looks like that sort of magic prayer. But sometimes it is pure dangerous naivety. Do you agree?

          3. And by “much more going on” do you mean “meditation” (i.e. a practice of focusing attention leading to an altered state of consciousness)? If so, this has already been addressed in the opening post.

            Of course, meditation can be a component of religious prayer as well as a completely secular practice, so I think it is useful to keep the concept of meditation separate from that of prayer, for clarity.

          4. No, I mean internal mental talk that has nothing to do with gods. Since there are many forms of mediation as there are prayer, it is difficult to talk about them in general ways.

            I was in a Zen Temple in Japan where we meditated and it was very religious — tied to a government party and nationalist propaganda.

            Anyway, I think our conversation is kind of spinning its wheels, don’t you.

            Time to meditate or pray on it, I guess.
            🙂

  20. If you want to be in a room full of praying atheists I would suggest sitting in on the final exam in Quantum Mechanics II.

    1. Having been the reigning “god” under just such circumstances, I can assure you that I don’t listen to your prayers.

      1. That would explain the 10/100 grade I got.

        Third highest grade in the class, though.

        (No, Jerry, there were more than three people in the class! Sheeesh!)

      2. Seems to me like the prayers didn’t include sufficient numbers of Benjamins.

        Of course, it may well be the case that a sufficient number represents a physical impossibility for any number of reasons….

        b&

  22. You forgot to excise this last paragraph from Rev J. Moore’s statement:

    The last two sentences are bizarre. Tests of the efficacy of prayer have shown no effect. Given that, she saves the day by arguing that even if it has no effect, it still reinforces your hope and faith. But if it doesn’t work, and it’s supposed to be a dialogue, then God isn’t talking back—so why believe?

  24. I’d like to submit that there may be one reason for an atheist to pray: as an act of mockery. I have used, for purposes of mockery, the Atheist Prayer which can be found online:

    “Our brains, which art in our heads, treasured be thy names.
    Thy reasoning come.
    The best you can do be done on earth as it is.
    Give us this day new insight to resolve conflicts and ease pain.
    And lead us not into supernatural explanations, deliver us from denial of logic.
    For thine is the kingdom of reason,
    and even though thy powers are limited,
    and you’re not always glorious,
    you are the best evolutionary adaptation we have for helping this earth now and forever and ever.
    So be it.”

    Or this one, also online:

    “Dear Big Bang,
    Thank your for creating
    me and the universe.
    I love you so much.
    Help me succeed or win
    the lottery and never die.
    Though are great and mighty.
    Thank you. Amen”

    1. It just proves you’re a nobody, Neil!

      (ducks and runs praying the old Doc can outrun Neil …)

  27. Should IT professionals send their personal bank account information to exiled Nigerian princes?

  28. Seriously, one of the things I hated about church was the praying – so much so that I started to dislike the otherwise OK people around me for participating in the stupid ritual and myself for even being there.

    1. Having been forced to pray every morning in my PUBLIC elementary school as a kid has scarred me so much that even being among those praying gives me slight nausea. The idea of atheists praying is therefore quite absurd to me.

    2. True story. I was a teen-ager…around age 13 or so…and already an atheist.

      But the family went to church every Sunday and being the non-confrontational person I still am today, I participated in the ceremony.

      Except every single prayer in my head was just a raging boiling angry “fuckedyfuckfuckfuck”. Pretty much through the whole service.

      That lasted about 5 years, until I went to college. First thing I stopped doing was going to church. And refused when I came home to visit.

  29. “Silent self-reflection” makes no sense to anyone with a basic understanding of how meditation works. It’s a contradiction actually. Silence and the mental chatter of reflective rumination are opposed to one another.

  30. The NYT published my grumbly observation:

    Mike
    Indianola, Iowa

    “Should Atheists Pray? Why on earth even ask a question like that? Should anyone pray? If you are so inclined – by all means do so. For every voice who proclaims a prayer answered, there are millions from who we shall not hear because it was not.

  33. From memory, here is Ambrose Bierce’s definition of the verb “pray”:

    “To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.”

  34. . . . A belief that God is both just and influential invites petitioners to request a demonstration of that presence in the midst of a tragically dysfunctional world

    But Rev. Moore, a belief that God is both omnipotent and omniscience de-invites any such requests.

  35. Being an Atheist is free thought, and I have never met another atheist with set creeds and doctrines. Each tend to search life out for himself and pick what best fits their lives. If I find something in a religious belief, I will at least evaluate it and place it along side of other ideas. I think most atheist think this way–they are ready to grasp or discard to fit their mental state at that time.

    1. Wow, that is very counter my experience. Whether it is views about family, sexuality, friendship, country, progress, morality or customs, I see atheists (like everyone else) coming into adulthood with all sorts of “creeds and doctrines” (assumptions, un-inspected views etc..).

      I find atheists with compartmental lives like all other humans — they just don’t use the taboos of gods and spirits to justify them and protect them.

      1. That is exactly what I am saying. Free thought doesn’t mean you don’t think

  37. I don’t see how meditation could completely fill the void that prayer leaves behind for formerly religious people like me.

    What made prayer a powerful emotional and psychological experience for me – not 3 times a day, but certain times, like around the High Holidays – was the feeling of speaking/pleading to an all-powerful being. Even when I doubted God’s existence (as opposed to now, when I’m pretty certain no one’s listening), I still was able to tap into those same feelings. I know it doesn’t make sense to anyone who hasn’t felt it, and it doesn’t make sense to me either. But whether or not we understand why, I think it’s hard to dismiss the fact that people who pray experience certain psychological and emotional experiences that others don’t.

    So if an atheist wants to pray so s/he can experience those feelings, and that person isn’t harming anyone or claiming that Someone is listening, I say, “Live and let live.”

    2. “So if an atheist wants to pray so s/he can experience those feelings, and that person isn’t harming anyone or claiming that Someone is listening, I say, “Live and let live.””

      I agree, but the question of whether or not you should pray is just silly to begin with.

      If you want to do something that serves the same purpose as praying in some way, then good on you. That’s just not the same as saying you should.

  38. Looks like Betteridge’s law of headlines works for op-eds as well.
    “Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no”

  40. How utterly ridiculous. For me, “prayer” reinforces the notion that many believers are cowards. It’s easy to say “I’ll pray for you.” when someone is ill or going through a rough time. It’s easy to say “He is with Jesus now” in regards to a deceased person. We atheists have no such magical reality vaporizer. We have to contemplate challenging situations. We have to be innovative. We have to be creative. We have to use our brains.

    I’m sure you have all seen requests for prayers on Facebook. I think that is so very inappropriate. It’s assumed if I don’t pray that I don’t have anything to contribute? That I don’t care?

    It takes a ginormous ego to believe that you can sway the course of others lives by mumbling nonsense.

    Prayer can go fuck itself.

  43. There is one advantage I could think of, and that is to pivot off the timing and content of the prayers we may have been exposed to as children.

    When Christians pray before meals they express gratitude for their prosperity. (Which is fine but they normally don’t extend that gratitude to the farmers that grew the crops, the cook that prepared it, etc.) It would probably be a good habit to take that moment to think about the actual people who worked hard to grow and prepare your meals, and maybe consider how fortunate you are compared to others.

    Bedtime prayers for children usually involve asking for blessings for loved ones. Evidently Sky Daddy hands out blessings without regard to the prayers, but we could take a minute in the evenings to think of them or maybe even pick up the phone and call.

    Just to be perfectly honest, I doubt that I’d ever actually implement this idea. My parents didn’t pray when I was growing up, and I got a bad impression from the people around me who did pray. It would be hard to break my habit of just enduring prayer times with quiet annoyance.

Comments are closed.